Photo by sander traa on Unsplash
The conflict in Sudan, which has been raging for well over two years, is no closer to a peace deal, and the humanitarian crisis deepens on a weekly basis, with famine, disease and displacement. One name comes up, often as a stumbling block, in any article that speculates on the chances for peace: General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, leader of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). He is often seen as the obstacle, yet there is no doubt that the international community has to get him to the negotiating table, via carrot or stick.
Born in Gandatu village in northern Sudan in 1960, Burhan attended local village schools for his early education, then moved to Shendi for further schooling, before joining the Sudanese Military College. After military academy, he served in Khartoum and on multiple fronts, including the Darfur war and the Second Sudanese Civil War in South Sudan.
Burhan’s real rise to power came in the aftermath of President Omer Al Bashir’s ousting in April 2019. Despite Bashir’s removal, the pre-existing structures of the military and security forces remained largely unchanged, undermining the chances of a real transition to civilian rule. This situation descended into a coup in October 2021 which disrupted the power dynamics within the civilian-military coalition government and eroded popular support for the military.
In the current conflict, Burhan is beleaguered by the internal dynamics of the SAF. They have an unclear hierarchy, beset by tensions and divisions. Burhan relies on support from powerful Islamist groups, many of them allied with former President Bashir, no doubt a major factor in him reinstating officials from that era. This reliance on Sudan’s Islamist establishment creates tensions within the SAF and undermines Burhan’s reputation, both internationally and domestically. It is also a constant struggle for him to keep his military coalition unified, especially as localised disputes and sieges, such as around El Fasher, strain relationships with the militia groups he relies upon.
Burhan’s reputation has also been weakened by civilian deaths caused by SAF airstrikes and shelling in civilian areas. One instance, an airstrike on Tur’rah market in Darfur, killed hundreds of civilians. Reports document the SAF and allied militias conducting summary executions, beheadings, and targeted killings of Darfuri, Nuba, and South Sudanese civilians, often accusing them of collaborating with rival forces. There is a definite sense that civilians are not considered by the SAF as simply Sudanese – they are either enemies or allies, and treated as such. Verified videos and witness accounts describe Sudanese soldiers executing unarmed civilians and mutilating corpses. This includes acts such as beheading and desecration, which are classified as war crimes under international law. Claims that the SAF used chemical weapons have led to sanctions being imposed by the US.
How does this affect Burhan’s international reputation, and any faith the international community might have in him to come to the table and establish peace for Sudan? The United States imposed sanctions on General Burhan in January 2025, citing his obstruction of humanitarian aid and attacks on key civilian infrastructure and saying he was “choosing war over good-faith negotiation and de-escalation” and refusing to participate in peace talks. Criticism of him goes well beyond the US, with the United Nations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch criticising both Burhan and the SAF for large-scale human rights violations.
As the months go by, there is less and less confidence in the international community that Burhan will engage in meaningful efforts towards peace. His repeated refusals to attend talks, his insistence on SAF dominance, and his reliance on hardline yet competing factions, all suggest that he is simply not interested in anything but the continuation of conflict. Whether it is that he does not have the skills to look beyond a conflict situation, or is simply used to an identity based entirely on war, the international community does not have the luxury of giving up on him. The war will only end when he is pressured to negotiate and incentivised to fight for peace instead of continued devastation.
