Last Wednesday, 13 August 2025, the United Nations Security Council (U.N.S.C.) condemned the decision of Sudan’s paramilitary group, the R.S.F., to declare a parallel government in opposition to the internationally recognized Transitional Sovereignty Council, warning that it could risk worsening the ongoing conflict. The rival government, known as the Transitional Peace Government, was established in April 2025 to administer the areas of West Sudan controlled by the R.S.F., which has been pushing for more control territorially and politically. A parallel government run by the R.S.F. may pave the way for the R.S.F.’s ultimate goal: the creation of two separate states, making the already remote prospect of a ceasefire even more distant.

In Wednesday’s U.N.S.C. statement, Council President Eloy Alfaro de Alba of Panama bolstered the council’s support for Sudan’s sovereignty, stating that the R.S.F.’s actions “represent a direct threat to Sudan’s territorial integrity and unity and further risk exacerbating the ongoing conflict in Sudan, fragmenting the country and worsening an already dire humanitarian situation.” This position echoes earlier concerns by the Sudan War Monitor, which on 27 July, warned that “the Sudanese Armed Forces have always viewed discussions to form a parallel government as illegitimate and destabilising, making reconciliation even more unlikely.” Both entities underline that legitimising alternative governments will not only deepen divisions but also harm the future possibility of reaching a peace agreement. The U.N.S.C. reinforced this statement by encouraging all parties to resume peace talks and “create the necessary conditions for a political resolution on the conflict, involving all Sudanese political and social actors to re-establish a credible and inclusive political transition towards a democratically elected national Government.”

It is crucial to recognize that the U.N.S.C.’s declaration alone does not pave the way towards peace. Indeed, without a concrete approach that includes civil society, displaced communities, and regional mediators, the decision is more likely to harden divisions than resolve them, especially since isolated factions often resort to military action to strengthen their leverage. The strong statement expressed by the international community must be complemented by even stronger diplomatic engagement, humanitarian assistance, and accountability mechanisms to ensure that civilians remain at the center of Sudan’s future, which, to date, has not been sufficiently prioritized.

The U.N. has called Sudan’s civil war the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, with more than 150,000 people killed, nearly 13 million displaced, and 30 million civilians struggling to feed themselves. On 11 July 2025, the International Criminal Court reported that there are reasonable grounds to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity are being committed in Sudan’s Darfur region. Further, humanitarian agencies are warning about the conditions of its worst cholera outbreak in years. Médecins Sans Frontières declared that in the Darfur region alone in the past week, there have been over 2,300 cholera patients and 40 deaths. The worsening crisis has been a direct consequence of the ongoing conflict, which makes it impossible for civilians to follow hygiene practices due to the water shortages inside refugee camps.

The situation in Sudan continues to deteriorate as people suffer from hunger, displacement, and disease. Although the Security Council’s stance sends an important message, its effectiveness will be determined by whether it leads to coordinated peace efforts or a prolonged stalemate. Peace can only be achieved by addressing the root causes of Sudan’s crisis, power struggles, lack of accountability, and humanitarian neglect.