Sudan Crisis Deepens Amid Escalating Violence

July 21st, 2025
Ron Kim

Amidst the Sudanese Civil War, the regions of Darfur and North Kordofan have become focal points of the conflict, with escalating displacement, rising civilian casualties and heavy restrictions on humanitarian access becoming international concerns.

The conflict started in April 2023, when the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) began fighting the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). Since then, the violence has resulted in at least 40,000 casualties; additionally, it is one of the worst displacement and hunger crises in the world. The conflict has especially threatened the livelihood of the youth. As of 2024, 6% of violations against children in Sudan occurred in North Kordofan. These violations, which include maiming and murder, also extend to sexual violence and abduction. The SAF currently controls most of central and eastern Sudan, while the RSF is working to consolidate its control of western regions.

In recent weeks, the situation has reached a climax. Between July 10 and July 13, more than 450 civilians—including thirty-five children and two pregnant women— were killed in attacks on communities surrounding the city of Bara in North Kordofan over the weekend. According to Emergency Lawyers, a human rights group, more than 200 people were killed in the village of Shag Alnom, and 46 people were killed in Hilat Hamid. Dozens have been injured and many are still missing. Militants of the RSF were the perpetrators of these attacks.

El Fasher—the largest city in Darfur and a stronghold of the SAF—is the last major city in the Darfur region that is not under RSF control. After a temporary cessation of fighting, the violence has since resumed. Last Friday, the RSF launched a massive ground attack, even reaching the city’s center. Although the Sudanese army pushed them out the next day, RSF forces have continued shelling El Fasher using drones.

Earlier this month, the UN sounded the alarm over the worsening conditions in Sudan. After two years of fighting, some have dubbed the Sudanese Civil War the “world’s largest humanitarian crisis,” with dozens of diseases spreading across the country and a growing majority of the population thrown into hunger. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk stated, “It is distressing that more than two years since the conflict began, parties to the conflict in Sudan continue to demonstrate callous disregard for civilians’ lives and safety.” He also urged outside parties to prevent further escalation and ensure both the RSF and the SAF uphold their obligations under international law. “An escalation of hostilities in North Darfur and Kordofan will only further aggravate the already severe risks to civilians and the dire humanitarian situation in a conflict that has already wrought untold suffering on the Sudanese people,” he added. Türk also renewed his calls for the warring parties to both ensure safe and unimpeded access to humanitarian aid and prevent violations of international law.

Military conflict is not the only problem affecting the people of Sudan. Rain and flooding on July 14-15 have displaced more than 400 people, destroying dozens of homes in Dar As Salam. To add to Sudan’s troubles, the lean season, set to last until October, has worsened the already troubling food insecurity crisis. The only functioning hospital still in the area, El Fasher Maternity Hospital, is both critically short-staffed and severely under-resourced. United Nations Spokesperson Stephanie Tremblay stated in April, “Once again, we call on all parties to the conflict to protect civilians and to facilitate humanitarian access.” However, it is reasonable to assume from the events of the past two years that little change, if any, is likely to occur.

Extemp Analysis by: Sophia Amundgaard

Question: Should the international community play a greater role in mitigating the conflict between the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese Armed Forces?

AGD: It is a difficult task to approach this speech with a humorous intro, so I would recommend keeping it simple and either building more historic context or using—not abusing—a relevant and impactful heart story relevant to the speech. It’s incredibly easy to find heart stories on platforms like Amnesty International or the NYT, but ensure that it’s well connected to the topic (not just conflict or country).

Background: In our context we need to establish both the background/relevant developments of the Sudanese Civil War and the international community’s stake in it. The first should be rather straightforward. I recommend navigating to the CFR Global Conflict TRacker for a frequently updated, detailed, and credible source option. For the latter, we could look for stats on decreased support from the international community (UN reports only 52% of funding) or, as the Washington Post outlines, a lack of recognition that the war is even ongoing due to poor media coverage. Ideally, I’d pull a comparison to funding for other conflicts with similar severities (this could also be awesome for the SOS if you could find it). Also remember that the question is asking us about playing a greater role, so again, focus on changes or status quo of their current support in the background.

SOS: In our significance we would ideally connect the conflict to the international community or surrounding region. We’ve already established the conflict’s history and the international community's role, but why should they care (apart from morals)? A great option includes the war being the world’s worst displacement crisis (critical regional impact).

Answer: The obvious answer to me is yes. I would also recommend swinging this way to air on the more optimistic side unless you have a strong case for the opposition. When it comes to umbrellas, there are a couple different approaches:

⭐️ Yes — ending/mitigating the conflict is beneficial for the international community (this is the most obvious and easy answer, also probably what I would go with)
Yes — the international community is in a good position to mitigate the war (not really accurate in the moment)
No — it hasn’t worked in the past
No — the conflict can’t be successfully managed at the moment (probably stay away unless you have a micro level knowledge of the conflict)
No — there’s not much more they can do (specific to the question, runs the risk of trapping your points)

Points: I recommend watching Robert Zhang’s lecture (11:35) to understand exactly how to use this form of status quo/change substructure, but essentially we’ll break up our points into:

Something happening in the Sudanese Civil War (*the great situation*)
Accepting or rejecting the intentional community’s involvement / impact on the conflict (*the great proposal*)

So lets say I’m adopting answer number one “Yes — ending/mitigating the conflict is beneficial for the international community”, one of my subpoints could be about mitigating the impact of the displacement crisis:

The displacement crisis = bad impact for surrounding region (quantify/example)
The international community “wants to” stop it and they can by doing something (ex. Sanctioning enablers) — ACCEPT that impact / justify it
Impact (ex. Economies can recover, someone can return home, etc.)

Reminders: If possible, try to include humor unrelated to Sudan. For instance, maybe you have a point that includes the United States—make fun of them. In a heavy speech such as this, lighting the mood when appropriate can be critical. Also remember to tie everything back to the intentional community, don’t focus on just one region/country/or even just Sudan.