Structural failures and power struggles fuel ongoing conflict in Sudan
Original framing: “Who is keeping the fight alive in Sudan’s war?” — Al Jazeera
The original framing omits the role of international actors such as the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, whose military and economic interventions have exacerbated tensions. It also lacks attention to the historical legacy of colonial borders and the marginalization of non-Arab ethnic groups, which continue to fuel regional divisions. Indigenous and local governance models that could offer alternative pathways to peace are also absent from the narrative.
Medium structural omission detected in mainstream coverage.
This narrative is produced by Al Jazeera, a media outlet with a regional focus and global reach, likely intended for international audiences seeking to understand the conflict. The framing centers on frontline actors and the human cost, which serves to highlight the urgency of the crisis but obscures the broader geopolitical and economic interests that sustain the conflict, including arms suppliers and regional powers with strategic stakes in Sudan.
Sudan’s conflict is deeply rooted in the legacy of British colonial rule, which imposed arbitrary borders and favored certain ethnic groups over others. The 2011 secession of South Sudan did not resolve these tensions and instead created new fault lines that continue to destabilize the region.
Sudan’s war is not the result of isolated actors or random events but is embedded in a complex web of historical injustices, economic inequality, and geopolitical interests.