Report – Sudan Scope
The war in Sudan is becoming increasingly brutal toward civilians. Over time, direct confrontations between the warring parties have diminished, while both sides have increasingly relied on drones. Initially, drone operations were largely confined to direct combat missions, but gradually they shifted toward destroying infrastructure by targeting electricity sources, water facilities, and hospitals. Eventually, drone attacks became concentrated on markets and places where civilians gather.
A few days ago, the United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Tom Fletcher, announced that around 700 civilians had been killed by drones during the first three months of this year. This shocking statement opened the door to an objective question: what solution can realistically be expected from the international community? Its role is not limited to monitoring violations and identifying their nature; it is also expected to initiate fundamental solutions that can stop the fighting and develop effective monitoring mechanisms capable of reducing crimes against civilians.
The scope of this report is certainly insufficient to document all the violations and war crimes committed by the warring parties through the use of drones. Its primary objective is instead to search for solutions that could help the world assist us in stopping this machine, which has become the leading tool for killing civilians and destroying both public and private property.
On the international level, military drone use first emerged prominently during the United States’ pursuit of extremist groups. Drones achieved notable success in Afghanistan and Yemen, and their use has expanded significantly in recent years, becoming a decisive factor in both internal and international wars. For example, Turkish drones played a crucial role in the Armenia–Azerbaijan war by destroying military equipment and providing intelligence superiority. Ironically, drones — among other factors — contributed to ending that conflict more quickly than many observers had expected. They also played a major role in helping Ukraine withstand its war against the Russian Federation.
The use of drones in warfare did not begin in Sudan. However, the stark reality is that the intensive use of drones against civilians may become a defining feature of Sudanese fighting against one another.
The prolonged nature of wars in Sudan’s modern history has negatively affected the country’s contribution to regional and global development and prosperity. Yet the international community did gain valuable experience from Operation Lifeline Sudan, which enabled humanitarian assistance to reach civilians during continued fighting that only ended years after the launch of one of the world’s most effective humanitarian relief operations. From this perspective, an important question can be raised: could Sudan’s current war inspire a fundamental solution to the issue of drone warfare, one that positively shapes future international legislation and improves oversight of armed conflicts?
At its current stage, the war in Sudan is concentrated militarily in the three states of the Kordofan region, while some fighting also continues in the Blue Nile region. Yet the entire country is affected by the war due to the widespread use of drones. This is largely the result of the exhaustion of both parties in terms of manpower and military equipment. Therefore, if an international decision were issued banning armed aviation in Sudan, including both conventional aircraft and drones, civilian harm could significantly decrease. Such a move could also pressure the warring parties into accepting peace once this influential weapon is removed from the battlefield.
The world has already accumulated legislative and technical experience in monitoring conventional aviation through successful no-fly zones imposed in Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, and more recently Libya. However, with drones becoming a central element in modern warfare, the international community now needs to develop new mechanisms for dealing with drone technology. This would require creating legislation and monitoring tools capable of banning military drone use within a specified conflict zone whenever a no-fly decision is adopted. Sudan’s war could become the first conflict in which the international community successfully enforces a drone ban.
According to experts interviewed by "Sudan Scope", banning drones requires legislative measures that keep pace with technological developments, in addition to the complex technical challenges facing any authority tasked with enforcement. One expert told the platform that, in principle, international actors with sufficient resources could monitor the movement of tactical drones because they require airports or launch sites. However, suicide drones are far more difficult to track due to the ease with which they can be launched. The expert added that an initial step could focus on banning the sale or transfer of any drone-related technologies, including software, engines, and control devices, to the warring parties.
Monitoring compliance with a drone ban is expected to represent the greatest challenge if an international prohibition is ever adopted. This is due to the strategy of denial employed by both sides in Sudan since the very beginning of the conflict, in addition to the multiplicity of decision-making centers within each side and the inability of the Sudanese Armed Forces or the Rapid Support Forces to fully control their allied groups.
Because the issue of banning drones in warfare is still relatively new, and because of its technical, legislative, and political complexity, "Sudan Scope" is currently preparing an in-depth study covering all aspects of the issue. The aim is to create a practical framework that could help reduce civilian suffering despite the intransigence of the warring parties in Sudan.
