Sudan presses Washington to label RSF a Terrorist group

Sudan’s government on Wednesday responded to the U.S. decision to classify the Muslim Brotherhood in Sudan as a terrorist organization but urged Washington to also designate the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) as a terrorist group, citing alleged war crimes and other violations.

Sudan’s foreign ministry said the government maintains a “principled and firm position” condemning all forms of terrorism and violent extremism without exception. The ministry said any group responsible for violations of international humanitarian law, terrorism, crimes against humanity, or war crimes in Sudan should be treated as a terrorist organization.

“From this standpoint, the Government of Sudan calls for responding to the strong appeals to designate the rebel Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia as a terrorist organization,” the statement said.

Calls to designate the RSF as a terrorist organization have recently resurfaced in Sudan’s political discourse, particularly among the leadership of the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF). The demand, however, is not new. Sudanese military leaders have been advocating for such a designation for nearly two years, arguing that the RSF operates not as a legitimate military actor but as a militia responsible for widespread atrocities.

During this period, these appeals occasionally reached policymakers in Washington, where discussions about the nature of the RSF and its actions in Sudan have gradually gained attention within diplomatic and policy circles.

Momentum around the idea grew significantly late last year when the chair of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee publicly raised the possibility of designating the RSF as a terrorist organization. The proposal emerged amid mounting reports of severe human rights abuses attributed to RSF forces and allied militias.

Sudanese officials have consistently portrayed the RSF as a destabilizing paramilitary force whose operations extend beyond conventional warfare and into systematic violence against civilians. Accusations against the RSF have become even more serious in recent months, particularly allegations that its actions may amount to genocide. These claims gained renewed attention following the fall of El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur and one of the last major strongholds of the SAF in the region.

Reports from humanitarian organizations and local observers described large-scale violence, ethnic targeting, and forced displacement in surrounding areas. As these reports circulated internationally, they amplified calls from Sudanese authorities and some foreign policymakers for stronger international measures against the RSF.

The renewed statements from Sudanese military leadership must also be understood within the broader context of the ongoing war between the SAF and the RSF. At the time these statements were made, the Sudanese army faced significant military and political challenges, including strained alliances and an uncertain battlefield position.

Another layer of complexity in the conflict stems from the alliances that have emerged during the war. Islamist groups and networks associated with the former regime of Omar Al-Bashir have reportedly aligned themselves with the SAF in the fight against the RSF. This relationship has fueled criticism from Anti-Islamist factions within Sudan’s political discourse, who argue that the war has enabled the re-emergence of Islamist influence within Sudan’s security and political institutions. As a result, the SAF’s partnership with these groups has provided critics with a narrative that complicates the military’s efforts to portray itself as the sole legitimate defender of the Sudanese state.

It is also difficult to separate the debate from the United Arab Emirates’ role in the regional dynamics surrounding Sudan’s war. Abu Dhabi has long been one of the most vocal international proponents of designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization and has actively lobbied Western governments on the issue. The UAE quickly welcomed Washington’s decision when the U.S. State Department announced the designation.

At the same time, the Sudan Armed Forces’ complicated relationship with Islamist networks has placed Sudanese military leaders in a tough position. Against this backdrop, the SAF’s push for a terrorist designation of the RSF is widely interpreted as a subtle challenge to the political implications of Washington’s decision.