Close Menu
    Trending
    Thursday, October 2
    Entertainment

    Sudan: Those Responsible for Sudan’s War Have No Business Being Involved in the Peace

    OneAfricaYTBy No Comments6 Mins Read
    Nigeria: When Lifelines Are Taxed - Remittance Clampdowns Could Threaten Health Access in Nigeria

    Nairobi — The war is now deemed responsible for the deaths of up to 150,000 people in mass casualty incidents and of over 500,000 people due to hunger.

    The UN General Assembly has ended. Coverage was devoted to the French president being stuck on New York sidewalks due to the passage of the US president’s convoy; to the US president lambasting the UN for a faulty escalator and a stalled teleprompter; to the same US president’s erroneous remarks about (among so many other things) solar and wind power.

    But many things happened at UNGA besides the weird and wonderful. Lip service was paid to the ongoing atrocities and outrages in Palestine, Sudan, and Ukraine. Beyond the lip service, however, there did seem (finally!) to be some energy on the possibilities for Sudan.

    Sadly, this energy results not from the efforts of the Sudanese people and their various civic, anti-war campaigns and formations; nor from the efforts of regional and continental bodies tasked with restoring and maintaining peace and security in Africa. No, it results instead from a new American push with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – together with Egypt, the lone African actor in the room.


    Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines

    First, a reminder of the stakes for the Sudanese people.

    Not for nothing is Sudan cited as “the worst humanitarian crisis in the world“. The data is difficult to ascertain, but the war is now deemed responsible for the deaths of up to 150,000 people in mass casualty incidents, military offensives, and summary executions.

    150,000 people. That’s more than double the deaths Israel has caused in Palestine during its offensive in Gaza (not that human life is relative… it is not).

    The war is now also responsible for the deaths of over 500,000 people due to hunger and starvation. That’s half a million people. Half a million people.

    It is therefore unsurprising the UN’s refugee agency (UNHCR) estimates that, as of this month, 11.8 million people have been displaced because of the war – over seven million internally, and over three million through the region and beyond.

    The figures are mind-boggling if we sit with them and let them sink in.

    Obviously, the greatest responsibility for this momentous human tragedy rests with the two belligerents – the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF).

    That they and their leaders could let this go on for so long and at such a high cost – to human life and civilian infrastructure – beggars belief. Having orchestrated the coup in October 2021 against the civilian-led transitional government, and then this war in April 2023, they and their leaders should have nothing to do with Sudan’s post-war future: There will be a post-war future, and that future must be civilian governed.

    This is the point made by all Sudanese civic, anti-war formations, whether implicitly or explicitly. They tentatively welcomed the Quad statement – quickly followed by sanction announcements by the US Treasury.

    Yes, they welcomed the use of US carrots and sticks with external actors arming and financing the two belligerents; because those external actors – including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (not just Türkiye and Iran) – need to be reined in.

    And yes, the welcome was tentative; because neither the two belligerents nor the Quad have any business doing more than facilitating how domestic actors come to agreement on resolving the root causes of the war and transitional arrangements to a future civilian government.

    The Sudanese civic, anti-war formations were not the only ones to tentatively welcome the process proposed by the Quad: a humanitarian pause of three months; a permanent ceasefire; a transitional process of up to nine months, leading to a civilian-governed future.

    So too did the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the African Union (AU). They were quick off the mark to proclaim that the tenets of the Quad statement were in line with their own; and to re-initiate a flurry of consultations with Sudanese civic, anti-war formations – the most notable being Somoud, the umbrella of civic actors, resistance committees and emergency response rooms, unions and political parties fronted by former prime minister Abdalla Hamdok.

    They even – in an interesting about-turn – reached out to the RSF’s parallel government (parallel to the SAF’s Transitional Sovereign Council).

    Clearly the US memo was received and well absorbed. SAF, the National Congress Party – and the Islamists behind them – are all now as out as the RSF for their crimes against humanity. If Egypt could move on the SAF and the UAE on the RSF, who are IGAD and the AU to refuse?

    Who, indeed, are IGAD and the AU?

    Obviously, we must be happy at any sort of movement towards resolution and a civilian future in Sudan. But, honestly, we must also be embarrassed by the lack of action by IGAD and the AU.