LONDON, Dec 14 (IPS) – It was recently reported that the two key players in Sudan’s current conflict – leaders of the armed forces and militias who have been at war since April – have agreed to face-to-face talks. The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), an East African body, announced the possible breakthrough – although Sudan’s Foreign Ministry has since claimed that IGAD’s statement is incorrect, creating further uncertainty.
There is no doubt that an end to violence is urgently needed. The conflict has created a humanitarian and human rights crisis. But the two leaders involved, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and Mohamad Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemeti, of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia, have provided enough evidence to cast doubt on whether they were actually interested are. in peace, or in responsibility for atrocities.
Human rights crimes on all sides
Al-Burhan and Hemeti were partners in the October 2021 coup that ousted the civilian government that followed the 2019 revolution. Their conflict began at a crucial time for a supposed return to civilian rule and amid a plan to incorporate the RSF into the SAF. It seems to be mainly a personal power struggle between the two leaders.
The conflict initially took place in the streets of the capital Khartoum and the neighboring city of Omdurman. It has since spread to other regions. Other rebel groups are active, some acting independently of the two main armed forces.
All parties are targeting civilians and there are clear indications that war crimes and crimes against humanity are being committed. More than 12,190 people have been killed since the start of the conflict. The UN also estimates that 6.6 million people are now displaced, the highest number of displaced people in the world.
The conflict has been brought to Darfur, the site of a 2003 genocide against local ethnic groups committed by the RSF and other Arab militias. Twenty years later, people are being murdered again solely because of their ethnicity. The RSF now controls much of the region. In November, key Darfur militias joined the SAF in response to the RSF’s ethnic cleansing, signaling a further escalation of the conflict.
The chaos of the conflict has led to a cholera outbreak, with the healthcare system collapsing and medical workers attacked. The World Food Program recently warned of a deepening hunger crisis.
In Chad, a low-income country that hosted around a million displaced people before the start of the conflict, refugee centers are struggling to accommodate arrivals from Sudan and people are living in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions, exposed to constant insecurity.
Humanitarian workers are being targeted. In December, two people were killed in an attack on a Red Cross convoy in Khartoum. Journalists are also being targeted, making it more difficult to get accurate and independent news off the ground. In Khartoum, the RSF has converted media buildings into detention centers.
And yet the international community’s response has been completely inadequate. The UN recently announced that it has received only 38.6 percent of the $2.6 billion needed for humanitarian aid in 2023. It has only been able to help a fraction of the people in need.
In a further blow, the mandate of the UN Integrated Assistance Mission in Sudan was terminated in early December at the request of the SAF-led government. Her job had been to support a democratic transition. The move was a worrying sign that the government wants less international oversight rather than more.
A history of wishful thinking
With other conflicts dominating global headlines – first Ukraine, now Gaza – the world is not paying attention. But that does not mean that states no longer take sides. Sudan’s size, mineral wealth and geographical location give the country strategic importance. Foreign states have long made calculations out of self-interest. Before the conflict, most states, as well as the UN, had confidence in the military as a source of stability. With that idea rejected, states are now deciding which side is their best choice.
The United Arab Emirates reportedly supplies weapons to the RSF, and several of its diplomats were recently expelled by the State Department. Russia is also on the side of the RSF. Both countries have an interest in Sudan’s gold. On the other hand, Egypt has always been strongly behind the military establishment and the US would drift towards the SAF as the lesser of two evils.
Even when apparently well-intentioned, states and international organizations have consistently engaged in wishful thinking. Before the conflict, they relied on the promises of a military-led transition plan. Every move since the coup has only given more power to the leaders now at war.
It is necessary to enable civil society
It is time for Sudan’s civil society to be heard and empowered to help pave the way to peace.
Civil society in Sudan is complex and layered. There is an elite layer that broadly supported the so-called transitional government that emerged after the coup. There are established civil society organizations that provide essential services and advocate for rights. But the largest source of resistance to armed rule comes from resistance committees: informal neighborhood-level groups that played a crucial role in the 2019 revolution.
The committees are democratic and make decisions by consensus. They call for civilian rule and reject the outside world’s calculations about which form of military rule can best guarantee stability, which means continued oppression for the resistance committees. They have also become an important source of humanitarian response, including providing food, water and health care.
Various resistance committees have worked together to develop a plan for the transition to democracy. But the outside world seems perplexed, struggling to join a leaderless movement and rejecting demands for democratic civilian rule as somehow too ambitious.
But everything else has failed. There should be no route for any of the warring military leaders to retain power. If peace is to come, there must also be accountability for human rights crimes. And neither will become a reality unless democracy does – which means an empowered and empowered civil society.
Andreas Firmin is editor-in-chief of CIVICUS, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram
© Inter Press Service (2023) — All rights reservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service
