The dolorous evils of political turmoil and ethnic violence are looming over Sudan even after its brutal dictator and the International Criminal Court indictee Omar al-Bashir was ousted in a military takeover. Rather than bringing stability, the ensuing transition from rule by a council of generals to a perceptibly democratic government that occurred between April and November 2019 has perpetuated many of the issues faced by the deposed regime. Already embroiled in counter-insurgency operations in Darfur and South Kordofan, the state’s armed forces have earned themselves an enemy in the form of the ex-president’s counter-revolutionary supporters. Meanwhile, the Forces of Freedom and Change coalition, struggling to ensure smooth and comprehensive liberalisation of Sudanese politics, is exposed to internal divisions, at the same time as its central figure, Prime Minister Abdallah Hamdok, witnesses the meagre authority he possesses gradually ebb away. Worse still, this volatile situation has taken a toll on the economy. It prompted the agricultural sector, essential to the national GDP, to shrink by 32% in the last year alone. This economic devastation, which has its roots all the way back in the 20th century, will likely be further exacerbated by the coronavirus outbreak and the concomitant global financial downturn.
It is against these pressures that the UN Security Council has opted to supplant the currently operational peacekeeping mission, jointly run by the United Nations and the African Union and deploying ca 15,000 military personnel in the war-torn province of Darfur since the initiative’s inception in 2007, with a new mission. This reportedly constitutes a direct response to Prime Minister Hamdok’s letters to the Security Council; the requested new programme, authorised under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, will gain shape in the foreseeable future and will be tasked with assisting the implementation of political reforms along with distributing humanitarian aid. Likewise, it is expected to be used to shore up the FFC government’s peace efforts. In short, this task-force is far more wide-reaching than its predecessor, encompassing the whole of the country instead of Darfur alone, and more preoccupied with non-military activity, whence it might appear capable of improving the overall situation in Sudan. However, this appearance is largely false.
The existing contingent in Darfur stands as testimony to the international community’s lack of progress, as far as conflict resolution is concerned. Unable to react appropriately to every outburst of violence in the area, peacekeepers failed to prevent the deaths of 300,000 local inhabitants and the displacement of another 3,000,000 and recently had to withdraw from western Darfur due to exiguous human resources to patrol that region. Seventeen years after the war broke out, the situation leaves much to be desired as the last memorable attempt at a ceasefire agreement between the government and the rebels fell through in 2010, which only served to encourage both sides to boycott subsequent negotiations altogether. Tribal conflict continues unabated: March alone registered 21 violent incidents in the Marrah mountain range, which took the lives of 17 individuals and caused 8,600 residents to flee central Darfur. If the UNAMID were to abandon Darfur entirely, such grisly manslaughter is only bound to escalate.
Given these setbacks, experienced by the existing conflict-stopping mission, it is unlikely that a mission, charged with the far more ambitious duty to help resurrect the country’s institutions from oblivion, will stand a chance at succeeding. In the worst-case scenario, its presence might delegitimise the government by allowing its political adversaries to portray the FFC as unequivocally and unconditionally dependent on the UN for its prolonged existence, much like a comatose patient depends on life support. In turn, it risks a repetition of the Afghan situation: the interim Afghan head of state Hamid Karzai was frequently ridiculed as the “Mayor of Kabul” for his inability to enforce orders beyond the capital. Reorienting the UN mission from civilian protection to supporting the central authorities’ vision of Sudan will shift the balance of power in favour of the military. One researcher at the School of Oriental and African Studies, Ahmed Adam, echoes my concerns in his piece for Al-Jazeera, titled “Sudan needs a UN peacekeeping mission”. He purports that “not requesting civilian protection powers for the new UN mission is a fatal mistake” and probably a concession by Hamdok to the armed forces. The leader of the military, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, is linked to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a state-sponsored militia, alleged to have committed war crimes in Darfur. Withdrawing foreign soldiers from Darfur will certainly untie the militia’s hands as well as convincing the army to reignite the flames of conflict in a way that would produce more casualties and refugees while also undermining the civilian government’s authority where it is already fragile.
The latter is trying to negotiate with provincial rebels, using South Sudan as its interlocutor. However, no peace agreements have been concluded, and the prospects of peace may be rendered obsolete, should civilian protection forces be instructed to leave Darfur. The proposed initiative is aspiring to take on the Sisyphean task of rebuilding a state that has not been brought under the full rule of the central government. Just as troublesome is its potential to empower the army and further undermine the FFP coalition. This is why before sending the new mission, the Security Council ought to reconsider its strategy for Sudan entirely.
A child cannot receive education without learning to read, and the United Nations similarly should first help Sudan bring war to an ostensible end. Without restricting the insurgents’ influence to a select few parts of the country, the Forces of Freedom and Change will not persuade them to exchange swords for ploughshares and decisively redraw national politics. Peacekeeping must remain on the agenda, whereas peacebuilding is arguably beyond the powers of the UN at least at this stage. Moreover, previous failures to prevent the Rwandan genocide and reunite Somalia since its disintegration into fifteen polities, such as Puntland and Somaliland, in the 1990s highlight the danger of conniving at those issues that cannot stay unresolved for a lasting and all-encompassing political reconstruction.
By authorizing a mission lacking in provisions for civilian protection the Security Council has portrayed itself as pursuing a tenuous and misjudged blueprint that leaves the roots of the local crises unaddressed. If the political heavyweights of the United Nations strive to end instability in Sudan as haphazardly and hurryingly as they seemingly do, their objective will continue to be elusive. Instead of side-stepping the obstacles we face in Darfur and in the similarly affected region of East Kordofan, the global community ought to reconsider its priorities. The UNAMID mandate must be extended, its peacekeeping presence must be significantly increased from the token force it currently fields. Otherwise, the precariousness of the Sudanese experience will discourage the country’s diverse population from embracing the government in Khartoum.
When stories of genocide and starvation finally surface, reforming an entity so vehemently critiqued on both sides of the political spectrum as the UN would be rendered far more challenging than it currently is. President Trump was not imprudent to withdraw funding from the World Health Organization given its history of ineffectiveness and excessive spending, but abandoning the United Nations altogether will signal defeat for America. This is not only because it will give way to Chinese forays across the globe, as Xi Jinping tries to cajole yet another erstwhile US ally into a foreign policy U-turn; this implication is much bigger. In 1945, the United States stood at the forefront of the UN’s creation, with First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt famously contributing to perhaps the most iconic document of international law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and many generations of American diplomats represented their nation at its plenary meeting ever since. In many respects, it has been an American project, designed to promote self-determination and liberty; therefore, rejecting it completely risks admitting the weakness of our own belief in liberty.
In this regard, leaving the UN will also be side-stepping the problem. Instead, Washington should strive to change the existing conjuncture, and this cannot occur without the US asserting diplomatic leadership and doing so thoroughly and thoughtfully. The ongoing Sudanese crisis is one of the fronts, where new American leadership may very well prove necessary.
