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.
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 that 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 an agreement on resolving the root causes of the war and transitional arrangements to a future civilian government.
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.
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.
There have been communiques, press statements, convenings, sessions, shuttle diplomacy, and attempts to mediate.
There has been the IGAD Special Envoy on Sudan; the AU Special Representative and Head of the AU Liaison Office in Sudan; the IGAD and AU roadmaps; the Expanded Mechanism for the Resolution of the Conflict in Sudan; the High-Level Panel on Sudan, chaired by the AU High Representative for Silencing the Guns, on top of the AU Panel of the Wise; the AU Special Envoy for Women, Peace and Security; the AU Peace and Security Council; the AU Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security; older mechanisms like the High Representative for the Horn, and the High-Level Implementation Panel for Sudan and South Sudan.
There has been a plethora of mechanisms – a surplus even – with not even one apparently able to move the needle. The belligerents kept doing what they were doing (destroying the country and its people). The external actors kept arming and financing them, and… nothing happened.
Is the new US stance likely to change this? Will the duplicitous members of the Quad stay their apparent turnaround?
Sudanese civic, anti-war formations have no choice but to seize on this apparent opening. As for IGAD and the AU… words fail us.
–––––
The New Humanitarian puts quality, independent journalism at the service of the millions of people affected by humanitarian crises around the world. Find out more at www.thenewhumanitarian.org.
