In September 2024, the United Nations’ independent fact-finding mission to Sudan released its first report, and the findings are nothing short of alarming. Citing widespread human rights violations that amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, the report urgently calls for an independent and impartial force to protect Sudanese civilians. Given that nearly 25 million people are currently in dire need of assistance due to the protracted conflict, the question arises: is deploying peacekeepers in Sudan feasible or advisable?
The backdrop to this critical situation dates back to April 2023, when conflict erupted in Sudan, leaving the country’s humanitarian landscape in tatters. The United Nations (UN) and African Union (AU) have relentlessly worked to broker peace, yet their efforts have yielded minimal results. Civilians continue to bear the brunt of violence, prompting an increase in calls for immediate security interventions.
Historically, Sudan has seen various peacekeeping efforts, particularly from 2014 to 2020, when the UN and AU jointly led a hybrid peacekeeping mission in Darfur. However, following the abrupt withdrawal of a UN-led mission in February 2024, there has been a noticeable vacuum in international presence aimed at protecting civilians. While some advocate for a renewed peacekeeping presence—possibly through “green zones” to safeguard displaced persons and streamline humanitarian assistance—Sudanese authorities have resolutely opposed these measures.
Achieving a consensus on deploying peacekeepers is fraught with challenges. The political landscape in Sudan remains volatile, especially after Sudanese authorities expelled a previous UN-led political mission, citing its ineffectiveness. Today, the likelihood of warring factions accepting a UN-led mission appears slim, given their historical resistance to such intervention.
The African Union, however, presents a potentially viable alternative. Although the feasibility of an AU-led protection mission remains uncertain, this approach might be more acceptable than a UN-led initiative. A progressive move in this direction could serve as a vital test case for UN Resolution 2719, which permits AU-led missions to receive UN funding, signaling a historic shift toward regional solutions for peacekeeping operations.
Despite the urgent need for intervention, a purely protective mission may lack the political strategy needed for long-term success. Past experiences have revealed that without a political mandate, missions often struggle to leverage influence and maintain access to protect civilians effectively. For instance, the UN’s mission in Chad was short-lived due to its lack of political backing, ultimately leading to its exit.
Going forward, it is essential that UN and AU policymakers explore tangible options to offer “safe areas” for displaced persons while also integrating protection strategies into ongoing political negotiations. The need for international diplomatic pressure is equally paramount, especially on nations, like the United Arab Emirates, allegedly supplying arms to combatants in Sudan.
A grassroots approach is vital, too. Engaging with community-led self-protection initiatives ensures that the voices of those most affected are heard. Ending communication blackouts, re-establishing access to networks, and implementing cash assistance programs are crucial steps in empowering civilians to secure their own futures.
As we navigate this complex web of geopolitical interests and humanitarian need, one thing is clear: the quest for peace in Sudan demands a multi-layered strategy that strikes at both the heart of immediate protection needs and the long-term political realities shaping the region.
For developing stories on humanitarian aid and peace processes, stay tuned for more insightful analyses.
Tags: #Politics, #WorldNews
