UN estimates suggest 2.5 million people will die by the end of 2024 and six million by 2027. World Health Organisation chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has called on the world to “wake up and help Sudan out of the nightmare it is living through”.
That nightmare refers to a civil war waged since April 2023 between two generals, Abdul al-Burhan, chief of the Sudanese army, and Mohamed Dagalo, usually known as Hemedti, leader of the Rapid Support Forces. In their struggle for power, the forces of both men have destroyed homes, killed as many as 150,000 civilians, enjoyed rape, recruited children and inflicted starvation on a whole population.
The Guardian and Global Focus report an estimated 10 million Sudanese citizens have been displaced and another two million have fled to frail neighbouring countries which lack the resources to help those fleeing except by responding to immediate crises.
Agriculture was once a backbone of the Sudanese economy, but fears of insecurity have led to an estimated 40% of farming households being unable to till their land. Farms and crops have been burned. Half of the population faces starvation. UN estimates suggest 2.5 million people will die by the end of 2024 and six million by 2027.
Commentary from Save the Children shows a Sudanese civil war characterised by gender-based violence, including an alarming rise in the rape of women and the abduction of women and girls as young as 12. Looting, rape and murder are committed mostly by the Rapid Support Forces, though both sides are seen as lawless and misogynistic, hence the appearance of a war being waged disproportionately against women.
Reporting on this war repeats a picture which highlights ways of thinking to promote violence and hinder prospects for peace. Journalists’ descriptions say little about life enhancing outcomes for the Sudanese, hence the world’s inattention to the people’s misery. Largely neglected because of the focus on Gaza, Ukraine, the US election and numerous refugee crises, the Sudanese have been offered little more than a fatalism that little can be done.
Initiating ideas about peace with justice could start by pondering the war-like attitudes of generals who encourage their forces to like violence and love guns.
Hemedti was appointed by the previous dictator Omar al-Bashir to lead the Arab militia, the Jangaweed, who in 2008 carried out ethnic massacres of non-Arab tribes in Darfur, violence described by the US as genocide. In the current war, RSF forces have continued their murder and rape, actions justified by Hemedti’s view on the merits of violence: “Anyone who does not fight does not have an opinion.”
The idea that power can only be exercised by brute force from the top down is shared by General Burhan, who was leader of an Interim Sovereignty Council which succeeded Bashir’s dictatorship, but Burhan repudiated ideas of democracy and opposed citizens’ pleas for civilian government.
Within the past month, the UN’s Human Rights Council proposed “an independent impartial force be sent be sent to Sudan”, mostly with the objective of protecting civilians. Apparently wanting to fight to the bitter end, and unwilling to think otherwise, Burhan responded, “the Sudanese Government rejects in their entirety the recommendations of the UN mission”.
From the perspectives of starving, frightened Sudanese, why not propose dialogue with these generals about alternative, non-violent perspectives concerning life in Sudan?
With that objective in mind, attention also needs to be paid to countries which provide arms to both sides. The UAE supplies bullets and drones to the RSF killers. Iran and Egypt are arming the Sudanese army. The Economist reports that Russia has deployed Wagner mercenaries.
Meetings about peace would have to include dialogue with those who supply arms, without which murder and mayhem would not occur.
Given the principle that abusive power is usually fostered by an absence of ideas, questions can be asked about the Australian Government’s interests in the fate of the Sudanese. That government could sit idly by or adopt a peace-promoting role, for which there’s a repertoire of ideas relevant to Sudan.
In 1795, in his Treatise on Perpetual Peace, philosopher Immanuel Kant repudiated plans for military domination and advocated the abolition of standing armies. His thoughts about peace required respect “even of political enemies, thinking of ourselves as born to work together and inspired by a common purpose”.
In Australia, from the 1940s for 40 years, John Burton, former Permanent Head of External Affairs, encouraged conversations between warring parties and insisted that peace negotiations start and end by paying attention to meeting people’s basic human needs. Often described as the most visionary public servant of the 20th century, he created alternative humanitarian agendas, whether in politics, in academia and conflict resolution.
Consistent with Burton’s values, language and achievements, former Labor Senator Maragaret Reynolds has repeatedly encouraged Australian federal politicians and public servants to think independently, with a view to creating a peace-building role for the nation.
In the absence of peace building, the Sudanese catastrophe shows disorder has become accepted as normal. Peace with justice goals are not taken seriously or are treated as beyond comprehension, not worth investment in dialogue and money, let alone in Burton-like deliberations and actions.
The front cover heading in the September edition of The Economist, reads, “SUDAN, why its catastrophic war is the world’s problem.”
Immediate and massive supply of humanitarian aid is a priority response to the misery of the Sudanese, but diverse self-interests could also prompt imagination of peace. States which border Sudan — Chad, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Egypt, South Sudan and Libya — face what The Economist calls “destabilising flows of refugees, guns and mercenaries”. Comparable to the mass exodus of refugees from the Syrian war, Europe faces an explosion of people fleeing Sudan. Already, 60% of occupants in French camps on the south side of the English Channel are reported to be Sudanese.
Unless the promotion of peace becomes as significant as exhibitions and policies to sell the weapons of war, the Sudanese nightmare will spread and be experienced by countries rich and poor.
Self-interest is one reason to end wars. A fascination with peace would be more rewarding and should have longer-lasting, mutually beneficial effects.
Contributions to Pearls and Irritations
Your contribution will fund quality independent comment and analysis in Pearls and Irritations
Contribute
