International law is essential to the peaceful resolution of the Sudanese crisis | Ideas

I have commented in a previous article on the depth of the international community’s response so far to the brutal war waged by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and their foreign sponsors against the Sudanese people and the regime. Here, I would like to explain how international law provides us with a solid foundation for solving this problem peacefully.

The right of a state to defend itself and its citizens is a core principle of international law enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. For states, self-defense is not just a right but a duty – they have an obligation to protect their sovereignty and the well-being of their people.

However, in modern times, states are often forced to defend themselves not against other states, but against non-state actors such as terrorist groups, criminal organizations and militants. The RSF forces currently fighting in Sudan are one of the non-state actors.

International law is clear on the rights and obligations of states in conflict – whether the said conflict is against another state or a non-state actor. However, institutions tasked with upholding international law often indirectly undermine state sovereignty when responding to a conflict between a state and a non-state actor, such as the one in Sudan. They do this by giving non-state actors the same authority as states and their institutions, and politicize their approach to issues of justice, human rights and humanitarian law.

The recent United Nations Human Rights Council Fact-Finding report on Sudan is a case in point. The report documents unprecedented atrocities and serious violations of international humanitarian law by RSF forces, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, sexual violence, slavery, and child labor. The Mission, however, in defiance of reason and justice, is calling for an arms embargo not only on the RSF, but also on the Sudanese Army, the national army that protects the Sudanese people against brutal militants. In other words, the Mission calls for the Sudanese state to be deprived of its fundamental right, and responsibility: to defend itself against a brutal enemy that threatens its sovereignty.

Violence and brutality

RSF forces share major characteristics with the most dangerous non-state actors around the world. It follows an extremist ideology, carries out deadly operations across borders, and uses indiscriminate brutality, harming defenseless women and children. Although racial and gender violence in the military is well documented, little attention has been paid to its other problematic aspects.

Like some of the deadliest armed groups the international community has had to deal with in recent years, the extreme violence of the RSF forces stems from an ideology of racial superiority. Militants want to create a separate state in Sudan’s territory for Arab tribes from Darfur and the Sahel. To achieve this, the military expelled local people from fertile areas such as Darfur, Kordofan, Al-Gezira, and Sennar, and replaced them with Arab nomads.

Racism

Recently, several international media outlets have highlighted the dangers of this project. The famous Sudanese writer Osman Mirghani, former deputy editor-in-chief of the pan-Arab newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, among others, has warned in various articles and news reports about the far-reaching consequences of this plan. Earlier this month, a joint investigation by Sky News, Lighthouse Reports, The Washington Post, and Le Monde exposed RSF’s systematic efforts to ethnically cleanse large areas of Darfur. A video published as part of the investigation showed RSF soldiers and Arab fighters together chanting “Victory to the Arabs” while surrounded by bloodied corpses of civilian victims of the latest massacre.

Social networks, on the other hand, are full of videos of young Arabs from the Sahel celebrating the RSF’s perceived military success in Darfur and other regions, with prominent people in these communities publicly praising the “rising leader” of the militia, Hemedti (Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo).

As noted Horn of Africa expert Alex de Waal noted at the beginning of the conflict, “RSF is now a private international entity” capable of turning Sudan into a subsidiary of the system if not prevented. The military itself has become increasingly dependent on mercenaries and Arab tribes for support following heavy losses by the Sudanese military.

International responsiveness and accountability

The international community, which has dealt with similar armed groups with force and determination in the past, has greatly underestimated the threat RSF (formerly known as Janjaweed) poses to Sudan, the region, and global stability. In fact, some state and non-state actors continue to support the military, allowing it to carry out violence against the Sudanese people with impunity.

The RSF is no longer a threat only to Sudan but to the entire international community, and therefore requires a coordinated and principled response.

Criminals do not voluntarily obey the law. Countries use law to protect themselves. These days some scholars describe the international order as “anarchy” due to the absence of a universally recognized authority. However, there are still methods and tools that help countries protect their people and impose law and order against corrupt actors. These mechanisms include international law, the UN and similar regional organizations. They may not be perfect, but without them, we risk slipping into lawlessness.

Values ​​versus political effort

It is troubling to see many countries putting their small national interests ahead of international standards when it comes to condemning crimes against civilians and preventing military recruitment. This option undermines the foundations of international justice and human rights. The world must not ignore the suffering of the Sudanese people for political comfort or economic gain. Finding a path to lasting peace in Sudan requires a new approach to dealing with RSF. The international community must take action not only through verbal criticism but also through concrete actions that hold military leaders, financiers, and donors accountable. Priority should be given to disbanding armed forces and soldiers.

In addition, the international community should support Sudan in establishing a comprehensive peace process. This includes promoting dialogue between all stakeholders, strengthening state institutions, and promoting respect for human rights and the rule of law. The people of Sudan deserve a future free of violence and oppression, which can only be achieved through a genuine commitment to peace and justice. It is time for the world to stand with the people of Sudan and demand accountability from those who commit atrocities. Only through a united and principled effort can lasting peace and stability be achieved in Sudan. The future of the country depends on the determination of all of us to uphold justice, human rights and the rule of law.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.