How many times can we say ‘never again’ again?

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

A comparison of our responses to recent conflicts should not suggest that there is a hierarchy of victims. Quite the contrary, the history of the EU has shown repeatedly that human rights protections benefit us all — they are not a zero-sum game, Holger Loewendorf writes.

ADVERTISEMENT

The people of Sudan must be wondering what else needs to happen before Europe pays attention to their plight once more. 

Earlier this month, paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and affiliated Arab militias attacked the town of Ardamata in West Darfur. 

The UN Refugee Agency reported that more than 800 people were killed, while 8,000 others — likely an undercount — fled to neighbouring Chad over the course of three days. 

After seizing the local military base, the RSF and their allies targeted members of the non-Arab Masalit community inside their homes — shooting men and boys, sexually assaulting women and girls, and setting fires to shelters housing displaced people. 

These atrocities may amount to the single largest mass killing since civil war erupted in April and raise the spectre of yet another genocide, following a wave of large-scale violence in June.

Are we leaving Sudan by the wayside?

The United Nations, the European Union, and other Western governments have condemned the systematic killing and displacement of the Masalit from their land since the start of Sudan’s civil war, but their criticism has not deterred the RSF from committing more atrocities. 

Just as striking is the absence of public and media engagement on this issue, especially when compared to the intense news coverage and mass rallies (with increasingly disturbing antisemitic messages) after Hamas’ militant wing launched a terror attack on Israel on 7 October of this year, killing more than 1,200 people. 

We saw a similarly passionate response across civil society when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, so what explains the apparent indifference towards the victims in West Darfur?

Do we care less because this is happening in Africa, where news of conflict, famine, and poverty confirm our preconceived notions of what this continent looks like? But we should recall that our biases and feelings are not facts. 

If there was nothing but a vicious cycle of despair, why are we participating in a process that some observers have paternalistically called a “new scramble for Africa”? 

European delegations are touring the continent in search of allies, influence, and economic opportunities, in large part because our electronic devices rely on raw materials that cannot be sourced domestically.

Our competitors in this race are the United States, China, Russia and others. Our motives — and theirs — are seldom pure, but if Europe wants to stand out as a reliable and trustworthy partner to African nations, it cannot engage selectively and leave Sudan by the wayside.

Our inaction makes others risk their lives several times over

Alternatively, are we paying less attention because rocket attacks in the Middle East and Ukraine are physically closer to us than the bullets being fired in Darfur? 

Do we believe that war crimes happening 4,500 km southeast of Brussels will not affect our lives? 

If so, consider that according to the International Organization for Migration, the Sudanese civil war displaced more than 4,8 million individuals since mid-April. 

An additional 1,3 million people fled into neighbouring countries, more than half a million of them to Chad alone. At least 31% of the displaced population is younger than 18 years, and close to 90% of them do not have access to education. 

An entire generation cannot take advantage of the same opportunities that most Europeans can take for granted. These young people have the potential to rebuild Sudan, but they require peace and stability to do so. 

Instead, our inaction will drive many of them to risk their lives several times over in search of a better future, which may await across the Mediterranean Sea. 

ADVERTISEMENT

If EU member states prefer that they stay in Africa, perhaps a more active role in the prevention of these massacres, to say nothing of genocide, is required. 

Otherwise, we have already seen that politicians throughout Europe will cynically exploit their arrival and our failure to accommodate them. They are increasingly winning elections by demonising refugees and migrants wholesale. 

Meanwhile, we have the means along with historical, moral, and legal obligations – to say nothing of the demographic need – to provide safety and a sense of hope for them.

If everything is a crisis, nothing is a crisis

Lastly, is our attention span overtaxed by the conflagration of events that is frequently summarized as “polycrisis”? 

In the last three years, we have had to cope with a global pandemic, accelerating climate change as well as an energy and cost-of-living crisis — the latter two caused by the aforementioned war in Ukraine. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Narrowing the scope to the last month, one can add military conflicts in Israel and Gaza, Nagorno-Karabakh, and the Sahel zone (including Sudan) to the list. 

So yes, it is difficult to keep track of every single calamity, and our selective perception of bad news may even help us remain sane. 

But it is also worth noting that the term “polycrisis”, while appealing in its descriptive function, is analytically quite limiting. It flattens discrete, though frequently connected moments into an amorphous whole that can create the impression of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If everything is a crisis, nothing is, so there is nothing I can or need to do about it. 

The consequence of this doom spiral is a retreat from public affairs and ultimately the surrender of universal values. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The European Union and most of its member states have so far resisted this temptation. Instead, the response to current geopolitical challenges has been a desire to “be among the keepers of international and humanitarian law,” as Josep Borrell, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, recently put it.

‘We see you, we can help, and we will’

Sudan is a test of the European commitment to human rights. We have failed the country before and revealed that our high-minded principles are worthless unless accompanied by actions. 

The gap between rhetoric and reality is widening as long as EU leaders are not taking meaningful action in good faith to address this crisis as well. 

A comparison between our responses to the invasion of Ukraine and the war between Israel and Hamas on the one hand, and the terror in Darfur on the other, should not suggest that there is a hierarchy of victims. 

Quite the contrary, the history of the European Union has shown repeatedly that human rights protections benefit us all — they are not a zero-sum game. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Now it is high time to issue a credible promise to the Sudanese people: we see you, we can help, and we will.  

_Holger Loewendorf serves as Senior Advisor at the European Foundation for Democracy (EFD), a Brussels-based policy centre.
_

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#times

What is at stake for Europe as war in Sudan rages on?

By Joseph Hammond, Journalist and analyst

Humanitarian concerns should trump geopolitics in our view of the current Sudanese civil war, Joseph Hammond writes.

Since 15 April, Sudan has been locked in a bloody civil war that threatens to tip the Horn of Africa over the brink and straight into a full-blown humanitarian disaster. 

No less an observer than the United Nations Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed, has said the conflict has the potential to be “worse than Ukraine”.

Her claim was quickly dismissed as a public relations move, but the recent military history of the Horn of Africa suggests how deadly conflicts in the region can be to civilians. 

To add to the tragedy, the war threatens to additionally compromise the food security of one of the world’s most distinguished regions.

Wars in the Horn of Africa disproportionately affect civilians

The 2013-2020 South Sudanese Civil War offers a clear example of how the conflict in the Horn of Africa has a disproportionate impact on civilians.

According to one study published in 2018 by researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, some 383,000 people had died in the conflict since 2013. 

Of these, some 193,000 were civilian deaths due to displacement, disruption of health care, and starvation. Tragically, starvation continues to be a weapon of war for some actors in the Horn of Africa.

In the Sudan war that is raging on right now, roughly 500 civilians have been killed in the first month — a figure just slightly smaller than the monthly average in Ukraine. 

That is to say, a large civil war in the Horn of Africa has seen already civilian deaths equivalent to a massive-scale invasion of Ukraine by one of the world’s greatest arms producers.

Millions more are at severe risk

While civilian deaths peaked and levelled off early in Ukraine, we are likely to see expanded suffering among civilians in Sudan due to a number of additional factors compounding their misery. 

Before this conflict, a third of Sudan’s population faced food insecurity and other humanitarian challenges. 

Additionally, this year, the country recorded its reportedly first-ever outbreak of dengue fever in the capital of Khartoum.

Yet the biggest issue this conflict has already exacerbated relates to food security. A UN document released in March claimed as many as 129,000 face imminent starvation and death in the Horn of Africa. 

While initially it was forecast that South Sudan and Somalia will be the hardest hit by this emerging crisis, Sudan’s new conflict puts millions more at severe risk.

This year is the sixth in a row where rains have failed to fall across the Horn of Africa, causing the worst drought in forty years. 

In some areas, locals said conditions are not as bad as in 2011 – a year in which famine, claimed by some estimates, directly or indirectly claimed a quarter of a million lives. 

However, the conflict in Sudan and the disruptions to global food supplies due to the war in Ukraine may be complicating factors.

A humanitarian crisis should be avoided at all costs

Thus, it is imperative for collective action to both build peace and stem the humanitarian crisis. 

While a number of countries pooled resources to help their nationals flee Sudan, the world must now use those same capabilities to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe. 

Some aid groups operating in neighbouring countries have announced in the past week that they may see food shortages soon.

The European Union has undertaken some important steps to ameliorate the humanitarian crisis, notably launching an “air bridge” to provide much-needed humanitarian aid. 

To that end, a number of countries have launched similar efforts that have engaged civil society. King Salman Humanitarian Aid and Relief Centre (KSrelief), based in Saudi Arabia, has launched a similar air bridge to provide humanitarian supplies to Sudan. 

NATO should demonstrate its prior engagement was not a one-off

Yet, NATO is still not getting involved, despite the fact that the alliance’s first-ever Africa-related operation was to provide logistical support to an African Union peacekeeping effort in Sudan in 2005 together with the EU. 

After the war in Afghanistan, it was NATO’s second-ever out-of-area operation. Even today, NATO brags about its mission when discussing its role in Africa.

However, NATO should show that its former engagement in Sudan was not a one-off affair and support ongoing logistical efforts to support humanitarian efforts to the conflict. 

Perhaps the argument this time around is even stronger than the one that sparked NATO’s involvement in 2005, given that Russia’s presence and role in the country have only expanded in recent years.

Sudan is much closer to Europe than most realise

As the Sudanese people bravely face this storm, they do so with less coin in their pockets. The country’s exports have been largely halted since. 

Tragically, Sudan’s largest export since the start of the conflict has been refugees. 

Ethiopia alone is receiving roughly 1,000 refugees per day from Sudan as the fighting rages on, while as many as 800,000 may flee as a result of the conflict — a small fraction of the refugees that the war in Ukraine has produced. 

Yet, with the region facing a severe drought, those fleeing the conflict could see thousands of “climate refugees” following in their footsteps. 

This is why humanitarian concerns should trump geopolitics in our view of the current Sudanese civil war. 

Europe should act now to strengthen the humanitarian response less the conflict in Sudan destabilises the country’s neighbours and, ultimately, the Southern Mediterranean.

War has taught European leaders that Kyiv is far closer to Brussels than many realised. The same is just as true about Khartoum.

Joseph Hammond is a journalist who has reported extensively from Africa, Eurasia and the Middle East, as well as a former Fulbright Public Policy Fellow.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#stake #Europe #war #Sudan #rages

The Sudan conflict explained in 8 charts

Close to three weeks have passed since the violence erupted in Sudan between its military, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group. The fighting has dashed the country’s hopes for a peaceful transition to a civilian government. The conflict has left hundreds of people dead, thousands injured and millions displaced, according to figures from the United Nations.

Sudan is a country in northeast Africa, bordering the Red Sea. With a population of about 46 million, it is one of the continent’s most populous nations and largest geographically. It is also one of the poorest countries in the world.

The present conflict is a power struggle between two Sudanese generals: General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the commander of the Sudanese Armed Forces, and Gen. Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo, better known as Hemedti, the head of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a powerful Sudanese paramilitary group. Here’s how it started:

Also read |Sudan conflict: Global fallout and impact on India

Conflict locations

Fighting erupted in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, on April 15 in a culmination of weeks of tensions between Gen. al-Burhan and Gen. Dagalo. The airport, a military base, and the presidential palace were damaged during clashes on April 15. The Indian embassy in the city was stormed and looted. Nearby Omdurman also saw clashes. As of April 27, around 183 people had been killed in Khartoum alone. Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED) showed close to 50% of all incidents of political violence between April 15 and April 24 happened in Khartoum. As of May 6, 60 of the 88 hospitals in Khartoum were out of service, according to the Sudanese Doctors Union.

In the Darfur region, Al Fasher, El Genena, El Obeid, and Nyala have seen the highest of fighting. In El Geneina, for instance, the number of fatalities grew from five in the first week to 47 in the second week. The military had retreated from Genena and the residents took up arms to defend themselves against the rampant violence. By April 28, almost all of Genena’s medical facilities, including its main hospital, had been out of service for days. The sole functioning hospital was inaccessible because of the fighting.

Also read |In Frames | Generals in a labyrinth

In El Fasher, reports came in of 30 people from Karnataka’s Hakki Pikki tribe stuck in the city amidst constant shelling and attack. Most of them have been evacuated as of May 4. Nyala city saw 51 fatalities over the two weeks. According to ACLED, most of these clashes happened along major roadways connecting Sudan’s west to its east.

The maps below show clash locations in the first and second week since April 15, when the fighting began.

Neither faction has let up their fighting. Even with ceasefires announced, fighting continued to break out. The RSF has taken control of at least four locations — the Merowe airport, in Nyala, Khartoum and Khartoum North. The SAF, on the other hand, took control of RSF headquarters and camps in Port Sudan, Kadugli and El Fasher.

Port Sudan is also the pick-up point for evacuating Indians from Sudan to Jeddah in Saudi Arabia. Over nearly nine days, India has evacuated around 3,862 Indians from Sudan. Besides India, countries like Saudi Arabia, United States, Britain, Egypt, Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Japan, China, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, Russia, Indonesia, Canada, South Africa, Sudan’s neighbour Chad, Kenya, Ukraine, and Iran have run evacuation missions to move their citizens away from the war-torn country.

Also read:Explained | The tribal clash that killed over 200 in Darfur and its link to Sudan’s ethnic conflict

Fatalities

Due to recurring clashes in Sudan, fatalities have been reported very frequently, but the number of deaths rose exponentially in the month of April this year. From April 15-28, data from ACLED shows there were 711 fatalities reported in Sudan, out of which 671 of the deaths were attributed to the battles, 13 attributed to violence against civilians, and 27 attributed to explosions or remote violence. There were a total of 253 fatalities reported until April 14, from the beginning of this year.

There have been fatalities associated with conflicts in Sudan in every month since January 2012, data from ACLED shows. 2018, 2019, and 2020 were the only years where the average number of monthly fatalities reported were under 100. There was an average of 85 deaths reported every month in 2018; close to 47 deaths in 2019; and 77 in 2019.

In a month, Sudan has witnessed the highest number of fatalities in May 2013 (1,374 deaths), followed by April 2016 (1,080), and March 2014 (1,044). April 2023 has been the fourth highest month when it comes to the number of fatalities, where there have been 815 reported deaths.

When it comes to the deaths related to the current widespread conflict between the RSF and SAF, the most number of fatalities, as of April 27, have been reported in the state of Khartoum, which is one of the smallest but also the most populous state in the country.

As seen above, the states to the west of Khartoum are the ones that have been seeing a higher number of fatalities compared to those to the east, north, and south of Khartoum. The concentration of conflict locations, apart from the capital, is also in these states as shown in the maps above.

Also read |Geography as character: writers trace Sudan’s complex, at times contradictory, significance

Displacement

According to the UN Refugee Agency, over 1,10,000 refugees have crossed from Sudan to neighbouring countries since the start of the fighting, while about 334,000 people are estimated to have been internally displaced. The influx of refugees to neighbouring countries is expected to rise in coming days.

The most significant cross-border movements in the region have been Sudanese fleeing to Egypt, Chad, and South Sudanese refugees returning to South Sudan. Libya, Ethiopia, and Central African Republic have also reported arrival of refugees between 1000-10,000.

According to the agency, most of the refugees are sheltering under trees in villages only 5km away from Sudan. They lack clean water and food. Many of those who have arrived in the neighbouring countries have had the means to pay for transportation and, reportedly, large number of people are trying to reach the border on foot.

The refugee agency expects over 800,000 people, including Sudanese nationals and thousands of existing refugees living temporarily in the country, to flee Sudan as a result of the ongoing conflict.

According to UNHCR, the humanitarian impact of this crisis will be harsh. Sudan hosts more than 1 million refugees and 3.7 million internally displaced people. Assistance programmes that were already overstretched are now severely hampered.

Millions of Sudanese, unable to afford the inflated prices required to escape the battles, are sheltered in their homes with dwindling food, water and frequent power cuts.

Darfur, which has been witnessing internal fighting since 2003, is the most severely hit region in the country. According to the UN, about 2.6 million people are already displaced by its long conflict in Darfur. The renewed conflict have pushed the people in the region to flee the country and seek refuge in Chad.

Sudan in the international arena

The conflict inside Sudan has many external players, and many countries are ranged on one side or the other of this conflict- some for historic reasons, others due to new rivalries and interests.

Russia

Hemedti had cultivated ties with Russia. Western diplomats in Khartoum said in 2022 that Russia’s Wagner Group was involved in illicit gold mining in Sudan and was spreading disinformation. Hemedti said he advised Sudan to cut ties to Wagner after the U.S. imposed sanctions on the private military contractor.

United Arab Emirates

The most important regional ally for Hemedti before the conflict was the United Arab Emirates.

Andreas Krieg, Associate Professor at King’s College, London, told Reuters, the UAE has provided Hemedti, who grew rich through the gold trade, with a platform for channelling his finances as well as public relations support for the RSF. However, the UAE has sought to hedge its bets, retaining ties to Burhan and the army and joining the Quad, a grouping that has taken the lead on diplomacy on Sudan and includes the United States, Saudi Arabia and Britain.

Egypt

Diplomats and analysts say Egypt feels comfortable dealing with Burhan and sees him as the most likely guarantor of its interests, including in negotiations over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam project upstream on the Blue Nile.

Sudan is in a volatile region, bordering the Red Sea, the Sahel, and the Horn of Africa. Five of its seven neighbours — Ethiopia, Chad, Central African Republic, Libya and South Sudan — have been affected by recent political upheavals and conflict.

Ethiopia, Kenya, South Sudan, Israel

Ethiopia and Kenya have prominent role in regional diplomacy and previous mediation in Sudan. South Sudan hosted peace talks between the Sudanese state and rebel groups in recent years, and was designated as one of the countries that could host talks over the current crisis. Israel, which had been hoping to move forward in normalising ties with Sudan, has also offered to host talks.

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia has had close ties to Burhan and Hemedti, both of whom sent troops to the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.

Anna Jacobs, Senior Gulf Analyst with Crisis Group, told Reuters, Riyadh has asserted itself in mediating over Sudan, as it steps up its diplomatic ambitions across the Middle East, while also looking to protect its economic ambitions in the Red Sea region.

Saudi Arabia and the United States have been leading efforts to secure an effective ceasefire. On May 6, Sudan envoys began talks to establish a ceasefire as part of a diplomatic initiative by the two countries.

The Western powers, led by the United States, supported a new transition deal to be finalised in early April. However, the deal instead helped trigger the eruption of fighting by creating a stand-off over the future structure of the military.

(Compiled by Godhashri S, Gautam Nirmal Doshi, Sandra Cyriac, Ramesh Chandran K P. With inputs from Reuters, AP, AFP, United Nations, World Bank)

Source link

#Sudan #conflict #explained #charts