Tuesday, April 25, 2023
Is the Violence in Sudan “Partly Our Fault”?
When I saw the headline of an oped in the Sunday New York Times – “The Violence in Sudan is Partly Our Fault” – I expect to something shady or sinister, such as secret arms sales or coddling dictators. Instead, the essay by Jacqueline Burns, former adviser to the U.S. special envoy for Sudan and South Sudan, tell a story of failed well-meaning attempts – by the U.S. and others – to bring contending sides to the bargaining table. As was probably predictable, it turned out that the leaders of the various armed forces were never really interested in peace, but only in consolidating their power and waiting for an opportune moment to take over. Sure, they signed agreements, but they never intended to honor them.
Still, it is hard to “fault” the U.S. for trying. Burns never confronts what would have happened in the absence of U.S. and European diplomacy. It’s not as though the armed militias would have found a non-violent solution among themselves.
Burns does point out that most negotiations invariably neglected the voices and interests of women and other marginalized groups. That was surely wrong and blameworthy, but it is again hard to see how that would have made a difference to Generals Mohamed Hamdan and Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, who have instigated the current fighting that threatens to destroy Khartoum.
In fact, Burns notes that the eventual inclusion of women and marginalized groups, praiseworthy as it was, ended up making no difference:
Earlier this year, the various armed groups and civilian representatives once again met to finalize an agreement on the transition. This time, even though the negotiations included consultations with women and other previously marginalized groups, it was far too little, too late. Weeks after the meeting, the Rapid Support Forces and the army, on which Mr. al-Bashir’s rule had depended, are doing battle in the streets of Khartoum.
Was it “too little, too late”? Or were the generals out for their own power no matter who was at the negotiating table?
Burns’s solution, in her closing paragraphs, is to stop prioritizing “the voices of the armed and corrupt over those seeking real political reform and representation.” Thus,
The insidious nature of contemporary international conflict resolution is that, in its single-minded drive to get armed groups to put down their guns, those fighting for the real and lasting reforms necessary for peace too often get cast aside.
I just don’t see how negotiations to put away guns can succeed without speaking mainly to the people with guns. “Those fighting for . . . real and lasting reforms” will be at the mercy of the gun-holders unless something can be done to disarm them.
Of course, Burns did not write the headline, but it is still wrong to suggest that the U.S. is even partly at fault for the crisis in Sudan, at least for the reasons discussed in her oped. I do not mean to suggest that I have better information than she does about the situation in Sudan. Regrettable as it is, however, I suspect that realism will be more important than idealism when it comes to ending violence.
Posted by Steve Lubet on April 25, 2023 at 04:30 AM | Permalink
Comments
The comments to this entry are closed.