The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) fact-finding report on Sudan issued a few days ago would not have caused all this commotion if it had merely documented the human rights violations and called for holding the perpetrators accountable. However, the report broadened its recommendations and ventured to controversially call for sending international forces to Sudan to protect civilians. This opened the floodgates to debate and accusations that it had overstepped its mandate, politicized the fact-finding mission and put itself in the middle of disputes and conflicts regarding the Sudanese war crisis.
Even before the mission got involved in this issue, its work had been the subject of back and forths since it was endorsed by political and civic forces in the Taqaddum Coalition and unequivocally opposed by the Sudanese government. Thus, it is unsurprising that the mission's recommendations have added fuel to the fire and created a flood of criticism and accusations.
On a personal level, I have never understood the willingness of some people to undermine their nation's sovereignty by calling for foreign intervention. There is a massive difference between supporting the work of a fact-finding mission documenting human rights violations, and calling on international or African forces to intervene. Documenting these violations is necessary, as is holding those who have committed them accountable. However, inviting foreign intervention only complicates things further and creates additional risks, to say nothing about compromising the country's sovereignty.
The Sudanese government has every right to see calls for the deployment of international forces as "politicized," and to argue that the political interests and considerations are always the criteria for implementing such a measure. In this context, one might ask: Why are such forces not sent to protect civilians in Gaza, for example? Why didn't the international community intervene and send forces to Ethiopia during the Tigray war?
The current situation in Sudan is very complicated, making an attempt to send international forces difficult and dangerous. Unlike the previous war in Darfur, the current war is being fought in vast and distant regions, creating significant logistical obstacles that require the deployment of large numbers of forces. Such deployment may not be feasible given the current regional and international circumstances. Additionally, the Sudanese government is absolutely opposed to the idea, adding further complications. True, a precedent was set in 2007, when UN-African forces were sent to Darfur despite the opposition of Bashir's regime. However, the conditions were different then, and Sudan had been placed under Chapter VII. Today, passing a Security Council Resolution to send international forces would be difficult; given their struggle with the West and their apprehensions about setting new precedents for international military intervention, Russia and China would oppose it. Beijing is suspicious of the West’s positions on Taiwan, while Russia is waging a major conflict with the West in Ukraine.
Moreover, I doubt that Western countries are themselves eager to become more deeply involved in the Sudanese crisis and go so far as to send forces to Sudan. These countries are preoccupied with their own crises and domestic concerns, and they have other priorities in the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.
The fact-finding mission made another controversial recommendation, calling for broadening the scope of the Security Council's arms embargo in Darfur, which was never seriously implemented. They recommend that the embargo be applied to all parties, meaning both the army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). This recommendation is problematic because it draws an equivalence between the Sudanese army, a legitimate actor, and the RSF, which has rebelled not only against the military it had once fought for, but against the entire country. The RSF has taken the course of destruction. It has devastated the country’s institutions, infrastructure, factories, and agriculture; it has looted and destroyed banks, shops, universities, hospitals, museums, archives, and state documents. It has targeted civilians, invading their homes, looting their property, displacing, and killing them, and it has systematically weaponized sexual violence.
Under these circumstances, efforts to weaken the army would necessarily undermine the safety of civilians. Citizens flee from every area the RSF takes hold of, seeking refuge in army-controlled areas. If these citizens were asked whose arms supplies they wanted to cut off, they would undoubtedly give a clear answer.
The best way to protect civilians is to end the war. That could happen if certain countries and parties ended their interventions, which are fueling the conflict. They must stop sending arms shipments to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Calls for added interventions and the deployment of foreign forces, which would consolidate the RSF control in the areas it currently controls, would only complicate matters and make Sudan more dangerous.
