It is imperative to say that there is no fully sovereign state, fully integrated into most international and regional entities and institutions, that has been subjected to what the Sudanese state has experienced since April 15, 2023. The failed coup attempt by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia against the Sudanese military establishment on that date was openly supported and endorsed by several foreign parties, with clear collusion and preparation from internal political blocs and parties. There has also been unjustified silence and neglect from the international community, of which Sudan is an integral part.
This raises significant questions about the usefulness and importance of international law, which undoubtedly has not remained silent on diagnosing such cases but has established regulations, provisions, and deterrent resolutions against those who perpetrate such violations. Yet, in the Sudanese case, international law and its institutions have proven incapable of even issuing a clear condemnation of the RSF militia, let alone imposing sanctions that could revert matters to a state prior to April 14 at the very least.
Instead, some of these international institutions or their members have settled for timid implicit condemnations, often equating the Sudanese army with the rebellious militia using the unjust term "conflicting parties". At times, they have gone further by imposing sanctions on the Sudanese military establishment equally, thus equating it with the RSF.
International Law
Before delving further into this article, let us understand what international law states about such a unique and peculiar Sudanese situation. According to international law, state sovereignty entails exclusive jurisdiction over its territorial boundaries, an absolute individual jurisdiction. Respecting regional sovereignty between independent states is fundamentally essential in international relations.
The International Community's Response Fell Short of the Attack Launched by the Militia on Sudan
The preceding means that any violations or attempts of intervention by these or those states in this internal matter of the state are problematic, or supporting the rebel or insurgent faction against the protective institution of these states represented here by the Sudanese army, is a clear violation of international law. This necessitates successive condemnations from all international, regional, and national entities against these rebellious groups, followed necessarily by imposing maximum sanctions on these rebellious entities, their leaders, supporters, and accomplices. Both ancient and recent historical records are replete with such cases.
However, in the current Sudanese situation, we find a full-fledged rebellion against the military institution in Sudan by a group that fits the description of internal rebellion under international law, namely the RSF militia. This group has been and continues to systematically destroy all aspects of life in Sudan, starting from infrastructure and public facilities, to violating the rights of Sudanese citizens, manifested in killings, torture, and displacement. This is facilitated by both internal and external cover, and a silent international community that indirectly encourages further atrocities.
Despite Sudan exercising its legitimate right to defend its territories, sovereignty, and existence, according to international law which allows states the right to legitimate self-defense if aggression poses an imminent threat from an unlawful source through the use of armed force, it is imperative for the state to resort to defending itself. The severity of the aggression should prompt the state to notify the Security Council of the military measures taken to respond to the aggression after implementing these measures, as evidenced by the aggression of the RSF militia against the Sudanese state.
Intersection of International Interests in the Sudanese Crisis Makes Swift Resolution Difficult and Hinders Mediation Efforts
Shocking Response
Unfortunately, the international community, through all its institutions, did not respond proportionately to the aggression unleashed by the militia in Sudan. Moreover, these international bodies failed to react to explicit evidence provided by Sudan, proving the involvement of certain foreign countries and entities in supporting the rebel "Al-Daqlu" militia with various forms of material, military, and logistical support. Some veto-wielding countries at the UN Security Council even obstructed condemnation or investigation against states clearly implicated by compelling evidence (passport documents) in supporting terrorist militias.
On the other hand, despite the right asserted by some legal experts in international law that a state under attack can mobilize its youth, prepare militarily to defend itself from external aggression, form defensive alliances with friendly nations, and participate in international and regional organizations for this purpose, as stated by Dr. Mohammed Al-Majzoub in his book "Public International Law" (6th edition, 2007, p. 286), the world has not remained idle due to Sudan's mobilization of popular resistance, training citizens to confront the militia threat in their regions and legally defend them.
This perplexes us about the international community's handling of the Sudanese crisis, where it has hesitated to describe it from the outset, participated in prolonging its duration, and continually placed obstacles in the way of neutral mediation efforts aimed at swiftly resolving this crisis.
There is a significant gap in international law between reality and application regarding the Sudanese crisis, confirming double standards
However, it seems that the intersection of international interests in the Sudanese crisis makes it difficult to reach a swift conclusion or work towards obstructing all mediation efforts until a final agreement is reached among the major powers on the definitive resolution of the backstage battles raging behind the scenes. Between Russia, ambitious and coveting Sudanese ports for military bases, seemingly given a green light by the Sudanese army, and America, alarmed by this Russian-Sudanese rapprochement, working diligently to thwart it and place obstacles in its path, and China, unwilling to forfeit its rights in Sudan's oil institutions (such as the Jilie refinery), there are many players whose cessation of this war would serve as a final warning that their economic empires, which have stretched over Sudan and its economy for ages, are now on the brink of collapse.
In conclusion, there is a significant gap in international law between reality and application regarding this Sudanese crisis, confirming the double standards employed by international institutions towards internal and external conflicts in what are termed third world countries, which possess the majority of the world's resources but unfortunately lack the ability, power, and protection to exploit and employ them for the development they desperately need. This renders them legitimate plunder and a permissible solution for those who possess power, influence, and authority.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Read this Article in Arabic.
