By Willy Fautre
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) this week will commemorate the oganisation’s 80th year.
While the UN celebrates its legacy, it is harder to define its future, and that of multilateralism in general, in such a polarised world. In this context, how much hope is there that the conflict in Sudan will receive a meaningful push for peace in New York?
Heads of states and governments will use some of the UNGA time to discuss accelerating progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals, addressing poverty, climate action, and health crises. Naturally the crises in Ukraine and the Middle East will receive attention. Sudan has received less advance airtime in the lead up to the Assembly than other conflicts. Indeed the recent landslide in Sudan garnered more media attention than many of the manmade atrocities that the country has lived through during over two years of war, including accusations of retribution killings by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) after they retook Khartoum.
Within the UNGA, however, there will be a high-level Ministerial event – “The Cost of Inaction: Urgent and collective support to scale up the humanitarian response in Sudan and the region”. This event will focus on the need for a massive scale-up of humanitarian aid, urge global action to address the deepening crisis, and mobilise both funding and diplomatic pressure for humanitarian access in Sudan. Parallel to the Ministerial event, an international consultative group on Sudan will continue to try to achieve a unified approach to de-escalating the conflict, resuming civilian and political dialogue, and strengthening international consensus behind a single, inclusive peace process.
It would be an understatement to say that these upcoming efforts in New York will be an uphill struggle. There is a longstanding reluctance on the part of the SAF to come to the negotiating table. A report by the International Crisis Group described how efforts to achieve peace talks have perpetually faltered due to Abdel Fattah al-Burhan being “loath to meaningfully engage”, adding that he and his allies still hope to compel the RSF to submit to SAF authority.
There was a brief moment of optimism when Burhan met with US envoy Massad Boulos on 11 August in Switzerland. However, almost immediately after that meeting, Burhan said that for him the war was a “battle for dignity, to defeat the rebellion, and to make neither compromise nor reconciliation, whatever the cost”. He has been consistent in this stance, repeatedly stating there is “no room for a truce or reconciliation”. A similar August episode happened in Switzerland last summer too, although at that one, Burhan did not even show up. That is at the heart of the problem in New York. Ministers and fringe meetings can all make the most concerted of efforts, but if the SAF truly believe that war mode is the only setting they have, it is feared that the UNGA’s push will be futile.
Burhan and his civilian counterpart Kamil Idris are likely to show up in New York, as part of their (failing) effort to persuade the international community that they speak for the people of Sudan. It is to be hoped that, if they do, both the ministers and the fringe groups present at the UNGA will urge them to put their efforts into genuine peace-making rather than posturing. If, in its 80th year, the UN wants to show its relevance and teeth, ending the conflict in Sudan would be the greatest start.
About the author:
