End the Death, Suffering and Destruction in Darfur
End the Death, Suffering and Destruction in Darfur
Sudan’s Imperilled Transition: Policy Recommendations for the U.S.
Sudan’s Imperilled Transition: Policy Recommendations for the U.S.
Open Letter / Africa

End the Death, Suffering and Destruction in Darfur

To the Secretary General, Foreign Ministers and Permanent Representatives of the Security Council member states, and Foreign Ministers of the member states of IGAD.

As the Security Council continues to debate Sudan, I am writing to urge you to act forcefully and without delay to prevent further death, suffering, and destruction in Darfur. Since the crisis began two years ago, the Security Council has passed three resolutions demanding an end to the conflict. Yet, over 200,000 people have died, on the best available evidence, and thousands more continue to die each month from violence, malnutrition and disease. The emerging risk of famine in parts of Darfur, especially in places beyond the reach of relief agencies, will further compound the humanitarian crisis.

It is time to acknowledge that the nuanced approach of the international community -- including the Security Council -- has failed. It will take a coordinated set of measures to curtail the violence and to send a clear message to both the Sudanese government and rebels that the international community will no longer tolerate empty promises and broken agreements. Failure to demonstrate urgently that the Security Council will hold the parties in Sudan accountable to their commitments will not only lead to more bloodshed in Darfur, but will also eventually undermine the recently signed North-South peace agreement.

The mandate of the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) was developed in the summer of 2004, when it was expected that the parties would abide by their commitments. AMIS's weak monitoring mandate is now obviously inadequate to the ongoing crisis, especially as parties to the Darfur conflict, and in particular the Government of Sudan, continue to obstruct aid to civilians. The Security Council must urge the African Union to expand its role in Darfur in the crucial areas of protection for civilians and humanitarian convoys. The United Nations and member states must be prepared to provide strong support to the AU as it performs that protective role, in the ways described below. And the Security Council must also act to ensure accountability for atrocity crimes through the best available mechanism, the International Criminal Court.

Protecting Civilians

Thus far, the Government of Sudan has blatantly refused to take action against its allied militias despite committing to do so on six separate occasions since April 2004 and as demanded repeatedly by the Security Council. The rebels have also violated the ceasefire, including by attacks on humanitarian convoys and civilians. The cost of non-compliance has been minimal for all parties, particularly the Government. Until it faces strong repercussions, the Government will not undertake the difficult process of disarming and neutralising the Janjaweed militia, which it continues to arm and supply, and of arresting those responsible for atrocity crimes.

Stopping the violence in Darfur and protecting civilians must be the primary goal of international action. The current African Union assessment mission to Darfur, conducted with broad international participation, will review AMIS and its capabilities. The Security Council must support stronger action in three key areas: tougher sanctions, including a country-wide arms embargo; a more robust AMIS to protect civilians and relief deliveries; and an effectively enforced no-fly zone over Darfur.

Sanctions

A package of targeted measures against those perpetrating the violence can lead to great improvement on the ground in Darfur. The draft resolution before the Security Council proposes a set of appropriate sanctions against culpable individuals. However, it does not extend the arms embargo across the entire country, thereby failing to acknowledge that the Government of Sudan has had a heavy hand in arming and unleashing the deadly Janjaweed militias. Only a country-wide, closely monitored arms embargo will further the goal of ending the repeated violations of the existing arms embargo established by UNSC Resolution 1556.

UN Support for an Expanded AMIS Role

To implement an enhanced mandate, AMIS must expand both its troop and police components. AMIS has been able to deploy less than two thirds of its authorised 3,320 troops to Darfur as African nations have been unconscionably slow in providing troops and the international community has equally failed to provide the AU with adequate logistical and related support. It is now clear that a much larger and better supported force is needed to stem the violence in Darfur. The Security Council should act on the recent call by Under Secretary General Jan Egeland and urge an increase of the AMIS deployment, to at least 10,000.

The terms of the resolution adopted should:

  • urge the AU force to explicitly protect civilians and relief deliveries;
  • under Chapter VII, authorise the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) to provide support to such an expanded AMIS;
  • call on member states (African and non-African) to contribute troops, police, and other support, including through provision of greater command and control, operational and logistic capabilities, to a strengthened AU mission, and on NATO to begin planning to assist the mission; and
  • authorise the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to deploy an additional 100 Human Rights monitors in Darfur.
     

No-Fly Zone

In light of Khartoum's continued use of aerial bombardment against civilian targets in Darfur, in patent violation of its commitments under the 9 November Abuja Protocols, the current draft resolution rightly demands that the Government of Sudan "cease conducting offensive military flights in and over the Darfur region." While military options to enforce this demand may not presently be feasible, other options are. The Council should:

  • endorse an AU-monitored no-fly zone over Darfur;
  • request the AU to notify it immediately upon determination of a serious violation;
  • call on member states to provide such technical and other assistance as the AU may require to carry out effectively this monitoring and notification responsibility; and
  • identify specific targeted sanctions that the Council will apply immediately upon receipt from the AU of a report of serious non-compliance by a party to the conflict.
     

Accountability for Atrocity Crimes

As UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour pointed out in her 16 February 2005 presentation to the Security Council, "there is no hope for sustainable peace in Darfur without immediate access to justice." Crisis Group strongly endorses the recommendation of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur that the Security Council refer the situation of Darfur to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Unquestionably, the ICC is the body best positioned to uphold justice most promptly and effectively. Suggested alternatives -- such as the ICTR or a similar body established under the auspices of the African Union -- would be more time-consuming, more costly, less effective in bringing to justice those responsible, and crucially, because any impact they might have would be much delayed, be less likely to persuade the parties to the conflict of the need to comply immediately with all UN resolutions and their commitments under the Abuja Protocols.

Immediate robust measures to protect civilians and establish a credible mechanism for justice and accountability are the essential components to stopping the violence in Darfur. If divisions within the Security Council and potential veto threats again water down the final text of the resolution, the situation in Darfur will only worsen. And the hard-won peace agreement for the rest of the country will be put in jeopardy as well.

I urge you to live up to the Security Council's responsibility and use your power to take the necessary strong action to protect those still acutely at risk in Darfur.

Yours sincerely,

GARETH EVANS
President

Sudan’s Imperilled Transition: Policy Recommendations for the U.S.

In a 1 February 2022 hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Crisis Group’s President & CEO Dr. Comfort Ero testified on the escalating situation in Sudan and outlined four main recommendations for the U.S. to help restore the civilian-led transition to democracy.

Good morning/afternoon, Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Risch and distinguished members of the Committee. My name is Dr. Comfort Ero, and I am the President and CEO of the International Crisis Group. Previously I served as the organization’s Africa program director and I have spent my professional and academic career focusing on peace and security issues in Africa. The International Crisis Group is a global organisation committed to the prevention, mitigation and resolution of deadly conflict. We cover over 50 conflict situations around the world and our presence in Sudan dates back more than two decades.[fn]Crisis Group Africa Report N°281, Safeguarding Sudan’s Revolution, 21 October 2019; Jonas Horner, “After the Coup, Restoring Sudan’s Transition”, Crisis Group Commentary, 5 November 2021; Crisis Group Africa Briefing N°168, The Rebels Come to Khartoum: How to Implement Sudan’s New Peace Agreement, 23 February 2021.Hide Footnote

I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak to you about the deteriorating situation in Sudan today. The country is at a dangerous crossroads. Not for the first time in its history, the military has turned its back on the demands of the Sudanese people for more just and representative rule by violently seizing power. The coup on October 25 brought a sudden halt to a civilian-military coalition that since 2019 has been charged with steering Sudan toward elections and full civilian rule.[fn]Crisis Group Report, Safeguarding Sudan’s Revolution, op. cit.; Horner, “After the Coup, Restoring Sudan’s Transition”, op.cit. It was a major reversal in a transition that had brought hope to so many in the Horn of Africa and beyond. I will share with you my analysis of the current situation in Sudan and recommendations for steps the United States might take to help guide it back on the path toward greater democracy and stability.

Background

By way of background, the transition that was interrupted on October 25 followed 30 years of rule by the notorious strongman Omar al-Bashir.

  • After coming to office in a coup in June 1989, Bashir maintained his hold on power by repressing political opposition, fighting costly counter-insurgencies in the country’s peripheries and underwriting his factious security sector with patronage-driven expenditure that ate up, by some estimates, 70 per cent of the national budget.[fn]Shortly after taking office, Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, who was mandated to lead the civilian-military transition in August 2019, listed as an ambition driving down military expenditure to 20 per cent of the national budget. He said in some years, that budget line had stood at 80 per cent. “Sudan PM seeks to end the country’s pariah status”, AP, 25 August 2019.Hide Footnote
     
  • The patronage system that Bashir built eventually bankrupted the country and contributed to the strongman’s ouster. A small cabal of favoured cronies including Bashir’s Islamist allies from the National Congress Party, senior military officers (many of them drawn from the tiny riverine elite that has dominated Sudan’s military and politics for decades) and newly minted allies such as the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which was blamed for some of the worst violence in the western region of Darfur, benefited substantially from Sudan’s rigged, lopsided economy.[fn]“Who are Sudan’s RSF and their Commander Hemeti?”, Al Jazeera, 6 June 2019.Hide Footnote These same actors continue to try to preserve their privileges atop Sudan’s political, economic and security establishment.
     
  • Popular frustration over political repression, rising prices and a sclerotic economy that could not absorb Sudan’s ranks of unemployed youths helped trigger the protests that eventually drove Bashir from power. The uprising began in the south-eastern towns of Damazin and Sennar, where crowds took to the streets on 13 December 2018 in response to a tripling of bread prices. By the time the protests reached Atbara, the historic bastion of unionism in Sudan, demonstrators were demanding regime change. Against long odds and despite heavy repression, the protesters eventually overwhelmed the security forces, who staged a palace coup against Bashir on 11 April 2019.  
     
  • The military tried to maintain the upper hand but was forced under pressure both from the protest movement and external actors to compromise and accept to share power with civilians. International revulsion over a 3 June 2019 massacre of protesters encamped outside the military headquarters was particularly important in forcing the generals to cede to the will of the Sudanese people.[fn]“Sudan commemorates the June 3 Massacre”, Dabanga Sudan, 3 June 2021.Hide Footnote Under the terms of a 17 August Constitutional Declaration, the country would be governed by a hybrid civilian-military coalition for 39 months leading up to elections.
     
  • The task before that coalition was enormous. The new cabinet headed by the technocrat and diplomat Abdalla Hamdok was charged with breathing new life into Sudan’s anaemic economy, reforming political institutions to lay the ground for elections and delivering justice to the many Sudanese victims of atrocities during Bashir’s rule – and in the weeks following his fall. Despite the formidable obstacles the authorities faced, that coalition represented the country’s best hope for emerging into a stable, prosperous and democratic future and was a source of hope for those supporting democratic renewal in other countries in the region.
     
  • Always reluctant participants in the alliance, the generals barely disguised their opposition to the Hamdok administration’s reforms and were particularly opposed to efforts to deliver justice and to reshape the country’s economy. In defiance of the United States government and others who warned them against doing so, they seized power and ousted the civilians.

The October 25 Coup and Its Aftermath

Today, unfortunately, the picture looks grim. The military violently applied the brakes on the transition in the early hours of October 25 when they placed Hamdok under house arrest, rounded up numerous other civilian officials in the administration, declared a state of emergency and dissolved key institutions including the cabinet. Since then, Sudan’s military chief General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan has taken a series of steps to reverse the reforms the civilian-led administration had rolled out, including by disbanding a committee charged with reclaiming public assets, by packing the Sovereign Council, which serves as the country’s executive, with his allies and by appointing Bashir-era figures into key posts including in the judiciary and security forces.[fn]Crisis Group EU Watch List 2022, 27 January 2022.Hide Footnote The military attempted some window dressing when it reinstated Hamdok on 21 November, a move Sudanese protesters rightly dismissed as an effort to legitimise their power grab. Some efforts to stimulate talks among Sudanese actors to find a way out of the crisis continue although the prospects of a resolution appear dim.

[Sudan] has been on a downhill trajectory since the coup.

Overall, the country has been on a downhill trajectory since the coup. On 2 January, Hamdok resigned in frustration after failing to persuade the generals to stick to their commitments under the August 2019 constitutional charter, and in particular to give him a free hand to appoint a new cabinet. In the meantime, the public’s frustration has been growing. For the past few weeks, Sudanese people across the country have taken to the streets to signal their revulsion at the military’s power grab. The general’s response to the protests has come right out of the Bashir playbook. The security forces have repeatedly fired into crowds, killing dozens, according to human rights groups and the UN.[fn]“Bachelet condemns killings of peaceful protesters in Sudan”, UN, 18 November 2021.Hide Footnote A late December decree by military chief Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan gave the police effective immunity for their actions. Still, the Sudanese people continue to risk their lives by staging protests, work boycotts and other strike actions.

While it is not yet clear who will come out on top in this contest between the security forces and the street, there is evidence to suggest that the generals have gravely miscalculated the strength of their hand. This is a different Sudan from the one in which the army captured control of the state at least five times in the past, including in 1989 when Bashir took office.[fn]"A history of Sudan coups”, Statista, 25 October 2021.Hide Footnote Sudan has one of the youngest populations in the world.[fn]“After the Uprising: Including Sudanese Youth”, Chr. Michelsen Institute, 2020.Hide Footnote Six in ten Sudanese are aged between fifteen and 30 – and the current generation rejects the notion that the country should go back to being governed by an unaccountable, out-of-touch elite.[fn]Sudan’s Political Impasse”, The Horn (Crisis Group podcast), 26 January 2022.Hide Footnote This mobilised, youthful population showed its power at the end of 2018 when it rose up in protest at Bashir’s repressive, kleptocratic rule. The protest movement captured the imagination of pro-democracy campaigners well beyond Sudan with its diversity, with the prominent role that women played – sometimes outnumbering men in demonstrations – with its tenacity, and ultimately with its success. Against what many viewed as tall odds, it brought a halt to Bashir’s rule. Since the coup, this movement has again shown its strength by mobilising millions of Sudanese to take to the streets and send a clear signal to the generals that they will not, as past generations of officers did, get away with imposing their will on the Sudanese people.[fn]“Deaths Reported in Sudan as ‘March of Millions’ Demands Restoration of Civilian Rule”, Voice of America, 30 October 2021.Hide Footnote

Getting the transition back on track would serve both the people of Sudan’s democratic aspirations and the interests of the United States.

Getting the transition back on track would serve both the people of Sudan’s democratic aspirations and the interests of the United States and other regional and international actors in the strategically important Horn of Africa – where Sudan sits between major regional powers Ethiopia and Egypt and shares a border with seven countries, several in the throes of conflict themselves. Support for Sudan’s transition would comport with the U.S. government’s stated commitment to champion democratic values and to “demonstrate that democracies can deliver by improving the lives of their own people”[fn]“President Biden to Convene Leaders’ Summit for Democracy”, White House, 11 August 2021.Hide Footnote . It would also be the surest pathway to medium- and long-term stability in the country.

Recommendations

The United States is one of Sudan’s most important external partners. It provides about half a billion dollars in assistance annually and was a champion of efforts to reconnect Sudan’s economy with international financial institutions. Given these ties and the United States government’s relations with all the main regional actors, the U.S. is well positioned to support efforts to reverse the military’s power grab and set Sudan back on a path toward elections and representative government. Specifically, it could:

  • Press the generals to immediately halt violence against protesters and coordinate targeted sanctions to hold them to account: As outlined, Sudan’s security forces have responded to peaceful protests by indiscriminately shooting into crowds and sometimes reportedly even pursuing fleeing and wounded demonstrators into hospitals.[fn]“Sudanese security forces ‘hunt down’ injured protesters in hospital”, France 24, 25 January 2022.Hide Footnote This pattern of behaviour, on top of its grave human cost, threatens to poison relations between the parties and render a resolution even further beyond reach. In coordination with partners including the African Union (AU) and the European Union, the United States should make clear that the generals will face consequences including asset freezes and travel bans if they continue to kill unarmed demonstrators. The White House should simultaneously convene an interagency process to design a targeted sanctions programs aimed at key figures in the military and outline that it is willing to deploy these against individuals that continue to sanction the killing of protesters or obstruct progress toward elections more broadly.
     
  • Support Sudanese-led efforts to rerail the transition: The United States has already signalled its backing for efforts to stimulate negotiations among the generals and civilian groups including the Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC), the coalition that spearheaded the protest movement and neighbourhood resistance committees, which play an integral role in the day-to-day organisation of protests and have proved a particularly effective channel of resistance to the military coup. The United States should warn the generals against taking precipitous measures that could derail these potential talks, including refraining from unilaterally appointing a new prime minister. It should further insist that these talks are maximally inclusive and in particular that they should take on board the views of the resistance committees. The 2019 power-sharing agreement should be the blueprint for a compromise that could restore civilian-military governance and lead to elections.
     
  • Withhold financial assistance until the military reverses its coup: In the immediate aftermath of the military takeover, the United states suspended $700 million in assistance to Sudan. This was the right step given the generals’ brazen decision to terminate the power-sharing agreement. The United States should make clear to the generals that this support will not resume unless they accept to return to the path toward elections laid out in the 2019 power-sharing agreement. In the meantime, the United States should advance with efforts to repurpose some of its support to civil society groups and also to work with partners including the UN to offer direct assistance to Sudan’s long-suffering people.
     
  • Urge all regional actors to back a return to a civilian-led dispensation: Many on the Sudanese street perceive some external actors, namely Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, as tacitly backing military rule.[fn]Sudan’s Political Impasse”, op. cit.Hide Footnote Such perceptions will ultimately be damaging to those countries’ standing in Sudan if it is able to reinvigorate its transitional process. But it is still possible for these key regional actors to play an important role in helping Sudan return to a civilian-led transitional process, thereby protecting their relations with the Sudanese people. Given his strong background in regional diplomacy, Special Envoy Satterfield should be well positioned to engage these actors and urge them to use their privileged relations with Sudan’s generals to convey to them that the power-sharing agreement they torpedoed remains Sudan’s best and perhaps only chance for stability, a goal they all profess to share. With the welcome appointment of a new ambassador to Khartoum, the United States could play a key role in marshalling a coalition of actors within and outside Sudan that can help steer the country back toward the path to elections.


Sudan is at a historic hinge-point. The military’s power grab has derailed a transition that was an inspiration well beyond Sudan, and still could be, if the generals step back and allow Sudan’s civilians to steer the country to elections. With a piling set of challenges – not least an economy in deep distress, resurging violence in Darfur and elsewhere, and a tottering peace deal with armed groups – the generals can hardly afford to stonewall the Sudanese people’s demands for change. The world – and the United States – should stand with Sudan’s people in their quest for a more democratic and accountable government, an outcome that represents the country’s best hope for achieving long-run political, social and economic stability.

Subscribe to Crisis Group’s Email Updates

Receive the best source of conflict analysis right in your inbox.