Since the outbreak of war in Sudan, talk of a “humanitarian ceasefire” has become a recurring political refrain whenever a humanitarian disaster reaches its peak. But today’s proposed ceasefire is taking place in a different and dangerous context. The incident depicts the genocide and ethnic cleansing carried out by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary group in the city of El Fasher in Darfur, and is one of the most horrific crimes against humanity in modern Sudanese history, and indeed in human history.
El Fasher, once a symbol of diversity and coexistence, has been reduced to a ruined city with no population. In response to this serious crime, the international community has returned to the position of proposing a “humanitarian ceasefire” as an option. This requires a careful political reading that goes beyond moral slogans to reveal its motives and potential consequences, especially with regard to Sudan’s geographical, social, and political unity.
Is it the path to peace or the gateway to destruction?
There is a saying in popular culture that goes, “If you see a poor person eating chicken, either the poor person is sick or the chicken is sick.” This saying captures the essence of the legitimate political doubts about the timing of this ceasefire.
A ceasefire for humanitarian purposes is, in principle, aimed at alleviating civilian suffering and could pave the way to an end to the conflict. However, in the case of Sudan, what is worrying is that this ceasefire was proposed after the catastrophe occurred, rather than before. The proposal came after RSF steadfastly rejected humanitarian promises such as protecting hospitals and providing safe passage for civilians to evacuate.
Humanitarian organizations continue to operate in most parts of Sudan, including Darfur, despite security complexities and the lack of a legally signed ceasefire agreement. This leaves us with the inevitable question: why push for a ceasefire now? And in whose interests is this ceasefire being proposed at this particular moment?
This contradiction opens the door to suspicions that its objectives extend beyond humanitarian concerns to the reshaping of the country’s political and geographical reality.
Ceasefire in historical experience
Modern history is replete with examples of humanitarian ceasefires turning from de-escalation measures to preludes to division and secession. In Western Sahara, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and South Sudan, ceasefires were not always a bridge to peace. In many cases, they were transitional periods towards the fragmentation of states and the erosion of sovereignty.
In the context of Sudan in particular, Operation Lifeline Sudan, launched by the United Nations in 1989, is a clear example of how humanitarian action was used as a political entry point, ultimately leading to the secession of South Sudan through a referendum that followed a long process of partition and normalization.
However, the current situation is much more dangerous and complex. This does not involve a government negotiating with a political movement with national demands, but rather an unprecedented scenario in which two political parties both claim to represent a “government” within a single nation. On the one hand, the legitimate government of Sudan, and on the other hand, the RSF, which is seeking to establish a parallel organization.
The trap of disguised political approval
Negotiations between “two governments” within one state are not only unprecedented in Sudan. This represents a serious political trap aimed at eliciting de facto military recognition under the umbrella of a ceasefire.
The mere act of co-signing confers equality and legitimacy on the rebels, fundamentally contradicting the enormous sacrifices made by the Sudanese people to protect the country’s unity and sovereignty.
This path is a direct violation of the basic principles for which martyrs fell and women became widows.
First is the principle of unity. RSF has violated the principle of solidarity by importing foreign elements and mercenaries, using external aid to impose forced demographic changes, and seeking to reshape Sudan according to an agenda unrelated to the national will.
Second, the principle of unified government and constitutional legitimacy. The pursuit of “parallel governments” directly undermines this principle. It would strike at the foundations on which the country stood since independence and open the door to political chaos and institutional fragmentation.
Third, unification of military organizations. By receiving arms and combat equipment from foreign countries, relying on plunder and self-funding, the RSF violates military unity and completely contradicts any talk of security reform or building a unified national army. In practice, this lays the foundation for multiple armies within a single state.
Ambiguity and lack of transparency in negotiations
Concerns are deepened by the complete lack of transparency surrounding the ceasefire process. Why are negotiations held behind closed doors? Why can’t the people of Sudan know what is being agreed in their name? How can a foreign country negotiate on behalf of a people who bleed through war and displacement? Who has more right to oversee peace efforts than the people? What greater priority than commanding an ongoing war in which everyone participates?
What is even more worrying is that the parties that are “holding the pen” in the political process are the same parties that are “holding the gun” and are practicing murder and ethnic cleansing. This is an ethically and politically unacceptable contradiction.
A comprehensive reading of the series of events suggests that the latest ceasefire is more likely to become a gateway to the dissolution of the Sudanese state than to serve as a bridge to save it. That could lead to entrenched divisions. Spheres of influence, multiple militaries, different currencies, parallel central banks, competing foreign ministries, competing passports, etc. A nation without a state, a sovereignty without a sovereignty.
This is a contagious disease, and sooner or later everyone living along the coast, in the estuary, and in the headwaters will be infected as well.
Between humanitarian duty and national vigilance
No one disputes the priority given to improving the humanitarian situation and protecting civilians. However, the ceasefire being promoted today could bring temporary stability at the cost of a devastating strategic cost: erosion of Sudan’s integrity.
As a state’s duty, the highest level of vigilance and vigilance is required to ensure that the ceasefire does not become a political trap and promote plans for national collapse. We need to be fully aware that this crisis has deep historical roots that have accumulated, but we also need to remember that history does not forgive those who squander their homeland, nor does it pardon those who exchanged national sovereignty for foreign orders.
Hope remains riveted in the consciousness of the Sudanese people and their ability to rise to this decisive moment united in defense of one homeland, one army and one nation. Sudan rejects partition and guardianship, accepting only the will of the people through a system and framework that does not impose reality through armed seizure or at gunpoint.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
