Sometimes, Nations Commit Moral Suicide

By Dr. Enas Mohamed Ahmed

The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states is a fundamental principle governing international relations. It is enshrined in international law, which defines it as a fundamental obligation that requires any state to refrain from interfering in another state’s internal or external affairs. This definition serves as the foundation for states in confronting blatant interventions in their affairs, as it prohibits one state from interfering in the matters of another.
This principle has been a cornerstone for protecting states’ political, economic, and social systems since the French Revolution advocated it in the late 18th century. In the 20th century, this principle was reinforced due to global changes, the spread of liberation movements, and the independence of many states, which reshaped the international community. The emergence of new states after the collapse of the Soviet Union further solidified this principle through customary rules and international agreements emphasising state sovereignty and governance.
The establishment of the League of Nations in 1919, followed by the United Nations in 1945, played a crucial role in regulating this principle and issuing recommendations to protect newly independent states from the dominance of major powers. As a result, developing countries sought to enshrine this principle as a binding legal rule. Consequently, the UN General Assembly issued Resolution 2131 on December 21, 1965, titled Non-Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty. It prohibited all forms of intervention, including financing armed or terrorist activities to change a government in another country. This was followed by the Declaration on Principles of International Law on October 24, 1970, which stated that no state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, in another state’s internal or external affairs. Based on this, international law considers any form of interference that threatens a state’s political, economic, or social components as a violation of international law.
However, in recent years, international legal scholars have begun considering this principle as part of the peremptory norms of international law, given that state sovereignty is based on independence.
After 1990, a shift occurred within the UN Security Council toward limiting state jurisdiction and expanding the international community’s role. With the rise of armed conflicts and wars, UN interventions became justifiable under the pretext of maintaining international peace and security. Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the UN gained the authority to impose international sanctions and even use force. The Security Council also expanded the application of Article 39 of the Charter, leading to a new approach in international relations that redefined the principle of non-intervention. This shift was driven by increasing global interconnectivity, the rise of digital communication networks, and the growing role of civil society organisations.
Nevertheless, international law continues to view interference in states’ internal affairs as unlawful, especially if it threatens national security, stability, and sovereignty.
Kenya’s Violation of Sudan’s Sovereignty
Based on the above, Kenya’s recent actions—hosting a conference for the criminal militia and its allies to sign a political charter and announce the formation of a parallel government—constitute a flagrant interference in Sudan’s internal affairs. Moreover, Kenya’s actions are support for a terrorist militia responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Sudanese people, aiming to prolong the conflict and spread chaos. This move has sparked international and regional condemnation, heightening tensions between Sudan and Kenya. Even within Kenya, numerous politicians and observers criticised Nairobi’s decision to host this failed conference, highlighting the potential negative repercussions on Kenya’s regional interests and diplomatic standing. The controversy has raised questions about the Kenyan president’s ties to the militia’s leadership and personal interests in their affairs.
The situation was further exacerbated when IGAD proposed that the Kenyan president serve as a mediator for peace negotiations. However, Sudan rejected this proposal due to his affiliations with the militia’s leaders.
Kenya’s hosting of this event will have long-term consequences for its role as a regional peace mediator. For instance, Kenya has played a role in peace processes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. However, its involvement in Sudan’s crisis undermines its credibility as a neutral mediator.
Sudan’s Response Options
Sudan, on the other hand, will not be significantly affected by this political manoeuvring in Nairobi. The Sudanese government has multiple avenues to respond to Kenya’s actions:
International Legal Action – Sudan can file a complaint against Kenya for violating the non-interference principle and threatening Sudan’s security, stability, and territorial integrity. Kenya’s actions also constitute a severe breach of the UN Charter, the founding principles of the African Union, IGAD, and established international norms.
Diplomatic Measures – Sudan can escalate the issue diplomatically by recalling its ambassador from Nairobi.
Economic Retaliation – Sudan has the option to impose economic sanctions on Kenya, including banning Kenyan imports and restricting Kenyan products from entering Sudanese markets.
Airspace Restrictions – Sudan could close its airspace to Kenyan airlines, causing significant financial losses to Kenya’s aviation sector.
Sudan holds numerous leverage points and will not remain passive in the face of violations of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Any nation that supports war and destruction cannot be trusted as a mediator for peace, regardless of its affiliations with the United Nations or the African Union.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=4428