The ALPS Statement on Sudan: Sympathy for Victims or Avoidance of naming Violators of International Humanitarian Law?

Sudanhorizon – Mohamed Osman Adam

The recent statement issued by the Alliance for Promoting Lives and Peace in Sudan (ALPS) may appear to contain nothing new, but its essence suggests something, indeed something serious.

The statement, which reflects the positions of five powerful countries, each in their own field, and two international organizations, was flat and ambiguous, combining the group’s previous positions and demands regarding the conflict in Sudan.

In its opening remarks, it points to the continuing suffering of civilians, who are paying the heaviest price for this war, the deterioration of the situation in Sudan, and reaching the critical levels of humanitarian needs. It calls on the parties to the conflict to take urgent action to protect civilians and allow humanitarian access to those in need, in accordance with their obligations under international humanitarian law and the Jeddah Declaration signed in May 2023.
In reality, the statement was nothing but a recapitulation of previously expressed condemnations, statements, and positions, as it barely addresses the serious developments on the ground. Any statement reflecting the position of the United States, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, and the UAE, as well as the United Nations and the African Union, that fails to provide specific clarifications, will undoubtedly leave a stern impression: there are developments that have occurred this month in their presence that warrant explicit condemnation and accountability for their actions: the bombing of civilians, the denial of access, the disregard for the UN resolution calling for the lifting of the siege of El Fasher and allowing delivery of humanitarian aid, the turning a blind eye to the transfer of weapons and ammunition to Darfur, and the attacks on villages and civilians in Darfur and Kordofan!!
One would have expected very specific clauses calling for actions against violators of international humanitarian law and international law, such as the Rapid Support Forces militia’s alleged actions, and the army’s alleged actions, so that everyone would know that the action taken is just a consequence and reaction to the actions of the parties to the conflict. Otherwise, one would wonder what motivated the group to issue this statement and what is behind the timing. It offered no incentives for those who comply with its demands, nor any threats of action against those who do not. Consider this language in the statement:
“Civilians continue to pay the heaviest price of this war. As the situation in Sudan deteriorates and humanitarian needs reach critical levels, the parties to the conflict must take urgent action to protect civilians and allow and facilitate humanitarian access to those in need, in accordance with their obligations under international humanitarian law and their obligations under the Jeddah Declaration on the Protection of Civilians in Sudan, signed in May 2023.”
Those who drafted the statement know who carried out all or most of these actions, based on statements and condemnations from the United Nations, international and regional organizations, and the images and videos. Yet, this statement was issued with ambiguity, as if it didn’t want to call things by their proper names. This gave the impression that:
1. First, these five countries, the United Nations, and the African Union have failed to reach a strong, unified position and thus have to resort to such a mercurial statement.
2. The second assumption is that they wanted a decisive and resonant action, but one or two parties within the group objected, so they had no choice but to issue this mercurial, rigid statement.
3. The third assumption is that this group agreed on a specific action, such as resorting to a UN Security Council resolution after this preliminary step. This appears to be more than just a warning, and that decisive action is forthcoming. Therefore, both parties must comply or face the consequences.
4- The final argument is that this group has conflicting interests in Sudan, and that unless one achieves the minimum, the situation will remain this way until one side to the conflict gains the upper hand on the ground or both sides are exhausted. Then the coalition will seek to impose its conditions.
Until then, we will see more statements like this one, which begins with:
“The coalition expresses its deep dismay at the continued deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Sudan, including the increasing number of people suffering from severe malnutrition and famine, and the multiple obstacles preventing humanitarian access to key areas, delaying or hindering the response.”
Look at this long list of demands the coalition wants from the “warring parties”:
1- Lift all bureaucratic obstacles that obstruct and prevent humanitarian activities;
2- Commit to keeping key supply routes open to humanitarian convoys and their personnel, including through humanitarian pauses and other arrangements as needed.
3. This should include a long-term extension of the Adré crossing, agreements on the predictable and sustainable use of key roads across the front lines leading to Darfur and Kordofan, and additional crossings from South Sudan.
4. Ensuring that humanitarian actors can safely deliver assistance throughout Sudan to all civilians in need, without fear of reprisal if they provide assistance in areas controlled by third parties.
5. Ensuring safe passage for civilians to access assistance and services.
6. Allowing and facilitating a sustained UN humanitarian presence throughout the country, particularly in areas with urgent humanitarian needs, particularly in Darfur and Kordofan.
7. Restoring telecommunications services throughout Sudan.
8. Ensuring the protection of critical civilian infrastructure, particularly energy, water, and health infrastructure.
9. In some areas—particularly North Darfur and Kordofan—de-escalation measures are urgently needed to enable humanitarian actors to deliver aid.
10- Therefore, the Coalition calls on the parties to the conflict to adhere to the Jeddah declaration and to allow periods of humanitarian truce to enable the transfer of life-saving supplies to these areas, and removing obstacles to the movement of civilians away from danger.
11- The Coalition strongly emphasizes the need for full respect for international humanitarian law. This includes obligations to protect civilians, including humanitarian workers, their premises, and their property, as well as to allow and facilitate rapid and unhindered humanitarian access to all those in need.
If we were to take stock of these requirements, we would realize that the they understands what is required, but they do not tell those who obstruct their achievement “You’re at fault” and then impose the resolutions and sanctions they deserve. Alternatively, they are plotting something and trying to set the international stage for it, which I believe is the case, and there are many precedents to such a maneuver.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=7147