Time for action: Envisioning a new approach to civilian safety in Sudan

Amgad Fareid Eltayeb

Standfirst: As warring parties squabble over empty verbal commitments, civilian protection in Sudan has taken a backseat. European governments should urgently prioritise the safety of Sudanese civilians
Pullquote: The existing framework of negotiations, which positions a ceasefire as a prerequisite for intervening to protect civilians, is fundamentally misguided. While crucial, a ceasefire is a tool, not a condition, to achieve protection of those in danger
Text:
In one year and a half of war, the ongoing conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia has taken a staggering humanitarian toll: more than 150,000 civilian casualties, over 12.7 million displaced (2.8 million of which taking refuge outside the country), and over 25 million facing acute levels of food insecurity.
Recent negotiation efforts seem to have had the same fate as the 2023 Jeddah Declaration for the Protection of Civilians: too many words and too little action.
As the RSF participated in the ten-day US-mediated talks held in Switzerland in August, its attacks killed 650 civilians, bombarded three major hospitals and a humanitarian supply warehouse near Zamzam camp for internally displaced people (IDPs) in north Darfur, and destroying the only ambulance serving over 500,000 IDPs. The mediators not only overlooked this but the US special envoy to Sudan, during a meeting in Cairo with Sudanese youth, praised the RSF for committing to a code of conduct during the talks.
Meanwhile, the SAF pulled out of the talks, demanding foreign guarantors and mediators to pressure the RSF into meeting pre-made obligations, such as evacuating civilian premises and citizens houses – even as it fails to impose similar commitments on itself. The inherited entrenched behaviour of security agencies, along with the heightened tensions from war, have resulted in numerous violations against civilians with minimal oversight or accountability.
As parties wrangle over verbal commitments that ultimately go unfulfilled, civilian protection is sidelined. At this critical juncture, ensuring the safety of civilians should be an overriding priority for the international community, including for Europe. The European Union has been the primary humanitarian donor to Sudan since the war’s outbreak and has maintained a largely neutral stance. However, given the high levels of displacement posing a significant risk of exacerbating Europe’s migration challenges, a more proactive approach is warranted.
The existing framework of negotiations, which positions a ceasefire as a prerequisite for intervening to protect civilians, is fundamentally misguided. While a ceasefire is important, it is a tool, not a condition, to protect those in danger.
A recent report by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) unequivocally concludes that Sudanese civilians consistently face extraordinary threats, such as widespread sexual violence, arbitrary arrests, torture, and ethnic targeting. While the report notes violations of international law from both sides, the majority are attributed to the RSF. The UNHRC calls for the formation of an independent force to protect civilians and ensure safe access to humanitarian aid. However, given the current international climate, especially with the paralysis of the Security Council, deploying peacekeeping or peace-making missions with troops on the ground would be incredibly challenging.
Initiation of such missions raises distracting and time-consuming discussions about sovereignty, consent of de facto authorities, and cultural sensitivities. Besides, the lack of trust between the Sudanese government and the UN system, particularly after the termination of UNITAMS mission, could delay such deployment. A mission that could effectively cover the vast conflict zone in Sudan could be also too costly, diverting resources that could be better used to address civilians’ more pressing humanitarian needs. Also, the track record of such missions’ in protecting civilians is questionable, especially in complex conflicts with deep-rooted social divisions such as Sudan’s.
The discussion surrounding UNSC resolution 2736, which calls for the UN secretary-general to propose additional measures for civilian protection in Sudan, is a valuable opportunity to advance this goal.
The EU and European states should must seriously consider practical proposals to address civilian safety in Sudan. Here are a few examples:
Redefining protection: Civilian protection requires a broader definition that goes beyond mere physical safety and includes provision of basic services, such as healthcare, water, education, and communication. This expanded definition helps mitigate the war’s disastrous effects and encourages political buy-in from Sudan’s government, which holds the primary responsibility for civilian protection.
Protection in government-controlled areas:
Monitoring mechanisms: Sudanese and international civil society and human rights organisations, along with Sudanese government agencies, should establish a monitoring mechanism to report, verify, and resolve violations in government-controlled areas. There have been numerous reports of detention, torture, and extrajudicial killings of civilians by official entities. Timely reporting could ensure speedy resolution or, at the very least, due legal process for each case. Audits, public reporting, and visible enforcement could help deter future violations.
Protection in active fighting areas:
Demarcated green zones: Civilians urgently need demarcated green zones that function as safe havens, where they can maintain normal livelihoods and access essential services. These zones should also contribute to the economic preservation of the country by fostering agricultural and economic activity. Green zones should be demarcated based on criteria set forth by development partners and humanitarian organisations, not by the two warring sides. Criteria should consider housing capacity, infrastructure for providing social services, and potential economic benefits. Moreover, they should be strategically located to facilitate the delivery of aid. For example, a five-kilometre green zone around Obaid airport could include the airport, the market, and residential areas. The establishment of these zones needs meticulous planning and coordination, involving local communities, humanitarian actors, and international partners.
Joint monitoring mechanism with “eyes in the sky”: A joint monitoring mechanism involving both warring parties and a neutral third party is essential for the protection of green zones. Satellite-monitoring can provide real-time notifications to the joint monitoring body, enabling continuous surveillance of potential threats. The joint monitoring body can convene in response to escalating threats and demand the responsible party to withdraw forces or, as a last resort, authorise a defensive military action to protect civilians within the zone. Eyes in the sky can be more effective than boots on the ground as an initial step for civilian protection in Sudan. Satellite monitoring provides several advantages, including the ability to cover vast areas, operate continuously, and offer objective data that can be used to verify compliance with agreements.
An international and regional civilian support mission: An international civilian support mission should provide comprehensive technical support in green zones, ensuring service delivery and maintaining law and order. The mission should support the provision of services like healthcare, education and communication. It should also include a police component to ensure law enforcement within the green zones. This police force should be composed of trained personnel working in coordination with local law enforcement groups and community police. The mission could be vital in preserving Sudan’s state apparatus, ensuring essential services and utilities are delivered to civilians, preventing further disintegration and strengthening state institutions’ capacity to withstand conflict.

The dire situation in Sudan demands immediate action. Intervention needs to start urgently and enhance incrementally, with Europe and the international community playing a key role. The paralysis of the Security Council is no excuse for inaction. Protection of civilians is a vital necessity for millions of Sudanese people as well as a fundamental moral and legal obligation.