The United Nations and Sudan: The Way Forward?
By Zenab Ahmed
Earlier this week, Sudanese military and militia forces attacked a sit-in outside military headquarters in Khartoum, that had become a symbol of the grassroots movement against strongman Omar Al-Bashir, who was forced to resign in April, following weeks of protests. The attack followed a general strike on May 28 and 29, and meetings between Sudan’s ruling military council and some regional powers. As a result, Sudan’s democratic transition appears to have stalled, with the Sudanese military having announced that it will cancel prior agreements with protesters, and will hold elections within a year, which are likely to be procedural rather than substantive.
This week’s events in Sudan raise the question of how the United Nations should respond, particularly in light of the fact that the Trump White House has been relatively quiet on the issue, instead letting regional allies dominate the international response. Although the UN must continue to be a neutral player, it must also be more energetic in reigning in the activities of its member states. If the UN wishes to advocate for a democratic outcome in Sudan, it must recognise that some regional powers are supporting the Sudanese military in trying to minimise popular democratic gains. The UN should try to engage the broadest possible spectrum of society, when supervising a proper democratic transition, which will likely mean engaging with protest camps as a whole, rather than certain leaders within them.
As events have been unfolding, the Trump White House has been notably absent on the diplomatic stage, with the United States issuing official statements from a distance, rather than trying to energetically shape trends on the ground by lobbying the Sudanese government. It is likely that this is purposeful, and reflects the Trump administration’s tendency to leave sensitive matters up to its regional partners. When it comes to Sudan, this means the intervention of some governments in the Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC). They advised Al-Bashir to step down, in favour of a military council, and have supported that ruling council with weapons, financial assistance, and diplomatic cover. The UN thus finds itself in a difficult position, particularly given the implied approval of the United States. How should it proceed in advocating for an alternate framework, given the behaviour of its own members?
One thing is that the United Nations must call for a peaceful democratic transition, more energetically, if major powers like the United States are relatively absent from the situation. It must also accompany these calls with strong proposals for political and economic restructuring in Sudan. Indeed, although an election would be a step in the right direction, the ruling military council is calling for one specifically because it understands that more needs to be done to build a proper democracy. An election without broader pushes for redistribution of power is not likely to be a proper mechanism for self-determination, nor is it likely to meet international standards in the long run. Decades of strongman rule mean that many different parts of Sudanese society need to be redesigned, in order for a democratic renaissance to flourish, including media outlets, the police, private companies, and so on. UN institutions should engage with local leaders as well as protest camps as a whole, and apply their resources to advocating for a different approach with a list of workable objectives that can democratise the country in accordance with a set timeline.
Another issue is that the United Nations must do more to reign in the activities of its member states, or at least push them to behave in a way that is more consistent with international standards, rather than their own narrow political and economic considerations. Unfortunately, it lacks the mechanisms to adequately police this behaviour, or force changes, and larger discussions must be had about whether major reforms are needed at the UN to allow for this level of control. It should be noted that the same countries that are currently backing the Sudanese military ruling council, in its crackdown, have also been active in Libya, supporting various factions in spite of UN initiatives. These include arms deals, diplomatic cover, and other actions. The UN faces structural problems, as it relates to better coordinating its member states to achieve objectives that are beneficial to both local groups, and the international community. It must face those limitations down in an innovative manner, rallying the immense resources available in some regional powers for the fulfillment of their core values and objectives.
The United Nations should also explore new ways to speak to protest camps, as a whole, rather than only talking to certain leaders within them. This would require UN agencies to make room for grassroots forms of democracy, and new mechanisms to hear out groups of people. UN institutions must be able to interact with protest camps, in this manner, and it is essential that they do so in order to avoid certain voices being lost between civilians and the military. The most workable approach would likely be direct democracy, in open and transparent referendums on certain approaches, or public forums that can lead to the generation of new options that the UN has not itself considered. The UN should attempt to balance its own culture, which is more formal and hierarchical, with these grassroots forms that are more ‘horizontalist,’ to create a sustainable basis for post-military governance in Sudan. Indeed, it would be the best way to implement ideas, and respond to trends on the ground, in a manner that is satisfactory to the Sudanese people.
As the situation in Sudan continues to evolve, and may soon include new incidences of violence, the UN should be bold in imagining different ways of interacting with the situation. It must remember important values of self-determination, with democracy meaning more than just a procedure, when pushing for a broader political and economic restructuring of Sudanese society. Not only will this require activity by a number of UN institutions, but also, it will mean redirecting energies that are coming from member states that do not always prioritise local objectives over their own ambitions. The United Nations may need to confront member states, and direct them to alternative strategic outcomes, that are better for the Sudanese people. The UN should also try to balance more traditional forms of decision making, with different and more grassroots approaches, in order to arrive at the most ideal framework for a democratic transition. It is possible for the United Nations to turn Sudan into a success, despite its current bloodshed.
