Ending a war by embracing innocence

In Sudan, agreements by armed factions to facilitate humanitarian aid lead to new dialogue on ending a violent conflict.

|
Reuters
In North Darfur, Sudan, a woman and a baby receive help at a camp with an estimated 400,000 displaced people.

Sometimes the worst wars start to end with the quiet acquiescence of their combatants. That may be the case now in Sudan where civilians have endured 16 months of a violent civil war.

Last week, talks to end the war began in Switzerland, but only one of the two warring factions showed up. By the weekend, however, each side had taken a critical step. The armed group attending the talks agreed to enable the delivery of emergency aid to parts of the East African country where hundreds of thousands of people are at risk of starvation. About the same time, and seemingly independently, the other faction opened a vital border crossing for the same purpose.

The mutual acknowledgment of the need to protect innocent life may have opened a door to solving one of the world’s gravest crises. The two sides, led by rival generals who once conspired to overthrow Sudan’s last civilian government, have now sent delegations for talks in Cairo on Tuesday – even as diplomacy continues in Geneva.

“These constructive decisions by both parties will enable the entry of aid needed to stop the famine, address food insecurity and respond to immense humanitarian needs,” international mediators in Geneva said in a joint statement.

The Cairo meeting is now “a crucial step in rebuilding trust and finding common ground between the warring parties,” the Arabian Post editorial board observed. “This latest effort could pave the way for a more stable and peaceful Sudan.”

International humanitarian law is anchored by the Fourth Geneva Convention, which requires that in warfare, “persons taking no active part in the hostilities ... shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.” Recent trends in conflict resolution, the International Committee of the Red Cross noted, have shown that protecting innocent civilians from harm “can have an impact on the success of peace negotiations and agreements, as well as on the chances for post-conflict reconciliation.”

Humanitarian gestures, the ICRC observed, helped the Colombian government build trust with guerrilla factions and strengthen compliance with a 2016 peace accord. More recently, two armed groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo signed a mutual pledge in March to respect and protect civilians caught in the vast African country’s fragmented wars. The agreement followed training courses led by international humanitarian experts. As the leaders of one of the factions told The Associated Press, “Now, we feel – we can see – there’s a change on the ground, and so we can’t let ourselves do whatever we want anymore.”

Since the outbreak of the civil war in Sudan in April 2023, humanitarian aid workers and international peace groups have sought to reduce the use of sexual violence, recruitment of child soldiers, and starvation as tools of war by educating armed groups in humanitarian law. Such efforts reinforce that harming civilians should not be dismissed as “mere unintended consequences of war,” said Christina Markus Lassen, Denmark’s representative to the United Nations Security Council, in a debate on Sudan in May.

Cultivating empathy among belligerents has opened new corridors for much-needed aid to Sudan’s distressed population. Its more enduring effect may be a lasting peace forged by a deeper valuing of innocence.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Ending a war by embracing innocence
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2024/0820/Ending-a-war-by-embracing-innocence
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe