The Russian veto to cancel the British project and the divergent views are an indication of the lack of consensus of the international community regarding Sudan ✍️ Hisham Mahmoud Suleiman, the former secretary general of human rights.
This question reflects a renewed dialectic in international politics, where double standards play an important role in dealing with international issues, particularly in regional crises and conflicts. The Russian veto of the British draft resolution indicates an escalation of differences between the major powers over how to deal with sensitive issues. questions, notably the Sudanese question.
The Sudanese issue is a clear example of how major countries use humanitarian and noble principles to defend their interests. We see that the United States and European Union countries are viewing the Sudanese crisis not only from a humanitarian perspective, but also from a geopolitical perspective. interests and competition with other powers such as Russia and China.
Double standards arise when the focus is on a specific crisis
While ignoring similar or more serious crises based on political interests, for example, interventions in Sudan are often aimed at achieving strategic goals such as controlling natural resources or strengthening influence in the region, and crisis is not necessarily resolved in a fair and comprehensive manner.
Therefore, approaching the Sudanese issue from a purely political perspective makes the proposed solutions incomplete and unsustainable and increases the suffering of the Sudanese people. It is important that major countries are aware that international justice must be equal and not subject to political considerations. otherwise the world will experience more tension and conflict.
Double standards in handling the Sudanese issue are evident in the positions of some international powers who turn a blind eye to the obvious transgressions of some parties, notably the Rapid Support Forces, and to the role of countries like the Emirates United Arabs, because these parties are linked to the political and economic interests of major countries, as follows:
Rapid Support Violations
The Rapid Support Forces, which rebelled against the state under the leadership of Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo Hemedti, committed numerous human rights violations, including
1. Attacks on civilians
During the conflict in Darfur and the events of the current conflict, Rapid Support was involved in launching attacks on residential areas, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians, the looting of properties and the commission of serious violations.
2. Sexual assaults and kidnappings: –
Cases of mass rapes and kidnappings of women and children have been documented in areas controlled by the Rapid Support Forces.
3. Recruitment of children:-
Several reports indicate that the Rapid Support Forces recruited children and forced them to fight in their ranks.
4. Undermining the State:-
Instead of contributing to the stability of Sudan, the RSF engaged in armed clashes with the Sudanese army, which exacerbated the crisis.
The role of the Emirates and the ignorance of the violations: –
The United Arab Emirates is one of the countries that maintains close relations with the Rapid Support Forces. Some reports indicate that the UAE has provided financial and logistical support to the Rapid Support Forces due to its strategic interests in Sudan and the region.
1. Support mercenaries:-
The UAE has used the Rapid Support Forces as a source of mercenaries in other regional conflicts, such as the war in Yemen, where thousands of Sudanese troops were reportedly sent with UAE support.
2. Looting Resources:-
The UAE facilitates the export of Sudanese gold through illegal channels in cooperation with the Rapid Support Forces, which helps finance the military operations of these forces.
3. Ignore transgressions:
Despite gross human rights violations, the UAE maintains a stance of support for the Rapid Support Forces, ignoring international calls to impose sanctions on the parties responsible for these atrocities.
Double international standards: –
Western countries, led by the United States and the European Union, have not taken a firm stance on violations of rapid support or the UAE's role in Sudan:
1. His criticism focuses on other parties, such as the Sudanese army, despite the involvement of the rebel Rapid Support Forces in the crisis.
2. It seeks political and economic gains in Sudan, ignoring human rights violations
3. It proposes partial and not global solutions aimed at maintaining the balance between international interests rather than radically resolving the crisis
Other Examples of Eye Closing
Economic relations with the UAE, as a strategic partner in the region, make major powers reluctant to take firm action regarding their practices in Sudan.
Conclusion:-
Double standards hamper any effort to achieve justice in Sudan. Condoning the violations committed by the Rapid Support Forces and the role of the UAE clearly demonstrates that political and economic interests take precedence over human rights considerations. To achieve justice, there must be equal international pressure on all. stakeholders, with a focus on the protection of civilians in Sudan.
Hisham Mahmoud Suleiman
