International military intervention in Sudan is now the chief hope of the long-suffering population to stop the fighting between the state army and the Rapid Support Forces militia (RSF). At the very least, many Sudanese are calling for foreign forces to help protect civilians from the relentless violence, even if the war itself cannot be ended.
But seemingly at every turn, international attempts to resolve the crisis and achieve peace through negotiations have been met by the warring factions' stubborn refusal to compromise.
In normal circumstances, a nation's sovereignty is inviolable. But when governments themselves violate the rights of their people – and when armed groups created by those in power fight over territory and influence – the concept of sovereignty shifts; warring factions weaponise it to their advantage.
Three scenarios
With peace talks in Geneva stalled and a ceasefire not yet agreed upon, Sudan faces three possible scenarios. The first is the continuation of war, the second is a divided Sudan— especially as the RSF now controls much of the country's west—and the third is what so many in the country want: international intervention to protect civilians.
Governments are no longer the sole arbiters in deciding whether to accept or reject international intervention. In many cases, it is imposed to help the people who are suffering. This type of action has increasingly been taken in flashpoints around the world. Sudan now almost fully meets the criteria for relief. It is dealing with a full-scale humanitarian disaster.
The Geneva talks led to the formation of a new international alliance with an apt name: United to Save Lives in Sudan. It reflects the scale of the crisis unfolding in the country. Aid efforts have shifted from providing assistance to saving lives.
