A just war concept…the feasibility of armitices
By Dr. Yasir Mahgoub Alhussain
If military battles are not resolved in a manner that clearly defines the victorious and defeated parties, any truces or agreements announced are simply a part of the ongoing conflict and a temporary ceasefire. The terms of such agreements reflect only the territorial gains of the controlling party and the points of retreat for the weaker party. Without a third-party mediator with greater executive power, the decision to end the war rests solely with the victor. Due to the mediator’s lack of power to enforce the provisions of truces and agreements, they become nothing more than empty words on paper and a public relations exercise. Even the so-called provisions of international law are akin to moral guidelines that suggest what should be done, rather than binding legal norms that oblige compliance. These provisions must extend beyond moral guidelines and coercively enforce the content of the agreements.
Perhaps the party closest to victory is not better off relying solely on their military equipment, strength, and strategy, but must also have a moral and legal basis to support their cause. In today’s war in Khartoum, it is unclear which side is fighting a just war. We cannot say it is Sudan as one party controls the rest of the country, but only that Khartoum is the battlefield between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support militia.
In his book “Fair and Unfair Wars,” American philosopher Michael Walzer (born 1935) defines “Fair War” as a war that adheres to a set of norms and regulations designed to limit violence, retaliation, and aggression against civilian populations. Other definitions of a just war also highlight the importance of a moral and legal basis that is rooted in principles of human responsibility and ethical values, rather than simply being a war of aggression or retaliation against an enemy.
The Islamic philosopher Abu Nasr Muhammad al-Farabi also emphasizes the importance of a just cause for war, as well as its moral and philosophical basis. He argues that war can only be justified when one party has been subjected to aggression and harm by another and fair to both parties and ensure that the causes of the conflict are adequately addressed to avoid being swayed by the claims of either party, it is crucial to carefully analyze the details of the situation and assess each party’s claims based on these seven criteria.
A just and fair war must have a valid reason for being waged, be a last resort after all peaceful efforts have been exhausted, be proportionate in its benefits and losses, have a level of certainty of victory, use legitimate means, respect the immunity of non-combatants, and ultimately result in a just and fair peace. It is also important to remember that the concept of a just war is rooted in principles of ethical values, human responsibility, and moral judgment, and is not intended to justify or glorify violence and aggression. The goal of a just war is to minimize harm and protect the well-being of all parties involved, not to yield to the whims of one party or the other.
During the transition period, the Sudanese army is in control of the country’s leadership. Recently, the army accused a military party subordinate to it of coordinating with external parties to seize power by force. This military party allegedly attempted to justify their actions by making political allegations, which the army claims were unfounded. The army demonstrated its claim by showing military movements and repositioning of the Rapid Support Militias prior to the war, without the required notification to the army command. Furthermore, the militia commander had recorded a statement that he planned to broadcast after a successful coup. This statement was leaked and made public in the media and on social media. The surprise attack on the army commander’s headquarters was followed by simultaneous attacks on army forces in a number of strategic locations, triggering a war.
The ongoing evidence gathered from the facts on the ground indicates that civilians are being attacked, intimidated, and robbed of their belongings. Additionally, hospitals are being occupied, and military posts are being used. This has led to chaos and rampant looting, especially since militia forces have purposely released around 14,000 prisoners and detainees who have committed serious offenses, including the deliberate opening of several prisons.
The recent truce declaration theoretically included breaks and silences as required, along with a promise to protect medical personnel and refrain from enlisting children. Moreover, it allows for speedy humanitarian aid and firmly commits to Sudan’s unity and sovereignty. The provisions of the agreement center on respecting human rights, protecting them, and fulfilling humanitarian obligations according to international humanitarian law. The Sudanese army has continuously committed to this obligation.
The agreement was surprising because it did not aim to stop hostilities, but instead aimed to briefly ease the ceasefire to allow for humanitarian aid. This agreement allowed the party leading a just war to continue fighting towards their objectives. Some observers believe that the agreement is a reference document, highlighting the war crimes committed by the Rapid Support militia, including using civilians as human shields and turning residential areas into military strongholds. The military is particularly concerned about the use of humanitarian aid as an intelligence cover by foreign countries with potentially hostile agendas. Such organizations are often suspected of gathering information, fabricating reports, and spreading propaganda. Consequently, these organizations must be monitored and accompanied to prevent them from benefitting the rebel militia.