columns

Welcome UNITAMS of USA to Sudan

Omer B. Abu Haraz

It is really amazing that some people, especially the ideologically oriented, are either skeptical or opposing the arrival of the UNITAMS to Sudan in response to a written request by the Prime Minister, Dr. Abdallah Hamdok to the Secretary-General of the UN.

Dr. Hamdok’s request is an acquired legal right to any member of UN.

Hamdok sent the request after assessing that there are serious and dangerous hurdles and loopholes in the path of the revolution towards full transformation to democratic civilian governance.

He based his request on Article 35 Chapter VI of the UN Charter.

The UN Charter was drafted in Sans Francesco, USA on April 1945 and signed on June 26, 1945, and finally enacted on October 24, 1945, after being ratified by 51 countries, 5 of which have the permanent membership of the Security Council i.e. America, Russia, China, UK, France (UN Charter is in 111 articles categorized into 19 Chapters).

The two most important chapters are VI and VII. Chapter VI and VII specify the role of UNSC in resolving conflicts.

Chapter VI in articles (33 – 38) and Chapter VII articles (39 – 51). Article (34) says “The Security Council may investigate any dispute or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine.

Rather, the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of International Peace and Security.”

Article (35) – VI, on which Hamdok based his request, states “Any member of UN may bring any dispute any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34 to attention of Security Council or General Assembly of UN”.

The situation in Sudan, as assessed by Dr. Hamdok and his advisors, being Sudanese or non-Sudanese, is matching the wording and essence of Articles (34) and (35) Chapter VII of UN Charter, which disavows the following precarious elements of the prevailing situation in Sudan:

  • A widening gap between the components of the revolution. Between military and civilians. A gap in the objectives, means, and democratic governance.
  • The pressure of armed groups and troops with their weapons inside the capital after the signing of the Juba Peace Agreement.
  • Prevalence of 5 or more armies and militias. The Rapid Support Forces, the troops of the armed struggle movements have allegiance to persons and not to the national army hierarchy.
  • Eruption of deadly confrontations in West Darfur which will definitely aggravated by the assassination of Chad President Idris Deby last month which gave a strong imputes to tribal insurgencies. The western borders of Sudan is a weak and vulnerable line of tribal deadly activities.
  • Disabled and poor civil service with inherited unprecedented intrigues of corruption.
  • Vast unprotected borders (8000 km) allow billions of dollars worth of subsidized commodities and dear mineral resources e.g. gold.
  • Presence of fundamentalist armed groups around Sudan.
  • An ailing economy on the verge of a collapse, which is pushing the majority of the population below the poverty line (now estimates show 70% of people are below the poverty line). Those people will soon reach the pressure point and will take to the streets in a hanger revolution.

All of the above points justify the step taken by PM Hamdok.

There is no time left to continue on the detrimental tactics of the two ideologies – Islamic and Secular. A nationalistic movement should arise to:

  • Warmly welcome UNITAMS and pave its way till they achieve the objective of a strong, respectable and safe Sudan in full democracy.
  • Welcome the enthusiastic and genuine helping hand of America to Sudan based on the bilateral equitable interests in all fronts – Security and Economic.
Back to top button