Geneva must finally face Sudan

Five countries finally break the silence

Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom have called for an emergency meeting of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva to address the Sudanese crisis, as the city of el-Obeid faces an intensified siege by the Rapid Support Forces.

I welcome this initiative, but I refuse to celebrate it unreservedly: it comes after months of near-total indifference toward a country collapsing before our eyes, a silence that should trouble anyone who claims to care about the consistent defense of human rights.

Why this editorial now

Roughly 500,000 civilians are now under threat in el-Obeid, according to Al Jazeera's coverage. The el-Fasher precedent, where documented atrocities followed the RSF's capture of the city, gives this Geneva meeting an urgency I refuse to downplay.

It is precisely because the worst is still avoidable that this editorial demands action, not just a statement, and precisely because words alone have already failed once in el-Fasher that they cannot be allowed to fail a second time in el-Obeid.

An implicit admission of collective failure

The simple fact that five Western countries deem it necessary to force a special session of the Human Rights Council reveals, implicitly, the failure of the ordinary mechanisms for monitoring the Sudanese crisis since the conflict began in April 2023.

This admission, even an implicit one, deserves to be underlined: existing instruments were not enough to prevent the fall of el-Fasher nor the atrocities that followed, and no amount of diplomatic language can retroactively undo that failure.

A narrow but real window

Unlike el-Fasher, where the alarm came too late, the situation in el-Obeid is being documented in real time. This emergency meeting therefore still has an open window for action, provided it leads to something more than another statement.

It is this difference in timing that, in my view, makes this diplomatic initiative potentially decisive, if it is followed by concrete effects.

Facts that leave no more room for doubt

The Sudanese Doctors Network documented the detention of 20 doctors by the RSF after the fall of el-Fasher, and a UN report published in February warned of a risk of war crimes, describing violence "shocking in its scale and brutality."

These facts, corroborated by several independent sources, leave no room for reasonable doubt about the nature of the abuses committed by the paramilitary militia led by Hemedti, nor about the scale of what a similar campaign could inflict on el-Obeid.

A repetition that would be unforgivable

If el-Obeid were to meet the same fate as el-Fasher after the international community had access to all this documented information in advance, this repetition would constitute a collective moral failure of a severity rarely reached in the recent history of humanitarian crises.

It is this responsibility of knowing in advance that distinguishes ordinary negligence from a truly unforgivable failing.

A moral consistency to own

I unambiguously support Western backing for Ukraine against Vladimir Putin's Russian aggression. But that conviction is precisely what obliges me to demand the same vigilance toward Sudan, on pain of hollowing out the very principle of universal human rights defense.

A Human Rights Council that acts quickly for some crises and slowly for others would lose all long-term moral credibility, and would hand every authoritarian regime a convenient argument to dismiss human rights language as pure hypocrisy.

The risk of compassion fatigue

The multiplication of simultaneous global crises — Ukraine, the Middle East, Sudan — feeds a form of compassion fatigue among the Western public, sometimes exploited by certain governments to justify their selective inaction.

This fatigue must never become an acceptable excuse for abandoning a population of 500,000 civilians to their fate, however understandable the exhaustion of Western publics facing so many simultaneous emergencies may be.

Beyond mere verbal condemnation

A verbal condemnation of the RSF, however firm, will not protect a single additional civilian in el-Obeid. The Human Rights Council must consider concrete mechanisms: independent investigators on the ground, protected humanitarian corridors, and coordinated pressure on the militia's external financing networks.

Without these concrete measures, this emergency meeting risks reproducing the ineffectiveness already seen before the fall of el-Fasher, turning a genuine opportunity into yet another symbolic gathering with no lasting consequence on the ground.

The need for sustained follow-up

A special session is only worthwhile if it comes with a regular follow-up mechanism, able to maintain diplomatic pressure on the RSF and their presumed outside backers, long after the cameras have turned away from el-Obeid.

It is this consistency, more than the spotlight of a single meeting, that will determine whether Geneva truly made a difference for Sudan.

A duty that goes beyond charity

The Western countries that pushed for this emergency meeting request, including the United Kingdom and Germany, bear a responsibility that goes beyond a simple humanitarian gesture: they hold the diplomatic and financial levers needed to genuinely influence the course of the Sudanese conflict.

This responsibility means going beyond statements to consider targeted sanctions against the networks that arm and finance the RSF, and to use every economic and diplomatic tool available rather than treating condemnation as the endpoint of engagement.

The credibility test for the West

How can we demand that Russia respect international law in Ukraine if the West itself applies that law selectively elsewhere in the world? This uncomfortable question deserves an honest answer from our leaders.

Sudan has become, whether we like it or not, a test of moral consistency for Western democracies as a whole.

A notable absence

Neither China nor Russia backed this request for an emergency meeting on Sudan, two powers that nonetheless sit on the UN Security Council and hold real influence over certain regional actors involved in the Sudanese conflict. This silence is not trivial.

It is a reminder, once again, of the structural difficulty the multilateral system faces in acting quickly when diverging geopolitical interests clash within the very bodies meant to protect civilians.

A lesson for the post-war period in Ukraine

How the Human Rights Council handles the Sudanese crisis also offers an instructive precedent for how the international community will one day need to handle accountability for the crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine.

If multilateral mechanisms fail in Sudan, it will be harder to convince public opinion that they will work better elsewhere, including against Vladimir Putin.

Citizen pressure as leverage

Beyond foreign ministries, the pressure of Western public opinion remains an underestimated lever for pushing governments to turn this emergency meeting into concrete actions rather than a mere diplomatic show.

Citizens who demanded stronger support for Ukraine against Putin hold the same legitimacy to demand comparable attention for Sudan and its 500,000 civilians threatened in el-Obeid.

The role of independent media

Sustained media coverage, like that provided by Al Jazeera and Deutsche Welle, remains essential to keep up pressure on Western governments and prevent Sudan from fading back into media obscurity once the Geneva meeting ends.

It is also the role of independent columnists like me to refuse that return to obscurity, article after article, as long as the crisis remains unresolved.

An opportunity not to be wasted

This emergency meeting in Geneva represents a rare opportunity to act before, not after, a new humanitarian tragedy in Sudan. The Human Rights Council holds in its hands the information needed to avoid repeating the mistake made with el-Fasher.

Wasting this opportunity would amount to betraying the very fundamental mission of this multilateral institution.

What history will remember

In a few months, history will judge whether this special session helped avert an announced catastrophe in el-Obeid, or whether it was just another diplomatic note in the dusty archives of missed opportunities.

For my part, I choose to hope this time will be different, while refusing to lower my guard until concrete actions have followed the words.

Sudan does not need new verbal compassion from Western capitals; it needs concrete, funded, and sustained decisions. That is the only measure that will matter when judging, in a few months, whether Geneva truly made a real and lasting difference for the residents of el-Obeid and for an entire Sudanese country on the edge of a humanitarian abyss.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.