Understanding the Call for a No-Fly Zone in Sudan
The ongoing conflict in Sudan has led to increasing calls for a no-fly zone, primarily driven by the escalating civilian casualties resulting from air strikes and the violent actions of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The concept of a no-fly zone was initially proposed by the African Union Peace and Security Council in June 2023, suggesting that Khartoum be demilitarized. This idea gained traction following Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s call for a no-fly zone over Sudan, despite his previous rejection of African mediation during the Tigray conflict.
The Civil Democratic Forces Alliance, particularly during Dr. Abdullah Hamdok's visit to Britain from October to November 2024, emphasized the need for a flight ban to protect civilians, positioning it as a priority over military intervention. A no-fly zone, as defined by international standards, prohibits military aircraft from operating in designated areas, often enforced by external military forces for humanitarian reasons. However, this measure has historically been fraught with political implications, as seen in past interventions in Iraq and Libya.
Historical Context and Challenges of No-Fly Zones
Historically, no-fly zones have been established to protect vulnerable populations, yet their implementation has often been controversial and politically charged. For instance, the no-fly zones in Iraq during the 1990s were criticized for lacking UN approval, leading to accusations of illegality. Similarly, the no-fly zone in Bosnia faced numerous violations without effective enforcement, resulting in tragic civilian casualties despite international oversight.
In the context of Sudan, the RSF has employed tactics characteristic of irregular warfare, including targeting civilians and non-military infrastructure. This shift in warfare dynamics has prompted urgent calls for protective measures. However, the effectiveness of a no-fly zone in this scenario is questionable, as it may inadvertently empower the RSF by limiting the Sudanese army's operational capabilities while failing to address the root causes of the violence.
The Current Situation and Future Implications
The Sudanese conflict has evolved into an intra-state war, with the RSF employing terror tactics against civilians, leading to widespread calls for safe zones and no-fly zones. However, the army views these proposals with skepticism, believing they may serve to consolidate the RSF’s power rather than protect civilians. The balance of power has shifted in favor of the army, which has begun to reclaim territory and resources.
Despite the humanitarian intentions behind the calls for a no-fly zone, practical challenges abound. Achieving consensus between warring parties is unlikely without a comprehensive political agreement, and securing a UN Security Council resolution is complicated by geopolitical interests and the potential for vetoes from major powers. Furthermore, historical precedents of UN missions in conflict zones raise concerns about their effectiveness and ability to protect civilians.
In conclusion, while the protection of civilians remains a paramount concern, the feasibility of a no-fly zone in Sudan is fraught with complexities. The international community must weigh the potential benefits against the historical challenges and the evolving dynamics of the conflict to determine the most effective course of action.
