Articles and Analysies
Sudan Vision Carries Out a Survey on Pros and Cons of Humanitarian Aid in Sudan By: Al-Sammani Awadallah
By [unknown placeholder $article.art_field1$]
Feb 26, 2007 - 8:35:03 PM

  Sudan Vision Carries Out a Survey on Pros and Cons of Humanitarian Aid in Sudan

By: Al-Sammani Awadallah
The International Humanitarian Aid organizations have become instruments of neo-colonial powers that focus on the resources of those countries which internal conditions compel to accept their aid. Nowadays the intervention on Sudan ’s internal affairs comes under various names and forms such as humanitarian aid, military protection, human rights protection and so forth. Sudan has recently been subjected to such intervention in South Sudan, Darfur and Eastern Sudan .

Sudan Vision has carried out a survey with specialists in humanitarian work, law experts and observers on the pros and cons of the international humanitarian intervention.
Director of German-based Friedrich Ebert Foundation,
Sudan , Dr. Abd Al-Rahim Bilal, perceives that, the international humanitarian intervention has many forms. It may well be in the form of humanitarian aid, military protection and peace-keeping troops. That intervention stemmed from global geographical and political circumstances that led to Espalier Agreement 1660. Consequently the countries national geographical boarders’ notion literally vanished as long as there were crises or conflicts that would affect the international peace and security.
He went on to say that some kinds of intervention lead to peace known as “
Peace Building and Protection”. This kind leads to peace agreements as was the case in Naivasha. Peace requires protection as was the case in South Sudan .
He further explained that humanitarian intervention has started in Sudan ever since the transfer of Old Halfa people to New Halfa where the UN intervened through the WFP which provides accommodation and feeding to students programmes and the displaced people.
UNICEF’s Operation Lifeline
Sudan which started in Sudan in 1989 to handle the 1988-89 drought was an international humanitarian intervention. Moreover, stepped up military operations in South Sudan led to famine in Bahr Al-Ghazal region and that moved Sudan Government to call in the Red Crescent and the UN stepped in to provide aid for outlaws holding arms against the regime. The intervention was in favour of the affected civilians excluding support to the military operations.
According to Bilal, though the intervention was humanitarian, the national sovereignty has been compromised as some NGOs and individual foreigners capitalized on the UN humanitarian operations presence and penetrated into the rebel territories without Sudan Government notification and consent. Nevertheless, the international community labels its intervention in
Sudan as humanitarian and not a violation of Sudan ’s sovereignty. It further presumes that the UN was authorized to intervene and the notion of sovereignty was irrelevant.
The Director quoted examples from
Darfur where some NGOs supposedly engaged in environment and relief works have transformed their activities into human rights work. 
Bilal believes that most of those organizations’ budgets were expended on organizations’ administrative affairs rather than spent in favour of the vulnerable people. Surprisingly, he affirmed that the settlement of conflicts is against the interests of the humanitarian organization as they only become operative during crisis and their interests in favour of the continuity of those crises.
Humanitarian Affaires Former Minister,
Ibrahim Mahmoud Hamid :
Hamid said that the international humanitarian intervention in
Sudan has become very apparent, presuming that intervention jeopardizes sovereignty.  He added that,” however, we can’t say that Sudan has waived its sovereignty to the humanitarian organizations” saying.” But Sudan lives in a world where the supreme powers conspire against, and intervenes in, the affairs of the weak countries using the international law. We see today one-poled supreme power freely dictating its programmes on the others without consent”.
The Law Scholar and Parliamentarian,
Dr Ismail Haj Mousa:
Sudan has become part of a world where the geographical boarders collapsed due to the huge technological revolution and as such no single State can live shieled. “We, in Sudan , would accept foreign parties’ work if that work, be it humanitarian work, cessation of hostilities monitoring or whatsoever, has been governed by specific terms and conditions, and those foreign parties committed themselves to the setout terms and conditions.” He continued that “When we sensed that their intervention has contravened the agreed upon conditions and would adversely affect our sovereignty and free will, we will rightfully terminate that intervention”
Mousa believes that
Sudan did not waive its sovereignty by accepting the humanitarian intervention and the Government will not permit any violation to any predetermined scope of work. .
According to Mousa the intervention in
Iraq and Sudan were incomparable as that of Iraq was a forceful one.
South Darfur Governor:
Haj Atta Al-Manan commented that, “Though some organizations transcended the setout humanitarian work limits, I guess there was no unauthorized intervention in Darfur as the Government has called on the International Community to provide aid and opened the door for those organizations to step in.”  Those organizations’ work, he added, has been governed by the domestic humanitarian work Act, and in accordance with National Technical Agreements, and any organizations that might violate their agreement with the Government would face contract termination, as were the cases with NRC, IRC and CARE.
The Governor revealed that more than 50 foreign and 70 national organizations were operative in South Darfur . Those organizations use over 85% of their funds on their administrative work. According to him, contrary to the international community’s perspective, those humanitarian organizations do not like to see an end to Darfur crisis. 

© Copyright by