The Worldwide Responsibility to End Hostilities in Sudan

By: Brooke Blosser

Since April 2023, the Sudanese Civil War has been creating a humanitarian disaster. Sudan is currently facing “one of the worst humanitarian nightmares in recent history”, while much of the focus of the rest of the world is on other geopolitical issues. Due to dwindling global aid, The United States and other world leaders should take a more decisive stand on the war in Sudan, and commit to ending the humanitarian crisis and promoting democracy within the country.

The Sudanese Civil War is a consequence of political regime changes in Sudan over the past thirty years, most of which have come through violent military coups. Thus, political violence has been the norm in Sudan, and the country has had a difficult time achieving democratic stability. These trends set the stage for the power struggle between two factions of the Sudanese military: the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group. These two groups worked together in 2019 and 2021 to carry out a coup and consolidate their power. However, questions of how the groups would work together led to a power struggle, and ultimately, the outbreak of the Civil War. The difference between this conflict and past conflicts in Sudan is that both groups are recognized by the government - neither of them can be considered rebels. With the fighting not expected to end anytime soon, the humanitarian situation can only grow worse.

The UN reports that 12,000 Sudanese have been killed and eight million have been displaced. It is difficult for children to attend school and hunger is widespread, with 90 percent of the population facing food insecurity. Additionally, the Civil War has internally and externally displaced millions, adding to the instability both within Sudan and the Horn of Africa region. Refugees in surrounding countries like Chad and South Sudan are straining the already precarious economic systems, and compounding upon existing infrastructure issues in those countries. This crisis is currently one of the worst humanitarian issues in the world, and international organizations and world leaders need to step up to assist with ensuring humanitarian assistance reaches the people of Sudan.

Aside from assisting with humanitarian needs, organizations like the United Nations and world leaders, like the United States, must assist with brokering a peace, or, at the very least, a ceasefire to ensure protections. Aside from the obvious need to end the war for humanitarian reasons, the United States has a strategic interest in ending hostilities. If Sudan fails to return to peace, the country will become a breeding ground and safe haven for terrorist organizations. Additionally, when more migrants are forced to resettle in neighboring states, instability could spread and incite greater violence in the region and create even more space for terrorism to grow. However, even with these high stakes, no country or organization has been able to foster productive peace talks. One set of talks, organized by Saudi Arabia and the United States, fell apart due to disagreements between the Saudis and Americans. This is unacceptable, both for the citizens of Sudan stuck in a humanitarian crisis, and the world at large under the threat of terrorism.

However, it would be beneficial for both sides to explore peace: the RSF remains unpopular with the Sudanese people, while the SAF struggles to maintain order in an increasingly disorganized military structure. The incentives to pursue peace exist, both for actors in Sudan and around the world. The United Nations and other influential world leaders need to step up and provide areas for mediation to end the hostilities and protect the people in Sudan from a terrible humanitarian crisis. Additionally, the world must be committed to continuing this support through assisting with peaceful transitions of power and other democratizing measures in Sudan. Creating a culture of a peaceful democracy, which is a popular idea with the Sudanese, should not be undertaken with a goal of creating a “Western” democracy. Rather, the world should work with Sudan to create a peaceful democracy on their terms, not ours. By taking into account Sudanese culture, the world can assist with creating a lasting democracy that protects the Sudanese people from humanitarian crises, and the world from terrorists growing within their borders.

India’s Ram Mandir Consecration Is Not to Be Celebrated, But Mourned

By : Vaidehi Bhardwaj

The Ram Mandir has revealed the Modi government as an authoritarian monstrosity, yet we remain blissfully blind. 

Young men pelting passing cars with sticks and stones- going so far as to slash tires. People being dragged out of buildings and beaten in the streets. Homes bulldozed, women groped and harassed, cemeteries set ablaze by violent mobs. Could this be Germany in the thirties? A scene from Rwanda in the mid-nineties?

This is India in 2024.

Days after the consecration of the sacred Ram Mandir (Temple of Ram) in Ayodhya, violent mobs of young men trawled the streets in seven different states, chanting “Jai Sri Ram” (Praise Lord Ram) and attacking Muslim minority communities. According to supporters of the temple, Ayodhya is the “janmabhoomi,” or birthplace, of Lord Ram, one of the most prominent gods in Hindu polytheistic tradition. Some historians claim to have pinpointed the exact spot upon which Lord Ram was born- a place where, coincidentally, a Muslim mosque erected during the Mughal occupation of India stood. Evidence for this claim is scant and disputed, but the BJP government has claimed a temple built on the site will mend historical grievances from the Mughal occupation, and pave a new era of cooperation between Hindus and Muslims in the country.

Maybe the mobs wreaking havoc across India didn’t get the memo- they tore down storefronts without saffron-colored flags, a symbol of Hinduism, and those hosting Muslim symbols or Arabic writing. They cornered women and men alike on the streets and asked them to chant Hindu hymns, beating them if they refused. Mobs pasted banners with Hindu symbols onto Christian and Catholic churches. Opposition leaders from minority communities and parties received threats in-person and on social media. Amidst the chaos, Prime Minister Narendra Modi lauded the temple as a beacon for a brighter future and the end of a “historical knot” of contention between Hindus and Muslims. Ironically, neither Modi nor his party, the Bharatiya Janata (BJP) addressed the clearly religiously-motivated violence- in fact, several key BJP politicians stoked it, saying they “very well know what needs to be done.” 

This is not the Modi government’s first foray into authoritative fascism. In fact, discriminatory and divisive actions have slowly but surely become the norm in India since 2002, with the Gujarat Riots under Modi, then Chief Minister. It has continued to a crescendo in recent years- in 2019, the BJP introduced a law allowing Indian asylum for all citizens except Muslim ones of neighboring countries- a law that is set to go into effect this year, preceding elections. Anti-conversion laws in several BJP-ruled states prevent religious conversion without prior approval from the government. Education is not spared either: chapters on minority and lower-caste struggles for rights, and diversity in democracy, have been quietly removed from high school textbooks. The government has replaced mentions of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister and famous secularist, with those of V.D. Savarkar, the creator of militant Hindutva (Hindu supremacy). Periodic crackdowns on the Internet, healthcare, and public gatherings have also become terrifyingly commonplace. Free speech and expression no longer exist- the Modi government used a series of peaceful protests in January 2020 to impose draconian restrictions on news agencies.Furthermore, the government deleted over a thousand Twitter accounts, ordered a complete Internet shutdown, and imprisoned activists on baseless charges for extended periods of time. Activists and academics are consistently harassed and threatened by authorities and laypeople both. Any kind of dissent is instantly painted as anti-Indian: Modi himself deemed Punjabi farmers peacefully protesting new agriculture laws as Khalistani separatists and “parasites.” Is it any surprise, then, that Hindu militant nationalists feel comfortable visiting such open violence upon minority communities? After all, Modi and the BJP clearly built the foundations- signaling that minority religious and political groups are somehow dangerous, un-Indian, and undeserving of rights and respect.

And yet, Hindus around the world rejoice at another supposed “win” for their religion and their country through the consecration of the Ram Mandir. They take to the streets and celebrate in parties, in parades, or in Tesla caravans. They choose to forget that the Ram Mandir is built precisely on top of the ruins of the Babri Masjid, a Muslim mosque abandoned by the local Muslim population after Hindutva sentiments made it too dangerous to worship there. The mosque was eventually torn down in 1992 by militant Hindu nationalists. They choose not to hear the leading Hindu scholars of the country decrying the temple as a politicized sham. They turn a blind eye to the civil rights and liberties disappearing as a result of their actions. They are perfectly content labeling those who raise concerns about their glee as “not Hindu enough,” “playing appeasement politics,” “separatist,” “Marxist”- as other. 

“The NRI population that is supporting that majoritarian project…basically they’re supporting a coming genocide,” says UVA Professor of History Indrani Chatterjee. “In every riot since 2002, Muslim middle classes have lost their business, shops and properties and are either killed- as in the Gulbarg Society Massacre- or completely and permanently displaced. So that’s what’s effectively happening. That’s terrifying. That same kind of violence is being visited by means of bulldozers that are sent to demolish shrines, mosques and hutments of the working poor among Muslims living in Delhi suburbs. It’s a clear step-by-step ethnic cleansing that’s happening. Nobody is going to call it that.”

After all, this is the true genius of Modi and his ilk- not their success at governing (which has been minimal), but their fearsome ability to exploit religious, ethnic, and caste differences that have existed in India from time immemorial. With one hand, they point to the sky and proclaim unity and progress for all Indians- while with the other, they quietly continue to tear apart the seams that hold an immensely diverse and populous India together.

The Ram Mandir is not cause for celebration. It is not a success for “historically marginalized” Hindus, nor is it a step in reclaiming Indian heritage. It is no pushback against Mughal colonization, or a new era of “Ram Rajya” (just and ethical governance). We must recognize the Ram Mandir for what it is- another discreet, devastating attack against one of the minority groups Modi and the BJP have demonized, and an inexcusably unapologetic marriage of religion and the political state. We must mourn the Ram Mandir project- it is nothing but another death knell for Indian democracy.

A Return to Cold War Nuclear Deterrence?

By: Alexander Macturk

Early this month, Chief National Security Correspondent for CNN Jim Sciutto reported that senior Biden administration officials began “prepping rigorously” for a potential Russian nuclear strike in Ukraine. Sciutto’s report mirrors the unsettling trend of states with nuclear arsenals levying similar threats. North Korea’s Kim Jong Un welcomed the New Year with an order to “thoroughly annihilate” the United States and South Korea if attacked. Iran’s technological advancements have lowered the development time required to weaponize its nuclear research. Coupled with the instability in the region, prompted by the October 7 Hamas terrorist attack, Iran is worryingly poised to build its nuclear stockpile. 

Despite this, the validity of such threats and likelihood of nuclear proliferation remain unclear. Nonetheless, the U.S has exited its post-Cold War bliss and reentered a new period where  nuclear deterrence is no longer a theoretical strategic issue. In fact, the risk of use of nuclear weapons in combat is rising. Therefore, the national security community requires a strict reexamination of the doctrine of nuclear deterrence, its application in the post-Cold War world, and a path forward.

For the U.S, the way to address nuclear deterrence varies between military and political leaders. Admiral Charles Richard, former Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, has stressed American policymakers’ retreat from their myopia and sober realization that nuclear deterrence has always been integral to strategic deterrence. He emphasizes that nuclear deterrence itself has never been a universal deterrent. In fact, leaders such as Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev vigorously competed with each other for unilateral gain under the umbrella of nuclear deterrence. 

Failure to fully understand nuclear deterrence may lead to dangerous consequences. Nuclear weapons can inflict “uncontestable costs,” including an all-out nuclear assault. Nevertheless, nuclear deterrence does not exist separately from conventional deterrence. On a similar note, Sciutto also reported executive branch officials’ concerns that Russia may employ a “tactical or battlefield nuclear weapon.” The possibility of Vladimir Putin deploying tactical nuclear arms underlines the important duty of policymakers to prepare for any battlefield possibility and disregard the practice of solely relying on nuclear deterrence for international stability.

The poor application and stunted understanding of nuclear deterrence has evolved from the bipolar power struggle between the U.S. and Soviet Union. Admiral Richard has saliently warned that the twenty-first century authoritarian nuclear regimes may now stake their legitimacy on the ability to wage nuclear war. For example, North Korea passed a law in 2022 that explicitly states its status as a nuclear power. Authoritarian regimes do not employ traditional nuclear deterrence to persuade a potential adversary that the costs of a retaliatory nuclear attack far outweigh the benefits of an initial strike. In fact—and reflected in the language of the 2022 North Korea law—these authoritarian regimes misconstrue their nuclear arsenals not as a deterrent but as a strategic tool for “taking the initiative in war” and securing the continued viability of their regimes. 

To address this uncomfortable and present reality posed by the nuclear proliferation since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. must remain committed to international diplomacy aimed at limiting the development of nuclear arsenals. The U.S. must also push reduction treaties, like New START between the U.S. and Russia, as better alternatives to nuclear deterrence. Looking ahead, the U.S. should also work to lower tensions on the Korean Peninsula to ensure that Kim’s 2022 nuclear declaratory law has no chance of being practiced. If committed to pursuing renewed and reinvigorated commitment to nuclear proliferation and reducing tensions in conflicts involving nuclear powers, the U.S. would bring stability and international security and help make nuclear displays irrelevant on the global stage.