Since April 2023, when the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) began their disastrous war, the people of Sudan have been killed, displaced, starved and subjected to appalling acts of brutality. Millions have been driven from their homes, and entire communities live under siege conditions. Reports of widespread sexual and gender-based violence continue to shock the conscience of humanity.

Yet despite the scale of this catastrophe, the international response has been completely inadequate. Multiple mediation efforts have failed to coordinate competing initiatives or persuade the main parties to negotiate an end to the conflict. Humanitarian action has been hampered by chronic underfunding, limited distribution mechanisms and slow adaptation by international humanitarian actors to the context. In particular, it has failed to adjust to the urgency of providing support to locally led frontline mutual aid efforts. Above all, it has been impeded by the refusal of both SAF and RSF to grant meaningful access. Hunger is being used as a weapon of war.

Since June 2024, UAI has convened a Task Team on Sudan, bringing together political analysts, humanitarian professionals, academics, civil society and diaspora representatives. In June 2024, we first called for the appointment of a High-Level Humanitarian Envoy to work alongside the UN Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy. The case for such an appointment is now stronger than ever.  

A dedicated Humanitarian Envoy could:
– Focus international attention on civilian needs and sustain momentum when the political track is stalled;
– Re-energise fundraising by mobilising donor capitals and raising public awareness at a time when the 2025 Humanitarian Response Plans for Sudan and for Sudanese refugees remain massively underfunded;
– Support negotiations for humanitarian access across front lines, including in RSF-controlled areas, where new de facto governance structures are emerging;
– Provide strategic coherence with respect to the three million Sudanese refugees in neighbouring states, who currently fall between different UN country offices;
– Reinforce the work of the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Port Sudan, whose remit and operating space are constrained by the authorities.

Precedent already exists for such a role. Ambassador Tom Vraalsen, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Humanitarian Affairs for Sudan (1998 -2004), demonstrated the value of an independent humanitarian voice able to negotiate access and sustain international attention during a period of intense conflict. Drawing on that example, a new high-level Humanitarian Envoy could combine diplomatic authority and humanitarian legitimacy to engage across conflict lines and regional actors, helping to restore access and confidence in the UN’s neutrality and impartiality.

This proposal reflects not only the views of humanitarian actors and some supportive governments, but also the widest Sudanese pro-democracy coalition, Somoud, which has explicitly called for a special humanitarian coordinator in its Political Vision. Developments such as the Tasis Alliance’s parallel government in Nyala and the effective partition of the country underline the urgency of senior-level engagement from outside Sudan. Precedents such as Jan Egeland’s appointment on Syria show that a high-profile humanitarian figure can make a decisive difference.

UAI therefore urges governments, international organisations, civil society and the media to:
– Back the appointment of a High-Level Humanitarian Envoy for the Sudan emergency;
– Insist on a single international mediation mechanism to replace the current fragmented approaches; Increase financial and other support for local mutual aid groups and strengthen local leadership of humanitarian response and resilience building;
– Inject  significantly more resources into humanitarian operations and accountability efforts, including the pursuit of war crimes investigations.

Sudan is today the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. Its people deserve more than indifference.

The post “The World’s Worst Humanitarian Crisis: Immediate Action Vital for Civilians in Sudan” appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

The Franco-Italian border, a key entry point to Europe, has become a central stage of the ongoing migration crisis. Every day, people on the move face legal and physical barriers as they attempt to cross from Italy into France, often risking their safety in search of dignity and protection.

The new report by the Solidarity Program for Refugee Help (SPRH) Menton, a student-led
association at the Menton campus of Sciences Po, offers an in-depth, human-centered analysis of this reality. Based on data collected between September 2023 and April 2024, the report draws from border observations, testimonies, and research conducted by student volunteers at the Menton campus of Sciences Po.

At SPRH, we work to uphold the rights of people on the move through border monitoring, food distribution, research, and advocacy. This publication is part of our commitment to shed light on the systemic violations occurring at the Franco-Italian border and to promote accountability, compassion, and informed public dialogue.

Through this report, we aim to highlight the diverse experiences of migrants—from minors and women to those facing healthcare challenges—and to examine how European, French, and Italian migration policies shape these realities.

Join us in learning more about what happens at Europe’s doorstep and why solidarity matters more than ever.

The post New Report Launch: Understanding the Humanitarian Crisis at the Franco-Italian Border appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

Feeling threatened by the expansionism of their powerful neighbor – which is using antipersonnel mines on a large scale in its war against Ukraine – Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia have announced their disastrous plan to turn their back on the Ottawa Treaty. Their withdrawal would be a repudiation of the promise made to their victims, and an admission of weakness. As warfare surges in an increasingly lawless world, it will also be a death sentence for many civilians.

I share with others the immense privilege of having been one of many participants in the Ottawa Process. This led, in 1997, to a treaty for a complete ban on anti-personnel landmines. Of all the humanitarian initiatives I have been part of, this collective endeavor is the one that offers me the greatest sense of accomplishment. In just five years of intense negotiations, the Treaty succeeded in banning these weapons from the arsenals of 165 countries, initiated ambitious mine action programmes, and dramatically enhanced support for the hundreds of thousands of survivors.

The End of a Solemn Commitment and a Tepid Response

Alas, although the 27 EU member states, along with the United Kingdom, are still formally parties to the Ottawa Treaty today, the conflict in Ukraine may signal the obsolescence of one of the most promising commitments ever made to civilian populations affected by war, and its aftermath, around the world. Recently, Ukraine—also a signatory to the Treaty—accepted large transfers of anti-personnel landmines offered by the United States. And now the unthinkable is happening. Feeling threatened by their powerful neighbor’s expansionism, Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia have announced their disastrous plan to turn their backs on the Ottawa Treaty.

These announcements have not sparked loud protests—neither within other EU countries with the exception of Ireland, nor from some of the other original 165 Treaty signatories—as though these withdrawals are understandable and, therefore, acceptable and ultimately of little consequence. However, this unexpected devaluation of a solemn collective commitment may trigger a spiral of further withdrawals. At the very least, it will dramatically weaken the resolve of Treaty parties to uphold their obligations.

A Moment of Truth and Political Courage

Humanity’s propensity for self-destruction is as old as the history of warfare, mitigated only by attempts to regulate armed hostilities to protect non-combatants. What was once called the “landmine epidemic”—which peaked in the 1980s and 1990s with nearly 30,000 new victims each year—was one of its most insidious and barbaric manifestations, but also one of the most ignored or neglected. Cheap to produce or acquire, anti-personnel mines were stockpiled by the tens of millions in military depots, traded along the lines of alliances, and were accessible even to the most poorly funded non-state armed groups.

The global scale of this uncontrolled threat—which had, over time, caused the slaughter or mutilation of hundreds of thousands of civilians, destroyed livelihoods, and hindered peacekeeping operations—prompted the mobilization of civil society groups. At the urging of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), formed in 1992 by six NGOs*, Canada’s historic initiative was one of the few good news stories on disarmament from the end of the last century.

Supported by a handful of visionary states freed from Cold War alignment, this unlikely alliance between states and NGOs—nicknamed “new diplomacy”—was forged through a shared determination to stop the massacres caused by a weapon that continued to kill or maim mostly farmers, villagers, and children decades after hostilities had ceased.

A Rare Occurrence: a Respected Treaty and an Effective Protection of Civilians

With enthusiastic popular backing and support from prominent moral authorities, the Ottawa Treaty—now signed by 165 states—established the illegal status of anti-personnel mines. Exacting in its commitments and enforcement measures, and held under the close scrutiny of the Landmine Monitor which ICBL publishes annually, this ban on AP mines has been broadly respected by Treaty parties. Even non-signatory states halted their transfers of a weapon rejected by the international community.

Rightly praised for its comprehensiveness, the Ottawa Treaty has become a benchmark for progress in upholding civilians’ right to protection, both during conflicts and in the uncertainties surrounding fragile returns to peace. Nearly 30 years after its adoption, the results speak for themselves: despite the dramatic resurgence of armed conflict—mostly involving non-signatory states or non-states armed groups (NSAG)—respect for this new norm has spared the lives of at least 20,000 potential new victims every year.

The “Cowards’ War”: an Excruciating Reality

In its anti-mine campaigning, Handicap International was inspired by the report by Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights, Landmines in Cambodia: the Cowards’ War, published in September 1991 while the Paris Peace Agreement was paving the way for the return of refugees and the closure of border camps in Thailand. Widely distributed to policymakers and the media, this report exposed the unrestricted use of anti-personnel mines in Cambodia, and the unacceptable threat they posed to civilians including the hundreds of thousands of returning refugees after 13 years of exile.

Until then largely overlooked, landmine accidents in Cambodia and in many other countries had been brushed off by military officials as mere « collateral damage » by a weapon presented, nevertheless, as «deemed effective and necessary»—and therefore «legitimate if used responsibly».

Behind these seemingly virtuous statements lay a far more horrifying reality, one that ordinary citizens could scarcely imagine. Typically hidden underground or in the vegetation, randomly dispersed near roads or water sources, the first feature of this weapon is its most appalling: it is the victims themselves who trigger—by a single misstep or by their mere presence—the explosion that will kill them in atrocious suffering, or mutilate and plunge them into lifelong physical, psychological, economic, and social damnation, a fate which is tragically common in impoverished rural areas.

No soldier is present to distinguish between civilians and combatants, nor to show restraint before triggering the devastation that will ruin a man, a woman, or a child’s life. No recourse exists for the survivors and their families, condemned to misery while haunted by the guilt of having walked into the path of these “eternal sentinels” they knew were buried in their land.

Originally designed to protect anti-tank minefields—too vulnerable to manual clearance by armed opponents—anti-personnel mines became a global scourge. They were used with no safeguards in many conflicts, particularly in Cambodia, Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique, and more recently in the wars in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia. Their widespread dissemination turned them into weapons of terror, deliberately used to make entire rural areas uninhabitable, with absolute disregard for the right of villagers to use their land safely.

Betrayal and Slippery Slope

Withdrawing from the Ottawa Treaty would be a blatant breach of faith by signatory states, with immense symbolic and practical repercussions. Beyond the insult to the other Treaty parties, this decision would be endured—by the more than 600,000 survivors of these weapons worldwide and the families of those who did not survive—as a betrayal and an open wound, since it was explicitly in their name that states pledged to eliminate anti-personnel mines from their arsenals.

Any unraveling of the Ottawa Treaty would be catastrophic. Mines still contaminate the land to varying degrees in about 58 countries; a resurgence of production and use would halt the tremendous progress made through nearly 30 years of sustained efforts to free people from the danger posed by landmines, under the coordination of the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS).

Unjustified Falsehood and Admission of Weakness

From a military perspective, the decision by Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to withdraw from the Treaty does not withstand scrutiny. While the growing and legitimate anxiety of their populations can be understood, political leaders are deceiving them when they claim this weapon provides real protection.

They know full well that any alleged security benefit would be illusory in the face of a determined invasion. Furthermore, during negotiations leading to the Treaty, military experts and historians of conflict made it abundantly clear that landmines had never changed the course of a war, much less secured victory. Conversely, they agreed that the toll on civilians—both during and after conflict—was vastly disproportionate to any uncertain or limited military benefit.

Ignoring this reality or pretending otherwise today is either a panic-induced delusion or a deceptive tactic designed to put on a show of resolve to falsely reassure the public. Either way, for its intended recipient, this withdrawal would be an admission of weakness, made worse by its utter lack of credibility.

Bringing Chaos to Interoperability

As many military experts have pointed out, AP mines have often inflicted as many casualties among the troops deploying them as among the enemy. In the event of a conflict that would involve an exclusively European defense force, the withdrawal of Poland and the Baltic States would inevitably lead to serious interoperability issues. Troops from countries that have banned these weapons would be forced to operate alongside others who had reintroduced them. Having to protect themselves from the mines of their own allies would create an environment of mistrust and potential chaos.

Disarmament Treaties Are Not Discretionary

The true test of a disarmament treaty comes when peace is under threat—when the values uniting a people and binding their leaders to their allies are not forsaken in the name of border defense. Signing a disarmament treaty cannot be a discretionary commitment—something states can abandon at the sound of marching boots and rising tensions at their borders.

The people of Poland, Finland, and the Baltic States have long memories and are indeed at the front lines of their powerful neighbor’s real or perceived imperial ambitions. Withdrawing from the Ottawa Treaty will not change this fact. Instead, it would send a message to their European allies that they do not believe in the deterrent power of the European defense in construction.

Rather than going it alone by stepping out of a shared EU-wide ban on AP mines, they would do better to honor it unconditionally and strengthen a genuine alliance to obtain the security guarantees they seek. Paradoxically, leaving the Ottawa Treaty would only deepen their vulnerability.

The Ottawa Treaty’s Strength Lies in Its Integrity

Given the brutality of warfare in Ukraine and its blatant disregard of civilians, the right to self-defense by all possible means is gaining traction in public opinion, and the temptation is strong to consider the return of the use of anti-personnel mines as a marginal or secondary issue. Yet withdrawing from the Ottawa Treaty would mean abandoning the values that led to its signing and accepting the inhumanity inherent in the use of this weapon.

Let us remember that the total wars that devastated Europe and beyond showed how the normalization of horror feeds itself on the seeds of such betrayals.

Speaking Out Before the Irreversible

Everything must be done to prevent a resurgence of the use of this indiscriminate weapon. Its tragic impact on civilian populations—widely known and well-documented—demands a rapid and decisive new mobilization to preserve a Treaty which is a flagship of international humanitarian law for the protection of civilians during and after warfare.

Political leaders in other State Parties—starting with all EU members—must heed the voice of civil society, which urges them to appeal to Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia not to renege on their commitments. Diplomatic efforts by other EU member states, coordinated with those of the UK—committing to unconditional solidarity in the face of aggression—can convince them that honoring their promise and responsibility is in their own best interests.

NGOs behind this historical breakthrough must rise together against its weakening. The Nobel Peace Prize we proudly share obliges us to stand up for the Ottawa Treaty. I invite everyone, including concerned civil society actors and others, to sign the attached appeal launched by Handicap International and supported by many individuals who have played a crucial role in the process of banning anti-personnel mines.

*Founding NGOs of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) in November 1992: Handicap International, Human Rights Watch Arms Project, Mines Advisory Group, Medico International, Physicians for Human Rights, and Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation.

About the Author: Jean-Baptiste Richardier is the President of Humanitarian Alternatives. He is a co-founder of Handicap International and United Against Inhumanity (UAI).

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of United Against Inhumanity (UAI).

The post “Back to the Killing Fields!”, by Jean-Baptiste Richardier appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

Human rights principles

All of us, as human beings, have a human right to seek asylum elsewhere. This means that if you ever face threats to your life or liberty in the country where you live and feel obliged to escape, then you have a right to leave and find safety in another state.

This principle is enshrined in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and is recognised by all countries, including those in Europe and the rest of the developed world, all of whom have also signed the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.

Yet many of those states have introduced a variety of policies and practices that seek to keep refugees away from their territories and so prevent them from exercising their right to seek and enjoy safety there.

Such policies and practices are collectively known as ‘externalization’, and include measures such as visa restrictions, carrier sanctions, interception and return at sea, offshore processing, and deals that incentivise other states to stop the onward movement of refugees.

The outcome of externalisation is ‘containment’. Refugees’ routes to safety in the Global North are blocked and shut down, and so refugees are contained in regions in the Global South, where 80% of the world’s refugees are compelled to stay, and where host states are less or unable to meet refugees’ urgent needs for security and human rights protection.

European initiatives

The countries of Europe have been at the forefront of the externalization process, as demonstrated by two examples of containment.

1) In 2016, the EU signed a deal with Turkey to prevent refugees arriving into Europe and to ensure that they remained in Turkey itself, as well as Middle East countries such as Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq.

As a result, this forces refugees in those countries to effectively face only three options: to live in camps for prolonged periods of time without adequate human rights protection; to eke out a precarious existence in urban areas enduring poverty and further human rights violations; or to risk their lives on ever more dangerous and irregular routes to Europe.

2) In 2017, Italy signed a memorandum of understanding with Libya, which has been bolstered by funding and logistical support from the EU. As part of this arrangement, refugees attempting to reach safety in Europe are regularly intercepted in the Mediterranean by Libya’s militia-linked Coast Guard, or prevented from leaving the country’s shores.

Many refugees who are intercepted in this way are then forced into appalling, overcrowded and disease-ridden detention centres, where they face horrendous abuse, including being starved, beaten, sexually abused and forced into unpaid labour.

As these examples show, externalization results in containment which results in immense physical and mental suffering and human rights deprivations for innocent refugees who are seeking safety.

They also reveal the disingenuous nature of Europe’s refugee and asylum policies. While governments throughout the continent pay lip service to the right to seek and enjoy asylum, they are taking active and increasingly draconian measures to ensure that many refugees will never be able to exercise that right in practice.

Externalisation and containment, in effect, deny refugees escape from harm, prevent them from reaching safety, and so keep refugees in dangerous conditions where they face threats to their lives, liberty and human rights.

Containment and non-refoulement

It is also revealing to compare this practice of containment to refoulement. The cornerstone of International Refugee Law is the principle of ‘non-refoulement’. According to this principle, it is unethical and illegal for states to send anyone who had arrived on their territory back to a country where they would face threats to their life, liberty, or human rights, including, for example, the risk of torture. This principle is accepted by all states who are signatories to the UN Refugee Convention and widely regarded and followed as binding (for the most part) across the globe.

Certain externalisation and containment practices risk violating this fundamental law – for example, by intercepting and returning refugees to Libya, despite the human rights abuses they will face there.

But more than this, containment itself is ethically equivalent to refoulement. Refoulement involves placing refugees in conditions where they face threats to their lives, liberty, and human rights, while containment involves keeping refugees in conditions where they face threats to their lives, liberty and human rights. But is there any moral difference between placing refugees or keeping refugees in conditions where they face such threats?

The answer must be no. Both refoulement and containment are intentional acts that deny safety to refugees, prevent them from escaping harms, and endanger them by ensuring they face severe threats to their lives, liberty and human rights.

So, since refoulement is unethical and rightfully against International Law, the same must apply to containment. Under the letter of the law, refoulement is prohibited but containment is not, but there is no moral difference between the two, and so this apparent ‘loop hole’ has been exploited by states seeking to prevent refugee arrivals, but is ultimately ethically unsustainable. Containment, just as refoulement, prevents escape, denies safety and endangers innocent refugees. And for this reason, it is just as unethical and should be just as prohibited as refoulement.

There is now then an urgent need to uphold the principle of non-refoulement, and to challenge externalization and containment as equally unethical as refoulement, and, more generally, stop the inhumanity at Europe’s borders. In doing so, we can help to ensure that people around the world can, in the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “seek and enjoy asylum from persecution”, something that we are all, as human beings, morally and legally entitled to.

About the author:

Dr. Bradley Hillier-Smith is a volunteer with United Against Inhumanity, an Associate Lecturer in Moral, Legal and Political Philosophy at St. Andrew’s University, and author of a forthcoming book on the ethics of state responses to refugees. For a more detailed ethical analysis of the parallels between refoulement and containment, please, see his ‘Doing and Allowing Harm to Refugees’ here.

The content is the authors’ responsibility alone and does not necessarily reflect the views of United Against Inhumanity or any of its other members.

The post Illegal and Immoral: Why Europe’s Border Policies Must Change – by Dr. Bradley Hillier-Smith appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.