No to War.. Freezing Life in Sudan
Khalid Massa
One does not need to fabricate reasons or create them to prove the hideousness of the face of war and the necessity of confronting it with a no to war stance. The sound instinct naturally activates the immune system against the virus of war.
The state of war provides the ideal environment for the spread and proliferation of the virus of violations. It unleashes the forces of exploitation in this climate, imposing its own laws with the first shot fired, affecting the laws that previously had the right and merit to describe what is a crime and what is a violation.
Communities have agreed that these laws are like a contract that preserves and regulates the relationships among its components, establishing the concept of citizenship where rights and duties are held in the state.
The state of war is the maximum degree of the emergency situation, where constitutions and laws that humanity has strived to establish to create a universe suitable for coexistence with a respectful sharing of rights and duties are suspended.
Reading the package of news and reports related to Sudan, since the outbreak of the war in mid-April until now, and considering the cost, one is pushed by more than one reason to call for standing behind the no to war slogan, triumphing for the value of life in itself, far from the imaginings of bias towards any party to the war.
War is what now writes the reports of the Federal Ministry of Health describing the general state of the health system in Sudan, which before the war barely had the capabilities and assistance to cover the medical needs of the citizens in a country that limited its budget for spending on health.
War, and nothing else, is what led to the reduction of the number of working health facilities in Sudan and imposed a tragic reality on those suffering from chronic diseases, depriving them of access to medications and medical personnel and providing the minimum of health services. It forced the people of Sudan to displacement and refuge.
Listening to the calls of no to war towards the political and military situation is what leads a faction of those who constantly call for war to attempt to demonize the humanitarian call, primarily describing it as a zone of negative neutrality.
Describing the post-war situation in Sudan by organizations like the United Nations, stating that it has become one of the hardest places in the world in terms of humanitarian conditions, with more than half of its population in urgent need of food aid, makes the no to war stance the explicit and clear alignment with a stance that is more conscious than insisting on keeping positions in this war limited only to the clear boundaries of bias towards one party to the conflict.
The demonization of the no to war stance is nothing but an explicit attempt at national blackmail, urging those who face the cost of war in their health, money, and security to choose positions that prevent them from recognizing the extent of national losses in Sudan due to the continuation of the war.
No to war is a stance fully aware of the total costs that war creates in Sudan, both in its long and short term, costs that no human in this country, nor its economy, nor its health system, nor even its social composition can bear. It is a declaration of the desire to preserve the path of reforming state institutions and agree on the national conditions for building the Sudanese state.
