Why has the world forgotten one of largest humanitarian crises in Sudan?

Nearly 500 days of violence and conflict have left Sudan in the grip of a humanitarian crisis that many say is one of the largest in the world.

Almost 52,000 people have been killed or wounded and tens of millions displaced since April 2023, when a civil war for power erupted between Sudan's army led by Gen. Abdel Fattah al Burhan and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) headed by his former deputy Mohamed Hamdan Daglo.

The magnitude of the crisis is apparent from the repeated warnings by aid groups and even the UN, which has gone as far as to say that Sudan is now at a “cataclysmic breaking point.”

Despite the scale and severity of the Sudanese civil war, analysts point out that it has not received the kind of global attention as other conflicts, particularly from the West.

"The conflict in Sudan is very high in intensity but is not as geopolitically important as Ukraine or Gaza for the West," said Francois Sennesael, an academic and expert on African affairs.

"Ukraine is of vital interest for the security of Europe – Sudan is not ... This alone explains why Ukraine receives all the West's attention, and not Sudan. This reasoning is similar looking at Israel."

Various other factors for this lack of attention to Sudan include the UN’s waning influence in global affairs and a growing unwillingness of Western countries to directly intervene in the internal affairs of other nations, he said.

Forgotten by Western media

Sudan has been "forgotten" mostly by Western media, and there is also the element of "fatigue of Western populations towards Africa and its intractable conflicts, and, quite importantly, the regionalisation of security issues," he said.

Western populations are not pushing their governments to act on Sudan, while this conflict is also "not high on the agenda of left-wing parties, which was the case in 2004 during the Darfur crisis, because Gaza is their top priority," he added.

When it comes to Sudan, he believes Western countries “are not willing to start an interventionist adventure.”

"The West is pursuing an approach already seen in South Sudan or Ethiopia, which consists of attempting to quickly get power-sharing agreements signed between warring elites and 'leave,' unwilling to commit soldiers or money to maintain peace in Africa," Sennesael, a doctoral candidate at the University of Oxford, told Anadolu Agency.

"Nobody is mentioning any intention to create a new peacekeeping mission for Sudan … Sudan is actually an excellent case of the waning influence of multilateralism in security issues and the somewhat disengagement of Western countries in Africa."

Western governments are "cautiously engaged" and "trying to 'fix' Sudan without getting their feet on the ground," he said.

"Gulf countries, but also Türkiye and Egypt, have shown a willingness – supported by some Western countries – to be the new ‘guardians’ of the region in terms of peace and security,” said Sennesael.

"Their approach has, however, not been very vigorous, and they seem unsure of what their role should be. They seem unable to put their regional differences and personal interests aside to speak with one voice ... despite a common vital interest to maintain Sudan afloat."

Massive human suffering

British-Sudanese commentator and activist Mohanad Elbalal also believes that Sudan’s humanitarian crisis remains "very low on the global conscience."

"Sudan is the world’s largest displacement crisis. The toll of human suffering is massive and it’s barely breaking the headlines," he told Anadolu Agency.

The Sudanese people want to see “greater global awareness of what actually is happening in Sudan” and particularly the humanitarian aid situation, as very little aid is arriving, he said.

"Yes, there are other conflict areas … around the world which have significant or massive human suffering, such as Gaza, but Sudan is a country of 50 million people and we have over 10 million people displaced," he said.

"I think that needs global attention from the political side, but primarily from the humanitarian side because there needs to be more aid coming into Sudan."

'Shaky' peace talks

A new round of US-sponsored negotiations that began in Geneva on July 14 are continuing this week.

Although the Sudanese army is not participating, there are delegations from the RSF, UN, African Union, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, US and Switzerland, according to US Special Envoy for Sudan Tom Perriello.

However, both Elbalal and Sennesael pointed out that previous rounds of talks led by Saudi Arabia and the US have largely been unfruitful.

Elbalal said the likelihood of an agreement in Geneva is “extremely low” because “you can’t have a negotiation when only one party shows up.”

“Even if a ceasefire is achieved, without strict measures to ensure that the terms of the ceasefire are met, it’s rather pointless,” he said.

Citing past examples closer to the start of the war, he said when the RSF is not fighting the army, “they turned to looting and targeting civilians.”

When it comes to humanitarian aid, a lot of the time, it is “simply too dangerous … to cross into RSF areas,” he said.

“So, ceasefires are not a solution in itself, because if a truce is achieved, it doesn’t bring any betterment in the humanitarian situation,” he added.

Sennesael also believes that the current peace push in Switzerland “seems somewhat shaky, especially because the Burhan camp refused to come.”

"It takes two to tango, so I am not very sure any peace dance will start in the next few weeks," he said.

"Of course, the RSF promised to increase humanitarian access, something peace negotiators were proud of, but … RSF has constantly broken their promises,” he added.