Sudan’s silent war: A crisis ignored at the world’s peril

Sudan’s war, which erupted in April 2023, has plunged the country into deep political, economic, and humanitarian crises. Despite the scale of the disaster, it struggles to capture sufficient and sustained global attention and international media coverage, unlike other ongoing crises in the Middle East region, including those in Gaza, Lebanon, and, more recently, Syria.

The magnitude of Sudan’s dire situation and its regional and international implications must be examined. For too long, there has been a significant vacuum in global media coverage and its underlying causes. But why has this been allowed to happen, and what can be done to reverse it?

Sudan’s massive humanitarian disaster

Over 14 million people—roughly 30 per cent of Sudan’s population—have been displaced since August 2023, including 11 million internally and 3.1 million who have fled to neighbouring countries, a UN Migration Displacement Tracking Matrix reported recently. Alarmingly, more than half (53 percent) of the internally displaced are reportedly children under 18 years old. The crisis has left over 30 million Sudanese in need of humanitarian aid, with famine conditions emerging in regions such as North Darfur’s Zamzam camp, according to UN agencies.

These are not just figures to throw around, but the hard reality; they represent the harsh reality of ongoing violence that is inflicting real suffering on millions, further exacerbated by failed ceasefire attempts and a shifting global focus that grows increasingly distracted. The Rapid Support Forces (RSF) – a paramilitary group originally established by the Sudanese government and which is notorious for its brutality – has been implicated in widespread atrocities. These include civilian mass killings, rape, ethnic violence, and the weaponisation of famine, among a wide array of other human rights violations.

In early December 2024, at least 127 individuals—mostly civilians—were killed in two days of bombardments, marking one of the bloodiest episodes in recent months, according to rights activists.

These atrocities are part of a broader campaign targeting ethnic groups, such as the Masalit, in what international observers warn may constitute crimes against humanity. Survivors from Darfur recount harrowing stories of villages destroyed, families torn apart, and women subjected to sexual violence.

Hunger has also been used as a weapon of war. The RSF has been accused of systemic massacres since the conflict erupted in 2023, with multiple reports detailing their use of starvation as a tactic to weaken civilian resilience and consolidate control.

The group’s deliberate obstruction of aid to famine-stricken regions has pushed millions to the brink of starvation. In camps like Zamzam, tens of thousands face famine-like conditions as food and medical supplies fail to reach those in need.

UNICEF estimates that hundreds of thousands of children will suffer from severe acute malnutrition this year, underscoring the scale of the unfolding disaster. For instance, in Zamzam camp, almost a quarter of children screened were found to be acutely malnourished, with 10 per cent having severe acute malnutrition Doctors Without Borders said.

Despite the scale of these atrocities, Sudan’s crisis struggles to garner significant global media attention. The ongoing suffering remains overshadowed by other crises and geopolitical concerns, leaving millions of Sudanese without the advocacy and resources they desperately need. A concerted effort is required to bring Sudan’s plight to the forefront of international discourse and ensure sustained support for its victims.

Regional instability and broader implications

Sudan’s war is not just a national tragedy; rather it is a destabilising force across the Horn of Africa. Refugees fleeing the conflict have overwhelmed neighbouring countries, including Chad, Egypt, and South Sudan. Chad, already grappling with its own political instability, now hosts hundreds of thousands of Sudanese refugees in overcrowded camps with insufficient resources. Egypt, which is also facing economic challenges of its own, is struggling to accommodate the significant influx of Sudanese refugees, while South Sudan risks further destabilisation, due to its proximity to the conflict zones.

Trade routes critical to East Africa and the Sahel have been disrupted, and agricultural hubs like El Gezira have been devastated, worsening regional food insecurity. Meanwhile, the RSF’s involvement in smuggling networks and illicit economies, including arms and human trafficking, exacerbates instability. If unchecked, Sudan risks becoming a hub for illegal activities that undermine governance and security across the region.

Despite its brutality, the RSF is showing signs of internal weakness. Recent defections by senior commanders and advisors indicate growing fractures within the group, and morale among its rank-and-file fighters is reportedly waning.

Simultaneously, the Sudanese military has shifted its strategy, launching major offensives that have reclaimed key territories in Khartoum and Sinar states. This shift has disrupted the RSF’s operations and supply chains, forcing it into a more defensive posture.

For international actors backing the RSF, these developments pose critical challenges. Continued support for a faction increasingly viewed as unstable and discredited risks not only strategic failure, but also reputational damage. The RSF’s waning power and growing isolation make it a liability for its backers, who may soon face international scrutiny for their complicity in atrocities, mounting up to ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Sudan’s crisis remains critically underreported

Despite this dire reality, international media coverage of Sudan’s crisis remains disturbingly limited, hindering an effective global response and enabling atrocities to continue unabated. Several factors contribute to this media silence.

First, other international and regional conflicts capture the global media’s attention and dominate their headlines. The war in Ukraine, framed as a global power struggle with direct implications for Western interests, occupies extensive media space. Similarly, the ongoing crisis in Gaza continues to make front-page headlines, due to its political and emotional resonance for global audiences. More recently, the crisis in Lebanon and the sudden fall of the Assad regime in Syria have also dominated the news. By contrast, Sudan’s war is often portrayed as a regional issue with limited strategic relevance, relegating it to the periphery of global political and mediated discourses.

Second, access to journalists has been severely restricted and challenging in Sudan. Many journalists have been forced to flee the country, risking their lives in search of safety.

Journalists face systematic targeting by the RSF and other factions, severe restrictions on movement, and a lack of protective measures, compounded by disregard for international conventions on press freedom. Reporting from Sudan is dangerous, with journalists facing violence, abduction, and censorship. Needless to say, the RSF has little interest in allowing independent scrutiny of its actions, creating an environment where atrocities can occur largely in the dark.

Finally, the absence of credible on-the-ground reporting has weakened the global narrative on Sudan. Foreign journalists face significant barriers to entering Sudan, with some being detained at borders and denied entry. The rapidly evolving conflict and limited access create difficulties in capturing detailed, accurate information. This has created an information vacuum, making it difficult to obtain accurate, timely, and comprehensive reporting.

Adding to this difficulty is the complexity of Sudan’s war, which poses a significant challenge for media narratives. Unlike wars with clear aggressors and victims, Sudan’s crisis involves regional actors, shifting alliances, and systemic issues, all of which discourage sustained coverage. Despite this, the human toll continues to escalate, underscoring the urgent need for nuanced and persistent reporting.

The consequences of this media vacuum are severe. Policymakers and international organisations operate with limited information, thus delaying essential actions and interventions that could save lives. Humanitarian aid campaigns, already severely underfunded, receive even less attention and support, leaving millions without the resources they desperately need. Whatever humanitarian response or support is offered is always limited, with only 32 percent of the $2.7 billion UN appeal fulfilled. Aid agencies stress the importance of better supporting local volunteers, as an immediate ceasefire seems unlikely.

This unique and complex amalgamation of unfortunate circumstances obstruct any efforts to rescue the Sudanese people and delays any potential for a quick resolution to the crisis.

Breaking the silence: A call to action

The global media has a critical role to play in amplifying the voices of Sudan’s victims and holding perpetrators accountable for their criminal acts. To address the current coverage gap, international media organisations must prioritise Sudan’s conflict, moving forward, by investing in investigative journalism and finding effective ways to overcome access challenges.

By bringing the realities of Sudan’s tragic crisis to global audiences, the media can build the pressure needed to drive action from governments, NGOs, and humanitarian aid organisations.

At the same time, the international community must step up its response. Securing safe humanitarian corridors to deliver aid to the most impacted areas, such as Darfur, is an urgent priority.

Diplomatic efforts should focus on brokering a swift ceasefire and supporting civilian-led governance frameworks that address the root causes of the conflict. Accountability mechanisms, including investigations by the International Criminal Court (ICC), must be strengthened to ensure justice for the victims of Sudan’s atrocities.

Trump's re-election might add new challenges to Sudan’s crisis. During his previous tenure, Trump adopted a transactional approach, based on immediate returns, as seen in Sudan’s normalisation of ties with Israel, in exchange for its removal from the US terrorism list.

Trump’s new administration might adopt a similar approach, prioritising short-term concessions over a sustainable conflict resolution. While this could yield short-term symbolic victories, such as securing a quick ceasefire agreement, it risks side-lining multilateral efforts to build a better future for Sudan and undermines accountability for the committed atrocities.

For Sudan, this could mean external support that prioritises geopolitical interests over humanitarian imperatives, further complicating an already dire situation.