After nearly a year of devastating conflict, there is little sign of a ceasefire

Featured

Sudan in the Shadows: The Global Neglect of African Crises

Dr Richmond Acheampong International News Aug - 10 - 2024 , 09:03

The world bears witness to the atrocities and loss of life unfolding in both Sudan and the Israel-Hamas conflict.

However, the stark difference in international attention and intervention between these two crises raises questions about the underlying motives and priorities of global powers like the United States, Russia and China.

While the Israel-Hamas conflict dominates headlines and diplomatic agendas, the war in Sudan remains in the shadows, with the international community largely silent and inactive.

Roots

The Sudanese conflict, often described as a complex web of ethnic, political and economic struggles, traces its roots back to decades of marginalisation, dictatorship and civil unrest.

Since the outbreak of violence in 2013, following South Sudan’s independence, the war has spiralled into a humanitarian catastrophe.

The country is plagued by inter-ethnic violence, government corruption and competition over resources, leading to mass displacement, famine and countless civilian casualties.

Sudan’s conflict is deeply rooted in its history, where colonial-era divisions were exacerbated by post-independence struggles for power and resources.

The long-standing tensions between different ethnic and religious groups have been fueled by successive governments’ failure to address inequality and provide adequate governance.

This has resulted in cycles of violence and unrest, particularly in regions like Darfur, where genocidal violence has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands and displaced millions more.

Global Focus

In contrast, the Israel-Hamas conflict, while similarly devastating, receives unparalleled international scrutiny and intervention.

This enduring conflict, marked by its geopolitical significance and deep historical roots, garners extensive media coverage, diplomatic negotiations and military involvement from major global powers.

The United States, Russia and China, among others, often engage in high-stakes diplomacy, economic sanctions and military support to influence the outcome.

The Israel-Hamas conflict is characterised by its complexity and the long-standing animosities between Israelis and Palestinians.

It involves issues of territory, national identity and security, with profound implications for regional and global stability.

As such, it commands significant attention from global powers, each with vested interests in the region.

The US, for instance, has historically supported Israel, seeing it as a key ally in the Middle East, while Russia and China navigate their roles to expand influence and protect strategic interests.

Global Powers

The disparity in attention and action can be attributed to several factors:

Geopolitical Interests: The Middle East, with its strategic location and vast energy resources, holds significant geopolitical importance.

The Israel-Hamas conflict directly impacts global politics, energy security and regional stability, prompting swift action from world powers. In contrast, Sudan, though resource-rich, does not wield the same level of influence on the global stage.

Media Coverage: Western media heavily influences public opinion and government policies. The Israel-Hamas conflict, with its long history and dramatic narratives, captivates audiences and sustains media interest.

Sudan’s war, perceived as a complex and distant African issue, fails to generate the same level of sustained attention and outrage.

Historical Alliances: Long-standing alliances and political interests shape the responses of global powers. The US’s unwavering support for Israel, Russia’s strategic interests in the Middle East and China’s growing economic ties in the region all play a role in prioritising the Israel-Hamas conflict over Sudan’s turmoil.

The lack of intervention in Sudan reflects a broader pattern of indifference towards African conflicts, where geopolitical calculations often trump humanitarian concerns. This neglect perpetuates cycles of violence and instability; as African crises are frequently sidelined in favour of more strategically significant conflicts elsewhere.

Critique

The international community’s selective intervention exposes a troubling double standard. While efforts to mediate and resolve the Israel-Hamas conflict are necessary and commendable, the neglect of Sudan’s humanitarian crisis is indefensible.

The US, Russia and China, wielding immense influence, have the capacity to spearhead peace initiatives, provide humanitarian aid and enforce sanctions to pressure conflicting parties into negotiations.

Their inaction in Sudan reflects a broader pattern of indifference towards African conflicts, underscoring a lack of genuine commitment to global peace and human rights.

The global neglect of Sudan underscores a critical need for reform in how international bodies and powerful nations engage with African crises.

Often, African conflicts are seen through the lens of instability and poverty, rather than recognising the complex socio-political dynamics at play.

This perception hinders effective international response and allows conflicts to persist, deepening the suffering of millions.

Solutions

This glaring neglect calls for a paradigm shift in how African leaders approach their continent’s challenges. The dependence on external intervention has proven ineffective and unreliable.

It is imperative for African nations to unite, leverage regional organisations like the African Union and foster homegrown solutions to address conflicts and crises.

Regional Cooperation: African countries must strengthen regional cooperation and conflict resolution mechanisms. Collaborative efforts through the African Union and regional blocs can provide more immediate and culturally nuanced responses to conflicts.

Economic Empowerment: Investing in economic development, education and infrastructure can address the root causes of many conflicts. By building resilient economies and empowering communities, African nations can reduce the allure of conflict and instability.

Political Will: African leaders must demonstrate the political will to address corruption, uphold human rights and prioritise the welfare of their citizens. Transparent governance and accountable leadership are crucial for sustainable peace and development.

The African Union (AU) and regional economic communities can play pivotal roles in mediating disputes and fostering stability. By strengthening these institutions, Africa can take greater ownership of its challenges and develop strategies that are informed by local contexts and realities.

Conclusion

The contrasting responses to the Sudanese war and the Israel-Hamas conflict highlight the selective morality of the international community and underscore the urgent need for African self-reliance.

As global powers continue to prioritise their geopolitical interests, African leaders must rise to the challenge, forging a future where African solutions address African problems. The path to peace and prosperity lies not in the hands of indifferent global players, but within the resolve and unity of the African continent itself.

Africa’s future depends on its ability to harness its potential, leverage its resources and address its challenges with innovative and sustainable solutions.

By taking decisive action and fostering regional solidarity, African nations can build a more secure and prosperous continent, free from the shadows of neglect and driven by the collective will of its people.

The writer of this article is a journalist, columnist, PR expert and communication studies lecturer at Christian Service University. Email: achmondsky@gmail.com