Since April 2023, Sudan has been engulfed in a brutal power struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). This conflict has escalated an already alarming situation, displacing over 10.2 million people, including many refugees and internally displaced people. This situation has left entire communities in desperate need of basic necessities. In August 2024, famine was officially declared in the Darfur region, further amplifying the suffering as millions of people face severe shortages of food, water, medicine, and fuel. Approximately 25 million people require urgent humanitarian assistance, according to the UNHCR. Civilians, particularly women and children, are currently enduring unimaginable horror as reports of rape, abductions, and sexual exploitation continue to escalate. Even more concerning is the fact that ethnically motivated killings, indiscriminate attacks, and other atrocities have become hallmarks of this conflict. 

Despite the immense scale of this crisis, humanitarian access is severely restricted due to relentless violence and the barriers imposed on aid organisations. Reports note that aid workers face huge risks, with at least 22 killed and 33 injured since the conflict began. On a positive note, more than 125 humanitarian organisations have reached 8 million people in need of assistance. Yet this is far from sufficient.  The international response has been inadequate and slow. It took nearly a year for the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution, and even then the fighting continued unabated. Likewise, a UNHRC Fact-Finding Mission was established but has been hampered by a UN hiring freeze, preventing it from fulfilling its mandate. 

The international response to Sudan’s escalating humanitarian crisis has been marked by significant drawbacks, which have contributed to the persistence of the problem. Despite the presence of international actors, NGOs, and humanitarian partners on the ground, their efforts have had limited success in alleviating the suffering of millions of people. Several factors may explain this failure, ranging from logistical impairments, a lack of funding, constraints of political inaction, and inadequate international interventions. 

One can argue that the international response has failed to address the heart of the conflict, which lies in Sudan’s preexisting economic and political instability. Before the outbreak of violence between the SAF and the RSF, Sudan was already reeling from rampant inflation, high unemployment, and widespread protests. The conflict has only exacerbated these problems, leading to the collapse of essential services. Aid efforts have failed because they are continuously undermined by the intensity of the violence, resulting in a humanitarian system struggling to operate in a context of extreme insecurity. This limits the reach of humanitarian assistance, and also contributes to growing feelings of abandonment in the civilian population. Specifically, women and children are at high risk of abuse–a problem that international actors are failing to address. In addition, international organisations are hampered by a lack of funding. Currently, barely 32% of humanitarian appeals in Sudan are funded. 

Another failure lies in diplomatic and political responses. Firstly, the delayed UNSC resolution had little to no effect in halting the violence between the two groups. The slow and ineffective responses showcase the reluctance of key international actors to find a peaceful and decisive solution. Perhaps this is because of competing global priorities or geopolitical interests. While international actors fail to act, Sudan’s neighbours are weathering the fallout of this crisis. Over 2 million Sudanese have fled to countries like Chad, raising the risk of the conflict spilling over borders. 

To address this humanitarian crisis effectively, there is a need for a multifaceted approach that moves beyond conventional responses that have so far failed to address core issues. The current international response has focused on fragmented humanitarian aid and delayed diplomatic efforts that have failed to address the core issue of the conflict. There is a clear need for a strategy that prioritises civilians, fosters resilience, and ensures sustained international engagement. Firstly, the role of peacekeepers in the area has been lacklustre, leading to widespread feelings of abandonment on the ground. Therefore, it is crucial to protect aid deliveries and set-up safe zones for civilians in regions where sexual violence and ethnic killings have occurred. Furthermore, it is essential that  peacekeeping forces do not engage in combat but rather use their presence to safeguard civilians and to create conditions for humanitarian access. 

Secondly, international efforts have been limited by a lack of funding, possibly due to the competing political interests of global actors. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that peace in Sudan is a moral imperative that should be desired by the international community. Stability in Sudan would help prevent further crises from spreading to neighbouring countries, mitigating the risk of regional conflict. International actors should be fully invested in supporting a peaceful resolution to the conflict, not only for the sake of Sudanese civilians, but also for the security and stability of the region as a whole. This is why a shift in strategy is necessary, one that moves beyond superficial interventions and towards sustainable, long-term solutions. In this context, more resources must be shipped to local actors who have a better and deeper understanding of the conflict and are in a better position to implement successful solutions. 

In short,  a more effective strategy must prioritise peacekeeping, empower local actors, and ensure sustained international commitment. Achieving peace in Sudan is not only essential for alleviating the unimaginable suffering of over 25 million people in dire need of food, but it’s also a moral imperative before the crisis worsens and millions more are affected by this conflict.