For two years, Sudan has been facing brutal conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The United Nations describes it as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis today. More than 30 million people require humanitarian assistance; nearly 12 million have been displaced, and 80 percent of hospitals in conflict zones are non-functional. According to the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Compact, gender-based violence is used systematically as a weapon of war, with a 288 percent rise in demand for survivor services in 2024 alone.
Since the conflict began in April 2023, ceasefire talks have failed repeatedly despite mediation efforts by the African Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), and Saudi Arabia. The collapse of basic infrastructure has left millions trapped in famine-like conditions, while humanitarian agencies struggle to reach besieged populations. The war has also created one of the fastest-growing displacement crises in the world, forcing families to flee across borders into Chad and South Sudan.
Women remain largely absent from peace talks, despite having paid the highest price. Neither the Jeddah negotiations in 2023 nor the Geneva discussions in 2024 included women representatives. UN Women writes that women’s participation in peace agreements increases their durability by over one-third, yet they are systematically excluded from negotiations.
Nevertheless, this does not stop Sudanese women from leading from the ground up. The Peace for Sudan Platform, uniting 49 women-led organizations, has demanded 50 percent representation in all governance and humanitarian efforts. Their Kampala Feminist Declaration has informed regional dialogues in Addis Ababa, Kampala, and Geneva. At the same time, the Emergency Response Rooms– grassroots networks of more than 20,000 volunteers– are sustaining communities through food distribution, emergency care, and civilian evacuation.
The real question is: why are women leading Sudan’s recovery alone? The international community speaks of inclusion, yet continues to exclude those already trying to build peace.
Sudan’s conflict exposes a deep contradiction between global commitments to women’s participation and the realities of international diplomacy. Despite decades of advocacy under the WPS agenda, responses remain dominated by elite negotiations and humanitarian paternalism. Formal diplomacy has excluded the people most capable of creating peace. The Jeddah and Geneva processes privileged military and political elites, while grassroots leaders were sidelined. Promises made in the 2020 Juba Peace Agreement to include women in Sudan’s peace and political structures were ignored. This erasure violates the principles of the UN Security Council Resolution 1325, a landmark international agreement on WPS adopted in October 2000. 25 years later, the Resolution’s goals remain largely unfulfilled.
Part of the problem lies in political fatigue and competing global priorities. Western and regional powers are divided by their own interests, with some focused on counterterrorism, and others on migration control, leaving Sudan’s peace process without a coherent international strategy. Diplomatic efforts have fragmented into parallel initiatives that rarely involve those most affected by the war. As a result, the WPS agenda, celebrated in global forums, is being quietly abandoned on the ground.
Furthermore, aid strategies mirror this imbalance. Funding flows primarily to international NGOs, leaving local women-led networks underfunded. As Hanin Ahmed of the Emergency Response Rooms told the UN General Assembly, “The world must stop seeing Sudanese women as passive recipients. They are the leaders, the planners, the visionaries.” Yet, less than one percent of humanitarian funding directly reaches them.
Today, international attention has drifted elsewhere– to Gaza, Ukraine, and climate disasters, leaving Sudan invisible. This neglect erodes not only Sudan’s social fabric but also faith in global institutions. The credibility of the international peace system collapses while women, who try their best to sustain communities with limited resources, receive neither funding nor recognition.
Restoring peace in Sudan requires an immediate fundamental shift: from external power to locally driven, women-led transformation. Sudanese women have already proven that sustainable peace grows from community resilience, not military negotiation.
First, women’s grassroots networks must be recognized as political actors. A Women-Led Sudan Peace Forum, composed of representatives from the Peace for Sudan Platform, the Emergency Response Rooms, and other local groups, could serve as an institutional bridge between communities and formal mediators. With a UN endorsement, it could monitor ceasefire compliance and coordinate humanitarian corridors, as well as shape proposals for reconstruction. When women participate meaningfully, legitimacy grows, violence decreases, and reconstruction accelerates. Second, inclusion without resources is merely symbolic; there is a need for direct funding to women-led initiatives. For instance, a Sudan Women’s Resilience Fund could distribute micro-grants for community kitchens and education programs. Finally, the African Union and UN should establish a rapid response system to protect women from attacks and provide emergency evacuation when needed. Protecting those who protect others is the most basic moral test for any peace agenda.
The women of Sudan have shown that peace-building is not a distant ambition but an everyday act of courage. Their work offers a model for how international policy could evolve—by investing directly in communities rather than militarized states. If the world truly believes in gender equality and human rights, Sudan must be the place where those values are finally put into practice. As Aisha Hamad of the Peace for Sudan Platform said, “Our collective effort is pivotal in creating sustainable peace and reinforcing the central role of women in rebuilding Sudan.” The Sudanese women are already acting by saving their communities– without waiting for permission, and with courage and compassion. Will the world finally meet them with equal commitment?
