Where are the tears for Sudan?

By Jeff Zhou

Source: Amnesty International

Introduction

On the morning of Friday, April 11, 2025, Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) breached Zamzam refugee camp in North Darfur, the country’s largest site for people displaced by the war. Once inside, they fired indiscriminately at men, women, and children; the killing spree lasted for over 70 hours. Official estimates claim up to 400 people were killed in Zamzam, although a committee established to unearth the true number has so far identified more than 1,500 deaths. This massacre may have been the most brutal of Sudan’s two-year civil war, but it’s only one among many in this vicious conflict. 

Although open war between Sudan’s army and the RSF erupted in April 2023, tensions had long been simmering beneath the surface. The 2019 overthrow of long-serving President Omar al-Bashir, who seized power in a coup in 1989, led to the formation of a joint military-civilian government. However, that was toppled in another coup in October 2021. The two masterminds behind this takeover were Gen Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the head of the armed forces as well as the country's de facto president, and his deputy, RSF leader Gen Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, better known as "Hemedti". The two men, however, clashed over Sudan’s path forward, with the main point of contention being the incorporation of the 100,000-strong RSF into the army.

More than 150,000 people have lost their lives so far, and approximately 12 million have been forced to flee their homes in what the United Nations (UN) deems the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. Yet, as one Sudanese doctor lamented, “It’s a forgotten war.” While global attention remains fixed on Ukraine and Gaza, Sudan has become almost an afterthought. There are several factors behind this, but none bring comfort to those enduring the devastation. 

How international involvement fuels conflict 

One key reason the peace prospects in Sudan remain bleak is the involvement of foreign actors driven purely by self-interest. For instance, Egypt and Saudi Arabia back the Sudanese army, while the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Russia support the RSF. The UAE has emerged as the Gulf country most invested in the war, seeking to leverage the region’s rich resources and strategic location to expand its reach in the Middle East and East Africa. Since 2018, they have invested over $6 billion into Sudan, including foreign reserves in the central bank, agricultural projects, and a Red Sea port. Additionally, some RSF fighters have taken part in UAE-led military operations against Houthi rebels in Yemen. Experts believe the UAE benefits from partnering with the RSF because Hemedti represents Emirati interests in Sudan, notably gold and agriculture. 

Saudi Arabia, the other major regional power in the conflict, has tried to play the role of peacemaker, refraining from openly siding with either al-Burhan or Hemedti. However, as al-Burhan gains international legitimacy, the Kingdom has begun leaning more toward him. This balancing act is further complicated by Egypt’s approach to its southern neighbor’s crisis. Cairo has adopted a relatively firm stance in support of the SAF and could potentially launch a direct military campaign against the RSF. Such a move would undermine Saudi Arabia’s efforts to position itself as the preeminent leader of the Arab world. 

Lost amid the regional infighting is any concern for what’s best for Sudan. Around 700,000 children suffer acute levels of malnutrition due to the war. Food shortages and price surges have forced community-run kitchens to close. In some areas the situation has deteriorated to the point where residents are surviving on animal feed. Widespread infrastructure damage has made it incredibly difficult to transport the sick and dying to hospitals. Aid workers from medical charity Médecines Sans Frontières (MSF) described the Sudanese people’s plight as a “nightmare”, calling it “simply hell”. 

When elephants fight, it’s the grass that suffers 

It’s not just regional powers with vested interests in Sudan’s war, the world’s leading superpowers have stakes as well. Port Sudan is a critical point in China’s Belt and Road Initiative, as it links East Africa to Europe, the Gulf, and China. Thus, the Chinese Communist Party favors stability in the region and views the SAF as a predictable, yet unappealing, partner. Conversely, the Russian paramilitary Wagner Group backs the RSF. Days before perishing in a plane crash, Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin struck a deal with RSF officers, exchanging weapons for gold bars. The group also supplied the RSF surface-to-air missiles. Earlier this year, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield accused Russia of duplicity after it blocked a UN Security Council draft resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire and unobstructed delivery of humanitarian aid. She told the council: “Russia is standing alone as it voted to imperil civilians, while funding both sides of the conflict - yes, that's what I said: both sides.” 

Amidst the ongoing chaos, the U.S. has largely stayed on the sidelines, preferring formal statements and press releases over direct engagement. During the Biden presidency, Alex de Waal (the world’s foremost expert on Sudan) and Abdul Mohammad (a former official of the UN African Union Mission in Darfur) pushed the administration to press UAE President Sheikh Mohammad bin Zayed al-Nahyan to halt the covert supply of arms to the RSF. Yet, the most concrete step the U.S. government has taken is sanctioning Sudan’s government for its 2024 use of chemical weapons. Both RSF and SAF officials faced sanctions against their assets and incomes. Still, the bloodshed shows no signs of stopping. 

It’s clear that the U.S. is hesitant to fully engage in the conflict, a stance that poses two major risks with far-reaching implications: conceding a potential strategic foothold in the Red Sea and intensifying the threat of regional spillover from the war. As mentioned earlier, China has invested heavily in Port Sudan, gaining easy access to the Red Sea, which facilitates nearly 12% of global maritime trade. Russia is also seeking to set up a naval base in Port Sudan for 300 personnel, warships, and submarines. A continued lack of American intervention risks creating a power vacuum that enemies could exploit to secure a dominant presence in the Red Sea. Furthermore, the U.S. should be concerned about the possibility of Sudan’s civil war destabilising neighboring nations, such as Libya and Ethiopia. This would exacerbate the already dire refugee crisis facing the U.S., Europe, and the MENA region. Additionally, the escalating turmoil could lead to the emergence of new terrorist groups that endanger the safety of the free world. 

An uncertain future 

External actors, from regional players to global powers, have contributed to Sudan’s devastation. But it’s the silence of the international community that’s most deafening. Some observers point out that media outlets often prioritise conflicts that fit into simple narratives: “Russia vs. Ukraine” or “Israel vs. Hamas”. Sudan’s war is more intricate and plagued by ethnic, tribal, and economic issues, which may make it harder for people to follow or relate to. Others argue that crises in Sub-Saharan Africa are generally underreported, attracting short periods of coverage but fading quickly as audiences jump to the next hot story. This phenomenon is called the hierarchies of suffering, which contends that lives in certain regions are implicitly treated as less important. 

Sudan’s future hangs in the balance, as the RSF and SAF continue to grapple for power, while being manipulated by self-serving foreign states. Beneath the rubble, ordinary Sudanese people struggle to survive - doctors operate on victims in crumbling hospitals, families flee the violence, and communities unite to defend their homeland. Hope is the last to die; the least outsiders can do is shed light on Sudan’s suffering, so its people have something left to hold on to. 

---