On April 15, as Sudan marks two years of unrelenting war, Britain will co-host – along with Germany and France – a high-level conference at Lancaster House in London, bringing together foreign ministers from nearly 20 countries and international organizations. The goal: to forge a unified front capable of nudging Sudan’s warring generals toward a ceasefire, or at the very least, toward accountability.
It is a modest diplomatic gesture set against the backdrop of one of the world’s most staggering – and yet most neglected – humanitarian catastrophes. As much of the world remains consumed by the bloodshed in Gaza and the drawn-out conflict in Ukraine, another catastrophe – slower moving but no less devastating – is ravaging Africa’s third-largest country.
Over 12 million people have been forced to flee their homes since war erupted last April. Entire cities have been flattened, children are starving, and once-vibrant communities now exist only as entries in humanitarian databases. This is not merely a civil war. It is a wholesale humanitarian collapse. And outside Sudan, few are paying attention.
The conflict began in April 2023 as a violent power struggle between Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, who commands the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), and Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo – known as Hemedti – who leads the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). What began as a rivalry between two men vying for control of a post-coup transition has metastasized into an open-ended war for turf and wealth, driven by impunity and enabled by international neglect.
Nowhere is this tragedy more visible than in Darfur. In cities like El Geneina, massacres targeting the Masalit ethnic minority have become grimly routine. Eyewitness accounts and satellite imagery show entire neighborhoods burned to the ground. The RSF, descended from the Janjaweed militias once sanctioned for genocide, appears to be reverting to form. Survivors describe rape used as a weapon, starvation as a siege tactic, and child conscription as policy.
In Khartoum, a capital city now turned warzone, hospitals are shuttered and water is often unavailable. Schools no longer function. Looting is rampant. The RSF controls vast swaths of urban territory, operating a shadow state complete with torture camps and extortion rackets.
In one harrowing case, a young Sudanese entrepreneur, Alwaleed Abdeen, was recently rescued from an RSF-run prison so emaciated and mutilated that even his family did not recognize him. He later died from his wounds. His story is not rare – it is simply one of the few that made it out.
The statistics alone are staggering. According to the United Nations, almost 18 million Sudanese are grappling with severe food insecurity. In North Darfur, famine is no longer a threat – it is a grim certainty, delayed only by the slow grind of international bureaucracy and blocked aid corridors. Yet despite this, Sudan rarely makes front pages or headline bulletins. Why? Because Sudan is geopolitically inconvenient.
There are no clean sides, no charismatic figureheads to champion, and no obvious strategic dividends for Western powers. Instead, there are two ruthless generals, each backed by regional players pursuing victory at any cost.
The African Union and Intergovernmental Authority on Development have attempted mediation, but progress is minimal. Western nations, while quick to condemn atrocities elsewhere, have remained muted, offering platitudes where pressure is required. But inaction is not neutrality.
It is complicity by omission. The London conference offers a pivotal opportunity to mobilize emergency funding, open humanitarian corridors, and issue a unified diplomatic call for a ceasefire. For Sudanese civilians, it may be the simmering hope.
Western and regional powers must publicly commit to pressuring both factions to halt hostilities. This requires targeted sanctions – not just symbolic visa bans – on commanders complicit in atrocities. This means imposing a comprehensive arms embargo to interrupt the RSF’s weapon supplies and confronting the state actors who continue to secretly arm both sides. Sustained diplomatic engagement, led not just by European donors but by the United States, which once championed Sudan’s fragile democratic transition in 2019, is crucial.
Notably, neither the Sudanese Armed Forces nor the Rapid Support Forces have been invited to the London conference. The exclusion of Sudan’s warring parties – and of the Sudanese government itself – reflects a sobering calculation: that both factions remain far from genuine peace and are instead locked in a nihilistic pursuit of power.
For the UK and its co-hosts, Germany and France, the priority now is forging consensus among external actors who continue to fuel this war, often from the shadows. But this exclusion also carries risk. Sudan’s foreign minister has already denounced the conference as biased, citing the inclusion of nations like the UAE and Chad, whom Khartoum accuses of being active participants in the war.
While the optics may seem controversial, the intent is pragmatic – building pressure from the outside in, rather than legitimizing the perpetrators. Yet if this strategy fails to yield results, it may only deepen the mistrust and entrench the impasse further
For David Lammy, Britain’s foreign secretary, the initiative risks opening difficult diplomatic fronts – chiefly with Arab allies accused of fueling Sudan’s war. Pressuring them to follow through on commitments to halt arms transfers may prove politically costly.Yet criticism is not confined to the Middle East.
In London, the spotlight will likely widen to include the humanitarian void left by USAID’s budget cuts, and the shuttering of academic programs that had served as early warning systems for war crimes and food insecurity. These silences, too, carry consequences. Sudan needs more than sympathy.
It needs attention, resources, and – above all -political will. This war is not just about Sudan. It is about what the world tolerates, what the international system allows. It is a mirror reflecting how little we have learned from Rwanda, from Syria, from Darfur itself.
We vowed “never again.” Now, in 2025, we are watching it happen again – this time in silence. If the London conference fails to move the needle, it may signal the world’s final surrender to the idea that African lives are expendable, and that atrocity fatigue is the new normal. But there is still time to act. The window is narrow. The obligation is clear. The world must not look away.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
