Discussion

The abandoned war: Why no one is stopping the genocide in Sudan

goodcanadian: I feel like I have seen better analysis of this elsewhere. In a nutshell, it is not simply a civil war. Regional actors are involved as a proxy war: Saudi Arabia against the UAE, for example (who are also having a proxy war in Yemen). And Egypt against Ethiopia. The wikipedia article covers some of the complexity:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_civil_war_(2023%E2%80...

anovikov: Because there is no money to make by doing so.

JumpCrisscross: What made the Israel-Palestine conflict profitable for influencers (initially on both sides, I’d guess mostly on the pro-Palestinian side now) before the Iran War that doesn’t apply to Sudan?

throwaway27448: Where did influencers come from? They didn't perpetrate the indiscriminate slaughter of an entire people. They certainly didn't cause this war. And when has reporting on a genocide ever brought about its conclusion? maybe you could argue this about the bosnian genocide....?

boxed: But they did convince you there's a genocide in Palestine at all, which is just not true.

Vasbarlog: Or because our governments didn’t bankroll the side of the conflict committing the genocide.

testdelacc1: There are large groups of people have very strongly negative opinions about one side or the other in Israel-Palestine.Only a tiny fraction of people in Europe or North America could point to Sudan on the map. And even fewer could explain the differences between the factions involved. There’s no simple good-guys-vs-bad-guys rhetoric that’s easy to join.

tovej: I mean, the RSF is very clearly the bad guys in this conflict. The reason there is no coverage is that there is widespread agreement on this point, and western govts aren't directly funding the bad guys as is the case with Israel.

Mainan_Tagonist: western governments funding Israel?What western governments exactly? Isn't Israel capable of funding itself through its own economy?

testdelacc1: America hands out military aid to Israel. Coupons that can be redeemed for weapons with American manufacturers. It’s a subsidy to Israel and to American military primes. This comes to billions each year.That’s one government though. I can’t think of any other western government funding Israel in a similar way.

Mainan_Tagonist: "That’s one government though. I can’t think of any other western government funding Israel in a similar way."My point, exactly!

bell-cot: I'd phrase it as 99% of Westerners feeling that they have no interests at stake. Whether that's literal money, or physical resources (say, rare earth mines), or transportation routes (say, a route out of the Persian Gulf), or meaningful ties to a side in the war (either "I know them" or "they look like somebody I care about" feelings). Plus - talking about Sudan on social media looks like an opportunity to score zero cred, while slowly burning your own relevance.

dwa3592: This is heartbreaking. Is there a place where I can donate? Will it help in anyway?

nhatcher: Try Share The Meal[1]. It's quite easy to use and I think it has an impact. Sadly also a way to keep in touch with devastating news like this one[1]: https://sharethemeal.org/en-us

marvel_boy: No. It's because arabs killing blacks is too much for influencers.

anovikov: I don't get it, why? RSF fights on Ukrainian side, SAF on Russian since 2024. It's the SAF that's the bad guy now. They flipped.

throwaway27448: How did you manage to make a civil war in sudan about a european conflict? Neither plays much role at all compared to the gulf states and eritrea/ethiopia.

MisterTea: The Sudanese population and diaspora hold no great financial or political influence globally so they have no visibility hence, no audience.

the_arun: We need to say Sudan has natural resources. Eg Oil. The world turns around

KumaBear: Well from a moral perspective our tax dollars are funding the weapons used in the conflict.

dralley: From moral perspective, the same entities (UAE, Qatar) who have done the most to raise the profile of the I/P conflict with funds and media campaigns are directly funding and sending weapons to the parties responsible for the genocide in Sudan.Which has much clearer properties of "genocide" than the I/P war, and killed 3 times as many people in the same timeframe despite having far more primitive and less powerful weaponry involved.

b450: There is a section of the article covering precisely this, headed "The external actors: arms to both sides"

lostlogin: My neighbour who is a nurse did stints there while working for the International Red Cross, it was either 3 or 6 months.https://www.icrc.org/en/where-we-work/sudan

jahnu: Doctors Without Borders (MSF) are also therehttps://www.msf.org/conflict-sudan?page=0

ahhhhnoooo: Is anyone stopping any of the genocides around the world? Governments and citizenry are engaged in many attempts to wholly eradicate cultures and minorities. Sometimes fast, like Israel attempting to eradicate Palestinians. Sometimes they are slow, like the barriers put into place against indigenous communities after generations of genocide against them.It's not new either. Sudan, Uyghers, Rohingya, Yazidi, Armenians, Hutus, Tutsi, Bengalis, Cambodians. The world has stood by and not intervened in many of these. Heck, Palantir just posted that they believe some cultures should be eliminated in the United States.It's grim out there.

yostrovs: This war is not even known about by the general public. The question is why not? I believe the actors of the war nobody hates or loves outside of Africa. Nobody knows them. If it would be Americans, Chinese, Israelis, or Russians involved, the war would be in the news.

csense: Let's be honest. If someone did send in the troops to restore order, people would be screaming "How dare you invade a sovereign country" or "You're only doing this because you want oil" or "The President wants to make Sudan the 51st state" or "You're wasting money and soldiers' lives messing around in a place most of us can't even put on a map" or "You're just doing whatever the Jews tell you to do."

papa0101: then bloody stop sending troops to all other countries under whatever pretexts.

renewiltord: We’re trying to. Trump is even going to end NATO (and hopefully ANZUS, the Japan MDA, and the agreement with Taiwan). It’s time to stop interfering in other people’s affairs. We should stop messing with Ukraine too and maybe we will within the next few years.Once the Iran misadventure ends we can drop the whole pretense and you can do your thing and we can do our thing.

watwut: I do not know who it is "we", but Trump is certainly NOT trying to stop sending soldiers abroad. Instead, it is using them to attack Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, boats on the see cause killing is fun and to threaten Greenland. Iran is completely pointless and expensive war in particular. Also, pressuring Ukraine to give up more territory then Russia took is NOT "stopping to mess in other peoples affairs" either.Also, what Vance is doing in Europe is not "stopping to mess in other peoples affairs" but instead "meddling into politics trying to make far right happen".Trade war with Canada and numerous attempts to "punish" other countries for prosecuting corruption are also meddling.

renewiltord: The Russia-Ukraine thing is not a US concern. It’s problematic we are messing in it. Hopefully, we will be out soon and withdraw from NATO. Trade war are just the conditions to sell your stuff in our country. If your country has zero tariffs then I understand but which one is that? Then you’ve been prosecuting trade war for decades and now upset someone else does?What is sold in our country is our business just like what is sold in yours is your business.

actionfromafar: The US is too large to pretend it can be isolationist.

insane_dreamer: No one is saying the US should send troops to Sudan. But it has made the situation for civilians much much worse by gutting USAID, and it could flex its might to force diplomatic solutions to end the fighting, but it's not.If Sudan had oil though, we'd probably have already see the US militarily involved.

voodooEntity: Dont wanne be the devils advocate here, but reality is that even if you find something "looking legit" in terms of donation, especially in such regions the most money will be "lost" halfway, and even if some will reach the destination it is more than rare that it will even help to benefit those suffering, and not land in the pockets of a few "in power" or just used to buy more weapons to kill more people.....Yes helping is a good thing, tho reality is its not as "easy" as transfer some money. Tho respecting your good intentions

jvanderbot: That's overly cynical. Donating to local warlords / psuedogovernment actors can be sketchy. Donating to e.g., UNICEF is much more likely to produce good results for refugees, especially children and mothers.I'm not aware of where to send money to stop wars - it's likely to have the opposite effect, sadly.

voodooEntity: Even donations to organisations such as UNICEF often end up in the wrong hands.Lets go for the optimistic scenario in which UNICEF will only take a very small portion for the "processing" and really deliver lets say food and medical supplies to the region. Those warloard will simply come and take it away from those citizens and provide to their armies. Theres nothing those citizens can do against it.Do i wish it would be different? Absolutely. But sadly the world doesn't work as i would wish it to.

steinwinde: I'm a member of an organization that collects money for Sudanese soup kitchens and hospitals in affected areas (https://sound-of-sudan.org/) , and I know a few other organizations that indirectly support such campaigns (e.g. https://sudfa-media.com/). Being personally acquainted with people, who spend much of their time, energy and last-but-not-least their own money on such activities, your claim makes me slightly angry.> such regions the most money will be "lost" halfwayPlease elaborate and don't lump all "regions" in with each other. My personal impression is that the combination of the community kitchen movement (which has its roots in the failed Sudanese revolution) and money transfers to mobile phones makes it relatively transparent where one's money goes and what it achieves. I'm not in the US, but I have no doubt that money donated to an organization like the Sudanese American Medical Association (https://sama-sd.org/about-us/finances/) largely reaches the people that need it.> Those warloard will simply come and take it away from those citizens and provide to their armies.I can assure you none of use would send money to hospitals or community kitchens, if this was likely to happen. What makes you think so?

SadTrombone: There are other countries and coalitions in the world that aren't the United States. Humanity fought and ended wars for thousands of years before the United States ever existed.

yostrovs: Most of the countries and coalitions you're alluding to have no functional militaries or actual interest in doing something about the war. They do strongly condemn.

throwaway173738: What do you have against Doctors Without Borders?