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

RResPublica about 5 hours ago 136 commentsRead Article on respublica.media

HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

56% Positive

Analyzed from 1446 words in the discussion.

Discussion (136 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

goodcanadian•about 4 hours ago

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...

EDIT: This is what I am thinking of: https://youtu.be/bpH37vGoRJc

b450•about 3 hours ago

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

throwaway173738•about 2 hours ago

It’s not getting much attention because the UAE is allied with the US against Iran. If you listen to their mouthpieces on the news you’re going to hear nothing but glowing praise for the US attacks on Iran and statements about the Iranian campaign against civilian targets in the UAE. I don’t think the US government has much stomach to go against the UAE. And it’s a sad commentary on what the people who control the executive and the legislative are about that they speak about Sudan not at all.

goodcanadian•about 3 hours ago

It is not covered in anywhere the same level of detail, in my opinion.

ResPublica•about 3 hours ago

I appreciate your feedback and understand your criticism. I'll be sure to add more detail in future analyses. My main goal was to draw attention to this matter.

yostrovs•about 3 hours ago

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.

newspaper1•about 3 hours ago

“The world” is very complicit in supporting Israel’s genocide. It also has effects like stripping the rights of citizens in countries whose governments support Israel. That’s why people care.

dwa3592•about 4 hours ago

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

Edit: Thank you for your responses. Ended up donating to Doctors without borders. Hope it reaches someone. I was going to say humans are really just wild animals but then i thought that would be a disrespect to wild animals.

voodooEntity•about 4 hours ago

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•about 3 hours ago

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•about 3 hours ago

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.

throwaway173738•about 2 hours ago

What do you have against Doctors Without Borders?

lostlogin•about 3 hours ago

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•about 3 hours ago

Doctors Without Borders (MSF) are also there

https://www.msf.org/conflict-sudan?page=0

nhatcher•about 4 hours ago

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

Rekindle8090•about 2 hours ago

It would probably be better to donate to the people in your immediate circle of family and friends

dmix•about 3 hours ago

For context: SAF is backed by Saudis/Qatar/Egypt/Iran/Russia and RSF is backed by UAE/Libya/Ethiopia/Chad/previously Wagner but Russia switched sides.

The US and others have pushed for negotiations but the competing interests by the gulf states, russia, and other african countries have complicated things.

Synaesthesia•about 4 hours ago

Africa sadly just gets ignored. But one day it will unite and develop itself, so I hope anyway.

enrightened•35 minutes ago

It’s abandoned because the killings are being done by Arab supremacists.

ahhhhnoooo•about 3 hours ago

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•about 3 hours ago

"The world" cares about some more than others. That's why the plight of the Palestinians is daily on the news, while that of the Yazidis or Druze is not.

ahhhhnoooo•21 minutes ago

Maybe read better news? I've been hearing about the Yazidi through reporting on the YPJ/YPG since circa 2015.

But I think theres multiple factors happening. One is scale. Millions of Palestinians are currently experiencing displacement, bombings, and settler colonialism.

Thats a large group of people. Multiple times the size of the Yazidi or Druze populations.

There's also the scale of the conflict and the weapons deployed. Israel deployed somewhere around 80,000 tonnes of explosives on Gaza. Thats more explosives than were deployed in World War 2. Add in evidence of white phosphorus being deployed, and the scale of the devastation is newsworthy.

And I think access to communication is different, people care about what they can see. Footage of Gaza is readily available and terrible to behold.

Finally, and I'm not pleased about this one, I think many in the west excuse behavior of some countries because they have racist ideas about those countries. Like, many Americans probably expect developing nations to have atrocities, but then look at Israel and go, "I thought this was supposed to be a model democracy! We aren't supposed to do genocide!" (Of course this idea is nonsense, developed countries have done genocide many many times, but I think it does drive news cycles.)

_DeadFred_•about 2 hours ago

I had compassion for Ukrainians weaponized against me here on this site (you are racist, you only care about white people, etc). Many now days use/express compassion as a weapon/political tool.

csense•about 4 hours ago

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."

SadTrombone•about 3 hours ago

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•about 3 hours ago

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.

Calavar•about 3 hours ago

It's really hard to cry victim about others misrepresenting Trump's motives for the Iran war as oil, oil, oil when the US did in fact launch a military attack on a country - within the last six months - where the subsequent negotiated agreement on oil rights was quite literally described by the White House press secretary as "the president’s control of Venezuela’s oil" [1] and just a few weeks later the president held a public, televised conference with Chevron and ExxonMobil executives in the White House where he pitched them on investing in the Venezuelan oil industry [2]

[1] https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/trump-venezuela-oil-...

[2] https://youtu.be/sD4x6T-u4XY

papa0101•about 3 hours ago

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

renewiltord•about 3 hours ago

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•about 3 hours ago

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.

fwipsy•about 3 hours ago

If the article called for direct military intervention, I missed it.

dist-epoch•about 3 hours ago

Exactly this, the same "The Guardian" that routinely complains that any western/US military intervention in Africa is "western colonialism" is now begging for western/US military intervention.

Typical example:

> Colonialism in Africa is still alive and well

> Today’s waves of migration are a direct result of Britain’s disastrous intervention in the ousting and killing of the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

> The current situation is down to the failure of western powers, particularly the US and British governments, who feel they’re the custodians of almighty power and believed could do as they wished in Africa without any blowback.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/01/colonialism-in...

insane_dreamer•about 3 hours ago

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.

RIMR•about 4 hours ago

That's probably because:

A. Our tactics would constitute an invasion B. We would try to seize oil or other natural resources while we were there. C. The president would literally say something like this on national television.

cess11•about 3 hours ago

One factor this article skips over is that UAE and the Abraham Accords makes the US reluctant to rein in their buddies.

This might change due to the UAE not being very happy about the US dragging them into a regional war.