What about Sudan?

A lot happened in New York last week. There were bizarre speeches that made little sense except give ample fodder for jokes to last a long time, gestures of solidarity that were long overdue, appearance of social media personalities in Pakistan's official contingent that no one has been able to figure out, and hundreds of side events that are likely to be forgotten by next week. But there was something missing – perhaps not completely – but missing enough that it should make us question what values do we stand up for?

Since April 2023, Sudan has been in the midst of a brutal civil war. This has led to deaths of over 150,000 people, resulted in malnutrition of over 700,000 people and is the largest displacement crisis in the world at the moment, with nearly 15 million people displaced from their homes. Torture and gender-based violence is rampant, and diseases like cholera are widespread with one of the worst outbreaks in the region in decades, and communities in neighbouring countries of Chad and South Sudan are also impacted. Despite these statistics and news reports from the country that paint a picture of deep, unimaginable pain, attention to the issue has remained scant. Stories about Sudan often start with 'forgotten crisis' or 'invisible war'. It is true that the UN secretary general brings it up routinely in the same breath as other crises, and every now and then there is another statement from rich countries about a 'roadmap' or a 'plan' for ceasefire, there is silence from the large part of the world, including Pakistan. The sense of ignorance or apathy is mirrored in how the news is covered in the country. A quick search with the keyword Sudan in this newspaper shows that the last time there was news about the humanitarian catastrophe was well over a year ago. By comparison, there have been significantly more frequent and more recent news articles about the war in Ukraine in this newspaper alone. Urdu newspapers are even worse.

So we must ask, why is that? There are two possible explanations. The first is that Sudan is too far, not in our neighborhood, and hence it remains a low priority. Second is that it is not a conflict between two states, but rather a civil war, and hence our response is more muted.

It is true that Sudan is not in our geopolitical neighborhood, but by that argument we should not expect anyone else other than those in our vicinity to care about Afghanistan or Kashmir. The challenge of Afghan refugees should not be a global concern if the argument is only about proximity. The whole public posturing of unity among brotherly Muslim states also rings hollow if there are always exceptions to those rules.

The second argument is also troubling because the concept of peace, human dignity and well-being, issues that we (at least publicly) champion, should not be predicated on the nature of the conflict. If we say we want to ensure that every person has a right to health, shelter and security, why does it matter if the bombs rain from within the borders or outside?

It is also true, and deeply troubling, that some of Pakistan's big benefactors are widely believed to be involved in the Sudanese conflict providing arms, drones and financial support to warring factions. Perhaps that is the cause of extra caution (or apathy). Yet, the care for others who are dying and denied their basic dignity cannot be conditional. We ought to live in a world where our dignity and well-being is not trampled upon, where our basic rights to life and security remain non-negotiable, so we should make sure to stand up for those values for everyone else as well. Our material, financial and political support to the people of Sudan would be most appropriate thing for us to do. That process, however, starts with acknowledgement of their suffering.