dw.com
Sudan's Civil War: 12 Million Displaced, Deepening Divisions
Sudan's civil war, sparked by a power struggle between two generals, has displaced 12 million people, with 64% of the population needing humanitarian aid; the conflict deepens existing societal divisions and threatens long-term stability, exacerbated by reduced international funding.
- What is the immediate humanitarian impact of Sudan's civil war, and how many people are affected?
- Two years into a civil war, 64% of Sudan's 51 million people require humanitarian aid; around 12 million have been displaced, with 3.4 million seeking refuge in neighboring countries. Estimates of fatalities range from 40,000 to 150,000, highlighting the crisis's severity.
- What are the root causes of the conflict, and how have pre-existing societal divisions contributed to its escalation?
- The conflict stems from a power struggle between generals Abdel-Fattah Burhan and Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, escalating after a failed attempt to integrate paramilitary forces into the national army. This conflict has deepened existing societal divisions along ethnic, religious, and tribal lines, creating a complex challenge for peacebuilding.
- What are the long-term implications of this crisis for Sudan's stability and future, considering the current level of international aid and the depth of societal divisions?
- The war's impact extends beyond immediate casualties and displacement. The closure of 60% of communal soup kitchens due to funding shortages, coupled with reduced international aid—especially from the US, previously a major contributor—exacerbates the humanitarian crisis. The long-term recovery will require addressing deep-seated societal divisions and substantial international support.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the military conflict and the humanitarian crisis, presenting a picture of chaos and suffering. The headline (if there was one, it's not provided in the text) likely highlights the violence and displacement. The focus on the two generals and their actions shapes the narrative towards a personalized conflict, rather than a complex political and societal crisis. This framing potentially overlooks the agency and resilience of Sudanese civil society, which is mentioned later in the article but not initially prioritized.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral but the frequent use of terms like "chaos," "suffering," and "erschütternd" (German for "shocking") contributes to a sense of despair and hopelessness. While accurately describing the situation, these emotionally charged words may contribute to a feeling of helplessness and potentially limit readers' engagement with potential solutions. The repeated descriptions of widespread violence and suffering can be emotionally overwhelming. More balanced language could improve the piece.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the conflict between the two generals, but provides limited detail on the underlying political and social factors that contributed to the war. While the role of the Janjaweed militia is mentioned, deeper analysis of its historical context and ongoing influence is lacking. The economic situation of Sudan, beyond mentioning its resource wealth, is not thoroughly explored as a contributing factor to the conflict. The article also omits discussion of potential international actors beyond those directly supporting either general, who might have an interest in perpetuating the conflict. While this might be due to space constraints, the omissions limit the reader's understanding of the conflict's complexity.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic narrative of two generals locked in a power struggle. While this is a significant aspect, it overlooks the broader involvement of various ethnic groups, political factions, and international actors with their own agendas. The implication is that resolving the conflict is solely a matter of resolving the dispute between these two individuals, which ignores the deeper societal divisions and international interests at play.
Gender Bias
The article mentions the disproportionate impact of the war on women and girls, specifically citing sexual violence. This is positive and acknowledges a critical aspect of the humanitarian crisis. However, further analysis of the gendered aspects of the conflict—the roles of women in peacebuilding efforts, or the specific ways gender dynamics exacerbate violence—is missing.
Sustainable Development Goals
The conflict has displaced millions, leaving 64% of the population dependent on humanitarian aid. The closure of numerous soup kitchens due to lack of funding exacerbates poverty and food insecurity.