Berlin on Sudan: Attention Without Alignment

The recent international conference on Sudan in Berlin was a welcome moment of renewed attention. At a time when the war is entering its third year, sustained engagement from the international community is both necessary and overdue.

The mobilisation of funding, and the recognition of the scale of the crisis, matter. Needs in Sudan remain immense, and support for those affected must continue.

The conference brought together representatives from over fifty countries, alongside major international institutions and humanitarian organisations. Yet notably absent were the parties to the conflict themselves. The Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces were not present. This underlines a broader limitation: while international stakeholders are able to convene, fund, and coordinate among themselves, their ability — or willingness — to influence the dynamics driving the war is still far less clear.

The conference also highlighted a more persistent problem.

Once again, the international response appears more effective at mobilising resources than at mobilising political action. While there was acknowledgment of the role of external enablers and the need to address arms flows, this did not translate into clear or coordinated measures to disrupt them.

This gap is not new — but it is becoming harder to justify.

A war that is financed, supplied, and politically enabled cannot be meaningfully addressed through funding alone. Without greater clarity and consistency in how external enablers are approached, the underlying incentives sustaining the conflict are unlikely to shift.
At the same time, another dimension of the crisis is beginning to emerge.

As conditions change in parts of Sudan, some civilians are attempting to return. But return does not mean recovery. Many are going back to areas where infrastructure has collapsed, services are limited or non-existent, and livelihoods have been entirely destroyed.

For those who have lost homes, income, and community networks, starting over is not simply a question of resilience — it is a question of support.

What mechanisms are in place to assist those returning?
How are their needs being assessed and prioritised?
And how does the international response plan to move beyond emergency assistance towards supporting longer-term recovery?

These questions remain largely unanswered.

If the focus remains overwhelmingly on immediate relief, without equal attention to political drivers and early recovery, there is a risk that return becomes another phase of vulnerability rather than a pathway to stability.

The Berlin conference was an important moment. It also underscored the limits of the current approach.

Sudan does not lack attention, nor does it lack resources. What it continues to lack is alignment between humanitarian response, political action, and longer-term recovery.

Until that alignment is achieved, progress will remain partial — and fragile.