Sudan Futures Policy Brief No. 1

Cutting the Oxygen of War

External Enablers, Diplomatic Alignment, and the Future of International Engagement in Sudan

Author: Sudan Futures
Date: June 2026

Executive Summary

Three years into Sudan’s conflict, international attention has increased but remains unevenly translated into political action.

While governments, international organisations, and humanitarian agencies have mobilised significant resources in response to human suffering, less progress has been made in addressing the external factors that continue to sustain the war.

Sudan’s conflict cannot be understood solely through developments on the battlefield. Financial support networks, arms flows, diplomatic positioning, and regional competition all shape the incentives that prolong violence and complicate efforts toward peace.

Recent initiatives, including the Berlin Conference on Sudan, demonstrate renewed international engagement. However, they also reveal a persistent gap between recognition of the conflict’s drivers and the willingness to address them directly.

This brief argues that:

• Life-saving assistance remains indispensable but cannot substitute for political action.
• External enablers require greater scrutiny and accountability.
• International diplomacy must become more coherent and aligned.
• Planning for return, recovery, and governance should begin alongside humanitarian response.
• Sudanese civilian perspectives should play a greater role in shaping international policy discussions.

Introduction

Sudan’s war has generated one of the world’s most severe displacement and protection crises. Millions have been displaced internally and across borders, livelihoods have collapsed, and access to essential services remains severely constrained.

International efforts have understandably focused on immediate aid and relief needs. Yet humanitarian crises do not sustain themselves. They are sustained by political, military, and economic dynamics that extend far beyond the provision of aid.

Three years into the conflict, a central question remains:

Why does international recognition of the crisis continue to outpace international action on the factors sustaining it?

This paper explores that gap.

1. Sudan’s Crisis Is Political as Well as Humanitarian

The civilian consequences of Sudan’s conflict are both visible and urgent.

However, the scale of civilian suffering reflects underlying political realities.

Violence against civilians, displacement, restrictions on humanitarian access, and institutional collapse are not isolated phenomena. They are consequences of a conflict whose incentives remain largely intact.

As a result, needs arising from the conflict continue to expand faster than international efforts to reduce them.

Humanitarian assistance saves lives. It cannot, on its own, change the trajectory of the conflict.

2. The External Dimension of the Conflict

Discussion of Sudan often focuses on domestic actors. Yet the conflict has always had a significant external dimension.

International reporting, expert analysis, and diplomatic discussions have increasingly highlighted concerns regarding:

• arms transfers
• financial support networks
• sanctions enforcement gaps
• regional competition
• political protection afforded to conflict actors

The precise nature and scale of these relationships remain contested in some cases. Nevertheless, growing attention to external enablers reflects recognition that the conflict is not sustained solely by internal dynamics.

A durable reduction in violence is unlikely if the broader ecosystem supporting the conflict remains largely untouched.

3. Diplomacy Without Alignment

International engagement on Sudan has increased over the past year.

Conferences, diplomatic initiatives, humanitarian pledging events, and public statements have all demonstrated continuing concern for the country’s future.

The Berlin Conference represented an important example of this renewed attention.

The conference brought together governments, multilateral institutions, and aid organisations to discuss Sudan’s crisis and mobilise additional support.

Yet the conference also highlighted a broader challenge.

International stakeholders have often proven more successful at mobilising resources than applying coordinated political leverage.

The challenge is no longer simply one of attention.

It is increasingly one of alignment.

Without greater coherence between diplomatic engagement, accountability measures, humanitarian objectives, and regional policy, international efforts risk addressing symptoms more effectively than causes.

4. Looking Beyond the Battlefield: Return and Recovery

As conditions evolve in parts of Sudan, increasing attention will be given to questions of return and recovery.

However, return should not be confused with recovery.

Many Sudanese civilians have lost homes, livelihoods, documentation, educational opportunities, and access to basic services.

Returning populations may face:

• destroyed infrastructure
• limited economic opportunity
• weak local administration
• disrupted education systems
• ongoing insecurity

These challenges raise important policy questions.

How are returnees being supported?

What planning exists for local recovery?

How can international assistance help rebuild capacity rather than simply respond to crisis?

These issues deserve greater attention now, rather than after the conflict formally ends.

5. Policy Recommendations

Recommendation 1

Increase scrutiny of external enablers of the conflict.

Governments should strengthen monitoring, transparency, and accountability relating to arms transfers, financing networks, and sanctions enforcement.

Recommendation 2

Improve coordination between diplomatic initiatives.

International efforts should prioritise coherence across bilateral, regional, and multilateral engagement.

Recommendation 3

Align humanitarian and political strategies.

Humanitarian assistance should remain independent and impartial while being accompanied by broader efforts to address conflict drivers.

Recommendation 4

Begin planning for recovery and return now.

International partners should support assessments and planning related to housing, education, documentation, livelihoods, and local governance.

Recommendation 5

Broaden engagement with Sudanese civilian expertise.

Policy discussions should draw more consistently on Sudanese expertise, civil society, professional networks, and local knowledge.

Conclusion

Three years into the conflict, Sudan does not suffer from a lack of awareness.

The scale of the crisis is well documented. The scale of civilian suffering is widely recognised. Diplomatic engagement continues.

Yet recognition alone does not alter the course of a conflict.

Sudan’s war is sustained not only by violence on the battlefield, but also by external networks that finance, arm, and politically enable the conflict.

Until international engagement becomes more aligned with that reality, humanitarian needs are likely to continue outpacing political action.

Sudan does not lack attention. It continues to lack alignment.