Recent reporting in The Guardian on testimony provided to Parliament by Nathaniel Raymond raises deeply troubling questions about the international response to Sudan’s war.

According to the reporting, concerns relating to mass atrocities, external support networks, and the role of regional actors may have been understood far earlier and in greater detail than was publicly acknowledged. These allegations deserve careful scrutiny, and any conclusions should be guided by evidence rather than assumption.

Yet regardless of where future investigations lead, the reporting highlights a broader issue that extends beyond any single government or institution.

The question facing policymakers is no longer simply whether sufficient information exists.

The question is what happens when information fails to produce action.

For much of the past three years, international discussion of Sudan has understandably focused on the consequences of the conflict: displacement, hunger, civilian suffering, and the collapse of essential services. These realities demand urgent attention and sustained support.

But wars are not sustained by their consequences.

They are sustained by decisions, incentives, resources, and networks.
This is why debates about external support to the conflict matter. Not because they shift responsibility away from Sudanese actors, but because they help explain why the war has proven so difficult to contain and resolve.

The significance of the recent testimony is therefore not simply the allegations it contains. It is that those allegations reinforce a question that has persisted throughout the conflict: why has there often appeared to be greater willingness to discuss the consequences of the war than the external factors helping to sustain it?

This is not merely a question for one government. Nor is it a question for one country.

It is a challenge for the wider international community.

Over the course of the conflict, numerous reports, investigations, and expert assessments have raised concerns about arms flows, financing networks, sanctions enforcement, and the role of external actors. At the same time, diplomatic engagement has often prioritised managing relationships and maintaining channels of communication.

Diplomacy is necessary. Relationships matter.

But difficult questions do not become less important because they are politically inconvenient.

If anything, they become more important.

Three years into the conflict, Sudan does not suffer from a lack of analysis. The scale of the crisis is well documented. The suffering of civilians is widely recognised. International conferences continue to be convened. Statements continue to be issued.

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

The central challenge is still the same: whether international policy is willing to confront the factors that continue to sustain the war.

This is particularly important as discussions increasingly turn towards return, recovery, and Sudan’s future beyond the battlefield. Recovery will require more than rebuilding infrastructure. It will require honest reflection on the political choices, international relationships, and policy failures that allowed the conflict to continue for so long.

Sudan’s tragedy has never been a consequence of insufficient information.

Warnings have been issued. Evidence has been gathered. Investigations have been conducted. Briefings have taken place.

The challenge has increasingly been whether governments are prepared to align their policies with what they already know.

Three years into the war, that remains one of the most important unanswered questions.

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

No, honest, that’s a sincere question. Why does the West impose sanctions on developing countries to put pressure on their dictators when these sanctions only hurt innocent individuals?

Going by recent history, first Iraq, then Libya, Syria and even ‘the darling of the West’ Egypt, all fell under outside pressures. All of these countries at one point or another were either sanctioned or threatened with sanctions. And in their efforts to lift those restrictions and remove their causes (the dictator and his regime) they fell into bloody civil unrest, and in some cases even war. And although the catalyst of that removal was Western injunctions, in each and every case the cost was innocent local lives.

The Sudan is now sanctioned and their current president, Omar Al-Bashir, is a wanted man.

Two years ago when the Arab Spring swept across much of North Africa it touched on Sudan but quickly collapsed. A year ago the streets of Khartoum saw some unrest that too did not overthrow Al-Bashir and shortly subsided. So what is it about him? What does he have that Gaddafi, Mubarak and now Assad didn’t and don’t possess?

Growing up in the Sudan I lived through three major military coups and escaped a fourth, the bloodiest of them all. The one that left my father with a bullet fragment embedded in his skull. By the way my dad was a civilian. He lived and worked happily for many years after that event with the fragment inside his head. He used to joke and call it his badge of honour – the envy of his military friends and colleagues including the then president, Jaafar Nimeiri.

Sudanese are patient resilient and very determined proud people. They don’t like it when outsiders meddle in their business and will stop at nothing to right a wrong and any injustice.

The current sanctions are causing scarcity of vital and lifesaving goods and products, deflation of the local currency, extreme high unemployment and up to 48% inflation. Al-Bashir has already stated this will be his last term and he will step down at the end of it – in around two years’ time. The whole country is readying itself for his departure and every political party is setting out its stall. Bloodless democracy is on its way to Sudan. Almost four years ago now, the South gained its long awaited independence and formed the country of South Sudan. So why is the West still putting pressure on the Sudan when only the innocent will suffer? Who will gain from the restrictions and their weight on ordinary people?