For years, a brutal civil war has devastated Sudan.
The collapse of any form of international order has left the country as the focus of intense competition among countries that are not superpowers but rather middle powers. These countries—Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates—send money and weapons, hoping to shape the outcome of the conflict. “Some want gold,” Anne Applebaum reports. “Some are there because their rivals are there, and Sudan is a good place to fight.”
Meanwhile, the countries that might have once banded together to stop the fighting have lost interest or capacity. The institutions that might once have helped broker a cease-fire are too weak, or can’t or won’t help. No international organizations, no diplomats, and certainly no Americans are coming to offer aid.
In The Atlantic’s September cover story, Applebaum details what the end of the liberal world order looks like: [https://theatln.tc/XN7ctZeN](https://theatln.tc/XN7ctZeN)
— Grace Buono, assistant editor, audience and engagement, *The Atlantic*
googologies on
Domestic elites have become billionaires through plundering state resources and are fighting tooth-and-nail to protect their economic empires from potential seizures or anti-corruption efforts. While the conflict is over who should lead (if one faction wins, the other could lose everything), there is a broad consensus among Sudanese elites that democratization and the rule of law must be avoided at all costs.
International actors have also benefited from the conflict, like Russia, the UAE, and Egypt. They have a vested interest in its perpetuation because it allows them to strike informal deals with their preferred faction that involve massive kickbacks, without having to worry about regulations or environmental sustainability.
Bottom line: Ending the conflict would threaten powerful domestic and international interests. This is how international relations work, and how it has always worked, as sad as it may be.
Leave A Reply
Du musst angemeldet sein, um einen Kommentar abzugeben.
2 Kommentare
For years, a brutal civil war has devastated Sudan.
The collapse of any form of international order has left the country as the focus of intense competition among countries that are not superpowers but rather middle powers. These countries—Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates—send money and weapons, hoping to shape the outcome of the conflict. “Some want gold,” Anne Applebaum reports. “Some are there because their rivals are there, and Sudan is a good place to fight.”
Meanwhile, the countries that might have once banded together to stop the fighting have lost interest or capacity. The institutions that might once have helped broker a cease-fire are too weak, or can’t or won’t help. No international organizations, no diplomats, and certainly no Americans are coming to offer aid.
In The Atlantic’s September cover story, Applebaum details what the end of the liberal world order looks like: [https://theatln.tc/XN7ctZeN](https://theatln.tc/XN7ctZeN)
— Grace Buono, assistant editor, audience and engagement, *The Atlantic*
Domestic elites have become billionaires through plundering state resources and are fighting tooth-and-nail to protect their economic empires from potential seizures or anti-corruption efforts. While the conflict is over who should lead (if one faction wins, the other could lose everything), there is a broad consensus among Sudanese elites that democratization and the rule of law must be avoided at all costs.
International actors have also benefited from the conflict, like Russia, the UAE, and Egypt. They have a vested interest in its perpetuation because it allows them to strike informal deals with their preferred faction that involve massive kickbacks, without having to worry about regulations or environmental sustainability.
Bottom line: Ending the conflict would threaten powerful domestic and international interests. This is how international relations work, and how it has always worked, as sad as it may be.