Anarchy in Sudan has spawned the world’s worst famine in 40 years
Sudan’s unfolding famine, described as the worst in decades, is widely linked to a brutal civil war, proxy involvement by regional powers, and long-running structural damage from colonial borders and resource exploitation. Commenters argue over responsibility and remedies: some call for stronger external intervention or even neo‑colonial “trusteeship,” while others say repeated foreign meddling has already helped create the crisis and that nation‑building must come from within. The thread also examines how the UN defines and declares famine, why some humanitarian catastrophes receive far more global attention than others, and whether current aid models meaningfully address the political roots of mass starvation.
Causes of the famine and conflict
- Many see the famine as fundamentally political: war, deliberate obstruction of food, and external meddling (UAE, Egypt, Saudi, Iran, Ethiopia, Russia, US/NATO) rather than simple scarcity.
- Some argue it is an outcome of decades of bad rule, including a dictator who armed rival militias and fostered genocidal violence.
- Others stress proxy-war dynamics and regional power struggles more than “donor failure” or internal dysfunction.
Colonialism, governance, and responsibility
- One camp emphasizes colonial legacies: borders drawn for extraction, oil exploitation (e.g., Chevron), and institutions designed to loot, not govern, leaving fragile post-independence states.
- Another camp argues Sudan has been sovereign for ~70 years and local elites bear primary responsibility; they compare Sudan unfavorably to other ex-colonies that stabilized.
- Counterpoints: post-colonial paths differ radically; direct comparisons (e.g., to India, Singapore, UAE) are called “comical” or overly simplistic.
Debates on intervention and (re)colonization
- Pro‑intervention views range from strong peacekeeping to quasi‑colonial “time‑limited governance” (20–50 years) to impose institutions, education, and “high‑trust” norms.
- Critics cite catastrophic records of Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, multiple African interventions, and historic colonial famines; they warn any new colonialism would repeat exploitation.
- Some advocate strict non‑intervention and letting borders and power “sort themselves out,” accepting large human costs; others call this morally unacceptable.
“Anarchy” vs anomie
- Several object to the article’s “anarchy” framing, noting there are armed factions and hierarchy, just predatory and ineffective.
- Distinction is drawn between political “anarchism” and social breakdown (“anomie”); some say using “anarchy” for chaos is misleading.
Aid mechanics and limits
- Discussion of UN famine declaration criteria and why it was limited to a refugee camp (data gaps, absence of a functioning government).
- Airdrops are described as extremely inefficient and symbolic; sustained relief requires large-scale logistics and ground access.
- Some highlight effective but limited roles of agencies like UNICEF, WFP, MSF, while others worry aid without demographic or governance change only postpones crises.
Comparisons and moral reflections
- Multiple comments note far worse death tolls in Sudan and Sahel-type crises than in more media-saturated conflicts like Gaza or Ukraine.
- Personal anecdotes from travel in Sudan emphasize ordinary people’s kindness, deepening the sense of tragedy.