The suffering of Sudan has been thrust into the limelight by grave warnings from relief and human rights agencies of pending famine among people caught between contending forces in its civil war. Horrifying abuses, including widespread rape and slavery, have been highlighted by graphic journalistic reportage. Unless aid is provided urgently there are fears that hundreds of thousands could die of starvation, as an estimated 2.5 million people are exposed to famine.
Several seasons' planting have been interrupted and people have been forced to eat seeds, in a classic pincer movement that catches such populations between conflicting needs. There are many reports that aid has been diverted or sold into local markets. The Government has pledged emergency food aid and, earlier this month, sent a diplomatic emissary to Sudan to demand of the authorities in Khartoum that they remove all conditions attached to its delivery in the south of the country and to facilitate access.
Some hopes have been raised by the decision to allow flights in to the south and by recent inconclusive negotiations on a possible settlement between the Islamic military regime led by General Omar al-Bashir and the Sudan People's Liberation Army based in the Christian south. But there is little indication of a more general willingness to let humanitarian considerations take precedence over military ones. The aid airlift is welcome, but very expensive and much less effective that transport by road.
While the civil war has pitched these two main forces against each other for about 15 years, reinforced by the military coup in 1989, it has many subsidiary conflicts, based on shifting alliances and allegiances. This makes it all the more difficult for international political mediation efforts to succeed, as well as for relief agencies to gain reliable access with emergency aid. It also gives third parties a means to intervene in order to pursue the trade in human slavery. Many thousands of people have suffered this fate, being captured in the south and ending up as slaves in northern farms.
Relief agencies face a classic dilemma in these circumstances of whether to take sides in the conflict or intercede with both sides in order to facilitate their access. They also face the problem of debt fatigue, which can translate into a cynical effort to time the pictures of misery and suffering so as to optimise the public's response. The basic thrust of the relief agencies' efforts is admirable in the face of this potential catastrophe in one of the poorest parts of the world, but it should not be left up to them alone to carry this political burden.
However difficult, complex or apparently intractable the conflict there is much the United Nations could do, in co-operation with regional and world powers, to encourage attempts at a settlement in Sudan. There are several states in the Arab world which have co-operated with the regime in Khartoum and would be vulnerable to international pressure. The same applies to surrounding states which have backed the SPLA. In the meantime it is essential that efforts by international organisations and governments be stepped up to allow emergency aid food through to those who need it so urgently.