By Justine Dukmedjian.
Is the West demonstrating less empathy for the shared human suffering of the Sudanese, who are enduring a conflict that erupted on April 15th, 2023, than they are for the Ukrainians, who are also experiencing the horrors of war in their own country? This is a question that the data, gathered by various parties on Western aid to both nations, seems to indicate.
After 18 months of civil war in Sudan, the UN has reported 20,000 confirmed deaths and over 10 million displaced. One striking fact is the level of international aid needed to end suffering in Sudan. Indeed, according to the UN, 2,7 billion USD should be enough to help protect the local populations from the conflict. Yet, as of today, only 41 % of this crucial aid has been delivered [1].
Comparatively, since the beginning of February 2022, marking the Russian military aggression on Ukraine, the EU alone has given roughly 85 billion € in military, humanitarian and financial aid to Ukraine [2]. At today’s conversion rate, this aid would amount to a little over 94 billion USD. In other words: more than thirty-four times what the Sudanese population needs. This support does not comprehend US aid, nor private donations, but only those made by official EU bodies.
However, one can only compare similar things: after all, the EU aid began in February 2022, so two and a half years ago, more than a year before the start of the Sudanese conflict. Thus, we shall only consider Western aid from April 2023 onwards. The research of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy [3] helps us do that by tracking down, with an extensive database, contributions to the Ukraine war effort from 41 countries, with a particular focus on European aid (UE countries in addition to Norway; Switzerland; Iceland; and the UK) and US aid. This comprehensive analysis is crucial in understanding the disparities in aid distribution and the urgent need for more equitable allocation.
For example, between April and June 2023, the United States alone allocated 11, 3 billion Euros in assistance to Ukraine. During the same period, European countries pulled together a 12, 3 billion Euros aid. There seems to be a pattern in the disparity of western aid allocation and not a one-time thing. Indeed, while Sudan, a country’s whose population is facing catastrophic famine in North Darfur [4] and reported attempts of ethnic cleansing from the RSF in West Darfur [5], cannot gather shy of 3 billion Euros, the West has already allocated tens of billions of Euros to help Ukraine fight Russia’s invasion. Moreover, from April 2023 to June 2024, the date of the last update from the Kiel institute, an overall 28,9 billion Euros was given to Ukraine by the United State and 57,2 billion Euros by Europe. Which amounts to more than enough money, in the first semester of 2024 alone, to fund humanitarian aid to Sudan. Yet, the UN almost must beg for it.
Illustrating this disparity in funding is not meant to say that Western countries are overspending on aid to Ukraine, but rather to show that the West’s urge to protect populations from gruesome wars seems to have a double standard. Therefore, it raises the following questions: What does this double standard stem from? Why, after professing its seemingly moral obligation – at least “emotional” – to help the Ukrainians defend themselves, doesn’t the West try to protect the Sudanese population too? How come the UN cannot scrap even half of the funds it needs to save the Sudanese populations suffering from the conflict? This article does not aim to answer all these questions –but rather to raise the issue of this disparity in Western help to distressed populations.
You must now be wondering: Can we compare Western humanitarian and military aid in a civil war to assistance in an interstate war, especially when the latter has significant repercussions on the West (namely, amongst other things, it threatens the West’s territorial safety), while the first does not really impact it?
What about looking from a realist theory’s stance at the underlying motivations behind Western aid for both countries? To quote the illuminating paper from R. Floyd and Mark Webber: “The West sells its extraordinary response as an act of solidarity with Ukraine.” [6]. So why not feel the same “solidarity” towards Sudan? After all, the West had deep ties with Sudan, a former British colony. One could argue that Western European nations have historically had a less positive relationship with Ukraine, associated with a former close economic and political partnership with Russia.
So, again, why wasn’t even a tenth of what was given to Ukraine to Sudan?
The West’s support for Ukraine may not be solely based on the principles of “solidarity” and the defense of “values” [7]. Pouring billions into the UN relief fund for Sudan, on the other hand, would demonstrate “solidarity” and the defense of “values,” as there are no tangible Western interests in Sudan. This support would solely aim to help a population on the verge of a catastrophe. Indeed, the West has a lot at stake in assisting Ukraine in defeating Russia: the safety of its borders, territorial integrity, protecting its agriculture and food supply chain, etc.
This is not to say that the West shouldn’t help Ukraine in every way possible. This article merely suggests that the West should not claim to help Ukraine out of “solidarity” or to defend Western “values, considering that true solidarity and values should not have double standards. However, the West appears to have a dual narrative by providing Ukraine with billions of dollars in aid while Sudan receives little support.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the West defending its strategic interests at many levels by helping Ukraine fight off Russia’s invasion. After all, every country must defend its strategic interests. But there might be something wrong, at least something misleading, in pretending the West does that mainly because it feels a strong “solidarity” with the Ukrainians. Otherwise, why do the Sudanese not benefit from the same “solidarity“?
To conclude on this subject, we would like to point out that this hypocrisy from the West, which takes form in the disparity in aid between Sudan and Ukraine, is not an isolated case but seems like a pattern. Indeed, for example, the West’s aid to “Burma,” “Gaza,” or “Nord Kivu” is scarce, if existent at all, as Pascal Boniface, director of the Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques (IRIS—Institute for International and Strategic Relations) [8], shows.
Edited by Justine Peries.
References
[1] “L’ONU et la crise au Soudan”, 12th September 2024. https://unric.org/fr/crise-au-soudan-la-reponse-de-lonu/ .
Accessed September, 13th, 2024 .
[2] Maad, Assma, « Guerre en Ukraine : à quoi serviront les 50 milliards d’euros d’aide débloqués par l’Union européenne ? », February, 15th, 2024.
Accessed September, 13th, 2024.
[3] Bomprezzi, Pietro, Kharitonov, Ivan, and Trebesch Christoph, “Ukraine Support Tracker”.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker .
Accessed September, 13th, 2024.
[4] UNICEF, “Famine confirmed in Sudan’s North Darfur, confirming UN agencies worst fears.”, August, 1st, 2024.
Accessed September, 13th, 2024.
[5] Plett Usher, Barbara, “Possible genocide committed in Sudan, report says”, May 9th 2024.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw4dk2kzy5wo .
Accessed September, 13th, 2024.
[6] Floyd, Rita, Webber, Mark, “Making amends: emotions and the western response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine”.
International Affairs 100(3), 1149-1169, 2024.
Accessed September 21st, 2024.
[7] [8] Boniface, Pascal, “Guerre en Ukraine : questions de crédibilité”, April, 4th, 2024.
https://www.iris-france.org/185326-guerre-en-ukraine-questions-de-credibilite/
Accessed September, 21st, 2024.
[Cover image] – Photo by MarkRubens, at https://www.istockphoto.com/fr/photo/soudan-%C3%A9pingl%C3%A9-sur-la-carte-avec-drapeau-gm583734594-99888875.
Leave a comment