As world leaders gathered at the 80th United Nations General Assembly to deliberate on pressing global issues, this series of reflections explores the common themes that resonated through Africa’s collective voice. In this first instalment, we take a closer look at the shared challenge of conflict across continents, with a particular call for urgent attention to the ongoing crisis in Sudan.
In September, world leaders gathered once again in New York to examine the state of our common humanity and to assess how faithfully we have acted as one another’s keepers. Interestingly, this year’s United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) coincided with the 80th anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Charter, a fitting moment to reflect upon the journey of the past eight decades.
In 1945, fifty nations met in San Francisco to rescue the world from the failures of the League of Nations. Today, one hundred and ninety-three (193) stand as proof that, despite its flaws, the United Nations remains the foremost platform for global cooperation. More than forty (40) African leaders delivered their remarks at the general debate.
Going into this year’s UNGA, four-letter words seemed to hang heavily over the Assembly: G-A-Z-A. The conflict between Israel and Palestine dominated the discussion and stirred deep emotion. Yet, beyond the tragedy in Gaza, there were deeper and more enduring questions that African leaders sought to pose to the world: the question of equity in global governance, the question of justice in the economic order, and the question of pushing peace to be a far-reaching one.
This series of reflections examines the common themes that echoed through Africa’s voice at the 80th UNGA. In the first instalment of this series, we examine the issue of common conflict.
What is good for (the) Gaza is good for (the) Sudan
When the League of Nations failed, it was not for lack of words, but for lack of will. It watched aggression grow, and by its indecisiveness and inaction, gave it strength. Out of that failure came the United Nations, a creation born from the ashes of war and the promise of never repeating the same mistakes.
Today, it seems like the UN is making the same mistakes, and there is a growing consensus, as President Ruto of Kenya succinctly puts it, that too often, the UN’s Blue Helmet, once a symbol of moral authority, no longer commands the same respect.
You see, the League of Nations fell because when an international crisis loomed, the inherent weaknesses of the League were cruelly exposed.
Today, there are a growing number of global crises; amongst many, one very prominent topic at the UNGA that crossed across member states was the situation in Gaza.
Every state present was vocal about this, and African leaders weren't an exception.
Like most countries present, the popular demand was the unconditional release of Israeli hostages, a permanent ceasefire in line with humanitarian law and a two-state solution, on the basis that Palestinians deserve a peaceful state alongside a peaceful Israel. Both for Palestine and Israel, on the basis that this reflects the determination of the global majority, the implementation and rebuilding is expected to be worked out in the coming days, months and years.
What is Africa’s position on Gaza, and what have we done?
As a background, out of 54 African states in the UN, 52 have already given full recognition to Palestine, and just two, Cameroon and Eritrea, have failed to recognise the Palestinian state. Israel sees Cameroon as one of its key allies, and Eritrea is not opposed to Palestine in principle, but due to economic reasons, they have not formally recognised the Palestinian state.
At the UNGA, African leaders were vocal about Palestine, but beyond fancy rhetoric, Africa had indeed played its part on the path to peace in Gaza “As Palestinians continue to face genocide and famine, we have a duty to act”. These were the words of the President of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa. South Africa has indeed acted: readers will recall that after nearly three months of relentless Israeli bombardment, which killed more than 21,500 people and caused widespread destruction in Gaza, South Africa, remarkably, was the first to file a case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
At the time South Africa filed this case, many nations had openly been playing hide and seek with words. In its application to the court, South Africa described Israel’s actions in Gaza as “genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group”.
However, the ICJ did not determine the merits of South Africa’s allegations; rather, in its directive ruling in January 2024, the court found it “plausible” that Israel was violating the Genocide Convention and ordered Israel to “take all measures to prevent” genocide. Later, in March 2024, following more prompting by South Africa, the ICJ ordered Israel to ensure that food entered Gaza in the face of famine and in May 2024, the court issued a third order requiring Israel to halt attacks on Rafah, where hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were sheltering at the time.
Even with a peace plan now on the table, South Africa has maintained its resolve to pursue the case. This determination, however, has strained its relationship with Israel’s key ally, the United States. In August, Washington imposed steep 30 per cent tariffs on South African exports, citing Pretoria’s case against Israel at the ICJ as one of the reasons for the decision.
Earlier in the year, Nigeria played a crucial diplomatic role in facilitating the evacuation of infants from Gaza to hospitals in Jordan, Egypt, and the UAE for urgent medical care after being approached by the Red Cross for assistance.
Arab states have also endorsed Egypt’s Gaza Reconstruction Plan, presenting a potential pathway toward rebuilding the war-torn enclave. Ghana dispatched emergency humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people amid the escalating humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.
What about Sudan?
As the world debates Gaza in unison, another crisis rages in Sudan. Since April 15, 2023, Sudan has been engulfed in a brutal civil war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The conflict erupted when the RSF’s demand for immediate integration into the national army clashed with the SAF’s preference for a gradual process, exposing deeper rifts in vision, ideology, and allegiance; a reflection of the deep mistrust and power struggle that has plagued Sudan since the dust began to settle on the 2021 military coup.
The result has been catastrophic: over 150,000 lives lost, millions displaced, towns reduced to rubble, and famine stalking the land. Humanitarian corridors have collapsed, and both warring parties have weaponised starvation.
While the situation in Gaza has taken centre stage, it is indeed concerning that what has now become the world’s largest displacement crisis continues to attract such limited international urgency. Before proceeding further, it is important to clarify that this is not an attempt to compare the conflict in Gaza to that in Sudan. Wars are not academic exercises; they are lived tragedies where human lives, homes, and futures are at stake. Rather, this reflection seeks to draw attention to Sudan, a crisis that erupted nearly six months before the escalation in Gaza, yet has received a fraction of the global attention.
The Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO) also shared this concern when he lamented that global attention to Sudan remains “really low,” adding candidly that “race is a factor.” His remark compels both moral and analytical reflection. Is race, in fact, a determinant of global urgency? Whether one accepts or disputes this, the statement exposes an uncomfortable truth: the value of human suffering still appears unevenly measured in the court of global conscience, where geography and complexion too often influence the world’s response to tragedy. The hierarchy of human suffering persists, shaped by geopolitics, media focus, and historical bias.
For international institutions, this is not merely a moral dilemma but a structural one. The uneven distribution of global attention to Sudan affects how resources are mobilised, how urgency is defined, and, ultimately, whose lives are deemed worthy of rescue.
At the UNGA, some African leaders used the time to draw attention to the situation in Sudan during their addresses. President William Ruto of Kenya expressed deep concern over the worsening humanitarian situation, emphasising that “innocent citizens are caught in the crossfire of a needless war.” Kenya also reiterated its full support for the Quad joint press statement after they met in September, comprising Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States, in affirming that there can be no military solution to the conflict, only a political one.
Echoing these sentiments, President William Ruto urged all actors, internal and external, to respect Sudan’s sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity, and to reject any attempts to fragment the nation. His words were not only a diplomatic appeal but a reminder that the integrity of Sudan holds symbolic weight for the entire continent: a test of whether Africa can resolve its conflicts through cooperation rather than coercion.
Ghana’s president, John Mahama, also highlighted the situation in Sudan and how it is consequently building up a migrant crisis.
Meanwhile, the humanitarian crisis continues to deepen. Some African countries have indeed shown up; many are still missing in action. Sudan’s neighbours, bound by geography and shared history, have shown quiet leadership where the world has shown fatigue. South Sudan, itself no stranger to displacement, has opened its doors to those fleeing the conflict, providing plots of land for cultivation and integrating families into local communities. At the UNGA, its government has also reaffirmed its commitment to working with Sudan to resolve border disputes in line with the 2005 Peace Agreement; a gesture that exemplifies regional solidarity in the face of global neglect.
Egypt now hosts the largest number of Sudanese refugees, with over 1.2 million arrivals since April 2023, while Ethiopia and Chad continue to absorb hundreds of thousands more with limited resources and fragile economies. The strain has been particularly severe in Chad, where inflation and rising commodity prices, up by nearly 70 per cent, reflect the economic aftershocks of the Sudanese conflict. Landlocked and dependent on Sudan for trade, Chad has turned increasingly toward Nigeria and other regional partners for alternative supply routes.
Surprisingly, Nigeria, which is usually vocal in regional peacekeeping efforts, beyond evacuating its nationals, has shown little diplomatic leadership on Sudan despite direct pleas from the Sudanese mission to intervene. For a country that aspires to global and continental leadership, and made it clear in its remarks at the UNGA that it deserves a seat at the UN Security Council, its absence is as loud as it is regrettable. If Nigeria, once the moral compass of the continent, now watches crises unfold in silence, what message does that send about Africa’s readiness to shape its own peace?
Taken together, these efforts illustrate a pattern of regional resilience but also expose a sobering truth: the world and Africa have not done enough. While some of Africa’s responses, though rooted in solidarity, remain constrained by limited capacity and inconsistent coordination, without stronger multilateral support, Sudan’s neighbours risk becoming casualties of a crisis they did not create.
To move from compassion to coordination, Africa’s response to the Sudan crisis must evolve beyond fragmented national gestures toward a functional and collective regional framework. It is imperative that the African Union, working with the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the United Nations, should establish a joint humanitarian and political task force mandated to (1) streamline aid delivery through coordinated border management, (2) mediate sustained ceasefire negotiations between the SAF and RSF, and (3) design a continental refugee response strategy that shares the burden equitably among neighbouring states.
Such a mechanism would not only reinforce Africa’s commitment to “African solutions to African problems,” but also restore confidence in the continent’s capacity for leadership in peace and security, which is central to the African Union’s founding vision.
Overall, Sudan’s tragedy, however, is not one of silence but of selective hearing. It is acknowledged that international diplomacy is complex and resource allocation takes time; however, until the world begins to respond to human suffering with equal urgency, irrespective of geography or complexion, the ideals enshrined in the UN Charter will remain aspirational rather than actual.
Author
Bolaji Ogalu / Chief Analyst, Governance and Institutions | b.o@borg.re