By Samba Baldeh,
Wisconsin, USA
Sudan is burning. Nearly two years into a war that broke out in April 2023, 12 million Sudanese have been displaced, hundreds of thousands of children face malnutrition, and hospitals report 44 percent increases in admissions for starving youth. Sadly, the world learned of the horrors unfolding not through the African Union, not through the continent’s regional blocs, and not through Africa’s own political leaders. Instead, it took the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia; hardly a champion of democratic norms. The continent’s leadership has become an afterthought in its own crisis. When decisions were being made about Sudan’s future; the African Union and regional powers did not seize leadership. Instead, they allowed themselves to be sidelined by outsiders.
Within days of Sudan’s conflict erupting, the United States and Saudi Arabia led peace negotiations. The resulting Jeddah Declaration, which set terms for addressing the crisis, was signed without African leadership represented, reducing African diplomats to “loquacious spectators”. This is not a new story for Africa. But Sudan represents a breaking point; a moment when the continent must confront an uncomfortable truth: African leaders have surrendered their right to decide Africa’s future to outsiders.
The rallying cry for decades has been “African solutions to African problems.” But Sudan reveals the mantra as empty rhetoric. The African Union acknowledged that the conflict represents “the worst humanitarian crisis in the world,” yet its proposed roadmap; adopted May 2023; has been repeatedly violated with no enforcement mechanism behind it. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, the United States, Egypt, and the UAE formed a “foreign-led mediation alliance” to chart Sudan’s path forward, announcing in September 2024 a proposed roadmap that included humanitarian truces and a transition to civilian rule. And yet, it was Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince who again elevated the crisis today; this time directly to Donald Trump, who reportedly promised that he would “do something about it.” It is a sobering reminder that outside leaders, not African institutions, continue to drive the international response to Sudan’s suffering. While African institutions debate and issue statements, external powers negotiate outcomes. When Africans lead, they lead from the margins of conversations shaped elsewhere. Sad Reality!
Sudan is not abstract. The African Union’s own Special Envoy on Prevention of Genocide reported in October 2024 that Sudan is “witnessing atrocity crimes on an unimaginable scale,” with reports of mass killings, sexual assault, summary execution, torture, and hate speech reaching “intolerable levels”. Over 14 million people have been forcibly displaced, more than 40,000 killed, with systematic targeting of specific ethnic groups; showing clear indicators of genocide. This is ethnic cleansing happening in real time. And the continent that birthed the African Union after promising “never again” is watching from the sidelines.
Here lies Africa’s central tragedy. The continent possesses 30 percent of the world’s mineral resources, 60 percent of global arable land, and 1.4 billion people. Yet two decades after China was deemed a “developing nation,” and India was struggling economically, those countries have transformed themselves into global powers. Meanwhile, Africa; with vastly greater natural wealth; remains marginalized. Why? Not because of resources. Because of leadership. China built institutions that mobilised national will. India created systems of governance that channeled talent toward national development. Both made deliberate choices to invest in their own people and their own futures. Africa has made different choices. Its institutions remain weak. Its leadership remains divided. Its regional organisations remain subordinate to external powers.
Sudan is the consequence of those choices.
Africa must stop accepting external mediation as the solution. The AU Commission Chairperson was consulted after Saudi Arabia and the US had already led negotiations. This is not partnership; it is symbolic inclusion. Statements and roadmaps mean nothing without enforcement. The AU must establish mechanisms to sanction parties violating ceasefires, ensure humanitarian access, and hold perpetrators of atrocities accountable. This requires resources. African countries must collectively fund AU peacekeeping and enforcement operations rather than depending on Western donors and UN mandates.
AU and other regional bodies should demand military commitment from neighboring states. South Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt, and Chad are hosting thousands of Sudanese refugees while the conflict rages. These neighbors have both interest and responsibility to intervene militarily if necessary to stop genocide. Military intervention is uncomfortable to discuss. But allowing genocide to proceed unchallenged; while claiming moral authority; is moral bankruptcy.
Current peace efforts fail partly because external powers have competing interests. The United States prioritises counterterrorism; Saudi Arabia seeks regional stability; Europeans focus on reducing refugee flows. Others are drawn by Sudan’s vast natural resources; resources that are far easier to exploit, manipulate, or quietly loot during conflict than in times of peace and stability. These motivations complicate any genuine push for a Sudanese; led solution.
Only African nations can negotiate based purely on Sudan’s interests. But that requires African leadership to organize independently, make decisions collectively, and act decisively. Africa must build an alternative continental power structure; one capable of intervening, mediating, and preventing conflicts without waiting for external actors to define the agenda.
Every statement the African Union issues about “African solutions” rings hollow when Sudan burns and Africans are not leading the response. Every delay in African diplomacy and military intervention while awaiting Western approval betrays Sudanese civilians. The question is not whether Africa can lead on Sudan. It is whether African leadership possesses the will to prioritise African interests above individual ambitions, external alliances, and comfortable complicity.
That choice belongs to African leadership. They should choose differently; before Sudan becomes the gravestone marking the moment the continent surrendered its voice.
