Can Trump end this senseless war in Sudan?

Mathew Otieno

November 14, 2024 5 Reactions

The international community has largely stood by as this tragedy has unfolded. The refugees have been abandoned to their fates, and there are no concerted efforts to broker a ceasefire, at the very least, to stanch the bleeding. In fact, the only time the conflict got any meaningful international attention was when, in the early months, rumours circulated that Russia would be drawn into it.

There are many reasons for this neglect. Primarily, it is because major international news media are based in the West and focus on the Middle East and Ukraine. These theatres are closer to the hearts of the Western world and are much more interesting. Additionally, Western powers are actively involved in both and so are invested in their outcomes.

For what it’s worth, this is completely understandable. There is no sense berating Western audiences for neglecting a war in a distant African country in which their countries have no clear stake. Besides, Sudan’s neighbours should be the first to seek a resolution to the war. The fact that they let it start and go on for so long, is an indictment of their own incompetence and apathy.

But it is also true that human suffering in distant places is still human suffering. And peace in Sudan benefits the entire world. If universal brotherhood means anything, the international community should attempt to stop the slaughter, displacement, and starvation.

This is especially important because, of all the wars raging around the world, the one in Sudan is the least sensible. Neither belligerent can claim an inch of the moral high ground. Both are corrupt; both should lose; and both should be cast onto the ash-heap of history.

For this reason, it should be easy for Mr Trump to intervene decisively to end this war. Of course, were he to proceed conventionally, there are no obvious levers his government could pull to influence two reckless generals. Neither of them is significantly exposed to America and Sudan isn’t currently of strategic importance to the United States.

But Mr Trump has never been accused of having a conventional approach to peace-making. I can predict how he would go about it, if he thought about it for five minutes. He would threaten, in his words, to “bomb the s**t out of” both sides if they don’t silence their guns. Just to keep things interesting, he wouldn’t give them timelines and he would move American military assets ominously close to Sudan. I can guarantee that both generals would scurry to the negotiating table in the blink of an eye.

The last American president to receive a Nobel Peace Prize was Barack Obama. He won it for not being George W. Bush, which was some kind of achievement, but stopping the slaughter in Sudan would make Donald Trump a much more eligible recipient.

And the gratitude of the Sudanese would be indescribable.   

Should the United States intervene in Sudan? 

Mathew Otieno is a Kenyan writer, blogger and dilettante farmer. Until 2022, he was a research communications coordinator at a university in Nairobi, Kenya. He now lives in rural western Kenya, near the shores of Lake Victoria, from where he's pursuing a career as a full-time writer while concluding his dissertation for a master's degree. His debut novel, A Question of Time, is available on Kindle.

Image credit: UNHCR