In the sprawling displacement camps of Sudan, where children queue for hours for a cupful of dirty water and mothers watch their babies waste away from malnutrition, a catastrophe of unprecedented scale unfolds largely beyond the gaze of international media.
Over 24.6 million people across Sudan, more than half the population analysed, face acute hunger, with at least 638,000 people experiencing famine conditions. Yet this humanitarian nightmare, alongside similar crises across the Global South, receives a fraction of the attention and resources that conflicts in wealthier regions command.
The disconnect between the scale of suffering in the Global South and the international response represents one of the most profound moral failures of our time. Whilst the world’s wealthiest nations debate trade policies and technological advancement, millions of people across Africa are experiencing what experts describe as the worst humanitarian crisis in decades, a crisis that demands immediate G7 attention and sustained Western media coverage.
The Scope of Catastrophe
Sudan stands as the epicentre of today’s humanitarian nightmare. Famine was confirmed in Zamzam camp, North Darfur, in July 2024, identified in four more areas by November, and projected in another five areas from December 2024 to May 2025. The ongoing civil war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces has created what experts describe as one of the world’s largest displacement crises, with 10 million people forced from their homes by conflict.
Beyond Sudan’s borders, the ripple effects of conflict and climate change are creating a perfect storm of humanitarian disasters. The Democratic Republic of the Congo faces escalating violence that has displaced over a million people, with 10.3 million across eastern DRC facing emergency hunger. In Nigeria, 1.3 million people have had emergency food and nutrition aid suspended due to critical funding shortfalls, coming at a time of escalating violence and record levels of hunger.
South Sudan, the world’s youngest nation, presents perhaps the starkest example of how conflict perpetuates suffering. Nearly 60 per cent of the population faces catastrophic food insecurity, a devastating statistic that reflects years of civil war, economic collapse, and climate shocks. The country’s infrastructure remains shattered, its healthcare system barely functional, and its agricultural capacity severely compromised.
The Sahel region, stretching across Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, and Chad, has become what security experts describe as the epicentre of protracted conflict. Islamist extremist groups have exploited weak governance structures and economic marginalisation to establish strongholds that threaten regional stability. Violence increasingly spills into neighbouring coastal countries, creating a domino effect of displacement and desperation.
In Mozambique’s northern province of Cabo Delgado, an ongoing Islamist insurgency has displaced hundreds of thousands whilst disrupting livelihoods in what should be one of Africa’s most promising economic regions. The Central African Republic continues to experience widespread displacement from armed groups, whilst Somalia struggles with localised conflicts and climate issues despite slight improvements due to drought recovery.
The Funding Crisis Behind the Crisis
Perhaps most troubling is the stark contrast between escalating needs and diminishing international support. The global humanitarian funding landscape faces deep cuts, with a 17 per cent drop in official development assistance projected for 2025. This reduction comes precisely when humanitarian needs are reaching unprecedented levels.
The World Food Programme, the world’s largest humanitarian organisation, faces what officials describe as an existential funding crisis. Life-saving food and nutrition assistance in Central Sahel and Nigeria will halt in April 2025 without urgent funding, whilst the Democratic Republic of Congo requires $433 million to sustain emergency operations through October 2025.
The human cost of these funding shortfalls cannot be overstated. Humanitarian agencies are forced to make impossible choices about which populations to serve and which to abandon. Food rations are cut, medical supplies run short, and educational programmes close. The ripple effects extend far beyond immediate humanitarian needs, creating conditions for further conflict, extremism, and mass displacement.
The Media’s Role in Perpetuating Neglect
Western media outlets bear significant responsibility for the international community’s inadequate response to Global South crises. Coverage patterns reveal a disturbing hierarchy of attention, where certain lives and certain crises matter more than others based on geography, race, and perceived geopolitical relevance.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, Western media provided comprehensive, sustained coverage that helped mobilise unprecedented international support. European refugees received immediate assistance, extensive media attention, and long-term resettlement programmes. The contrast with coverage of African crises is stark and telling.
The complexity of conflicts in places like eastern DRC or northern Mozambique receives cursory treatment in Western media, failing to convey the human cost and regional implications of ongoing violence. Stories about African crises follow predictable patterns: brief attention during acute phases, followed by sustained neglect as editorial focus shifts to other continents.
This media neglect perpetuates what scholars term “compassion fatigue” and “disaster tourism”—where Western audiences become desensitised to African suffering whilst remaining highly responsive to crises in predominantly white, wealthy regions. Without sustained media attention, public pressure for meaningful government action remains minimal.
The absence of consistent reporting means that Western publics remain largely unaware of the scale and urgency of current crises. Few Europeans or Americans know that Sudan is experiencing the world’s worst displacement crisis, or that children in South Sudan are dying from preventable diseases at rates that would trigger international intervention in other contexts.
Why G7 Nations Must Act
The moral argument for G7 engagement is self-evident, but pragmatic considerations are equally compelling. Humanitarian crises create conditions for extremism, mass migration, and regional instability that ultimately affect global security and economic interests.
The rise of Islamist groups across the Sahel directly threatens European security interests. These organisations exploit humanitarian crises to recruit fighters, establish territories, and launch attacks that can reach far beyond their immediate operating areas. The 2019 attacks in Burkina Faso and the ongoing insurgency in Mozambique demonstrate how humanitarian neglect creates security vacuums that extremist groups eagerly fill.
Climate change serves as a threat multiplier in many affected regions. Extreme weather events—droughts, floods, and cyclones—intensify existing vulnerabilities and disrupt agricultural production. Without significant international intervention, these climate-driven crises will only worsen, creating larger refugee populations and greater regional instability that will eventually affect wealthier nations.
Economic considerations also demand attention. The interconnected nature of global food systems means that crises in major agricultural regions can trigger price spikes worldwide. The war in Ukraine demonstrated how regional conflicts can disrupt global supply chains and affect food prices even in wealthy nations. African agricultural regions play crucial roles in global food security, and their continued destabilisation poses risks to international markets.
The G7’s collective GDP exceeds $36 trillion annually. The resources required to address current humanitarian crises represent a fraction of what these nations spend on domestic priorities or military expenditures. The contrast between defence budgets and humanitarian funding reveals skewed priorities that ultimately undermine global stability and moral leadership.
Beyond Emergency Response: Addressing Root Causes
Effective intervention requires moving beyond emergency food aid towards addressing the root causes of humanitarian crises. Conflict remains the primary driver of food insecurity across Africa, making political solutions essential to long-term stability.
Diplomatic leadership and sustained political engagement are crucial for securing ceasefires, ensuring humanitarian access, and supporting peace processes. The international community’s inconsistent engagement with African conflicts contrasts sharply with intensive diplomatic efforts in other regions.
Investment in climate resilience and sustainable agriculture could help communities withstand future shocks. Early warning systems, drought-resistant crops, and water management infrastructure represent cost-effective interventions that could prevent crises rather than merely responding to them after they occur.
Supporting local food systems and strengthening governance structures would address underlying vulnerabilities that make communities susceptible to crises. Many affected regions depend heavily on food imports, making them vulnerable to global price shocks and supply chain disruptions.
The Path Forward: Moral Leadership and Practical Solutions
The international community’s response to current humanitarian crises will define moral leadership for decades to come. G7 nations possess the resources, influence, and moral responsibility to address these challenges comprehensively, but this requires sustained political commitment that extends beyond electoral cycles and domestic political considerations.
Adequate funding represents the most immediate need. Humanitarian organisations require predictable, multi-year funding commitments that allow for effective planning and sustained operations. The current system of annual appeals and donor conferences creates inefficiencies that cost lives and waste resources.
Long-term engagement must extend beyond emergency response towards addressing structural causes of vulnerability. This includes supporting governance reforms, investing in infrastructure, and promoting economic development that creates alternatives to conflict and migration.
Western media organisations must reconceptualise their approach to covering Global South crises. Sustained reporting, contextual analysis, and human-interest stories could help Western publics understand the stakes involved and pressure their governments for meaningful action.
The current approach—reactive, underfunded, and inconsistent—represents a collective failure of international leadership that undermines global stability and moral credibility. The scale of suffering in places like Sudan, DRC, and South Sudan demands responses commensurate with the crisis, not the marginal attention these regions typically receive.
Conclusion: The Cost of Continued Neglect
The choices made today will determine whether current crises spiral into even greater catastrophes or whether the international community finally matches its humanitarian rhetoric with meaningful action. For millions of people across the Global South, these are not academic debates about foreign policy priorities—they are matters of life and death.
The silence surrounding these crises is not merely disappointing; it is morally indefensible. When wealthy nations can mobilise hundreds of billions for military spending whilst humanitarian crises receive fractions of the required funding, the international system’s priorities require fundamental reassessment.
In an interconnected world, the suffering of the most marginalised ultimately affects everyone. Humanitarian crises create conditions for extremism, migration, and instability that transcend borders. The current crises represent both a moral test and a practical challenge that demands immediate, sustained, and comprehensive action from those with the power to make a difference.
The G7 nations and Western media have the power to break the silence surrounding Global South humanitarian crises. Whether they possess the will to act before it is too late for millions of the world’s most vulnerable people remains the defining question of our time. The cost of continued neglect will be measured not only in lives lost but in the erosion of international system credibility and the abandonment of the most fundamental humanitarian principles that supposedly guide global governance.
–
About the Author:
Dominic Senayah, an International Relations Researcher who dives deep into the realms of Trade, Migration, and Diplomacy. With a rich background in Business Development and Marketing Communications, I bring a unique perspective to my analysis of global issues. My goal is to enrich academic discussions and enhance public understanding of the intricate dynamics that shape international relations.
About the Author
