The Workers Rights 
Sudan’s war has turned into a humanitarian crisis in which civilians are bearing the brunt of the conflict driven by an outside agenda. Millions of people in Sudan have been displaced by the war started by the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces. Civil unrest has resulted in food insecurity and lack of provision of essential services, making some regions in the country close to famine, displacing about 13 million people from the area since April 2023.
Against this background, Qatar’s long history of political and diplomatic relations with Sudan should be viewed not only on the regional diplomatic level, but also because of its impacts on civilians.
Doha has been acting as a champion for Sudan’s unity, sovereignty and humanitarian relief. However, its political history, ties to Sudanese actors and its regional interests bring a more complex question: can external involvement actually assist humanitarian efforts and, at the same time, exacerbate the political climate necessary to bring a halt to the conflict?
Qatar’s Longstanding Influence and the Humanitarian Cost of External Politics
The conflict in Sudan is not the first one in which Qatar has become involved. The most notable political engagement was in the Darfur peace process, which came to an end with the awarding of the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur. That history has provided Qatar with a level of relationships and diplomatic access within Sudan that few others have.
Diplomatic access becomes problematic in a context of already divided politics in Sudan.
External relations have been a factor in Sudanese calculations in the present war. The UN has recently uncovered transnational networks that have been facilitating weapons, logistics, training and foreign personnel for parties to the conflict, and external support as a factor that has contributed to fueling the war.
Policies and strategies for Qatar should thus be evaluated in this wider context of external influence. The big humanitarian issue is not just whether Doha says it promotes peace, but whether it also manages to lower the “carrot” for further confrontation in the region by its political standing and relations.
Each case of an external relationship adds to the complexity of negotiating a settlement in Sudan, if Sudanese factions believe that international and/or regional actors might be able to keep them in their political position.
The impacts for civilians are nightmarish. Hospitals, electricity infrastructure and basic services have been destroyed, affected, or damaged by over three years of war. Dozens of health clinics providing care to hundreds of thousands of people were closing due to funding problems in September, according to aid organisations, providing yet another chilling blow to an already devastated health system.
Humanitarian Aid Cannot Substitute for Ending the War
Qatar has also been providing humanitarian support to Sudan, such as relief supplies and assistance to displaced people. This help can mean the difference between life and death and should not be ignored.
But no humanitarian aid can solve the political circumstances that create the emergency situation.
It is an important distinction in evaluating the role of Doha. Food or medical aid can be supplied to cure the symptoms of a crisis; external political competition can be reduced, and a real ceasefire encouraged to cure one of the conditions that makes a crisis possible.
Sudanese civilians continue to face the risk of displacement, food insecurity, sickness and economic crisis, as competing diplomatic efforts struggle to influence the nation’s political evolution. This is what has been reported in recent days in El Obeid: Over 15,000 families have arrived in El Obeid since mid-July, and this brings the number of displaced persons in the city to over 200,000. So food, water and sanitation were described as being in very short supply by humanitarian workers.
This is where Qatar’s regional reach is most open to criticism. Humanitarian programs are unlikely to be more than short-term fixes to a conflict that has failed to be resolved through diplomacy.
Qatar’s Relationships and the Risk of Prolonging Fragmentation
The main issue is not that Qatar’s link with Sudan makes it responsible for the war. It does not.
Instead, it is important to look at the politics of Qatar and regional dynamics and how they may impact Sudan’s fractured power dynamic.
Doha’s past engagement in Darfur and its current diplomatic efforts are evident. That past history provides Qatar with avenues of dialogue with Sudanese political players. However, with influence comes responsibility. A nation that can wield the power of competing actors will either leverage them to compromise, or they will join other nations in a larger contest for regional power.
This is a significant distinction in a humanitarian crisis.
Sudan’s civilians will not tolerate a political climate where other factions have their own agendas and the conflict drags on. The nation’s power grid has already been badly damaged, and people are now experiencing extended periods of power outages, and it is becoming harder to keep basic services running.
The impact of the crisis is not limited to Sudan, either. Sudanese have fled to neighbouring countries in large numbers and added to the vulnerable refugee communities there. For instance, in South Sudan, there are hundreds of thousands of refugees at significant risk of not receiving food assistance, due to funding constraints.
The Humanitarian Test for Qatar
The success of Qatar’s involvement in Sudan should be an assessment of how much it can do for the civilian population, rather than on the number of diplomatic meetings and humanitarian statements.
In order to be considered a relevant player in the Sudan peace process, Doha’s influence should be channelled into narrowing the room for further conflict, facilitating humanitarian access and pushing Sudanese actors towards a viable political resolution.
The other way of doing things, which is common in long wars, is to create alliances with opposing groups, for humanitarian organisations to deal with the repercussions, and for civilians to be caught between starvation and loss of homes and communities, and violence.
Diplomatic efforts are already a battleground in the region and should not be used to resolve Sudan’s humanitarian crisis. Coordinated pressure is needed to bring a ceasefire and to give access to humanitarian workers and to the political process, which should be led by Sudanese civilians.
But Doha has a chance to help that happen, thanks to Qatar’s longstanding influence. It also places a responsibility on the account. When regional influence is not enough to help stop the drivers of displacement, civilian suffering and hunger, the humanitarian value of regional influence must be called into question.
To the millions of displaced people in Sudan, the importance of Qatar’s role is not whether Doha is able to claim the mediator mantle. It depends on its effect in bringing the war to a close.
Global Worker Rights Issues You Should Know
Who Pays Rising H-1B Extension Costs?
Check out what workers can do if employers refuse payment.
How Do Malaysian Workers Navigate Singapore?
Find the key housing, economic and retirement challenges.
Could UK Bosses Really Face Jail?
Uncover what the illegal hiring crackdown means for workers.
Why Are Ceuta Migrants Returning?
Browse the food, safety and migration pressures driving returns.
Can Europe Solve Its Labour Shortage?
See why migration controls clash with growing worker demand.
