<![CDATA[The thesis investigates the international response to the 2023‑2025 humanitarian crisis in Sudan, triggered by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF)–Rapid Support Forces (RSF) war and threatening the world’s worst famine. Its purpose is to reveal why Sudan, despite massive civilian suffering—over 61 000 deaths, 13 million displaced and 24,6 million facing food insecurity—receives far less attention and aid than contemporaneous crises in Gaza or Ukraine . Guided by post‑colonial theory, the study employs Said’s Orientalism and Spivak’s subaltern concepts to argue that Western narratives cast Sudan as a “failed, peripheral” state, delegitimising its plight and shaping donor priorities . World‑systems analysis further situates Sudan as a periphery exploited by core powers, reinforcing its marginalisation. Empirical findings show that humanitarian funding for Sudan met only 4 % of the US$2,7 billion need in 2024, while the same period saw 70 % coverage for Gaza and 74 % for Ukraine. The United States contributed the largest single share (US$800 million, 46 % of the plan), yet overall pledges remain below 6 % of required resources. Media analysis reveals stark disparities: British government statements cited Sudan 60 times versus 470 for Ukraine, and The New York Times published ten‑fold more articles on Gaza than Sudan in 2024. The research concludes that international humanitarian action is fragmented and driven more by geopolitical interests and constructed identities than by objective need, confirming that Sudan’s colonial legacy and subaltern status shape its limited global support .]]>
