English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article examines how the conflict since 2011 in Sudan’s ‘Two Areas’, the states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile, has been prolonged by a well-intentioned but counter-productive international response. The United States and other western countries, motivated by humanitarianism, imposed sanctions against Sudan’s regime and provided aid to rebel regions. This western response was fostered partially by disinformation – about the genesis of the conflict, the regime’s use of force, and the causes and extent of the humanitarian crisis. Western support incentivized the rebels to perpetuate their hopeless military campaign, which prolonged the displacement of an estimated one-third of civilians in the Two Areas. Only after the United States lifted some sanctions in 2017, and a popular revolution overthrew the regime in 2019, did U.S. officials belatedly identify rebel leader Abdelaziz al-Hilu as an obstacle to peace. The article concludes with lessons for ending the conflict in Sudan’s Two Areas and mitigating such civil wars elsewhere.

Moral hazard in Sudan’s ‘Two Areas’ – humanitarianism that perpetuates civil war