In Sudan today, hunger is not merely the by-product of war and economic collapse; it is indeed a weapon, a bargaining chip and a revealing measure of power. As conflict reshapes the country’s political landscape, access to food and humanitarian aid has become deeply entangled with competing military interests, international negotiations and long-standing patterns of marginalisation.
In “The politics of hunger in Sudan,” Nisrin Elamin examines how starvation is being produced and managed, rather than simply allowed to occur. Drawing on developments as the outbreak of war in April 2023, she traces how blockades, bureaucratic obstruction and targeted violence against farmers and markets are transforming famine risk into a deliberate strategy of control. Her analysis not only challenges the idea of hunger as an unfortunate side effect of instability, but also exposes the role of regional powers and global institutions in shaping who eats, who starves and who gets to decide.
Historical roots of hunger and conflict in Sudan
Long before today’s images of malnourished children and scorched villages, the conditions for hunger in Sudan were laid in the colonial era, when the Anglo-Egyptian administration re-engineered land, labor and water for export-oriented schemes. Irrigation projects along the Nile privileged cotton for British mills over sorghum and millet for local plates, while pastoralist routes were severed by new borders and taxes. The resulting spatial inequality cast a long shadow: central riverain regions benefitted from investment and political access,while so-called “peripheries” in Darfur,Kordofan and the East were left with fragile rain-fed agriculture and underfunded services. Hunger, in this context, is less a product of unavoidable climatic shocks than of deliberate policy choices that made some regions permanently more vulnerable than others.
Post-independence governments deepened these hierarchies as successive military and civilian elites turned food into an instrument of rule, rewarding loyal constituencies with subsidised grain and irrigation while marginalised communities faced neglect, displacement and counterinsurgency campaigns. Conflicts over oil, gold and fertile land were routinely framed as ethnic or religious clashes, obscuring their material drivers and the way state and militia strategies weaponised access to markets, grazing land and humanitarian aid. Patterns that endure today include:
- Militarisation of the countryside – village burnings, crop destruction and looting of livestock as standard counterinsurgency tactics.
- Politicised relief – aid corridors blocked or opened to punish or reward local populations.
- Unequal investment – roads, storage facilities and clinics clustered in politically connected areas.
| Period | Key Policy | Impact on Food Security |
|---|---|---|
| Colonial rule | Cash-crop irrigation | Reduced land for staple foods |
| Early independence | Centralised state power | Peripheral regions sidelined |
| Civil war eras | Scorched-earth campaigns | Mass displacement and famine |
| Oil & gold boom | Resource-driven land grabs | Smallholders pushed off farms |
How political power structures shape access to food and resources
In Sudan, who eats and who goes hungry is rarely an accident of nature; it is the outcome of layered decisions made in Khartoum, in state capitals, and in the backrooms of armed factions. Decades of centralised rule have concentrated budgetary power and infrastructure in a narrow political core, leaving peripheral regions dependent on elites who use food aid, land leases and import licenses as tools of patronage. Rural communities in Darfur,Blue Nile and South Kordofan often find that access to sorghum,fuel and even pasture is mediated not by markets alone but by security clearances,road checkpoints and the whims of local commanders. In urban peripheries, informal settlements depend on municipal authorities who can selectively enforce regulations on street vendors and bakeries, tightening or relaxing the flow of bread and basic staples in response to protest or dissent.
These dynamics become more visible when mapped onto everyday struggles for survival. Political and military actors frequently convert control over warehouses, transport corridors and fertile land into leverage over communities, with long-term consequences for nutrition and livelihoods. Mechanisms through which this control is exerted include:
- Allocation of subsidies that privilege regime-connected importers and mill owners.
- Checkpoint tariffs that raise prices and block relief supplies to opposition-held areas.
- Land concessions that dispossess smallholders in favour of agribusiness allies.
- Selective licensing of traders and bakeries to reward political loyalty.
| Actor | Key Resource Lever | Impact on Communities |
|---|---|---|
| Central government ministries | Import quotas & subsidies | Shape urban food prices |
| State governors & local councils | Market licensing & taxation | Control who can sell and where |
| Armed groups & militias | Roadblocks & territory control | Restrict humanitarian access |
| Business elites | Large-scale land leases | Displace farmers, alter diets |
The role of international aid and sanctions in deepening food insecurity
As Sudan’s overlapping wars grind on, the flow of humanitarian assistance has become entangled in a web of geopolitical calculations, donor fatigue and securitised border controls. Aid convoys are routinely delayed at checkpoints, redirected to bolster allied militias or blocked outright by competing authorities in Khartoum and the peripheries, turning relief into a bargaining chip rather than a lifeline. International agencies, under pressure to demonstrate neutrality, frequently enough concede to operating only in “accessible” urban centres, leaving rural communities-where hunger is most acute-effectively abandoned. In this fragmented landscape, global powers use food aid to shore up partners and punish rivals, while Sudanese civilians are forced to navigate a relief economy that can look disturbingly similar to the war economy it is indeed meant to mitigate.
- Cross-border restrictions that limit deliveries from neighbouring states
- Banking and fuel sanctions that inflate transport and storage costs
- Politicised aid corridors controlled by rival armed groups
- Selective donor priorities favouring high-visibility crises over chronic hunger
| Policy Tool | Intended Goal | On-the-ground Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Broad economic sanctions | Pressure political elites | Higher food prices and market scarcity |
| Targeted asset freezes | Weaken war profiteers | Disrupted import chains |
| Conditional food aid | Promote reforms | Irregular rations and local resentment |
While diplomats in New York and Brussels debate “smart sanctions”, the instruments they deploy often collide with Sudan’s already battered economy, choking off credit lines, deterring shipping companies and discouraging investment in local agriculture. The result is a paradox: measures designed to isolate armed elites frequently entrench their control over scarce resources, as only those with access to hard currency and weapons can move food across borders and checkpoints. In this context, international intervention becomes a structuring force in who eats and who starves, reinforcing existing hierarchies of power. For many Sudanese, the distinction between humanitarianism and containment policy has blurred, revealing a global regime in which the management of hunger is inseparable from the politics of war.
Policy pathways for a just and sustainable food system in Sudan
Transforming Sudan’s food system demands more than humanitarian aid; it requires a recalibration of power between state institutions, agribusiness elites and the communities who actually produce food. This means redirecting subsidies away from export-oriented monocultures and militarised agrarian schemes towards climate-resilient, agroecological practices led by smallholder farmers, pastoralists and women’s cooperatives. It also means anchoring food policy in democratic oversight: autonomous unions, neighbourhood resistance committees and customary land institutions must be recognised as legitimate counterparts in negotiations over land leases, water allocation and trade agreements. Only then can reforms such as price controls, grain reserves or cash transfers move from being temporary crisis measures to elements of a long-term social contract around food.
Concrete policy choices will determine whether Sudan moves towards food sovereignty or deeper dependency on volatile global markets and politically captured supply chains. Key directions include:
- Land and resource governance: freeze large-scale land concessions, legalise communal tenure systems and enforce environmental safeguards in investment contracts.
- Public procurement for local producers: use school meals, hospitals and public institutions to guarantee markets and fair prices for smallholders.
- Gender-responsive support: channel credit, storage facilities and extension services directly to women farmers and traders.
- Conflict-sensitive food governance: integrate ceasefire, disarmament and restitution mechanisms into policies on farmland, pasture and water points.
| Policy Area | Current Path | Transformative Path |
|---|---|---|
| Land Use | Export estates | Community-led agroecology |
| Trade | Import-dependent staples | Regional food sovereignty |
| Governance | Elite capture | Participatory councils |
Final Thoughts
As Sudan’s war grinds on and the spectre of famine spreads, it is tempting to treat hunger as an unfortunate but unavoidable by-product of conflict and drought. Nisrin Elamin’s analysis shows that doing so obscures the deliberate choices, power struggles and economic interests that determine who eats and who starves. Food has become a currency of war and a tool of governance, deployed by armed actors, neighbouring states and international institutions alike.
Understanding the politics of hunger in Sudan therefore requires looking beyond the familiar images of empty markets and parched fields to the policies and negotiations that shape them: the militarisation of supply routes, the manipulation of humanitarian access, the restructuring of land and labour, and the external agendas that privilege stability over justice. These are not technical glitches in an otherwise neutral aid system; they are the terrain on which Sudan’s future is being contested.If there is any lesson to be drawn, it is that famine is rarely a symptom of scarcity alone. It is also the outcome of political decisions about whose lives are expendable.Any meaningful response to Sudan’s crisis will have to confront these decisions head-on – not only by delivering food, but by challenging the structures that turn hunger into a weapon, and by centring the voices of those who are resisting it on the ground.
