A woman survivor of the current conflict in Sudan between two rival militaries, the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Force, each fighting for power since 2023, told UNICEF: “I could hear that little girl screaming and crying. They were raping her.”

Armed soldiers are raping women, men, little girls and boys and infants as young as one year old.  Over 220 cases of child rape have been reported in recent months. As in any conflict, this number will be far less than the reality, with millions displaced, reporting avoided due to shame and humiliation felt by survivors, medical services disrupted and no real accountability.

The extent of the sexual violence is such that it is at least condoned, if not actually encouraged by leadership. It has been reported  time and time again since the conflict began. Sexual violence is being used as a weapon, a tactic of war and the pattern of attacks raises the possibility of genocide. The US issued a  statement in early 2025 that, based on available information, genocide was being committed in Sudan. At times, perpetrators have committed attacks with particular cruelty, using firearms, knives and whips to intimidate or coerce, alongside derogatory, racist or sexist slurs and death threats. Women and girls are not just being left vulnerable – they are being  actively targeted.

It is estimated that as of March 2025, 12.1 million women and girls — and increasingly men and boys — are at risk, and the entire population is being terrorised by sexual violence. The conflict has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions. The UN reports torture and tens of thousands of people, including women and children, being held arbitrarily in squalid conditions with no charges and no outside contact.

The campaign of sexual violence is taking place in the context of widespread famine. Millions are at risk. A week of not being able to find food can mean death. Many international NGOs are unable to operate within Sudan because of the dangerous conflict, so local volunteers have been running communal kitchens. But they need food supplies and resources because “ never in modern history have so many faced starvation and famine as in Sudan today”.

The world knows about the conflict, the concomitant sexual violence and the famine. Yet wealthy countries are walking away, slashing aid and abandoning the people of Sudan. People are already dying from starvation and further millions are likely to die. Women, men, children and babies are being denied medical help.

Article 55 of the UN Charter urged the creation of global conditions of stability and well-being for peace. It was US President John F. Kennedy who established USAID in 1961. His concern was both the moral responsibility of wealthy states and the realisation that foreign aid was a strategic strand in US global security, building relationships, respect and loyalty.

At the beginning of the 21st century, all states at the  UN Security Council acknowledged that the use of tactical rape in conflict contravened international law, and, as such, was a security risk globally. Yet the violations keep occurring with no deterrent or accountability.

There has been a long-held agreement that wealthy states would donate 0.7% of their Gross National Income as aid to states in need. This goal has seldom been reached. The wealthiest state, the United States, has contributed less than 0.2%, placing it among the lowest contributors in terms of capacity. However, even this small percentage of its wealth has contributed about 40% of worldwide giving.

US personnel concerned with cutting 83% off the already small percentage of aid were warned of implications and potential deaths which could result from such cuts: one million children would go untreated for severe malnutrition; 166,000 could die of malaria; 200,000 more children could be paralysed by polio. Yet, budget cutters were told to take a draconian approach.

In Sudan, the suffering of victims of famine and survivors of sexual violence in the ongoing conflict  has already been exacerbated. Medical and health centres with scarce resources are further limited, with the funding freeze affecting 335 facilities across the country and at least 57 in Dafur.

Current aid cuts have left people screaming in streets from hunger, with nearly two million affected, as 1100 communal kitchens have reportedly been forced to close. The 90-day freeze — such as the one imposed by the US before eventually cancelling aid — was deadly.

There are regional security impacts created from population flows too. An estimated  3.7 million displaced people have sought refuge from starvation and trauma in seven neighbouring countries. Many people may also be infected with HIV/AIDS and at least  eight receiving countries are reported to be possibly running out of HIV treatment.

There is more suffering to come. There has been  $17.2 billion worth of cuts to overseas development aid planned by wealthy states for between 2005 and 2029. In 2024, the European Union and seven national governments cut aid budgets. The UK will cut its foreign aid budget from 0.5% of GNI to 0.3% in 2027. Others, including the Netherlands, Belgium and France, will also make cuts.

There is a redefinition of what is in a state’s real interest. Being a compassionate respected ally does not seem the aim.

Compassion seems absent, and, with its demise, there is an accompanying failure to recognise it as a vital part of soft diplomacy both out of respect for, and to establish positive relationships and alliances with donor states.

Will there eventually be some end to the current chaos and a sane return to compassion? Will there eventually emerge a new model of confronting poverty, human rights abuses and instability in states?

While suffering people wait, UN agencies and NGOs battle on with ever-diminishing resources. Cake stalls and community fundraising cannot make up for governments’ failure in moral responsibility. Agencies such as the  WHO are being forced to make “terrible choices” between no longer responding to Ebola disease, emergencies or HIV/AIDS, or gathering data about impending pandemics.

In many neighbourhoods in the developed world, one baby raped by an armed man or one family dying of starvation would result in outrage and an outpouring of compassion. Governments purportedly representing such neighbourhoods are abandoning millions of individual women, men, children and babies.

An American billionaire says decimating aid expenditure is “tough but necessary”. Tell that to the starving mother with barely enough strength to hold her emaciated baby. Or tell the sobbing violated mother, who could not protect her child, bleeding and terrified after they too were raped by armed soldiers, that now there is no-one to help. It is doubtful they would agree. Tough? Yes. Necessary? In whose universe?

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.