By Ahmed Atunde
As it did in 2023, when the first rounds of shots were fired in Khartoum, the European Union (EU) has again ‘expressed concern’ while it watched footage emerging from the recent attack of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) on civilians in el-Fasher.
Europe has, since the war started, adopted responses that can only be described as ‘close-to-silence’ diplomacy. Focusing on border management, Brussels, Paris, and Berlin have, since the conflicts started, issued polite statements, aid pledges, and cautious appeals for restraint.
This cautiousness has replaced what should have been a decisive diplomatic strategy. Born out of caution and competing global crises, Europe’s diplomacy is fueling instability reverberating outside of the Horn of Africa. Treating Sudan’s conflict and its spillage as a distant problem is convenient. But its consequences are straining Europe. This silence has a mounting economic and political cost.
Described as the largest internal displacement globally, the conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the RSF has displaced more than ten million people. The increased number of persons fleeing the conflict is overwhelming Sudan’s neighbours, including Chad, South Sudan and Egypt. Thousands of Sudanese refugees are taking the dangerous trips across the Sahara and the Mediterranean.
This influx of war-fleeing migrants is changing the migration landscape of Europe. There are new strains on the coastlines of Italy, Spain and Greece, and asylum claims by Sudanese nationals continue to increase steadily in Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium. Each of the capsized boats off Lampedusa and Lesbos is a story of the failure of Europe’s diplomacy of silence.
The engagement of Brussels has so far been limited to humanitarian actions and migration management. Avoiding the work of confronting regional and international actors – Egypt, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Russia – enabling the war, the EU has, over time, focused on funding its neighbours to contain refugees fleeing violence and political chaos in the region. Riding on the silence of Europe, geopolitical rivals are advancing their interest without restraint.
The EU’s refusal to take decisive action has direct economic consequences. The Sudan conflict has destabilised trade routes through the Red Sea, affecting 12 percent of the global commerce. Persistent insecurity in Sudan and its neighbouring states has increased shipping costs and insurance premiums for European importers. The diversion of ships from the strait route of Bab el-Mandeb is having ripple effects on the cost of products in European markets, from fuel to fertiliser.
While the cost of humanitarian aid needed for the Sudan crisis is on the rise, the focus of EU countries is to secure their borders. They have, since the beginning of the war, spent heavily on handling the new refugee influx and funding food aid and emergency response in countries bordering Sudan. These costs are politically significant, especially in the face of rising far-right movements against migration and populism. Although invisible to European capitals, the repercussions of the war in Sudan are shaping political and economic debate in Europe.
The silence of the EU also comes at a cost to its reputation. Europe has traditionally modelled itself as a global champion of human rights and multilateral diplomacy. Its reaction to the war in Sudan contrasts with its coordinated response to the crises in Ukraine and Gaza.
The inconsistency in its silent diplomacy is loud enough for African leaders to note the double standard in the European foreign policy. The observed neglect is weakening Europe’s influence in negotiations with the African Union (AU) and its member states on issues ranging from climate finance to migration. It also undermines the EU’s global development finance efforts, such as the Global Gateway, as these investments depend on political trust and stability.
While Europe is hesitating, Khartoum and Darfur continue to burn, and other actors are stepping in – although their pursuit of a peace deal is uncertain. Evidence from the country has shown that Russia’s Wagner Group is dominating the operation of gold fields and logistics routes in Sudan. The Gulf states, especially the UAE, are influencing the moves of the conflict by funding and providing military support to the warring parties.
Meanwhile, China is also working on expanding its economic presence in the region. And the US is pushing for a peace deal between the conflicting parties. The EU must act on its call for peace now. Failure to act risks its long-term interests in the zone.
The EU diplomacy policies regarding Sudan should be driven by the three-principled approach of coherence, courage, and cooperation. The EU, as a global leader, should catalyse efforts for harmonising disjointed strategies and programs of the member states of the EU in the Horn of Africa. The EU’s mandate for a peace deal in Sudan and in the Horn of Africa needs to be strengthened, coordinating regional diplomacy.
Going beyond carefully worded statements and humanitarianism is essential. Exhibiting courage, the EU should intensify its sanctions for individuals and networks funding the wars in the Horn of Africa, especially for those involved in illegal gold and arms dealings. It must also support action on accountability, including war crime documentation and justice system support.
In partnership with the AU and other stakeholders, mediation efforts in Sudan should be led by the EU. The EU’s engagement with AU and IGAD for international coordinated support has remained largely rhetorical. An EU-AU envoy could provide diplomatic muscle needed to bring the warring parties to the negotiating table.
Europe’s ‘close-to-silence’ on Sudan is not neutral but an expensive illusion. Every week of inaction erodes Europe’s influence, deepening humanitarian suffering and strengthening rivals’ influence. The cost of this passivity is visible in the Red Sea’s disrupted trade lanes, in the increase of asylum seekers across European capitals, and in the erosion of Europe’s moral authority. Rather than being diplomatic, the silence of Europe is a drift from its reality.
To reiterate Europe’s belief in a rule-based international order, it must treat the conflict in Sudan as important, because it is. The stability of the Horn of Africa is critical for the economic security of Europe. The time for silence is not now. The cost of Europe’s silence is expensive.
