End of the Year Issue
Amena Elkayal
War is war. No matter when it starts, where it is or who ends up carrying its weight. I’m usually the first to argue that suffering should never be compared, but in the cases of Sudan and Yemen, comparison becomes almost unavoidable. Not to decide who suffers more nor to rank tragedies, but to confront the world’s selective outrage and the chilling apathetic silence that allows some wars to disappear from collective memory.
Some conflicts dominate global headlines for months, shape foreign policy debates, saturate our screens and even household conversations. Others, equally brutal and equally tragic, barely surface. Yemen and Sudan stand among the world’s worst humanitarian disasters of our time, yet they remain trapped on the margins of global attention. Their absence reflects a deeper hierarchy of suffering, one where geopolitical interest, emotional convenience and media priorities determine whose suffering is worthier of visibility. When wars are not seen, they are unfelt. And when they are unfelt, they are abandoned.
Since April 2023, Sudan has recorded more than 20,000 deaths and 4.9 million displaced people. That is besides 25 milions facing hunger and at least 36 women and girls raped only between April 2023 and October 2024. Yemen, meanwhile, has seen at least 1,742 civilians killed since late 2022, alongside 4.8 million internally displaced people and 17.1 million people living in acute food insecurity. Despite these figures you could count on one hand the number of times you’ve stumbled upon these crises in global headlines—especially when measured against the omnipresent coverage of Gaza or Ukraine. The inequality of attention becomes impossible to ignore.
To readers around the world, Sudan and Yemen’s violence often feels distant, confusing, or inaccessible—and that is partly by design.
These conflicts are frequently described as “invisible wars”, a label rooted in the chronic absence of sustained human-centered coverage. Yemen, for example, receives consistently low global media attention. This pattern is documented by outlets such as the BBC, who examined why the country’s humanitarian catastrophe fails to appear in headlines. Humanitarian agencies operating in both countries have long warned that donor fatigue, shrinking aid budgets and the near-impossibility of accessing active conflict zones make it difficult to draw global attention to unfolding crises. Doctors Without Borders note that in Sudan, warring factions regularly restrict the movement of aid workers and journalists Further, they frequently cut communications, diminishing visibility in international media. The result is that these wars become “uncoverable,” and therefore, unseen.
By contrast, conflicts like in Ukraine and Palestine receive sustained attention, while Sudan and Yemen fall into a blind spot shaped by power dynamics rather than humanitarian urgency. This is not because the former conflicts are inherently “more tragic”, but because they benefit from clearer political narratives, stronger advocacy networks and direct Western involvement. Wars that intersect with Western foreign policy priorities are more likely to receive sustained attention and sympathy than those unfolding in regions perceived as geopolitically peripheral. Coverage follows power. Outrage follows proximity. And empathy follows the stories people are given the chance to see. Analyses of global news patterns repeatedly show how conflicts tied to Western interests remain amplified, while others quietly fade into the background, marked by a general feeling of less humanitarian urgency.
The imbalance is staggering. Media monitoring platform Meltware found that between Jan. 1 and Sep. 30, 2022, Ukraine received five times more media coverage than all ten of the most dangerous conflict zones for children combined. Sudan— now considered the world’s worst humanitarian crisis—occupies only a narrow and fragile space in international news reporting. This isn’t just a media gap; it’s a moral one.
Emotional engagement itself is greatly shaped by the narratives people encounter. An article by Prismreports.org points out how the public’s capacity to care is directly influenced by the stories they are offered: when journalists don’t cover these wars, audiences don’t feel them. And when audiences don’t feel them, governments don’t act. Silence becomes distance. Distance breeds apathy.
The consequences are not abstract. They are fatal. In Sudan, most hospitals in active conflict zones have collapsed or shut down, leaving entire cities without medical care. In Yemen, famine, cholera outbreaks, and widespread infrastructure collapse continue unabated, as detailed by the U.N.’s humanitarian updates. Despite the severity of these crises, the flow of aid remains insufficient and inconsistent—an outcome that might result from their invisibility.
The disparity becomes even more glaring through the legal and humanitarian lens presented by Opinio Juris. Their analysis shows that Sudan’s civil war, which resumed in April 2023, has resulted in more than 150,000 deaths, displaced over 12 million people and left nearly half of its population facing famine. Across the African continent, over 45 million people were displaced by conflict in 2024 alone—an astonishing 14% increase from the previous year—yet these crises rarely dominate international headlines. This selective attention creates a “hierarchy of suffering,” where victims of high-profile wars are perceived as more deserving of empathy than those trapped in the invisible conflicts of the global south .
Data from the 2025 Global Peace Index confirms these patterns. Vision of Humanity report that civil conflicts—like those in Yemen and Sudan—receive dramatically less coverage than interstate wars. On average, interstate conflicts generate roughly 870 news articles per civilian death, while intrastate conflicts (which make up the majority of global wars) generate only 37. The least visible are internationalised intrastate conflicts, at just 18 articles per civilian death. Notably, even when comparing 2014 coverage, the Gaza war and the Russian-Ukrainian conflict received far more attention than the Central African Republic’s civil war, despite the latter experiencing higher mortality rates. This disparity does not arise in a vacuum. While the imbalance is stark, it is also shaped by the geographic and political orientation of major news organisations: the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as a European war, directly implicates European security, economies, and populations—the primary audience these outlets serve. The pattern nonetheless endures: attention follows geopolitical proximity and interest more readily than human need.
The report also highlights rising negativity in news consumption, audience fatigue from long-term crises, and a growing tendency to avoid emotionally draining topics—all of which contribute to the systematic erasure of certain wars from public consciousness.
Addressing this erasure requires far more than fleeting sympathy. Humanitarian groups like CARE note that sustaining global attention demands innovative media strategies. For example, local partnerships, long-form reporting and storytelling rooted in lived experience rather than abstract geopolitics. Coverage that prioritizes people over politics can counter public fatigue, a point echoed across reports from NPR, showing how individual narratives can revive empathy. Similarly, analyses by the International Crisis Group call for increased foreign aid, renewed focus on forgotten conflicts, and diplomatic pressure tied to civilian protection. Media watchdogs such as the Committee to Protect Journalists urge deeper investigative work and collaboration with local reporters who can safely document realities on the ground. Advocacy organizations including Human Rights Watch add that supporting grassroots campaigns and independent digital platforms—especially those operating from within Sudan and Yemen—is essential to bypass censorship and ensure these wars are not erased simply because they fall outside geopolitical priorities.
Because at its core, selective outrage isn’t just a failure of the press. It is a failure of our shared moral imagination. Yemen and Sudan are not invisible because their people are less worthy of empathy. They are invisible because the world has chosen to look elsewhere. If international law, governments, the media and global institutions are to retain integrity and maintain any moral consistency, they must dismantle the hierarchy of suffering that governs which lives are seen and which are allowed to simply fade into silence. Every war demands to be witnessed. Every victim deserves to be mourned. Until all human suffering is met with equal urgency, justice will remain uneven and peace will remain painfully out of reach.
The world cannot claim ignorance.
It can claim only silence.
And silence, in these wars, kills.
Photo Source: UNMISS, Flickr