While the world shifts its attention to other humanitarian issues around the globe, Sudan has been suffering in silence since 2023. The civil war in Sudan has caused the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. According to data (UN OCHA, 2025), 11.4 million people are in need of immediate assistance, with 2.3 million people facing extremely high levels of need. The author argues that, amid collapsing institutions and escalating crisis figures, the role of NGOs is crucial as the frontline of emergency aid and the primary form of public trust. To that end, the author will focus on three arguments: how NGO neutrality in war politics, dependence on global actors and donors weakens NGO independence, and the lack of local partnerships deepens the crisis of legitimacy.
Since April 2023, civil war in Sudan has erupted with air strikes, shootings and attacks. The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) led by Janjaweed Hemedti are the two main factions in the war. This war has caused many humanitarian casualties in Sudan, not just military territorial disputes. Most militia areas are deliberately closed to humanitarian aid, especially in areas outside SAF control. Blocking aid distribution channels causes conflict and intimidation. According to a report (United Nations News, 2025), five aid convoy staff members were killed in an attack in Sudan on 3 June 2025. UNICEF also reminded the international community that humanitarian law requires aid to be delivered safely. Even bringing food can be considered a political act in situations like this.
The blurring of the line between aid and partisanship has emerged as a result of the conflict in Sudan. Many humanitarian organisations are perceived as taking sides because they operate only in certain areas. Violence has also been directed at humanitarian workers, and armed groups have even seized humanitarian logistics bases. (Médecins Sans Frontières UK, 2025) estimates that around 30 million people are in need of humanitarian aid. MSF has collaborated with the Ministry of Health to provide care to some of those in dire need of medical treatment. Despite the urgent and growing needs, the most affected locations are often closed for security reasons. Given this situation, NGOs are considered neutral, but in reality, this forces them to negotiate with all parties on the ground, complicating their humanitarian objectives.
At this point, neutrality is not only considered an ethical principle, but also the very survival of humanitarian operations themselves. If the perception of neutrality gradually disappears, then access to aid for victims disappears, and ultimately public trust collapses. According to the ICRC, ‘humanitarian action depends on the perception of neutrality; once that erodes, access collapses.’ However, in Sudan, every decision about logistics or distribution locations can be interpreted as a political stance. The fundamental dilemma faced by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is how to remain faithful to humanity in the midst of a war that refuses to allow anyone to be neutral.
The issue of NGO independence becomes highly complex when resources depend on global political interests. While field needs far exceed funding capacity, most of the funds coming to Sudan originate from Western countries and multilateral institutions. According to a report (UN OCHA FTS, 2025), the reported funding amounted to only US$ 1.26 billion, just 28.5 per cent of the estimated needs of US$ 4.16 billion. Because of this discrepancy, many organisations have had to shift their priorities to align with donor policies rather than focusing solely on the issues affecting the most vulnerable citizens. In such circumstances, aid rules often determine who is eligible for assistance.
Aid received in Sudan is often focused on the strategic interests of donors rather than the needs of vulnerable communities. In areas considered geopolitically irrelevant, aid tends to be neglected, while areas that are easily accessible to the media receive a great deal of attention. Therefore, the principles of impartiality and aid are two key pillars of humanitarianism that are increasingly challenging to uphold. In the long term, this can undermine public trust in NGOs. These organisations may be perceived as extensions of donor politics abroad, rather than independent actors.
To break this dependency, NGOs must expand their funding sources and collaborate with local actors and the Global South. This could be an opportunity to reduce the dominance of conventional donor narratives and requirements. Diversification is also important so that they can maintain their independence and public trust without getting caught up in significant dirty agendas. As long as NGOs pursue donor priorities, their independence will remain an illusion.
The crisis of legitimacy faced by international non-governmental organisations in Sudan is exacerbated by the lack of local participation. According to the Refugees International Report (Noe, 2025) only USD 3.3 million of the 1.3 billion in humanitarian funds are allocated to national NGOs and local communities. And many local organisations only receive small grants with long delays, which prevents them from operating in the long term.
Failure to distribute resources fairly is a moral issue as well as a technical one. Principles such as ‘humanitarian neutrality’ will no longer be considered appropriate if local organisations are regarded as implementers rather than equal partners. The crisis in Sudan shows that without a real location that allows local parties to manage the response of international non-governmental organisations, the power imbalance in the global aid system will only be prolonged.
The three arguments above, namely the neutrality of NGOs being tested by the politics of war, dependence on global actors and donors weakening the independence of NGOs, and the lack of local partnerships deepening the crisis of legitimacy, have shown that war is not the only factor causing the humanitarian crisis in Sudan, but also structural failures in global governance that have failed to harmonise power, interests and humanitarian values. In these circumstances, a change in perspective on humanitarian aid is needed. It is not only about the provision of resources, but also about the courage of NGOs to uphold humanitarian principles amid increasingly complex political pressures.
