Navigating neutrality and humanitarian access in Sudan’s ongoing crisis: lessons from Somalia

Sudan is facing one of the most severe humanitarian crises in the world today. What began as a political dispute between military factions has evolved into a nationwide conflict that has devastated millions of lives.

The confrontation between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) began in April 2023 and has since spread across the country. It has triggered one of the most severe humanitarian crises, forcing over 13 million people to flee their homes, leading to tens of thousands of deaths and exposing countless others to looting and sexual assault. Additionally, the crisis has caused widespread damage to essential facilities, including residential areas, medical centres and markets. Amid this devastation, humanitarian aid is under attack, with convoys looted or blocked by the RSF and bureaucratic obstacles imposed by the SAF.

For decades, international humanitarian organisations operated in Sudan under the supervision of Sudan’s Humanitarian Aid Commission, which managed registrations, movement permits, visas and project approvals. While this relationship allowed aid to enter and operate within the country, it also compromised perceptions of neutrality.

In response to the escalating crisis, civil society actors began providing humanitarian aid, despite their roots being political. Their contributions have been essential, but because some actors are linked to local political structures, it can affect how communities perceive the humanitarian effort. This raises challenges for international humanitarian actors seeking to preserve the principle of neutrality. Compounding these challenges, misinformation and politically charged media narratives have significantly shaped public perceptions of humanitarian operations, blurring the line between neutral assistance and perceived political alignment. For example, the Norwegian Refugee Council reported that false claims circulating on social media accused the organisation of smuggling weapons and supporting one of the parties in Darfur, distorting its humanitarian mission and putting its staff at risk.

Neutrality is a fundamental principle of humanitarian action, yet it is often misunderstood. At its core, it means not taking sides in a conflict, allowing humanitarian workers to operate safely and reach affected populations without being targeted. In contexts like Sudan, neutrality often plays a crucial role in shaping whether organisations can earn the trust of communities, navigate complex local dynamics and deliver aid effectively.

Humanitarian access under constraint

Negotiating humanitarian access continues to represent a major operational and policy challenge across the humanitarian sector. Over the past few years, humanitarian actors have placed greater emphasis on building the negotiation skills of aid workers to ensure that assistance can reach those who need it most. Despite these efforts, negotiating access remains particularly complex in certain contexts. This is especially evident in Sudan, where humanitarian operations face severe restrictions, blocked routes and multiple obstacles to the movement of aid convoys.

In South Kordofan, many communities face prolonged isolation, while in North Darfur, access remains heavily restricted. In February 2025, the UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in Sudan, Clementine Nkweta-Salami, warned that persistent restrictions and administrative hurdles imposed by the Sudanese Agency for Relief and Humanitarian Operations, an affiliate of the RSF, were preventing life-saving assistance from reaching people in need. She emphasised that these barriers, together with the interference in aid delivery, violate international humanitarian law and go against the commitments made in the Jeddah Declaration to protect civilians.

Despite ongoing negotiations, no agreement has been reached to restore access, leaving thousands of people without vital aid and highlighting the persistent obstacles that humanitarian actors face in reaching the most vulnerable populations.

Similar challenges are found in other protracted crises, such as in Somalia during the early 1990s, where humanitarian workers faced significant difficulties negotiating access while striving to maintain neutrality in a highly politicised environment.

Somalia: lessons on humanitarian neutrality

International humanitarian engagement in Somalia predates the collapse of the Barre regime in 1991. Although the country has long been one of the largest recipients of foreign aid, these efforts were often undermined by poor coordination and competing interests among donors and local actors. The humanitarian environment soon became extremely tense. The involvement of the United States (US), NATO and other military forces in delivering aid blurred the line between humanitarian and military action, creating a complex dynamic that challenged the principle of neutrality.

The humanitarian response to this crisis offered two critical lessons that resonate with the current humanitarian challenges in Sudan:

1. The blurred line between aid and political actors

As the humanitarian crisis in Somalia intensified, local organisations and clan-based groups became crucial channels for delivering aid. However, many of these actors maintained political or military affiliations with the competing clan factions.

Lesson: The involvement of local actors with political or clan affiliations in aid delivery further politicised the humanitarian response and posed challenges for maintaining neutrality.

This dynamic parallels the challenge in Sudan, where civil society actors’ political affiliations influenced how aid was perceived and trusted by affected communities.

While locally embedded actors play a vital role in delivering aid, particularly because of their knowledge of communities, vulnerable areas and local needs, international humanitarian organisations must clearly distinguish themselves from non-neutral actors to avoid being perceived as aligned with any political agenda.

2. The role of coordination and perception

The Somalia case provides a valuable lesson in how differing interpretations of neutrality among humanitarian, military and media actors can generate friction and undermine the effectiveness of aid operations. To achieve better results on the ground, these actors must understand each other’s objectives, respect each other’s roles and coordinate their efforts effectively.

Military forces, by their very nature and mandates, cannot adhere to humanitarian neutrality in the same way humanitarian organisations must. Humanitarian workers build trust with communities to secure access and safety, whereas military actors focus on maintaining order and following structured chains of command, two fundamentally different approaches that require coordination rather than convergence.

Strong communication should also exist between humanitarian actors and those documenting and reporting on crises, particularly the media. It is essential that media coverage is aligned with humanitarian imperatives to prevent harm to affected populations or disruption of aid operations.

Lesson: Effective coordination and mutual understanding among humanitarian, military and media actors are indispensable to preserving access, safety and the credibility of humanitarian action.

This dynamic parallels the challenge in Sudan, where the spread of misinformation through politically charged media narratives has further undermined the perception of neutrality. Such narratives have, at times, portrayed aid agencies as partial actors, weakening trust among affected communities and endangering staff on the ground.

As in Somalia, media dynamics in Sudan have created significant challenges by spreading biased narratives, emphasising misleading aspects of the conflict and shaping perceptions of neutrality – a principle essential for the safe and effective delivery of aid.

Conclusion

The continuing humanitarian crisis in Sudan underscores the enduring importance, and fragility, of neutrality as a guiding principle for aid operations. As the conflict between the SAF and RSF continues to escalate, humanitarian actors must navigate multiple challenges, including bureaucratic restrictions, armed interference and the politicisation of aid. Acting neutrally is just as important as being perceived as neutral, as both determine whether aid can safely and effectively reach those who need it most.

Lessons from Somalia reveal that upholding neutral humanitarian action is complex in practice. When aid delivery intersects with political, military, or media agendas, both access and the perception of neutrality can be compromised. Maintaining trust therefore requires not only strict adherence to neutrality but also careful management of how humanitarian efforts are perceived on the ground – a lesson that remains critically relevant for Sudan today.

Indeed, in this context, one can discern how media-driven misinformation and politically charged narratives have mirrored the challenges observed in Somalia, influencing public perceptions of humanitarian efforts and further complicating aid delivery. Upholding neutrality in this context requires not only careful negotiation and operational acumen but also proactive engagement with local actors and media to safeguard both the integrity of humanitarian assistance and the safety of those delivering it.

Ultimately, the Sudan case reaffirms that neutrality is not merely a guiding principle but a practical necessity. Ensuring safe and sustained humanitarian access demands constant vigilance, adaptive strategies and collaboration across sectors – lessons learned from Somalia that remain critically relevant today.

Sofía Céspedes Navarro is the Coordinator of Projects and International Cooperation, Centre for Strategic Studies in International Relations and affiliated with the Organisation of American States.