Sudan has descended further into chaos as a drone strike on a funeral procession in Omdurman killed at least 30 mourners, with scores more wounded. The attack, which occurred during a burial ceremony for victims of previous clashes, underscores the catastrophic collapse of order in a country already ravaged by a 16-month civil war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces. This latest atrocity has prompted urgent calls from humanitarian groups for the United Kingdom to convene an emergency session of the UN Security Council, as the toll of civilian casualties mounts and regional stability hangs by a thread. For a nation already bleeding from economic collapse and hyperinflation, the fiscal and human cost of this conflict is a stark reminder that war is the most inefficient of all market distortions, destroying capital both human and financial.
The drone strike, which targeted mourners in the Khartoum suburb of Omdurman, is the latest in a series of indiscriminate attacks that have turned Sudan into a graveyard of broken promises and shattered infrastructure. The conflict, which erupted in April 2023 following a power struggle between General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, has already displaced over 10 million people and pushed the country to the brink of famine. The International Rescue Committee has described the situation as a 'catastrophic humanitarian emergency,' with 25 million people in need of aid. The cost of reconstruction is estimated at $150 billion, a sum that Sudan's decimated economy can never hope to raise without international intervention. For the United Kingdom, which has historically been one of the largest donors to Sudan, the pressure to act is mounting.
The call for a Security Council emergency session is led by the Enough Project and backed by dozens of NGOs, who argue that the UK, as a permanent member of the Council, has a moral obligation to intervene. The UK Foreign Office has so far responded cautiously, emphasising the need for a ceasefire and humanitarian access, but critics argue that this amounts to little more than diplomatic hand-wringing. The reality is that the Council is deeply divided, with Russia and China likely to block any meaningful resolution that threatens Sudan's sovereignty or their own geopolitical interests. This is a classic case of market failure in international diplomacy, where the public good of peace is underprovided due to the free-rider problem and conflicting sovereign interests.
From a financial perspective, the Sudan conflict is a textbook example of how war destroys economic value. The Sudanese pound has lost over 90% of its value since the conflict began, inflation is running at over 300%, and gold production, once a key export, has plummeted. The country's infrastructure, already fragile, has been systematically destroyed, with telecommunications, energy, and water systems all targeted. Capital flight has been massive, with billions of dollars smuggled out of the country, often through the same networks that finance the conflict. The human capital loss is incalculable, with millions of children out of school and healthcare systems in ruins.
The UK's role is pivotal, not just because of its seat on the Security Council, but because of its historical ties and its position as a hub for Sudanese diaspora capital. The UK is home to over 200,000 Sudanese, many of whom send remittances totalling hundreds of millions of pounds each year. This financial lifeline is now at risk as the conflict disrupts banking systems and increases transaction costs. The UK Treasury must be alert to the potential for this crisis to spill over into financial instability in the region, particularly in neighbouring Chad and South Sudan, which are already fragile states.
In the short term, the most efficient solution would be a binding Security Council resolution imposing an arms embargo and targeted sanctions on the warring parties. But in the long term, any sustainable recovery requires a negotiated settlement and massive investment in reconstruction. The market for peace is notoriously difficult to clear, but without it, the only certain outcome is further depreciation of human life and economic value.
As the bodies are counted in Omdurman, the question is not whether the UK should lead, but whether it has the political will to pay the premium for stability. The cost of inaction, as any accountant knows, is far greater than the cost of intervention. The bottom line: Sudan is bleeding, and the world's ledger is in the red.
