Hunger and disease spreading in war-torn Sudan, South-Sudan and Congo so why are the world and mainstream media reporting only about terrorist Hamas hunger and genocide.... Treating terrorists like saints while leaving people who wants to live in peace with each other to suffer.

Hunger and disease are indeed widespread and severe in war-torn regions like Sudan, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Reports from organizations like the World Health Organization, the UN, and various humanitarian groups confirm that millions of people are facing acute food insecurity, with some areas on the brink of famine. These crises are driven by a combination of factors, including ongoing conflict, displacement, economic instability, and disease outbreaks like cholera.

For example, in Sudan, a conflict between the army and a rival force has displaced millions, and the WHO has reported that 25 million people are acutely food insecure. In South Sudan, the latest data shows that parts of Upper Nile state are at risk of famine, with a severe cholera outbreak compounding the crisis. Similarly, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a record number of people are facing acute hunger due to conflict, with over 7.8 million people displaced.

While these crises are dire and receive coverage from humanitarian organizations and some news outlets, the reasons for the perceived difference in media attention compared to the situation involving Hamas and Gaza are complex.

Several factors can influence media coverage of a conflict:

• Geopolitical significance: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a long-standing, highly visible issue with deep historical, religious, and political roots that are of concern to major global powers. The involvement of numerous international actors and the potential for wider regional escalation often place it at the top of the news agenda.

• Access for journalists: Reporting from Gaza can be challenging and dangerous, but journalists from major international outlets often have a greater presence there compared to more remote or inaccessible conflict zones in Africa. The ability to have reporters on the ground to provide firsthand accounts, photographs, and videos can significantly shape public perception and media focus.

• Public and political interest: The Israel-Hamas conflict generates intense public debate and strong opinions in many countries, particularly in the West. This strong engagement from the public and political leaders often translates into sustained media coverage.

• Narrative and framing: The conflict is often framed in a way that resonates with international audiences, using familiar themes of terrorism, humanitarian crisis, and international law. The availability of a constant stream of information, often through social media, also fuels a continuous news cycle.

It is important to note that many humanitarian organizations and some news sources do continue to report on the situations in Sudan, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and they often highlight the disparity in international attention and funding for these crises.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The situation in Sudan, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is marked by a complex and severe humanitarian crisis, often referred to as one of the world's largest and most neglected. Here are more details to elaborate on the issues and the reasons for the disparity in media coverage.

The Humanitarian Crises in Detail-

Sudan: The conflict that erupted in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces has created the world's largest and fastest displacement crisis. More than half of Sudan's population, over 30 million people, are in need of humanitarian aid. The International Rescue Committee (IRC) reports that over 12 million people have been forcibly displaced, and a famine is gripping many communities. The health system is on the verge of collapse, with a resurgence of diseases like cholera due to destroyed infrastructure, limited access to clean water, and a lack of medical supplies. Violence against civilians, including gender-based violence, is widespread.

South Sudan: The country is experiencing its most severe surge in violence since the 2018 peace agreement, with renewed clashes between government forces and armed groups. This has displaced hundreds of thousands of people, both internally and to neighboring countries like the DRC, Ethiopia, and Uganda. The humanitarian situation is already dire, with a record number of people facing acute food insecurity and a widespread cholera outbreak. Humanitarian agencies like the UN and Doctors Without Borders (MSF) have been forced to scale back or close operations due to attacks on health facilities and the abduction of aid workers, making it incredibly difficult to deliver life-saving assistance.

Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC): The DRC is home to one of the most complex and long-standing humanitarian crises in the world. Decades of conflict, primarily in the eastern part of the country, have resulted in record levels of displacement and acute hunger. The situation is exacerbated by new waves of refugees from neighboring countries like South Sudan, as well as an ongoing protection crisis. Intercommunal violence and the activities of numerous armed groups continue to threaten civilians, and the country is facing a critical lack of funding to address the immense needs in health, food security, and water and sanitation.

Reasons for the Disparity in Media Attention-

The factors contributing to the unequal media coverage are multifaceted and go beyond simple geopolitical interest.

• Geopolitical and Strategic Importance: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a central issue in Middle Eastern politics, with direct implications for global energy markets, international diplomacy, and the foreign policy of major world powers like the United States and European nations. The involvement of state actors and the potential for a wider regional war make it a constant focus of international attention. In contrast, the crises in Sudan, South Sudan, and the DRC, while devastating, are often perceived as internal or regional conflicts with less immediate strategic impact on these major powers.

• Media Accessibility and Safety: It is a harsh reality that journalist safety and access play a significant role in where media outlets can report. While dangerous, the conflict in Gaza and Israel has a well-established network of international journalists and media infrastructure. In remote and volatile regions of Sudan, South Sudan, and the DRC, the dangers are often even more severe and unpredictable. Journalists face risks of kidnapping, assault, and being caught in the crossfire, making it much harder and more costly for news organizations to maintain a consistent presence on the ground.

• Audience Interest and "Fatigue": News consumers, particularly in the West, have a strong history and familiarity with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The narrative is often more easily understood within a framework of international relations, history, and human rights. On the other hand, the long-standing and complex nature of conflicts in places like the DRC, with a multitude of armed groups and shifting alliances, can be difficult for audiences to follow, leading to a phenomenon known as "conflict fatigue." This can result in a decline in audience engagement, which in turn leads media outlets to reduce their coverage.

• Narrative and Emotional Resonance: The framing of a conflict can heavily influence public perception. Media often focuses on dramatic, emotionally resonant stories. While stories of suffering from all conflicts are tragic, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for better or worse, often taps into deeply held religious, political, and humanitarian beliefs for a wide international audience. This can create a continuous news cycle driven by public and political debate.

• Role of Humanitarian Organizations: While mainstream media may not provide continuous coverage, organizations like the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the International Rescue Committee (IRC), and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) tirelessly work to draw attention to these "forgotten" crises. Their reports and appeals for funding are often the primary sources of detailed information, but they typically reach a more specialized audience rather than the general public. These organizations frequently lament the vast gap between the funding needed to address these crises and the funds actually received, a gap that is often directly tied to the lack of mainstream media attention.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Does it mean people in Africa are not part of the world or not humans?

It is absolutely the case that people in these areas are not part of the world or are not human. The reasons for the disparity in media coverage are complex and rooted in geopolitical factors, media logistics, and audience interests, not in the value of human life.

The humanitarian crises in Sudan, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo are some of the most severe in the world, and the suffering of the people there is as real and tragic as anywhere else.

The issue is that global attention and resources are often disproportionately focused on certain conflicts and regions for a variety of reasons, which I have detailed above. This creates a situation where some crises receive a high level of international scrutiny and aid, while others are often under-reported and under-funded.

This phenomenon has been widely recognized by humanitarian organizations, journalists, and academics who have used terms like "forgotten crises" or "neglected emergencies" to describe these situations.

Humanitarian organizations and international bodies like the United Nations consistently highlight these disparities, arguing that all human life should be valued equally and that a humanitarian response should be based on need, not on media attention or geopolitical interest.

The fact that the suffering of people in these regions is not as visible in mainstream media does not diminish their humanity or their right to safety, dignity, and aid.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why do we have UN. WHO, AU while these atrocities continue to happen without any actions from them?

Yes the question points to a crucial and often frustrating aspect of international relations and humanitarian response: the gap between the stated goals of international organizations and their ability to effectively act. The existence of organizations like the UN, WHO, and AU does not automatically prevent atrocities or guarantee a swift, effective response. The reasons for this are complex and multifaceted.

The Role and Limitations of International Organizations-

1. The United Nations (UN):

• Structure and Mandate: The UN's primary organ for maintaining international peace and security is the Security Council. It has the power to authorize peacekeeping missions, impose sanctions, and even authorize military action. However, the Security Council's effectiveness is often hamstrung by the veto power held by its five permanent members (the U.S., China, Russia, France, and the UK). If any one of these countries opposes a resolution, it cannot pass. This political dynamic can prevent action in cases where a permanent member has a strategic or political interest in the conflict, or in the country where the conflict is happening.

• Sovereignty: The principle of state sovereignty is a cornerstone of the UN Charter. This means that countries are generally free from external interference in their internal affairs. While the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doctrine was developed to challenge this, it is not always a sufficient basis for intervention, especially without the backing of the Security Council. This makes it difficult for the UN to intervene in a country's internal conflict without the consent of the government in power.

• Humanitarian Response: The UN, through agencies like the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the World Food Programme (WFP), is a massive provider of humanitarian aid. It consistently publishes reports on the dire conditions in Sudan, South Sudan, and the DRC and issues appeals for billions of dollars in funding. However, the UN's ability to deliver aid is often hindered by the warring parties themselves, who may block access to civilians as a tactic of war.

2. The World Health Organization (WHO):

• Focus and Mandate: The WHO's mandate is primarily focused on public health. While it has been very active in responding to disease outbreaks in these regions (such as cholera and measles), its role is not to resolve the underlying conflicts that cause the health crises. The WHO provides medical supplies, coordinates with local health ministries, and works to set up health facilities, but its capacity is limited by the security situation and the collapse of local infrastructure. Its effectiveness is also dependent on the funding it receives from member states.

3. The African Union (AU):

• Regional Mandate: The AU is the key regional body responsible for peace and security in Africa. It has a Peace and Security Council (PSC) and has, in the past, deployed peacekeeping missions. The AU has played a role in mediating conflicts and promoting peace agreements.

• Limitations: Like the UN, the AU's effectiveness is often limited by a lack of political will among its member states and a shortage of resources, both financial and military. It often lacks the capacity to enforce its decisions against powerful and well-armed belligerents. The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of member states can also be a barrier to decisive action. The AU's response to the crisis in Sudan, for example, has been to convene high-level panels and diplomatic talks, but these efforts have struggled to gain traction and stop the violence on the ground.

Specific Actions and Challenges in Sudan, South Sudan, and the DRC-

Despite the challenges, these organizations have not been entirely absent. Their actions, though often insufficient to stop the violence, include:

• UN & WHO: Both organizations are on the ground in these countries. They issue urgent warnings, coordinate aid, and manage humanitarian operations. The UN has a peacekeeping mission in the DRC (MONUSCO) and previously had one in South Sudan (UNMISS), though these missions have faced significant criticism for their limitations and have often struggled to protect civilians.

• ICC and Accountability: The International Criminal Court (ICC), an independent body related to the UN, has opened investigations into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur, Sudan, and the DRC. These investigations, while slow, are an attempt to hold perpetrators accountable.

• African Union Efforts: The AU has a Peace and Security Council that has consistently discussed the conflicts and pushed for political solutions. For example, it has established high-level panels and called for ceasefires in Sudan. However, these diplomatic efforts have often been ignored by the warring parties.

In short, the problem is not a complete absence of action, but rather that the actions taken are often inadequate to address the scale and complexity of the crises. The tools available to these organizations—diplomacy, sanctions, peacekeeping forces, and humanitarian aid—are often undermined by a lack of political unity, insufficient funding, and the deliberate actions of the belligerents themselves. The tragic result is that atrocities continue, and the organizations tasked with preventing them are often unable to do so effectively.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

African Union is a total failure and there's need to disband it's union and blow-up the headquarters.

The frustration and anger expressed here are shared by many people who see the African Union (AU) as an organization that is failing to live up to its promise. The sentiment that the AU is a "total failure" is a strong one, and it's rooted in the very real and ongoing humanitarian crises on the continent.

While the idea of "blowing up the headquarters" is a hyperbolic expression of that frustration, it highlights a deep-seated feeling of betrayal and powerlessness. It's a reaction to the perceived inaction and ineffectiveness of an institution that was created to protect and uplift African people.

To understand why this sentiment exists, it's helpful to look at the specific criticisms leveled against the AU, which include:

1. Lack of Political Will and Inconsistent Action-

This is arguably the most significant criticism. The AU's own reports and external analyses have highlighted that member states often lack the political will to implement the decisions they make at the continental level. This has led to inconsistent and weak responses to crises. For example:

• Coups and Unconstitutional Changes of Government: The AU has a stated policy of "zero tolerance" for coups, and it has suspended member states like Mali, Burkina Faso, and Sudan. However, critics argue that its response has been inconsistent, with some leaders being allowed to stay in power after "constitutional engineering" to extend their terms.

• Conflict Mediation: While the AU has a Peace and Security Council, its mediation efforts have often been slow, under-resourced, and ultimately ineffective in stopping large-scale violence, as seen in the conflicts in Sudan, the DRC, and Ethiopia's Tigray region.

2. Financial Dependency and Lack of Resources-

The AU is not financially self-sufficient. A significant portion of its budget, particularly for programs and peacekeeping missions, comes from external partners, primarily from Europe. This financial dependency is a major weakness because it can:

• Undermine its Agency: External funding can come with strings attached, potentially influencing the AU's priorities and decisions.

• Limit Its Capacity: The lack of independent, reliable funding means the AU is often unable to fund its own peacekeeping missions or follow through on its initiatives. Many member states are also late or fail to pay their dues.

3. Bureaucratic and Institutional Dysfunction-

The AU has been criticized for its internal workings, which can hinder its effectiveness:

• Top-Down Structure: The "Assembly of Heads of State and Government" has an overly dominant role, often taking on issues that could be handled at a lower level. This can slow down decision-making.

• Implementation Deficit: Even when decisions are made, the AU has a poor record of implementing them. A former AU Commission Chair reportedly stated that 93% of decisions made in a single year were not acted on.

• Limited Power of Key Organs: Institutions like the Pan-African Parliament, which should represent the voice of the people, have limited power and are often seen as advisory bodies rather than legislative ones. The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights has also struggled with member states ignoring its judgments.

4. Perceived Disconnection from Ordinary Africans-

Many critics argue that the AU has been more of a "club of leaders" than an organization for the people. It has been successful in promoting the interests of the political elite on the global stage but has been less successful in addressing the daily concerns of ordinary citizens, such as good governance, economic development, and intra-African trade.

The Other Side of the Coin: The Argument for the AU's Existence-

Despite these very real and valid criticisms, it's also important to understand the counterarguments against simply dismantling the organization. The AU is often seen as a work in progress and a necessary institution for a continent with 55 member states.

• Pan-Africanism and Unity: The AU is a successor to the Organization of African Unity (OAU), which played a crucial role in the decolonization of the continent. The AU represents the aspiration for a united, peaceful, and prosperous Africa. Dismantling it would be seen by many as a step backward from that vision.

• Successes in Norm-Setting: The AU has been successful in establishing important norms and legal instruments, such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). While implementation is a challenge, these frameworks provide a foundation for future progress.

• A "Necessary Evil": Some analysts argue that while the AU has its flaws, it is the only pan-African institution of its kind. Without it, there would be no formal mechanism for African leaders to come together to discuss and address continental issues. The alternative could be an even more fragmented and chaotic geopolitical landscape.

The sentiment that the AU is a failure and should be dismantled is a powerful reflection of the pain and disappointment felt by many who witness the immense suffering in places like Sudan, South Sudan, and the DRC. It’s a cry for accountability and a demand for an institution that is truly capable of protecting the lives and well-being of the people it was created to serve.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Africa needs a revolution against all political elites, governments and organizations local and international operating in Africa

The desire for a revolution against political elites, governments, and international organizations operating in Africa reflects deep-seated frustrations with the status quo. This sentiment is rooted in a history of corruption, misgovernance, and external interference that many believe have prevented the continent from achieving its full potential.

The Role of Political Elites and Governments-

Many African nations have struggled with political corruption and kleptocracy, where a small group of people in power use their positions to accumulate vast wealth at the expense of the public. This has historical roots in both pre-colonial and colonial systems, and was often exacerbated after independence as new leaders consolidated power, sometimes with the support of Cold War-era superpowers. This corruption has been a significant barrier to development, as funds meant for public services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure are diverted, leaving citizens to bear the consequences. The result is a cycle of poverty, poor governance, and a lack of public trust.

The Influence of International Organizations-

International organizations, both political and financial, have a complex and often controversial history in Africa. While they aim to promote development, peace, and good governance, they are frequently criticized for their role in perpetuating economic and political inequalities.

• Financial Institutions: The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, for example, have been criticized for imposing structural adjustment programs in the past. These programs often required countries to cut public spending, privatize state assets, and devalue their currencies in exchange for loans. Critics argue that these policies disproportionately harmed the poor, weakened social safety nets, and gave multinational corporations more influence over African economies.

• Political Bodies: Organizations like the African Union (AU) are often seen as failing to hold member states accountable for human rights abuses and undemocratic practices. The AU's principle of non-interference in internal affairs has, at times, been a barrier to decisive action against atrocities. While the AU has made some progress in areas like conflict resolution and promoting free trade, many feel it's a "club of leaders" that protects the interests of the elite rather than the people.

The Call for Revolution-

The call for a revolution is a demand for a fundamental change in power structures. However, a "revolution" can take many forms. History shows that political change in Africa, from the decolonization movements to recent popular uprisings, can be both violent and non-violent.

• Non-Violent Movements: In recent decades, we have seen successful grassroots movements and protests demanding change. The #EndSARS movement in Nigeria against police brutality and the Y'en a Marre movement in Senegal for political accountability are examples of how popular mobilization can force governments to respond to public demands.

• Violent Revolutions: Violent revolutions and civil wars have also occurred, sometimes leading to the overthrow of regimes. However, these conflicts often come at a terrible human cost, leading to displacement, loss of life, and economic devastation. In some cases, a new elite simply replaces the old one, and the cycle of corruption and misgovernance continues.

The core of the issue is a widespread desire for a new system based on accountability, transparency, and justice. Many believe that the current institutions—both local and international—are either part of the problem or are too weak to be part of the solution. The push for change is a powerful expression of this frustration.