A year ago, the long-standing conflict in the African state of Sudan was being called the forgotten war. Despite its severity, news about it was limited even though it was described at the time by the United Nations as one of the “worst humanitarian disasters in recent memory”.

Now, two years after civil war broke out and with the situation worse than ever, it has been in the spotlight because of an international conference about it in London last week.

Reportedly, although there were no great expectations for this gathering in advance, it turned out to be a disappointment to many as it ended in failure. Nonetheless, others consider that holding the conference at all served, at least, to propel the issue back on to the international news agenda.

The one-day conference was co-chaired by Britain, the EU and the African Union and was attended by a number of Arab countries. The principal military players in Sudan itself were not invited, nor were any members of civilian society there. The British foreign secretary told the conference that, although many people have “given up on Sudan” still in the throes of a civil war, “it is morally wrong to do so in the face of so much violence and more people facing famine than anywhere else in the world”.

Before examining the detail, a brief fact-check might be helpful.

As I have recorded in a previous article, since independence from Britain in 1956, Sudan has been run partly by the military though with some cooperation of civilian governments. Its long-term dictator Omar al-Bashir was ousted as head of state in 2019 after decades of internal conflict.

Historians say that half a century of such conflict, during which violence had become a fact of life, was precipitated by what they describe as “a collision of cultures, religions and ethnicities”. Before the current civil war there had been an earlier internecine struggle that saw South Sudan break away from the north of the country in 2011.

Sudan is the third largest country by area in Africa as well as being one of the poorest. It has an estimated population of some 50 million. It is part of a geopolitically unstable area of the African continent. Alongside the Red Sea to the east, the country has Egypt as its powerful neighbour to the north. It also borders Libya, Chad, Ethiopia and the Central African Republic.

The current civil war is principally between the country’s regular Army and a paramilitary group called the Rapid Support Forces(RSF). Observers say that the conflict is based on rivalry and a power struggle between the leaders of these two bodies who disagree about the direction the country should take. Observers say that neither of the warring sides is showing any interest in peace.

The Army and RSF ruled Sudan together during the first part of the war before falling out about a year ago over plans to integrate their forces. The RSF had taken over swathes of the country and consolidated control of the Darfur region in the west, and it has been responsible for devastating raids on the Zamzam displacement camp. According to reports, it is trying to install a parallel government which it claims will be representative of the whole of Sudan. But it seems most recently that the Army has regained control of most of the country.

The latest facts of the conflict paint a horrifying picture. It has been described as a “jarring reality check” and aid agencies are calling it the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. Charities involved state that 30 million people in Sudan are in desperate need, not least the millions facing starvation. More than 12 million have been forced from their homes and tens of thousands have been killed. The vast Zamzam camp (mentioned above) being used as a shelter for displaced people has been largely destroyed and rape has been used as “a weapon of war”.

The aim of the London conference was to unite international parties around a common position, to get more food and medicine into Sudan and to begin charting a way to end the hostilities and find a “pathway to peace”. It appears that the idea was not to attempt mediation but rather to build greater “political coherence and cooperation” among the many countries that have claimed a stake in Sudan and therefore in its future. Most of all, the conference needed to be united in agreeing how Sudan could move from civil war to creating a civilian-led government.

Specifically, the UK led an attempt to establish an African Union-led international contact group to take matters forward towards peace and future governance of the country.

However, none of this was achieved because, from all reports, it seems that some of the Arab countries – notably, the UAE, Egypt and Saudi Arabia – disagreed about issues surrounding the running of Sudan after the end of hostilities. That said, the lack of unity was perhaps unsurprising given accusations that, for example, Egypt has maintained close ties to the Sudanese army and the UAE has sided with the RSF – both of which claims those concerned have denied.

There was therefore no agreed communique issued at the end of the conference. But, in the absence of one, the UK foreign secretary and his French and German counterparts, together with the African Union, issued a statement as co-chairs pledging to support “efforts to find a peaceful solution and reject all activities, including external interference that heighten tensions and that prolong or enable fighting.” The statement also called for a solution that did not lead to Sudan’s partition. Meanwhile, the UK announced a pledge of an extra $160 million aid for food and medical assistance.

All this means that the relatively modest objective of seeking agreement on an African Union-led international contact group failed.

Overall, the London conference seems to have been a setback for diplomatic efforts to end the Sudan civil war since the participants of the Arab states concerned declined to sign the communique.

So, what happens next? The African Union has stated that there can be no military solution in Sudan, only a cessation of hostilities followed by a dialogue to end the fighting permanently and pave the way for a long-term political process. To avoid a vacuum, it is now being argued that the AU should itself take the lead through the high level panel on Sudan that, reportedly, it has already established.

WORLD HAPPINESS INDEX MISLEADING

While browsing through the international press, I recently came across a news report that for the eighth time in a row the country of Finland had topped the annual World Happiness Rankings which appears to be a partnership between the UN, Gallup and Oxford University. This rang a bell since I recall writing about the topic when the Finns won last year.

Unsurprisingly, as was the case last time, this has prompted the same thought that the whole exercise is essentially wrong-headed because what they are really talking about is not so much the notion of happiness but, rather, contentment and satisfaction with the practical elements of day-to-day living in a particular country. Interestingly, even the Finns themselves have responded that happiness -- which is essentially a different, deeper, subjective and personalized state of mind not necessarily dependent on external stimuli -- is not the right word to indicate what is being measured. Some have suggested instead that fulfilment, satisfaction with local conditions of life and, indeed, contentment would be more appropriate terms.

It is surely significant that, of the leading ten so-called happiest countries identified in this report, four are the Nordic nations of Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway that are noted for their generous welfare systems designed to support the collective good.

The criteria against which people in different countries have been judged are said to include things like GDP per capita, life expectancy and healthcare, the power of nature, local culture, security and freedom, friendships, levels of corruption, availability of food, housing and education. But have they factored in, I wonder, the long dark winters in Scandinavia that for some people can put a strain on mental health.

It seems that what is being measured are the levels of satisfaction of having enough of what is needed, mostly in the material sense, to maintain a decent standard of living with a pleasant balance of daily existence that makes a person generally feel comfortable. According to reports, in Finland there is also an element called “sisu” which is much valued by people. It is said to translate as a mix of resilience, fortitude, courage and grit; and it is argued that this produces a mindset that helps people and communities to work together in the face of challenges rather than give up or blame others for adversity.

Perhaps I could repeat what I wrote last year about the general agreement among philosophers, who opine about the concept of happiness, that the quality of this comes from within a person as an individual and relies on a myriad of variable elements. Some philosophers speak about needing to pursue a virtuous life with a peaceful frame of mind and of fulfilling one’s potential, instead of endlessly seeking fleeting pleasures. So it does not necessarily depend on material success or the accumulation of riches as some tend to think. But, above all, even a cursory study of the subject shows the importance of giving rather than receiving -- both of love and material things – as one of the key elements in finding both contentment and happiness.

As the late Sir John Templeton, a long-term resident of The Bahamas, wrote in his admirable book “Discovering the Laws of Life”, rather than believing that a satisfying life comes from acquiring and holding on to great wealth, it is more rewarding to give of oneself to others. For, as he says, if people want to be happy, they should ensure they give a measure of happiness to others by helping those in need – in whatever way is suitable.

BRITISH INDIVIDUALISM

There is said to be a fine line between eccentricity and boorishness. That thought crossed my mind when reading in the UK press about the Musselburgh Racecourse Corgi Derby that has just taken place in Scotland.

In tongue-in-cheek mode, I report that, apparently, this is now being called in Britain the annual Corgi Derby with the pedigree dogs racing in a sprint for glory over a specially designed mini-course of 70 yards to determine which will be the fastest canine on four legs. The winner by a narrow margin in this year’s field of sixteen was apparently in training for months by chasing seagulls in Edinburgh. So the ever-inventive UK press came up with the headline “Seagull-chasing dog swoops to victory in Corgi Derby”.

Interestingly, this Corgi Derby is being labelled an annual event. It was first held as recently as 2022 to mark The Queen’s seventy years on the throne. Hence, presumably, the distance of the course. As people are well aware, she was devoted to corgis all her life and in fact was involved in breeding them.

Many will say this is all just a bit of fun and it is good to see such a light-hearted thing happening at a time of so much misery in other parts of the world. Moreover, some are also saying that an event like this could only happen in the UK since, as well as possessing an appreciation of the absurd in life, the British are associated with what some regard as a unique blend of individuality and eccentricity.

In the old country, as people still call it, there are many quirky, unconventional figures around who harmlessly follow their own predilections and obsessions in what is still a tolerant society. But heaven forbid that eccentric behaviour might turn in to boorishness and thereby ruin the traditional British sense of humour!