As peace talks are set to begin in Geneva regarding Sudan’s year-long conflict, Andrew Mueller asks whether optimism about their success is foolhardy. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The game of relative news values, why we as a species take more interest in some conflicts or disasters than others.
Is one that can be played all.
Day, generally to no satisfactory conclusion.
It is nevertheless striking that the current.
War in Sudan has raged more or.
Less concurrently with the current war in Gaza, has by some measures caused more death and injury, has very certainly displaced vastly more people, and attracts meager fractions of the attention.
A few baffled headlines when it began.
Last what's being called an attempted coup in the African nation of Sudan.
Very little coverage since it arouses little ardor elsewhere.
No politician seeking office in the United Kingdom or the United States has had.
To scramble to locate a palatable stance on Sudan with a view to placating passionate mobs who have embraced this foreign quarrel as a pillar of their identity.
This observation is made by way of preamble to examining this week's Sudanese peace talks in Geneva and explaining why they.
Probably won't work, and in neither hope nor expectation that the people to whom it is passive aggressively directed may have.
A bit of a think about why.
They care so stridently about conflict A and not in the slightest about conflict B.
Buildings carry the scars of the fighting, roads littered with ammunition casings and cars riddled with bullet holes.
It is 16 months since Sudan went to war.
At the heart of it is one.
Of your classic Shakespearean tragedies and or.
Game theory propositions of two protagonists who cooperated for a period to the benefit of both until they reached the point at which it seemed possible for one winner to take all the two to bring us briskly up to speed, General Abdel Fattah al Burhan, commander of the Sudanese armed forces and probably the nearest.