The recent decision by the United States government to suspend foreign aid programmes has had tangible consequences in many developing countries. In Sudan, this decision particularly affected humanitarian operations.
Reports from regional and international media indicate that the shutdown of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) programmes has disrupted the operations of hundreds of emergency rooms and communal kitchens, which many rely on for basic subsistence.
Online monitoring of community-operated services in Sudan reveals a noticeable increase in stoppages and interruptions to essential services, including food distribution and healthcare. While disruptions are not new, their frequency has increased in recent months, putting more pressure on an already fragile system.
The full impact of USAID’s withdrawal from programmes in Sudan remains difficult to assess due to lack of comprehensive on-the-ground data. However, the significance of the impact can be estimated from USAID’s budget and size of intervention in the country.
The agency’s programmes in Sudan are conducted through, and in collaborations with, civil society organisations and local and international partners, with $605 million reportedly allocated for Emergency Rooms in Sudan in 2024.
Disruptions to the work of communally operated services increases risks of starvation and preventable deaths for some of the country’s most fragile populations, whether displaced or in conflict zones. It is therefore a useful endeavour to think about current and expected disruptions, with a focus on improving the resilience of the systems through which community organisations provide services.
Unreliable, unsustainable
Skepticism around international development and aid budget allocations by donors and multilateral organisations has been at the heart of development debates long before the recent USAID shutdown.
In an article published by Atar a year ago, we highlighted how several geopolitical factors impact budget allocations, making dependence on external funding a tangible risk to the sustainability of communally operated services.
In some cases, external funding for communally designed projects has even undermined their sustainability
The fragility of services reliant on non-Sudanese external funding, specifically from traditional donors and international and multilateral organisations, extends beyond the risk of abrupt shutdowns. In interviews with members of Emergency Rooms discussing sustainable financing for services, many highlighted how donor mandates and requirements often hinder the development of more sustainable solutions.
In some cases, external funding for communally designed projects has even undermined their sustainability. A notable example is a women’s cooperative project in Khartoum. The project was initially designed and implemented by an Emergency Room, and was successful in providing services and generally self-sufficient.
However, after receiving external funding through a local NGO, the project faced new reporting and organisational demands, including reducing the number of members per unit, replacing group meetings with reports, and substituting self-governance with external supervision.
Several projects faced similar challenges. While these changes may have introduced some bureaucratic improvements, they negatively impacted transparency, accountability, and the sense of ownership among participants, ultimately leading to the collapse of many cooperatives.
The shutdown of USAID programmes is the latest disruption to an already unreliable, fragile and unsustainable system. It is an added burden for community organizers and those managing communally operated services such as emergency rooms, community kitchens, and similar initiatives to consider this reality when planning and exploring ways to sustain the vital services they provide.
While foreign aid, whether from USAID or other donor agencies, can offer significant funding to communities in desperate need of resources, this should not overshadow the risks and uncertainties that accompany aid dependency. Engaging with international aid can be a valid strategy for securing immediate support, but it must be approached with caution. All interactions, or decisions to avoid them, with aid and development agencies should be guided by an awareness of their inherent unreliability. The vulnerability of the system means that community organizers must be agile and actively work to counteract the unsustainable practices at the centre of existing funding models.
The end of Soft Power denialism
The role of USAID and similar agencies as instruments of soft power, advancing the political and economic interests of their governments, has long been a subject of research. The recent USAID shutdown has even prompted supporters of the model within the American ruling class and its intellectual circles to more explicitly articulate this utility, using it as a justification for the agency’s continued operation. For example, Senator Chris Coons, a key figure in shaping US policy toward Sudan and co-sponsor of the 2020 Sudan Democratic Transition, Accountability, and Fiscal Transparency Act, emphasized in a Senate speech on January 30 that “foreign assistance is not charity, but an investment that strengthens (US) security and economy.”
Similarly, Joseph Nye, the political scientist who coined the term “soft power” in the 1980s to describe the ability of countries to influence others through attraction, and founder of the neoliberal theory of international relations, recently published an article in the Financial Times titled “Trump and the End of American Soft Power.” In it, he outlined his view of international relations as a realm of power politics, highlighting the role of agencies like USAID in extending US influence and advancing its interests globally.
For years, the perspective from the Global South emphasized how aid dependency undermines national sovereignty
These statements align with the realities faced by countries that have, for decades, received American aid alongside significant US influence over their domestic policies.
The reaction from the segment of the American ruling class advocating for a soft power approach to maintaining US imperialism, contrasted with those favouring a more transactional and direct approach, has further validated the arguments of critics in the Global South. For years, the perspective from the Global South emphasized how aid dependency undermines national sovereignty, and the current debate within the US ruling class only reinforces these longstanding concerns.
It is also important to recognize that inefficiencies and gaps in the US’s tools for achieving its imperialist objectives have occasionally created opportunities to channel USAID funding toward projects with a positive net impact on beneficiaries. Examples can be found more readily in places like Sudan, which, being far from the centre of US influence and receiving less attention and weaker resources, has seen some beneficial outcomes.
While this situation might present opportunities for the constructive use of foreign aid coming from the US and elsewhere, any such approach must be carefully evaluated, taking into account the geopolitical interests of donors in every potential collaboration.
That said, it is no longer tenable to deny the political utility of international aid and development agencies.
If historical and experiential evidence were not enough, the reactions of the American ruling class to the USAID shutdown provide undeniable proof of this reality.
Further turmoil ahead
The risks of relying on international aid and development agencies become evident through a critical examination of their history and the political and economic interests of the governments that back them.
Therefore, decisions by those coordinating funding allocations to communally operated services to engage with international agencies can better serve beneficiaries, such as those relying on emergency rooms and community kitchens, if they are grounded in historical and political awareness. This approach is valuable for navigating international aid interventions and dealing with all actors whose interests conflict with those of the populations benefiting from communally operated services.
Applying this method reveals additional challenges that could disrupt the vital work of communally operated services. Chief among these challenges are the warring parties, whose interests oppose those of the general public. Both groups aim to establish systems that enforce direct and economic violence, enabling the extraction of wealth from public resources for the benefit of a minority elite, that might slightly differ from one part to the other.
Recent events have shown that shifts in territorial control are often accompanied by attacks on organizers of communally operated services by various armed factions on both sides of the conflict
Governance models that allow such exploitation cannot tolerate community organising rooted in values prioritising life and the right to basic services.
Recent events have shown that shifts in territorial control are often accompanied by attacks on organizers of communally operated services by various armed factions on both sides of the conflict.
Additionally, in areas where warring parties consolidate control, they frequently seek to dominate or dismantle these services, either through direct control, using direct violence, or both.
These actions are a logical extension of the warring parties’ behaviour during their previous partnership in governance, both before and after the coup in October 2021, when they made significant efforts to suppress various forms of community organizing, such as resistance committees, through violence and co-option. This context and the interests of the warring parties must be considered by community organizers, particularly as the country undergoes significant shifts in territorial control. These shifts pose risks of heightened security crackdowns in areas where communally operated services were previously able to function. Such risks must be taken seriously, especially since the need for basic services like food, health, and shelter will persist long after military control is established. Disruptions to these services represent a direct threat to the livelihoods and well-being of the people they serve.
true sustainability can only be achieved when services are rooted in the community’s own production
It is crucial to enhance the resilience of communally operated services in the face of these potential threats. Any change in approach must address both the material and political sustainability of service provision. Material sustainability can be significantly strengthened by exploring more reliable and sustainable models. For example, initiatives that organise diaspora donors into groups providing regular small donations can increase funding reliability and enable longer-term planning. However, true sustainability can only be achieved when services are rooted in the community’s own production.
While it is not difficult to imagine a model that combines diaspora contributions and employment opportunities for war-affected communities with service provision, the feasibility and specifics of implementing such a model require a deeper understanding of global dynamics, local conditions and exploration on the ground. These efforts can only progress by and in collaboration with local organizers. Such explorations are essential if we aim to advance communally operated services toward greater material resilience and sustainability.
It is evident that the resilience of communally operated services also hinges on a critical understanding of the political interests of external actors as well as those of the beneficiaries. The groups most invested in the growth and protection of these services are the beneficiaries themselves.
Therefore, safeguarding these services requires organising beneficiaries and engaging them in the operations and decision-making processes, essentially further “grass rooting” the initiatives.
Communally operated services are a lifeline for some of Sudan’s most vulnerable communities and a pathway to grassroots organising for building resilience to reduce the potential for more conflict
Numerous examples exist within emergency rooms, shelters, and kitchens where beneficiaries participate fully or partially in general assemblies, operational teams, or steering committees. Such practices should be studied, publicised, and replicated where successful, as they enhance the resilience of services in the face of increased security pressures. An organized community with a vested interest in protecting these services is better equipped to resist attacks or co-option attempts.
This would be especially true when organising efforts are guided by a clear articulation of the rights-based political vision already embodied in communally operated services and by well-informed analyses of the interests of other stakeholders.
Communally operated services are a lifeline for some of Sudan’s most vulnerable communities and a pathway to grassroots organising for building resilience to reduce the potential for more conflict.
Protecting and enhancing resilience must be a priority, guided by evidence and critical political analysis. This effort requires deepening community embeddedness of successful community organizing initiatives and exploring sustainable, community-controlled financing models.
Safeguarding these services from external disruptions depends on strengthening their internal political and material resilience, a task with profound implications for the livelihoods and well-being of Sudan’s population.
