Known, documented and ignored: Confronting the international politics of inaction

As the world focuses on the immense civilian toll in the Middle East, other crises continue to unfold with far less attention.

They are often described as “forgotten crises”, but that label is misleading. Conflicts across Africa are well documented and analysed, and they affect countless lives. What they lack is sustained action to address them — and the strategic interest needed to drive that action.

Across the African continent, wars and humanitarian crises are killing civilians, displacing millions and eroding already fragile institutions. At Human Rights Watch, we work in more than two dozen African countries documenting abuses and pressing for accountability. Over time, a clear pattern emerges. Whether in active war zones, entrenched authoritarian systems or geopolitically sensitive states, the outcome is often the same: immobilisation.

In active conflict settings such as the Sahel, Ethiopia and eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, the barriers are rooted in security narratives and shifting alliances. Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger are gripped by violence involving Islamist armed groups, government forces, local militias and foreign mercenaries. They routinely target, displace and kill civilians. In Burkina Faso, all parties are committing abuses that may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. Yet authorities dismiss criticism as a threat to national security, while international partners often prioritise counterterrorism and resource-driven cooperation over the protection of civilians.

In Ethiopia, hostilities persist between federal forces and armed groups in Amhara and parts of Oromia. Meanwhile, in Tigray, tensions escalate again in communities that are still reeling from the devastating 2020–2022 conflict and a resulting humanitarian crisis. In eastern Congo, Rwanda’s significant logistical and military support to the M23 armed group and the Congolese army’s funding and material assistance to the abusive Wazalendo militias intersects with entrenched regional and ethnic tensions. This layered complexity is often invoked as a convenient justification for inaction.

Then there are more consolidated authoritarian contexts, such as Burundi. Since a 2015 political crisis, the government has dismantled civic space and restricted free expression, political opposition and independent media. Elections continue, but without genuine competition. A similar pattern is emerging in Ethiopia, which is bracing for national elections in June, and in Rwanda, where journalists and opponents face detention, enforced disappearance or death. The challenge here is not the fog of war, but the normalisation of repression.

International actors often default to quiet diplomacy or disengagement, particularly when these situations no longer dominate headlines or for fear of alienating governments that could turn elsewhere for support.

Other under-scrutinised countries, such as Chad, reflect a similar trajectory, where last year’s politically motivated arrest of the former prime minister sounded the death knell of a meaningful democratic transition and was largely ignored.

Meanwhile, in Sudan and South Sudan, the scale of human suffering is staggering. Along with Congo, these crises account for at least 20 million internally displaced people. Yet global attention remains intermittent, where “atrocity fatigue” fails to sustain the will to respond. Immobilisation does not preserve the status quo; it deepens suffering. It allows abuses to persist and escalate, while emboldening perpetrators to refine their methods — from blockades of humanitarian aid in South Sudan to ethnic cleansing in Burkina Faso, northern Ethiopia and Sudan’s Darfur.

Despite their differences, these contexts converge on a single outcome: paralysis among those with the power to act. Governments deflect, allies equivocate and international institutions struggle to sustain pressure. For organisations like Human Rights Watch, the challenge is not only to document abuses, but to disrupt this inertia. Part of that inaction is a calculated choice.

Governments are often unwilling to incur political risk when it comes to Africa, aligning their strategic interests with those in power rather than human rights — leaving civilians to bear the cost. This requires adapting both research and advocacy strategies to the context. Evidence alone is rarely sufficient to spur action. Pairing documentation with the lived experiences of victims and witnesses helps cut through the indifference and reframe what is at stake.

Advocacy must also be tailored to political realities. In conflict settings, this may involve pressing international partners to condition military support on compliance with the laws of war. In authoritarian contexts, it may mean supporting targeted sanctions or amplifying the voices of local civil society. In geopolitically sensitive environments, change tends to be incremental — and persistence is essential.

Local organisations, journalists, regional bodies and international partners all play critical roles. Collaboration and humility are indispensable. Local individuals often bear the greatest risks and possess the deepest insights; their work should be supported and amplified.

Advocacy needs to evolve to counter shifting narratives. Claims of sovereignty or “Pan-Africanism” in order to dismiss criticism as external interference should not go unchallenged. Protecting human rights is not foreign to African priorities; it is central to them. Reclaiming that narrative is essential to counter efforts to delegitimise scrutiny.

These crises must also be understood within broader global dynamics. Rising authoritarianism, protracted conflicts and structural inequalities are interconnected and drive issues that command far greater international attention, from migration to regional instability. Drawing these connections can help re-engage policymakers who might otherwise look away. The forces that sustain inaction — strategic interests, political caution and fatigue — are deeply entrenched, but they are not immutable. Sustained, credible advocacy has shifted policies before, and it can do so again.

These are not “forgotten crises”. They are crises the world has repeatedly chosen not to act on. Changing that choice is the real challenge.