As Sudan’s humanitarian crisis continues to worsen, international donors at a recent aid conference in Berlin pledged more than £1 billion in funding, exceeding the target set by organisers in an effort to ease what the United Nations has described as one of the world’s largest humanitarian disasters.

German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said the outcome was a rare positive development at a time of shrinking global humanitarian resources, and expressed gratitude to donor countries. However, he also stressed that financial assistance cannot replace peace itself.

Sudan is currently engulfed in a civil war between the national army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a conflict that has lasted nearly three years. The fighting has caused massive civilian casualties and widespread displacement, with around two-thirds of the population—approximately 34 million people—requiring humanitarian assistance. Yet only around 16% of this year’s humanitarian funding needs have been met, leaving a significant shortfall. The UN has also warned of ongoing allegations of serious crimes, including sexual violence against women and girls and widespread destruction of communities.

Despite increased funding pledges, prospects for peace remain distant. Neither the Sudanese army nor the RSF sent representatives to the Berlin conference, and ceasefire negotiations have seen no meaningful progress. Sudan’s foreign ministry also criticised Western countries for failing to consult it, accusing the meeting of reflecting a “colonial approach to governance.”

Commentary:

Although the Berlin conference successfully secured over £1 billion in aid, offering a temporary reprieve to Sudan’s worsening humanitarian crisis, funding alone cannot resolve the underlying conflict. The absence of both warring parties from the talks highlights a lack of political will to negotiate or find a solution at this stage.

As long as fighting continues, weapons keep flowing, and external actors persist in supporting rival sides, international aid will merely prolong the crisis rather than end it. Humanitarian assistance is essential, but without political commitment and a functioning ceasefire mechanism, the situation is likely to deteriorate further in cycles of repeated conflict.

Vietnamese President and Communist Party General Secretary To Lam paid a state visit to China from April 14 to 17, where he met with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The trip is widely seen as To Lam’s first overseas visit since taking office for a second term. China accorded the visit high-level protocol, with both sides emphasising the need to deepen strategic cooperation amid US tariff policies and intensifying global geopolitical competition.

During the talks, Xi Jinping called for opposition to “unilateralism” and “protectionism,” and urged efforts to stabilise industrial and supply chains while strengthening cooperation in areas such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and infrastructure. To Lam, in turn, proposed expanding trade and investment cooperation, improving market connectivity and infrastructure interconnection, and promoting more balanced trade development. The two sides also announced the launch of a “China–Vietnam Tourism Cooperation Year” and signed 17 cooperation documents covering trade, digitalisation, vocational education, and quarantine measures.

During the visit, To Lam took multiple trips on China’s high-speed rail network between Beijing, Xiong’an, and Nanning, drawing public attention and being interpreted as an opportunity to observe China’s infrastructure development and gain experience for Vietnam’s own high-speed rail plans. Chinese state media also highlighted the trips as a symbol of deepening connectivity cooperation between the two countries.

Commentary:

Against the backdrop of escalating tariff policies under Donald Trump and growing uncertainty in global trade, this meeting not only focused on supply chain cooperation, infrastructure connectivity, and technological alignment, but also continued the long-standing “communist camaraderie” rooted in party-to-party relations.

For China, the visit represents an important step in strengthening neighbourhood diplomacy and stabilising supply chains. For Vietnam, it reflects a search for more stable economic support and investment sources amid rising US tariff pressures and global trade uncertainty.

US President Donald Trump announced that Israel and Lebanon have agreed to a 10-day ceasefire, which officially came into effect at midnight local time on the 17th. Both sides agreed that the pause would pave the way for future negotiations on a permanent security and peace arrangement, and that the ceasefire could be extended with mutual consent.

However, on the 17th, the Lebanese military immediately accused Israel of repeatedly violating the agreement after it took effect, claiming that Israeli forces carried out intermittent shelling on several villages in southern Lebanon. It described the actions as “a series of acts of aggression.” Lebanon has urged residents in the south to delay returning to affected areas due to safety concerns.

As of now, Israel has not issued an official response to the allegations.

Under the ceasefire framework, the US State Department said the Lebanese government is required to take measures to prevent Hezbollah and other non-state armed groups from carrying out any attacks or hostile actions against Israel. It also stated that the ceasefire is intended to create space for negotiations toward a longer-term peace settlement.

Commentary:

The ceasefire was originally intended to provide both sides with space to de-escalate and move toward further peace talks. However, alleged shelling of southern villages less than 24 hours after its implementation has quickly raised doubts over its credibility.

Even when agreements are reached through external mediation, ceasefires are difficult to sustain without effective monitoring mechanisms and a basic level of mutual trust. With Israel having continued military operations against Hezbollah during negotiations, underlying tensions remain unresolved, making it unlikely that a short-term ceasefire will translate into lasting stability.