We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Women from the city of Al-Junina (West Darfur) cry after receiving the news about the death of their relatives as they waited for them in Chad, November 7, 2023.
Sudan’s civil war rages through Darfur
Sudan’s civil war reached a grim turning point this week as Rapid Support Forces paramilitaries solidified their control over the Darfur region in Western Sudan. The RSF has been accused of war crimes there as part of its conflict with the Sudanese government.
The background: Back in 2019, the Sudanese military and the RSF cooperated to topple long-serving dictator Omar Bashir, but they fell out over how to work together thereafter. In April of this year, clashes between them erupted into a full-blown war that has left thousands dead and driven more than 5.7 million people from their homes. More than a million have fled to neighboring Chad, one of Africa’s poorest countries.
In Darfur specifically, the RSF and allied Arab militias have been accused in recent months of targeted massacres of the Masalit, a local Black African ethnic group that is a minority within the wider Arab-dominated Sudanese state. RSF fighters have also been accused of systematically abducting and raping women and girls in Darfur.
Flashback: Twenty years ago, Darfur was the scene of gruesome atrocities in which the Sudanese government and local Arab militias (including the fearsome janjaweed horsemen) slaughtered more than 170,000 Masalit in response to a rebellion against the central government. The US government labeled that campaign a “genocide” in 2004.
Peace talks have failed. There are various cross-cutting initiatives led by the African Union, Egypt, the US and Saudi Arabia, and South Sudan. Several ceasefires have fallen apart already. Meanwhile, Sudan’s civilians continue to pay the price.
The UN warned on Tuesday that the deepening war had “turned homes into cemeteries.”
A young Darfuri girl carries her sleeping brother at Zam Zam camp in Sudan's North Darfur state
Sudan’s Darfur region faces repeat of genocidal history
This week, Sudan passed the 100-day mark of brutal fighting between its army and the Rapid Support Forces, a powerful paramilitary group. As the fighting rages on, it is becoming clear to the international community that the RSF has returned to the Darfur region to complete the genocide it began 20 years ago against non-Arabs.
The warring factions are led by Sudan’s de facto leader Gen. Abdel Fattah Burhan and his former ally and junta deputy Gen. Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo (aka Hemedti), with Burhan leading the armed forces and Hemedti leading the RSF. Their power struggle has brought the country to the brink of civil war and a potential state collapse.
The two sides came to the negotiating table in Togo this week, a critical step after months of failed peace talks and broken cease-fires. But there is little evidence that these talks will go differently than in the past, especially since major stakeholders, specifically the Arab militias that have joined the RSF in Darfur, have boycotted the meetings.
A civil war would mean more tribal militias being drawn into the conflict, escalating violence and instability. At the beginning of the war, tribal militias denounced the power struggle. But as it progresses, more and more militias are choosing sides. In Darfur, Arab-tribal militias are joining the RSF and are accused of looting as well as raping and killing non-Arab people in the region.
The ethnic violence in Darfur is historically rooted in water disputes between Arab and non-Arab communities. The 2003 civil war became known as the world’s “first climate change war,” spurred by the former president, Omar al-Bashi, who stayed in power by exploiting the tensions over resources to recruit and arm Arab militias. These fighters would become the Janjaweed and eventually the RSF.
While civilians across Sudan are suffering, non-Arab communities in Darfur are at acute risk. Since the conflict broke out in April, more than 10,000 people have been killed in West Darfur. The governor was abducted and killed in June after publicly blaming the RSF for the deaths. Satellite imagery from Yale University’s Conflict Observatory has identified mass graves and entire neighborhoods that have been burned to the ground.
Some 200,000 non-Arab people died in Darfur between 2003 and 2005 in what would later be categorized as genocide. Today, the same population is at risk of mass atrocities at the hands of the RSF.
The historical context in Darfur matters, because it reveals why the situation in Sudan is not an easy one to solve. Since 2003, international intervention in Darfur – and Sudan writ large – has largely been a failure. Revelations of the Darfur genocide led to cries of “never again” and passionate movements to “Save Darfur,” and a brief moment in 2019 when the US‘ hopes of establishing a democracy looked possible. But these efforts, whether peacekeeping, humanitarian, or governmental, have largely failed because of the complexity of Sudan’s political environment.
These historic challenges remain today. International efforts to protect people in Darfur from the RSF must also avoid empowering the Sudanese armed forces, who are committing mass atrocities against civilians as well. Ethnic violence over resources will also be an escalating problem – fighting has already stopped farmers from planting crops, and climate change will only make matters worse in the drought-prone region.
Time is of the essence when it comes to peace talks. No recent conflict in Sudan has ended because of a military triumph. Instead, as the military stalemate wages on, violence and instability will only increase as more militias join the fighting. Civilians are already suffering as humanitarian and food aid is seized by the government’s army, and more than three million people have been displaced.
Critically, Sudan also borders seven other countries, so there is a strong likelihood that civil war could have a domino effect across the already troubled Chad Basin and the Sahel.
Has the world turned its back on Sudan? Ian Bremmer sat down with the US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield to find out. Watch to hear what the US intends to do when it takes over as head of the UN’s Security Council in August.
Boris Johnson remains a dangerous force in UK politics
Carl Bildt, co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations and former prime minister of Sweden, shares his perspective on European politics, this week from the Oslo airport.
Is the political career of Boris Johnson over?
Seems to be the case but you can never be entirely certain, in his particular case. I think he has the ambition to come back. And clearly, he's going to remain a dangerous, in my opinion, a very disruptive force inside the Conservative Party. If they lose the election next year, which is not unlikely, mildly speaking, there might be a civil war and Boris Johnson might be one of the leaders of that particular civil war inside the Conservative Party. But remains to be seen.
What's the legacy, political and otherwise, of Silvio Berlusconi?
Well, to be on the positive side, he created a media empire. He did some reforms of the Italian political system after the scandals that sort of ripped apart the old political system in the past, but apart from that and in spite of the fact that he is now, sort of, given a state funeral and everyone is parading for him, that happens in situations like this, I think his legacy is mostly negative on the populist, who in three terms of government did very, very little to address the fundamental problems of the Italian economy, in the Italian state. A populist man who maneuvered, a man who had self-interest at the center of most things. But I think history will not judge him too kind.
Civil War 2.0, Big Brother vs. Big Tech, and Banking Troubles in China: Your Questions, Answered
Civil War 2.0, Big Brother vs. Big Tech, and Banking Troubles in China: Your Questions, Answered
Happy Friday, everyone!
It’s still summer so you know what that means…
You ask, I answer.
Note: This is the third installment of a five-part summer mailbag series responding to reader questions. You can find the first part here, the second part here, and the fourth part here. Some of the questions that follow have been slightly edited for clarity. If you have questions you want answered, ask them in the comments section below or follow me on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn and look out for future AMAs.
Trump supporters protest outside the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.Alex Edelman/AFP via Getty Images
Want to understand the world a little better? Subscribe to GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer for free and get new posts delivered to your inbox every week.
Are Barbara Walter's fears about a civil war in the United States overblown? (Logan B)
For now, they are. In large part because the military and judiciary remain politically independent and committed to upholding the rule of law. But people shouldn’t believe “this can’t happen here.” The U.S. is by far the most politically divided and dysfunctionalof advanced industrial democracies, and it’s hard to be optimistic about the trajectory over the coming years. The 2020 election and its aftermath—Jan. 6, a delegitimized national election, a historically divided country—evidently was not a big enough crisis to bring about structural change to address the dysfunction in the country. Americans are more polarized than ever, and a recent SPLC study found domestic support for "participating in a political revolution even if it is violent in its ends" is historically high among young people—roughly 40% across the political spectrum. I’ve grown increasingly concerned that the 2024 election will bring unprecedented political violence on both sides of the aisle and risk a constitutional crisis, irrespective of who wins them.
What are the greatest opportunities for the United States right now?(Joe B)
The U.S. has the most favorable demographics of any major economy, the most entrepreneurial and dynamic economy, the best universities, unrivaled innovation clusters, and deep capital markets. We are at the global frontier of science and technology. As such, the U.S. is the best placed nation to lead the way in developing solutions for the world’s most pressing challenges (pandemics, climate change, poverty, etc.). Yet our rates of innovation and social mobility have been slowing for the last half century. We need to invest more in research and development for basic science and technology, expand access to higher education, and increase skilled immigration. Only then will we be able to live up to our full potential.
How do we reconcile economic development with environmental pressures? Can we enrich the poor of our planet without destroying whatever ecological balance there might be? (Jeffrey D)
We can, but not as quickly as we may like to. It’s true that globalization and the creation of a global middle class came at an enormous cost for the climate. That’s now changing as economic growth becomes more and more decoupled from CO2 emissions… but the change is too slow to avoid enormous ecological damage (as we increasingly see every day). Longer term, though, we are heading toward a world of inexpensive and sustainable energy—which is incredible to think about. Add to that more sustainable population dynamics (rather than the population “bomb” we feared in the 70s), and there’s reason for real hope.
Do you think that it is possible for the international community to stop CO2 emissions in time to avoid +2.5ºC global warming? (Ana C)
Not given present trends in nationalism. By revealed preference, it’s clear that too many people in industrialized countries believe foreigners—especially those who don’t look like them—aren’t really people. That means there’s an absence of resource transfers from rich to poor countries for climate mitigation and adaptation, which all but guarantees we won’t get the kind of sustainable transformation we need from India and other developing countries—countries that aren’t responsible for getting us to 1.2ºC but which will comprise the lion’s share of emissions from 2ºC to 2.5ºC.
Do you foresee massive sovereign defaults coming? (Rishon B)
In developing countries, yes. High indebtedness, rising interest rates, and stronger political demands from angry populations on the back of the pandemic and the fallout from the Russian invasion of Ukraine have created unsustainable fiscal environments. We’ve seen this boil over in Sri Lanka already. Even bigger developing countries are going to experience similar episodes over the coming few years.
How long before we will stop using fiat currencies? (Davide L)
I can’t see it happening in the next 10 years, for several reasons I discussed here. But the world is changing quickly. Are national governments going to be the most powerful actors in the world in a generation? Probably. But not necessarily. If that fundamentally changes, fiat currencies could be under threat faster than people think.
What do you think of the Biden administration's Latin America strategy? Do you think the United States is paying close enough attention to its own backyard? (Paul V)
Well, it’s not much of a strategy, really. There’s no political pathway for a domestic compromise on immigration, which puts enormous strain on Mexico and Northern Triangle countries. Plus, there’s a number of “rogue regimes” the Americans don’t want to talk to (Venezuela, Cuba), which causes frictions with others that are more ideologically aligned (Mexico, Argentina). And U.S. public sector investment in and aid to Latin America remains too limited to move the needle. It’s probably been the most significant hole in foreign policy for the Biden administration.
Is there a banking crisis in China? (Gary H)
There’s no national crisis at this point, though some rural banks have gone under. The Chinese government has proven itself able and willing to patch problems with fiscal support whenever necessary, and I don’t see that changing in the near term. The catch is that support is only a band-aid. It prevents crisis now by creating bigger economic bubbles and postponing the pain of adjustment down the road, both for individual savers and for corporates. Eventually, though, something’s got to give.
We seem to be at a tipping point all over the world with the rise of authoritarians: Trumpists in the U.S., Bolsonaro, Erdogan, Putin, Orban, Xi Jinping. Do you think the trend will stick and maybe even get more pervasive and entrenched, or do you think this is a temporary phenomenon and we'll swing back toward more democratically led countries?(Donna R)
There are a couple of big exceptions to that trend—namely, an increasingly powerful and cohesive European Union and consolidated democracies in Japan and Germany, the world’s third and fourth largest economies. But yes, overall this is a challenge and one that’s likely to get worse before it gets better given slowing global economic growth and growing inequality both within and between countries.
Are tech companies a bigger geopolitical force than countries? Will they become such a force in the future? (Natan K)
In the digital space, they are. After Jan. 6, while Congress, the courts, or law enforcement were powerless to respond, Big Tech swiftly and unilaterally de-platformed Trump. When Russian hackers attacked U.S. government agencies and hundreds of private companies back in 2020, it was Microsoft, not the NSA or the U.S. Cyber Command, that identified and neutralized the threat. As I wrote here, tech companies were able to do these things because they own and control a growing share of the infrastructure that societies, economies, and governments worldwide run on. And as more and more activities to the digital space, their ability to exert geopolitical power will only grow.
If the Ukraine war fragments the global system into relatively isolated spheres of influence, will the West have even less leverage over Russia in the future? What does that portend? (Gautam J)
The opposite is happening so far. The West is becoming stronger, more focused, and more aligned. NATO is expanding and has a newfound sense of purpose. Europe is becoming more integrated, and even the Poles and Hungarians are more engaged. Relations between the EU and the United Kingdom have improved. America has regained credibility and leadership on the global stage. And Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand have been brought into alignment with the U.S. and Europe, paving the way for a much more global security architecture. All of these developments give the West more, not less, leverage over Russia (and China). No, Russia isn’t about to become North Korea—its natural resources are too important to keep off the global market, and developing countries including China and India will continue to do business with it. But that just means Russia will survive, not that it will thrive. The fact is that most of Russia’s economic potential—from advanced manufacturing to skilled human capital—was heavily dependent on integration with the Western-dominated global economy. The same cannot be said of the West, for whom Russia barely figured as an economic partner. By the end of next year, Europe will have rid itself of its reliance on Russian energy entirely (one of the last remaining points of Russian leverage), while Russia will be starved of critical components, talented workers, economic growth, and global influence.
Best sandwich bread? And what sandwich do you think of when you think of this bread? (@Ya_Boy-yay)
An English muffin. Because a spicy breakfast sandwich with a runny egg after a heavy morning workout is the best sandwich.
Would Moose run for President in 2024? (Victor V)
He really should. The great thing is—at 16—he’ll finally be age appropriate against Trump and Biden. I would be concerned about his genocidal tendencies against squirrels.
The 47th President of the United States?
If the war in Ukraine ends in a Ukrainian victory and borders are returned to either their pre-February 23 state or their pre-2014 state, what's next for Russia? (George H)
I suspect this isn’t going to happen (however much I want it to), but that would actually be a better outcome for Russia in the long run than a victory on the ground followed by annexation or a drawn-out stalemate, because it’s the only way I could see the country eventually re-joining the G7 and the global economy. As long as it continues to illegally occupy Ukrainian territory, Russia will remain effectively cut off from the West, and ordinary Russians will pay the price.
If Biden doesn’t run, who do you think should for the Dems? (Karim T)
Forget about what if Biden doesn’t run. If Biden does run, I still want a bunch of people to run for the Democratic nomination. It should be an open primary—he’s going to be way too old to be an effective general candidate or president. There’s lots of credible potential candidates out there, just as there were in 2020. To name a few, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo is impressive, as is Colorado Gov. Jared Polis. I suspect we’ll see a big slate of candidates.
Will America go to war with China over Taiwan? (Oluwaseun A)
While the U.S. maintains an official policy of “strategic ambiguity” on this question, Biden has said on three separate occasions that he would. But it’s very unlikely that China would make a move in the near term, although the risk of accidents and miscalculation has gone up a notch with the recent military escalation that followed Pelosi’s visit. Given the current balance of power and economic interdependence between the U.S. and China, and having just witnessed the Western response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Xi Jinping knows that an attack on Taiwan would risk devastating economic damage, sweeping diplomatic isolation, and a humiliating military defeat against a still-superior U.S.—all of which would threaten Xi’s and the Communist Party’s standing. There’s no reason for him to take that risk when he can wait for the balance of power to swing more in his favor (or for a major political crisis in the U.S. that distracts Americans, or for a U.S. president who's unwilling to fight for Taiwan), allowing him to change the political map without firing a shot. Longer term, as China’s economic and military influence grows and as they work to close the semiconductor gap with the West, the potential for a fight goes up.
After decades of globalization and labour/supply chain arbitrage, corporate America finds itself all-in on communist China. I call it commercial kompromat. How much do you feel this ties DC's hands on China policy, particularly should China advance on Taiwan? (G Stockus)
Significantly. But we need to recognize the “kompromat” cuts both ways—the private sector (and much of the government sector) in China has same interdependencies with the West. They have just as little or even less of an interest in unraveling those links than we do. The key question is whether you consider this threat of mutually assured destruction a stabilizing or destabilizing force. For me, it’s the former. After all, you don’t tend to fight against those you share strong common interests with…
What is the worst band of all time? (Mark M)
I’m not going to say Nickelback, even though you want me to say Nickelback. Personally, I can’t stand Journey. Oh my god, how I want all those people to just stop believin’…
Of the big issues out there that you've talked about, what are you most likely wrong about? (Daniel R)
Whether democracy is ultimately a stronger and more durable political system than authoritarianism. I’ve long believed (and hoped) it is, but changes in the role of technology are now challenging this. Do new technologies diffuse power and make it harder for autocrats to control information and communication, or do they bolster them and give them a new means to exert absolute power over their citizens? I’m not so sure anymore.
What personal failure taught you the most? (Allison L)
There are so many. The most interesting ones are those where I beat my head against the same wall a bunch not realizing I was approaching an issue in the wrong way: the seven times I was rejected after applying to the Council on Foreign Relations, the dozens of articles I submitted to the New York Times only to receive a polite “no thank you.” It took me a while to realize I didn’t have any of the connections (at the time) that would’ve led to success in these endeavors. It was important for me to be forced to understand that skill alone is almost never enough. It takes hard work, obviously, but also an immense amount of luck—from the genetic lottery to where and when you’re born, how and by whom you’re raised, what resources and connections you inherit, etc.
🔔 And if you haven't already, don't forget to subscribe to my free newsletter, GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer, to get new posts delivered to your inbox.
The Graphic Truth: How a decade of war has crushed Syria
Syria's decade-long civil war has wreaked havoc on an entire generation of Syrians, and given rise to one of the worst refugee crises in decades. What was once a stable nation — albeit under dictatorial rule — with a sizable middle class has become a hellish reality: the economy is in shambles and state infrastructure has been pummeled, making access to basic services all but impossible. Across the country, families are struggling to pay for food staples, kids are out of school, and working-age people can't find jobs — the only Syrians who still prosper are those who left. We compare a few indicators from before and after the devastating conflict.
A woman sits with children on a rubble from damaged buildings in Kobani, Syria.
Syria before and after
This week, we mark the 10-year anniversary of the beginning of Syria's catastrophic civil war.
As the Arab Spring brought protesters into streets across the Middle East and North Africa in early 2011, some of Syria's 22 million people decided to join in. Pro-democracy demonstrations began in the southwestern city of Deraa.
It wasn't crazy at the time to imagine that President Bashar al-Assad, in power since 2000, might step beyond the brutal legacy of his father, the dictator Hafez al-Assad, to open a period of reform that created new opportunities, particularly for his country's youth.
Instead, he answered protests with guns. Demonstrations multiplied across the country and turned violent. Into the resulting maelstrom stepped Assad's allies, Russia and Iran, to protect their investment in his continued rule. The US dithered, half-heartedly supporting some rebel groups but mostly staying away.
Iran-backed fighters from Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen backed the Syrian army. Well-armed Syrian Kurds saw an opportunity to win greater autonomy by weakening Assad. Fundamentalist extremists of various tribes joined the fight. Turkey sent soldiers, and Saudi Arabia provided cash and weapons to destabilize Assad. Western powers intervened to try to contain the carnage.
Assad's army — with backing from its friends — bombed hospitals, tortured prisoners, and used chemical weapons against civilians. The Obama administration warned these crimes crossed a "red line" but did virtually nothing to enforce it. In total, years of shooting, shelling, and bombing has killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians, about 22,000 of them children.
The war is now over, though the Syrian army hasn't recaptured all its northern provinces. Assad has won because those with the deadliest weapons were willing to commit atrocities to survive, and because outsiders did far too little to stop them.
The cost
Today, more than half the 22 million people living in Syria in 2011 have been forced from their homes. Six million are now in other countries. Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan host more than 90 percent of these refugees.
Of those who weren't able to escape, thousands have been murdered inside Syrian prisons, and tens of thousands more prisoners remain missing, according to a report from the UN Human Rights Council. An untold number of people still living in Syria suffer from untreated emotional and psychological damage.
About 70 percent of Syrians now live in poverty. Before the war began, 47 Syrian pounds bought one US dollar. The official price stands today at about 1,250 pounds. The International Committee of the Red Cross reports that 30 percent of women have no income at all to support their families, and about 80 percent of Syrian youth struggle to afford food.
An entire generation of Syrian children faces an uncertain future. In 2017, a report from the International Rescue Committee found that a third of Syria's children don't go to school. Of those who continue their studies, half of middle school-aged children were unable to read at a second-grade level, and nearly 60 percent couldn't solve a second-grade math problem.
Then there's the physical wreckage. Today's Syria lies beneath millions of tons of rubble. Roads, bridges, schools, and hospitals have been destroyed, and there's little money to rebuild them.
And Assad, who tested positive for COVID-19 this week, remains in charge.
Syria's frozen future
For the foreseeable future, life in Syria isn't going to improve from today's uneasy quiet. Russia and Iran got the outcome they wanted and now, burdened with COVID costs and Western sanctions, they have better things to spend money on than rebuilding Syria.
Europe and the United States will direct humanitarian assistance toward suffering Syrians, but they won't finance the reconstruction of a country led by Assad.
A few Syrian refugees will return, but most believe they're better off where they are and fear retribution if they go home.
Bottom-line: John Milton's fallen angel famously declared that it's "better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven." One wonders whether Assad agrees.Rebels, rivals, and proxies in the Central African Republic
A bitter war is raging again inside a country that is simultaneously one of the world's richest and poorest — and outside players are part of it.
Last December, the Central African Republic, a landlocked nation of 5 million people that holds vast resources of minerals and precious metals, held a contentious presidential election. It was won by the sitting president, Faustin-Archange Touadéra, who has held power since 2016.
But before the vote, former CAR strongman François Bozizé returned from exile to run. After a court disqualified him because he faces war crimes charges at home and UN sanctions, an alliance of militias took up arms against the government, with Bozizé's support.
In the weeks since the election, battles have raged between government forces and the coalition of pro-Bozizé militias, which controls vast swathes of the country. In recent days, the rebels have begun cutting off food supply routes to the capital, Bangui.
The back story. Bozizé himself came to power in a coup in 2003 but was toppled a decade later by an alliance of mostly Muslim militias. (Muslims account for about 15 percent of the population, and Christians about half.) After several years of vicious fighting between the remnants of those groups and predominantly Christian warlords loyal to Bozizé, Touadéra was elected president in 2016. In 2019, a peace agreement was signed, but it lasted barely a year until the election drama began late last year.
Outside players are involved. The standoff between the government and the rebels is shot through with high geopolitics, as outside players scramble to fortify their influence over a country rich in diamonds, gold, and other precious minerals.
On the side of the government forces are 13,000 UN peacekeepers as well as soldiers from Rwanda, which has struck natural resource deals with Bangui in recent years, and Russia. The Russian contingent includes several hundred military trainers, but also mercenaries who have provided strong backing to the Touadéra government as part of Moscow's broader push to establish lucrative business and security relationships in Africa.
Meanwhile, the pro-Bozizé rebels appear to enjoy at least tacit backing from Chad, whose well-trained militias have made it something of a regional power broker in recent years as it actively seeks to play a greater role in the continent's security challenges.
Lastly, there is France, the former colonial power, which had troops in CAR as recently as 2016. Paris notionally supports the central government — earlier this month President Emmanuel Macron sent French warplanes roaring over contested villages as a show of force meant to intimidate rebel groups. But Paris is now in the awkward position of supporting a government that won elections marred by bloodshed and which controls only a handful of areas in a country wracked by increasing violence.
This is a humanitarian crisis, and not just for CAR. Despite — or in part because of — its natural resource riches, CAR is one of the poorest countries in Africa, with a per capita GDP of just $510. Years of conflict have left its people perpetually in humanitarian crisis, with as many as 1 million pushed from their homes over the past decade alone, and nearly half the population dependent on foreign assistance.
Now, post-election violence has already forced as many as 100,000 to flee. Many of them are seeking refuge in neighboring countries like Sudan, Chad, Cameroon, and Democratic Republic of Congo, some of which are struggling with refugee crises and internal displacements of their own. That's why unrest in the CAR matters for millions of people in one of Africa's most unstable regions.
The longer the conflict drags on — and there are no signs either side is backing down — the worse it will be, not only for the CAR, but for its neighbors too.