The problem is not that there wasn't a greater crime committed in Sudan than in New York. It's that Chomsky is focussing the readers' attention to the actual BOMBING of the plant, rather than the failure to compensate for the loss of pharmaceuticals that resulted from it.
This is effective rhetorically, because Bombings are so much more dramatic. But it was the failure of the US and the rest of the first world (who I wouldn't excuse from guilt) to compensate for the damage that caused the deaths. Unless of course the bombing was intentional.
And this is the implication that Chomsky wouldn't go out and say: that the U.S. INTENTIONALLY hit that plant. He's uncomfortable saying it, but not uncomfortable in stirring up the thought of it in the minds of more radical readers of his.
That is a profoundly dishonest tactic that I've noticed in Chomsky's writing, on and off, for years. It is hardly unique to him among widely read left writers, though he is among the more crafty at it.