Western Governments Ignored Warnings of Impending Genocide in Sudan
A recent United Nations independent fact-finding mission has released a devastating report on the fall of El Fasher in Sudan, documenting what it describes as the "hallmarks of genocide." The report details mass killings, systematic sexual violence, and ethnic cleansing targeting non-Arab communities by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). These atrocities, which occurred in early 2026, were entirely predictable, yet the international community failed to act decisively to prevent them.
Repeated Warnings Were Systematically Ignored
Western governments received continuous warnings from multiple sources about the imminent risk to El Fasher. Civil society organizations, humanitarian groups, investigative journalists, and internal government agencies all sounded the alarm. In Britain, a whistleblower accused the Foreign Office of censoring internal warnings about potential genocide. The US State Department and UN Security Council members received detailed reporting from the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab, which documented the RSF's military buildup and preparations to overrun the city.
Senior US officials warned the Biden administration that El Fasher was at imminent risk, and a Security Council resolution in 2024 called for an end to the siege. Despite these warnings, the city was strangled, and the massacres proceeded unchecked. The clearest expression of this failure emerged in October 2025, when Washington hosted talks involving officials from the Sudanese government and the RSF. Just days after these discussions, the RSF captured El Fasher and began the atrocities now documented by the UN.
Strategic Alliances Trumped Civilian Protection
The international response has been hampered by a hierarchy of priorities that places strategic relationships above civilian lives. Multiple investigations, including leaked UN expert reports, have raised serious concerns about the United Arab Emirates' role in sustaining the RSF through arms transfers, logistics networks, and financial pipelines. When supply routes through Libya and Chad became exposed, alternative corridors reportedly emerged via Somalia's Puntland and Ethiopia.
Advanced weaponry, drones, and foreign mercenaries further strengthened the RSF, even as the Sudanese armed forces had retaken Khartoum, Gezira province, and Sennar, creating a narrow opportunity for de-escalation. Yet Western governments continue to treat Abu Dhabi as a mediator rather than acknowledging its role as a belligerent. The "Sudan quartet," bringing together the US, UK, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, presents itself as a diplomatic mechanism for peace but institutionalizes contradiction.
Diplomatic Paralysis and Evasive Strategies
A widening rift between Saudi Arabia and the UAE has turned Sudan into a proxy arena of Red Sea competition. Riyadh frames the conflict through state authority and regional stability, while Abu Dhabi has pursued an assertive strategy anchored in ports, gold, and militia patronage. Western governments, particularly the US and UK, have chosen equilibrium, careful not to alienate either Gulf ally.
This caution has translated into conspicuous silence. At recent international forums, including the Munich security conference and UN Security Council meetings, Western officials have expressed concern for Sudanese civilians but avoided directly addressing the UAE's documented support for the RSF. Instead, responsibility has been diffused, with vague references to "a dozen states" involved in arms transfers.
A Failed Approach That Must Change
The liberal peace-building model that privileges armed actors and elite bargains has already failed Sudan. It treats generals and militia leaders as indispensable stakeholders and relegates civilians to observers. By treating the RSF as a legitimate political interlocutor rather than an armed organization implicated in mass atrocities, the international community validates violence as a pathway to recognition.
If the tragedy of El Fasher is to mean anything, this approach must change fundamentally. Three critical steps are necessary:
- Fund the people keeping Sudan alive: Channel resources directly to Sudanese civilian networks such as resistance committees, emergency response rooms, and the medical and food lifelines operating outside both armed camps.
- Name the parties to the war: The US, UK, and UN must explicitly acknowledge the UAE's role in sustaining the RSF and treat it as a belligerent, not a broker. This means sanctions on individuals, companies, financial channels, and transport routes implicated in arms transfers.
- Establish real accountability: Any ceasefire or political track must include independent monitoring, enforceable civilian protection, and automatic consequences for violations to prevent merely providing cover for rearmament.
Peace cannot be built on the same elite bargains that have repeatedly collapsed. Without confronting the external enablers of this war, diplomacy becomes theatre and accountability remains an empty slogan. The international community's failure to prevent the atrocities in El Fasher has exposed the devastating cost of this illusion.
