By The European Times | Created at 2026-07-23 13:47:08 | Updated at 2026-08-04 23:26:41
1 week ago
On 27 November 2025, the European Parliament adopted a resolution recalling that the conflict in Sudan has developed into the world’s largest humanitarian crisis, with more than 33 million people, including 16 million children, in need of humanitarian assistance and millions facing hunger and displacement. The resolution explicitly named the United Arab Emirates (UAE), urging it “to cease financing, arms supplies, or other support for the RSF,” [Rapid Support Forces, at war with Sudan’s Armed Forces since mid-April 2023] and called on the Council to impose sanctions on individuals, entities, and private security companies, including Global Security Services Group (GSSG), for violating the UN arms embargo. It marked the first time that the European Parliament had explicitly identified the UAE as the leading financial and military sponsor of the RSF, based on the mounting evidence gathered over months by field researchers and investigative journalists. The Parliament issued a forceful follow-up resolution on 9 July 2026 to address the emergency situation caused by large-scale war crimes in El Obeid.
Four days later, on 13 July 2026, the Council of the European Union adopted new restrictive measures limited to sectoral prohibitions on the purchase, import, and transfer of gold originating from Sudan. No new individuals or entities were listed in connection with allegations of external support for the RSF, and the Council did not name the UAE. This gap between Parliament’s resolution and the Council’s sanctions regime reflects the structural realities of EU diplomacy: a sanctions process that requires unanimity among Member States and continued close ties with the UAE through trade negotiations and diplomatic engagement. At a Europe Day reception in Abu Dhabi in May 2026, the EU Ambassador to the UAE praised the “strength of EU–UAE relations, particularly in challenging times”, highlighting shared interests and expanding cooperation across a wide range of sectors.
The panel, convened in Brussels on 16 July 2026 by NYU Center for Global Affairs and The Sentry and moderated by Shona Murray of Euronews, examined the role of third states in enabling the conflict and the remedies available under international law. Opened by Dr. Andrea Karlsson on behalf of the EED, the Discussion was opened by three interventions from Sudanese Human Rights Defenders. Mohamed Osman of Human Rights Watch and Moneim Adam of the Sudan Human Rights Hub argued that the current conflict might have been prevented had those responsible for past atrocities been held accountable, and that accountability efforts must extend beyond direct perpetrators to the external actors whose support has allowed the conflict to continue. Mutasim Ali of the Raoul Wallemberg Centre for Human Rights (RWCHR) highlighted the findings of the most recent communication by the RWCHR on Sudan, which included an analysis of the close connections between third states and two belligerents in the ongoing armed conflict, within the framework of which very serious war crimes and crimes against humanity are perpetrated against the undefended civilian population.
Dr. Matthew Hedges (Durham University), addressing the UAE’s role specifically, argued that the country’s extensive strategic investments give it significant leverage over other states. He noted that the UAE maintains its ties with Sudan while being fully aware that the conflict creates new investment opportunities, and that Emirati senior officials and entities will continue to support the RSF in the absence of accountability for the actors involved.
The panel also addressed the legal avenues open to victims. Prof. Julie Goffin (Lille University), among others, highlighted Article 15 communications to the International Criminal Court (ICC), which allow victims and other sources to submit information and evidence to the Office of the Prosecutor concerning the situation in Darfur. As a legal representative for victims in several ICC proceedings, Prof. Goffin underscored that participation represents a form of reparations for victims, who are demanding truth and justice. Also other panellists described communications to the ICC as an important first step for victims who have endured the most heinous crimes, as reflected in recent testimonies from El Fasher. While acknowledging that the Court’s jurisdiction currently remains limited to Darfur, they stressed the importance of continuing to collect and preserve evidence from across Sudan, in the hope that the Court’s jurisdiction might eventually be extended, a proposal the European Parliament itself supported in its comprehensive resolution almost unanimously adopted in November 2025, as Prof. David Donat Cattin (NYU Center for Global Affairs) reminded in his introductory notes.
Concurrently, Sarah Sameur, a lawyer representing a group of victims from El Fasher who has filed an application for sanctions on their behalf, challenged the EU on its obligation to help prevent genocide. Regarding the sanctions regime itself, she described sanctions as a tool capable of delivering more results in the short-term than legal proceedings: by cutting the economic ties that sustain those responsible, concrete measures such as asset freezes can help halt further crimes. She called on EU Member States to address the inconsistency between the EU’s inaction and other sanctions regimes that have already targeted UAE individuals and entities.
Kerry O’Donoghue presented two of the most recent reports from The Sentry which firmly place the UAE within the ecosystem controlled by the RSF. This includes the provision of military support and clear links with GSSG, as well as how the UAE provides a safe haven for the profits generated by the external financiers and direct perpetrators of international crimes in Sudan, highlighting the imperative to put an end to the profitability of investments in wars and mass-atrocity, with a particular focus on the conflict gold trade.
On the broader accountability challenge this raises, Rodney Dixon KC argued that both parties to the conflict must be investigated and that evidence of external involvement cannot be ignored either. Economic and strategic relationships, he said, should not be treated as grounds for overlooking credible allegations.
In a vibrant questions and answers session that included interventions by representatives of the Sudanese diaspora, Prof. David Donat Cattin concluded that the narrative on the UAE and other States and their entities implicated in the co-perpetration of international crimes in Sudan has profoundly changed over the last two years and a half. Now, with the new EU restrictive measures (commonly known as sanctions) on the gold economy, it is very clear that the business-model of the RSF and other bad actors may suffer profound wounds, even if the international regulatory framework on this type of commodity must be reformed to ensure traceability of the place of extraction, where the gravest violations of human rights are committed.
