A confidential review has revealed that the British government opted for the least ambitious of several proposed plans to prevent mass atrocities in Sudan, despite receiving intelligence warnings about the risk of ethnic cleansing and genocide. This decision was made months before the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) captured the city of El Fasher and embarked on a campaign of mass killings and sexual violence.
An internal options paper, prepared within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) last year, outlined four potential strategies to enhance civilian protection and atrocity prevention. These ranged from establishing an international protection mechanism to more limited interventions. Faced with resource constraints, officials selected the option requiring the least commitment.
A subsequent report documenting this choice stated that, due to these constraints, the UK had “opted to take the least ambitious approach.” This involved allocating an additional £10 million to existing humanitarian organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross for general protection activities, rather than initiating a dedicated, robust prevention program.
Human rights advocates have condemned the decision. “Atrocities are not natural disasters; they are preventable with political will,” stated a specialist from a leading atrocity prevention organization. “Choosing the minimal path demonstrates a lack of priority, and now the UK bears a degree of complicity in the ongoing horrors in Darfur.”
The review also found that funding cuts severely hampered the UK’s capacity to implement stronger protections for women and girls, who have suffered systematic sexual violence throughout the conflict. A proposed dedicated program for this vulnerable group was pushed back to 2026 at the earliest.
While the assessment acknowledged the UK’s diplomatic leadership on Sudan at the United Nations Security Council, it concluded that the impact of this leadership was “constrained by inconsistent political attention” and resource limitations. In response to the findings, a UK source stated that British aid is “making a difference on the ground” and emphasized ongoing work with international partners towards peace and accountability for crimes committed.