UK Arms, UAE Hands and Sudanese Blood: Why Can British Military Equipment Be Found in the World’s Worst Humanitarian Crisis?

Image - Tahamie Farooqui

‍

Since April 2023, the conflict in Sudan has escalated from a civil war to what NGOs describe as the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. The fighting between the two sides of the 2019 military coup has killed upwards of 150,000 people and displaced over 12 million.

‍

The atrocities in recent months have intensified as the Rapid Support Forces based in the south, led by Gen Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti), continue to push northwards towards the strongholds of the acting president, Lieutenant General Abdel Fattah Al Burhan. While UN rapporteurs have condemned war crimes and atrocities committed by both sides, the recent RSF siege has seen horrific sexual violence and summary executions of the native people of the Darfur region, seemingly rooted in ethnic motivations.

‍

Against the backdrop of this terrible conflict, a disturbing question arises: Why can British military equipment dated as recently as March 2025 be found on the battlegrounds of the RSF-besieged cities?

‍

According to documents seen by the UN, British-made military equipment may have been supplied by the UAE to the RSF during this fighting. The UAE has long been accused of supporting the RSF through the provision of arms and funding. Such assertions are further bolstered by the decade-long strategic alliance between the two sides, originating from the 2015 deal to send RSF forces to support the UAE and their allies in the Yemeni Civil war.

‍

This network of complicity has been challenged at the highest level in the recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) case. Sudan claimed the UAE should be held responsible in complicity to genocide. However, the case was thrown out on a procedural technicality. The UAE invoked a reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention, meaning they are not required to submit to the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction.

‍

Despite this, the UK has very transparent rules on the export of arms and military equipment under the Strategic Export Licencing Criteria. The 2014 statutory guidance clearly sets out in Criteria 2 and 3 that a licence should not be granted where items may be used to cause serious violations of international law and international humanitarian law. Where licence will be used for an undesirable end-user or undesirable end-use, it can be revoked and the sale of arms halted. It requires a much lower threshold of “clear risk” to be established and not a concrete judicial determination of fault. Therefore, the international accusations and more recently, Sudan’s ICJ claim, should have been enough for the UK to at least investigate its licences on UAE exports, particularly as the substantive truth of the matter has not been disproven.

‍

Further, Babikir Elamin, Sudan's ambassador to the UK, told the Telegraph that the UAE’s support of Sudan was the “single most important element in prolonging and enabling this genocide”. Yet, when questioned, the UK Foreign Secretary, Yvette Cooper, could not confirm that exports of arms and military equipment would be halted until the UAE could restore confidence that it is not involved in Sudan.

‍

At a time when political discourse is increasingly driven by moral outrage, the government's ignorance and acquiescence to international wrongs will only intensify the deep political apathy felt by many former and current labour voters. In addition to its slow recognition of Palestinian statehood, and its struggle to champion the rights of individuals during this cost of living crisis, this in action continues to display a timid or simply disingenuous government that strays further and further from the values on which the Labour Party was founded.

‍

Furthermore, prioritising strategic alliance with the UAE over its own obligations in domestic law fails to uphold certain standards and processes central to policy execution. More critically, it fails to enforce the rule of law and the idea that laws are neutral and applicable to all. If we are to have one constant of law in a time of rapidly changing norms and political landscapes, it cannot be selectively applied based on geopolitical convenience, particularly where it seeks to contribute to the brutalisation of innocent people.