In a joint statement published by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK said they were deeply concerned by reports of a continued assault on El Obeid. The statement was framed as a collective warning that earlier calls to halt the attack and protect civilians have not been met. The ministers linked the risk in El Obeid to the earlier atrocities in El Fasher, saying the international community should not repeat a failure after crimes there were assessed as bearing the "hallmarks of genocide". The wording places civilian protection and accountability at the centre of the diplomatic message.
The statement sets out an immediate humanitarian case for action. According to the joint text, repeated drone strikes in recent weeks have killed civilians and contributed to acute shortages of fuel, food and water, while the approaching rainy season is likely to make relief operations harder. The same statement says humanitarian workers providing life-saving assistance are being deliberately targeted. It also refers to credible signs of an imminent offensive, which is why the ministers describe the present moment as one requiring a rapid international response.
The most direct demand is aimed at the Rapid Support Forces. The ministers call on the RSF to halt its attack immediately and say civilians must be able to leave safely. They also state that all parties must allow rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access. The wording does not stop with the RSF. The statement also addresses the Sudanese Armed Forces and the allies of both sides, calling for de-escalation and compliance with international humanitarian law. That matters because it broadens responsibility beyond the force currently accused of preparing an offensive.
The reference to the Jeddah Declaration is central to the legal and diplomatic framing. That declaration, agreed by the SAF and RSF in 2023, set out commitments on the protection of civilians and on humanitarian access. It was not a final peace settlement, but it did create a set of obligations that outside governments can cite when alleging non-compliance. By invoking the declaration, the ministers are not proposing a new standard. They are arguing that the parties have already accepted duties that should govern conduct around El Obeid. The practical test is whether those duties translate into safe passage for civilians, protection for aid workers and a pause in military action.
The statement also makes a pointed reference to external backing. It says outside support continues to sustain the conflict and calls on those fuelling it to stop, while urging states and other actors with influence to use that influence immediately. That is diplomatic language, but its meaning is straightforward: the ministers are signalling that the conflict is not being treated as solely internal. The commitment to work through the UN Security Council matters for the same reason. A co-ordinated Council response can sharpen diplomatic pressure, reinforce demands on humanitarian access and keep accountability on the agenda, even if any stronger collective action still depends on agreement among Council members.
The final element is the ministers' support for a credible route to peace through the Quintet-led process, alongside a call for all parties to engage in good faith. The statement does not set out new negotiating terms, but it does place El Obeid within the existing diplomatic track rather than treating it as a stand-alone crisis. For civilians and aid agencies, the practical effect of the joint statement will be judged less by its wording than by what follows next. If it produces safer exits, fewer attacks and more reliable humanitarian access, it will have shifted conditions on the ground. If not, it will stand as another formal warning issued before a feared escalation.