According to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office transcript published on 22 September 2026, the Foreign Secretary used the UN General Assembly high-level week in New York to set out a three-part response to Sudan: support for a ceasefire and eventual civilian government, action to keep aid moving, and stronger civilian protection with accountability for abuses. (gov.uk) The speech framed Sudan not as a crisis that can be managed at the margins, but as the most severe humanitarian emergency of this century. On that reading, diplomatic statements alone are no longer presented as sufficient; the policy test is whether states are prepared to tighten enforcement, widen access arrangements and raise the cost for those sustaining the war. (gov.uk)
The scale described by the government is stark. The transcript says more than 33 million people in Sudan now require humanitarian assistance, with El Niño expected to worsen hunger still further. It also states that warring parties are destroying life-saving aid and attacking humanitarian workers, citing a recent attack on a World Food Programme convoy as a current example. (gov.uk) For humanitarian agencies, that matters because access is no longer only a question of funding or transport capacity. The operating conditions themselves are being treated as part of the conflict, with relief movements slowed or blocked by violence directed at staff, supplies and the routes used to reach civilians. (gov.uk)
A second theme in the speech is the changing military character of the war. The government says fighting that was once concentrated around front lines is now being pushed increasingly into the air through the expanded use of drones. The transcript records reported civilian deaths of more than 1,000 from drone strikes in the first five months of 2026 alone. (gov.uk) The sites said to have come under attack include hospitals, markets, fuel depots, power stations and humanitarian supply routes. In practical terms, that broadens civilian exposure well beyond conventional battle areas and increases pressure on already weak health, energy and aid systems. (gov.uk)
The speech is explicit that military escalation will not end the conflict. It argues that no volume of new weapons, new technology or outside backing changes the basic point that Sudan has no military solution. (gov.uk) That position leads directly into the sanctions case. The government says new drone capabilities do not emerge by accident but are procured, financed, transferred and maintained through networks outside Sudan. On that basis, the renewal of the UN sanctions regime is presented as a live policy instrument rather than a procedural rollover, and the United States is credited in the speech with pushing for a stronger regime that reflects the current form of the war. (gov.uk)
The legal and diplomatic argument is reinforced by the UN Fact Finding Mission report of 3 September, as cited in the speech. The government says the report links outside support to operations involving serious violations and international crimes, and notes the Mission's call for states to enforce the Darfur arms embargo, suspend transfers of weapons, drones, components and military assistance, and extend the embargo across Sudan as a whole. (gov.uk) That is a more exacting position than simply renewing existing restrictions. The speech argues that scrutiny, pressure and consequences should increase for those supplying, financing or otherwise enabling the conflict, which points towards sharper examination of transfer routes, commercial intermediaries and external backers. (gov.uk)
Humanitarian access is treated in the speech as a practical policy issue rather than a general appeal. The government calls for an end to the competing visa rules, work permits and taxes imposed on aid by both sides, and for key routes to be opened on a permanent basis. Specific reference is made to the Adré border crossing, due to expire in September 2026, as well as routes into El Obeid and El Fasher. (gov.uk) That matters because temporary or conditional permissions do not allow agencies to plan at scale. If border access, internal corridors and administrative clearances remain uncertain, food, medical supplies and fuel cannot move predictably enough to match the level of need described by the government. (gov.uk)
The speech closes with a warning against complacency. It notes that the international community had earlier raised concern about El Obeid and that the feared attack did not occur, but argues that this should not be read as evidence of reduced risk. (gov.uk) The UK position, as set out in the transcript, is therefore a combined one: de-escalation, a ceasefire, a civilian-led political process reflecting Sudanese aspirations, stronger protection for civilians, wider humanitarian access and accountability for those profiting from or prolonging the war. For officials following the file, the next question is whether that package is turned into Security Council action and more durable access arrangements on the ground. (gov.uk)