The UK has told the UN Security Council that justice and accountability must remain part of the international response to Sudan, while warning that the conflict in Darfur continues to create a serious risk of further atrocity crimes. In the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office statement, the UK set out three linked priorities: urgent concern over conditions in Darfur, continued cooperation with the International Criminal Court, and a wider argument that peace efforts will not be credible if accountability is treated as optional.
The statement said the ICC Office of the Prosecutor’s latest report reinforced the assessment that war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed in Al Geneina and El Fasher. It also described the situation in and around El Fasher as dire. The UK separately highlighted the Office’s warning on El Obeid, where prosecutors see a risk that further serious international crimes may be committed. That places El Obeid not only in a humanitarian category, but also in an accountability one.
The UK used the Council record of 20 June to restate that the Rapid Support Forces should immediately halt their assault on El Obeid and permit unhindered humanitarian access, alongside safe passage for civilians seeking to leave. It also repeated the Foreign Secretary’s warning that El Obeid stands close to another atrocity that could deepen the damage already inflicted on Sudanese civilians in El Fasher. In practical terms, the statement is an argument for preventive action before another urban centre reaches the same level of violence.
On cooperation with the ICC, the UK welcomed what it described as continued improvement in engagement between the Sudanese authorities and the Office of the Prosecutor. It drew particular attention to Sudanese support for the deployment of the Prosecutor’s Darfur team to Port Sudan. The statement also urged the authorities to maintain that cooperation, including on outstanding arrest warrants. By contrast, the UK recorded with regret that the Rapid Support Forces have not responded to the Office’s requests for cooperation.
That contrast matters to the wider policy case being made in New York. The UK position is that all parties, not only recognised state institutions, should cooperate with efforts to secure accountability for the most serious international crimes. The statement also welcomed further progress in the Office’s investigation, including the collection of additional evidence reported to the Council by the Deputy Prosecutor. Read plainly, the UK is signalling that investigation work should continue alongside diplomacy and humanitarian engagement, rather than waiting for a future settlement.
The closing point was direct: the people of Sudan should have both accountability and a route to lasting peace. For readers trying to understand the policy significance, that places the UK on the side of an international approach in which justice is treated as part of conflict management, not only as a post-conflict exercise. The government concluded by restating its support for the ICC and for the Court’s independence. In effect, British policy is being framed around three connected tests in Sudan: civilian protection, access for those fleeing violence, and continued scrutiny of alleged crimes by all parties.