A UN debate on Sudan\u2019s El Obeid laid bare growing tensions over the UAE\u2019s alleged backing of the RSF, amid western reticence to confront it publicly and an NGO complaint alleging intimidation.<\/p>\n
An urgent UN debate to avert atrocities in Sudan\u2019s El Obeid last week in Geneva exposed the reluctance of western governments to publicly name the United Arab Emirates over its alleged support for the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces despite mounting evidence and growing pressure from human rights groups.\u00a0<\/p>\n
A week before the Human Rights Council session, a coalition of civil society groups had written to the council, urging members to explicitly name Abu Dhabi as one of the external actors fuelling the conflict, warning that North Kordofan\u2019s capital, El Obeid \u2013 under RSF siege for 18 months \u2013 risked suffering the same fate as El Fasher, where a UN inquiry found evidence of atrocities that \u201cbear the hallmarks of genocide\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Yet, when the debate came on Friday, delegations like the European Union confined themselves to general condemnations of unnamed \u201cexternal actors\u201d. Only Sudan\u2019s ambassador, who represents general Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan\u2019s government, directly accused the UAE of arming its rivals.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The reticence comes despite a number of independent investigations into Emirati support for the RSF. The most recent, released in April by Human Rights Watch, alleged that the UAE had trained Colombian mercenaries before deploying them alongside RSF fighters.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Contacted by Geneva Solutions, the UAE permanent mission to the UN in Geneva said it \u201chas not provided, and is not providing, military or financial support to any warring party in Sudan\u201d, adding that it had condemned atrocities by both the RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces during the debate and called for an arms embargo to be extended across all of Sudan.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Intimidation allegations\u00a0<\/p>\n
Tensions spilt into the open on the sidelines of the UN debate. A UAE delegate was alleged to have photographed with his phone an NGO participant during informal consultations on Thursday, in breach of UN rules put in place to protect civil society from intimidation at UN meetings.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
A UK delegate chairing the meeting reminded participants that taking photos during the meeting was not permitted, without naming any delegation, according to three people who were in the room. The NGO participant who was allegedly photographed, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Geneva Solutions they didn\u2019t see the delegate taking the photo personally but were informed about it by other delegates.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Geneva Solutions understands that the NGO in question filed a complaint before the council\u2019s presidency on Wednesday, deeming the incident an act of intimidation linked to its advocacy efforts for the council to name the UAE\u2019s role in the war in Sudan.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Pascal Sim, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Council, said he couldn\u2019t comment on specific cases, which are handled confidentially, but that \u201cthe Human Rights Council secretariat remains vigilant regarding any acts of intimidation and reprisals\u201d. Only accredited media are authorised to take photographs during meetings at the Palais des Nations, he added.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The UAE mission said it \u201ccategorically rejects the unverified claim\u201d, adding that its \u201cdelegation has always taken the protection of NGO participants very seriously and has always fully respected the applicable procedures\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n
A Norwegian delegate said the UK would respond on behalf of the core group that organised the informal consultations, but the UK permanent mission in Geneva did not respond to questions by the time of publication about the alleged intimidation or why its statement did not name the UAE.<\/p>\n
A modest shift\u00a0<\/p>\n
Rights groups have pressured western governments for years to publicly condemn the UAE, both over its role in Sudan\u2019s war and its domestic human rights abuses.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kevin Whelan, head of Amnesty International\u2019s UN Office in Geneva, said the Human Rights Council emergency session was welcome but insufficient. \u201cThe UAE deserves particular focus in an urgent debate on El Obeid, as it is the main military supporter of the Rapid Support Forces encircling the city, an armed group with a documented track record of crimes against humanity,\u201d he told Geneva Solutions.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Despite this, some see things moving in the right direction. \u201cWhile most states regrettably stopped short of naming the UAE, growing frustration over their continued support to RSF was palpable \u2013 throughout the debate and in the resolution,\u201d Hilary Power, UN Geneva director at Human Rights Watch, told Geneva Solutions.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The resolution referred to \u201cthe deployment of foreign forces and the supply of weapons, including drones\u201d, language she linked to the UN rights chief, Volker T\u00fcrk, who told the council this month that \u201cdomestic and foreign players are benefiting from the carnage\u201d in Sudan.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
But so far, the UN has not publicly singled out any state or other actor. In its report from February on the El Fasher massacre, the UN-backed fact-finding mission on Sudan said the RSF \u201cappears to have benefited from logistical military support\u201d, and that it was \u201cengaging with several states regarding credible information it has received of their own involvement or that of their nationals or entities\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Joey Shea, senior researcher on Saudi Arabia and the UAE in Human Rights Watch\u2019s Middle East and North Africa division and co-author of the report on UAE-trained Colombian mercenaries, said such institutional language could shift the dynamic over time, but that not naming a state was a \u201cpolitical calculation\u201d made against prevailing economic and political interests.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Interests in the balance\u00a0<\/p>\n