Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,


Sir Afilonius Rex, Martyn Jones and Doctor Lila de Alba

Saintes, A Coruña and Salamanca, 13th December 2025

Is the world, as some people claim, staying silent about the terror being perpetrated in Sudan?

Here are our thoughts and views on the topic.

Governments have publicly condemned atrocities and taken some punitive steps

European states and the EU

European foreign ministers issued joint statements condemning systematic violence against civilians in Darfur and Kordofan. They described deliberate targeting, sexual violence, and starvation tactics as serious violations of international humanitarian law. These acts may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity. They called for accountability and unrestricted humanitarian access.

The EU also adopted restrictive measures which include asset freezes and travel bans. These were imposed against senior commanders of the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). This action includes Hemedti’s brother for directing mass killings.

United States government

The U.S. Treasury has imposed sanctions on networks and individuals accused of fueling the war. This includes the recruitment of foreign fighters to support the RSF. Officials have emphasised repeated attacks on civilians.

U.S. lawmakers from both parties have publicly pressured the administration. They urge a more forceful response to reported atrocities and humanitarian suffering. They are calling for more decisive action.

Australia and other individual states

Australia committed additional humanitarian funding to support civilians displaced and affected by violence.

South Africa

The South African government explicitly condemned deliberate attacks on civilians. It urged an immediate, verifiable ceasefire and protection of fundamental human rights.

Sudanese government diplomacy

Sudan’s ambassador to Egypt publicly denounced RSF actions as war crimes. He urged the international community to designate the group as a terrorist organisation. This move deepens the diplomatic pressure.

International organisations have repeatedly warned and condemned violence

United Nations human-rights leadership

The UN Human Rights Chief has publicly warned about waves of atrocities. These include aerial strikes, summary executions, arbitrary detention, and sexual violence. Such acts are occurring especially in Kordofan. The Chief stated that the real toll is likely higher than official figures.

UN agencies have issued multiple calls for civilian protection. They have condemned attacks on religious sites and civilian infrastructure. They have also called for humanitarian corridors and ceasefires.

International Criminal Court (ICC)

The ICC’s prosecutor’s office has expressed alarm and concern. Mass killings, rape, and other violent crimes reported in places like El Fasher may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Press coverage has increased, but varies in visibility and focus

Major international media outlets such as Reuters, Al Jazeera, and others have reported on:

  • Deadly attacks on civilians, including strikes on hospitals and kindergartens that killed over 100 people, including children.
  • Condemnations by multiple governments and mapping of sanctions or policy responses.
  • Broader analyses of the role of external actors and diplomacy shaping the conflict.

However, press attention has not been uniformly sustained, and coverage often spikes around major incidents or diplomatic actions.

Human rights organisations criticise the global response as inadequate

Groups like Amnesty International and other NGOs have sharply criticised both Sudan’s warring parties and the international community:

  • Calling out systemic war crimes and sexual violence by both the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and RSF.
  • Accusing global powers of feeding the conflict by failing to enforce arms embargoes or curtail foreign support.
  • Warning that humanitarian funding and access have been insufficient relative to need.

These critiques are frequent in press releases and civil society reporting.

Areas of debate in the response

Genocide and international law labels

Some governments and legal authorities have used terms like war crimes and crimes against humanity. There are ongoing debates about whether the violence rises to genocide. Some political figures and analysts use that language in public statements. They also use it in sanctions contexts.

Practical Action vs. Rhetoric

Many countries have condemned killings. They have also imposed targeted sanctions. However, critics argue that broader international political action has been limited or slow. This includes arms embargo enforcement, peacekeeping deployments, and the use of forceful diplomatic leverage. These actions do not match the scale of civilian suffering.

Visibility relative to other global crises

Media and public commentary (including online forums and opinion pieces) frequently raise the concern that Sudan receives less global attention. It receives fewer sustained policy interventions than other conflicts. This happens despite comparable or larger humanitarian catastrophes.

Summary

So, the answer to the initial question is yes, the international press and governments have reacted to atrocities in Sudan through:

  1. Public condemnations from the UN, EU, African states, the U.S., and others.
  2. Sanctions against militia leaders and networks tied to abuses.
  3. Humanitarian funding and statements urging ceasefires and access.
  4. Press attention that includes the documenting of violence and government responses.
  5. Intense criticism from human rights organisations that the global response is insufficient.

However, a recurring theme in official statements and NGO critiques is that condemnations have often not been matched by decisive collective action (e.g., arms embargoes, peace enforcement, sustained international pressure).