The British government selected the least ambitious option for preventing atrocities in Sudan, internal documents reveal, despite intelligence warnings of impending ethnic cleansing. This decision was made months before the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) captured the city of El Fasher and unleashed a wave of ethnically motivated killings and sexual violence.
A review of UK aid to Sudan details how officials evaluated four distinct strategies to enhance civilian protection. These options, assessed last autumn, included proposals for an international mechanism to safeguard people from mass atrocities. However, facing budgetary pressures, authorities opted for the most limited plan available.
An official paper from October 2025 explicitly states that due to resource constraints, the UK pursued the “least ambitious approach to the prevention of atrocities.” This choice involved allocating an additional £10 million to existing humanitarian groups like the International Committee of the Red Cross, rather than establishing new, dedicated protection programs.
Human rights advocates have condemned the decision. “Atrocities are not natural disasters – they are a political choice that are preventable if there is political will,” stated a specialist from a human rights organization. “The FCDO’s decision clearly shows the lack of priority this government places on atrocity prevention globally, but this has real-life consequences.”
The review further found that funding limitations compromised the UK’s capacity to address the widespread sexual violence characterizing the conflict. A proposed initiative to prioritize protecting women and girls was reportedly hindered, with its implementation now delayed until at least 2026.
A parliamentary committee chair expressed deep concern, noting that essential services are being cut in a rush to save money. “Prevention and early intervention should be core to all FCDO work, but sadly they are often seen as a ‘nice to have’,” she said, calling the approach “dangerously shortsighted.”
While the review did acknowledge the UK’s “credible political leadership” on the Sudan crisis, it concluded that its impact was limited by inconsistent high-level attention. The UK maintains that its aid is making a difference on the ground and has pledged to work with international partners to hold the RSF accountable for its crimes.
