Strasbourg (Somalia Today) — The European Parliament has condemned atrocities in Sudan and urged sanctions on those bankrolling the war, but dropped any explicit reference to the United Arab Emirates after what one Brussels outlet described as a UAE “lobbying blitz” targeting key lawmakers.
The resolution, adopted on Thursday, denounces “mass murder and mass atrocities” by Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF) during the battle for el-Fasher.
It calls for sanctions on “financiers and external enablers” of the war, yet leaves those enablers unnamed in the final text.
A Parliament briefing on the vote sketches the scale of the crisis but sidesteps explicit references to Abu Dhabi.
Dutch MEP Marit Maij told German broadcaster DW that some members wanted to go further.
She said they planned to urge Brussels to halt trade talks with the UAE “for as long as we see that weapons are going through the UAE to the RSF.”
That language never reached the final motion.
Instead, the only direct reference to the UAE is a supportive nod to a “Quad” initiative by the UAE, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United States that calls for an end to the fighting.
References removed
According to detailed accounts in European and regional media, Emirati diplomats worked the Parliament hard in the days leading up to the vote.
Lana Nusseibeh, a minister of state and envoy to the EU, led the push and met with Parliament president Roberta Metsola and key group leaders.
Left-wing and Green MEPs had tabled amendments that named the UAE.
They wanted to freeze trade negotiations with Abu Dhabi and shut down logistics networks accused of funnelling weapons to the RSF.
Conservative and far-right blocs, led by the European People’s Party (EPP) and the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), voted those amendments down.
A briefing by the Left group in Parliament later said the resolution had been “subject to heavy lobbying” and “failed to call out the role of the UAE and other third countries in fomenting, financing and arming” the RSF. (Left group note)
The Socialists and Democrats bloc welcomed the overall text but publicly “regretted” the omission of any reference to the UAE’s alleged role.
In a statement after the vote, the group stressed that some of its amendments — including on external enablers — had been rejected.
From Abu Dhabi’s side, the outcome was cast as a vindication.
In an official UAE statement, Nusseibeh welcomed the resolution and underlined what she called the country’s “unwavering commitment” to support efforts to end Sudan’s “catastrophic civil war.”
Arms reports and denials
The political fight in Strasbourg comes on top of a growing body of reports that trace advanced weapons in Sudan back to the UAE.
In May, an Amnesty International weapons investigation identified newly manufactured Chinese bombs and howitzers used in Sudan that the group says were almost certainly re-exported from the UAE, in breach of a UN arms embargo on Darfur.
Amnesty described the findings as “clear evidence” that sophisticated Chinese-made systems had reached Sudanese battlefields with Emirati help.
A wider Amnesty arms flow report on “new weapons fuelling the Sudan conflict” has also documented a constant stream of recently produced mortars, small arms, and other hardware entering Sudan from several countries, including through Emirati channels.
Investigations by regional outlets, including Middle East Eye, have mapped alleged supply routes running through Libya, Chad, and Somalia.
They describe an arc of logistics hubs and desert airstrips used to move arms and fighters to the RSF, including flights into eastern Chad and coastal airports in northern Somalia.
Abu Dhabi rejects those claims.
Officials repeatedly insist that the UAE has not supplied weapons to the RSF or Sudan’s army during the civil war, and claim it is only providing humanitarian aid and diplomacy.
In interviews cited by European media, Emirati officials argue that accusations of arms transfers are politically driven and not supported by hard proof.
Sudan’s genocide accusation
Khartoum has tried to turn those accusations into a legal case.
In March, Sudan filed a genocide case against the UAE at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing it of violating the Genocide Convention by arming the RSF as the group carried out ethnically targeted attacks against the non-Arab Masalit community in West Darfur.
Sudanese lawyers argued that Emirati support made possible a campaign of killings, rape, and forced displacement that some governments already label genocide. (Reuters background)
On 5 May, judges in The Hague threw out the case.
In an ICJ ruling, the court said it lacked jurisdiction because the UAE had entered a reservation to the clause that lets states bring disputes under the Genocide Convention.
The judges expressed concern over reports of atrocities in Darfur. However, they ruled that they could not examine Sudan’s claims against Abu Dhabi.
Legal scholars and rights groups criticised the decision, warning that broad reservations of this kind weaken the convention itself.
For Darfur survivors, the outcome did little to settle the question of who helped arm the RSF.
Rights organisations say the RSF’s recent assault on el-Fasher, the last major city in North Darfur held by the army, followed a familiar pattern.
Witnesses described mass killings, rape, looting, and the burning of entire districts, echoing earlier campaigns of ethnic cleansing in el-Geneina and other towns.
General Yasser al-Atta of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) has accused Gulf money of buying silence.
He told journalists that “the world has been silent regarding all the RSF has done in Sudan” and claimed “this silence was bought by the power of the UAE’s money,” according to reports cited by regional media.
A symbolic test for EU policy
On paper, the Strasbourg resolution is one of the toughest EU texts yet on Sudan.
It condemns RSF atrocities in el-Fasher, backs an arms embargo, calls for tougher sanctions on those fuelling the war, and urges EU capitals to add the RSF to the bloc’s terrorism list.
EU documents and speeches now describe Sudan as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, with more than 150,000 people killed, millions displaced, and huge areas on the brink of famine.
Rights groups say that is precisely why naming alleged external suppliers matters.
Amnesty and other NGOs are urging governments to extend the Darfur arms embargo to cover all of Sudan and to block any new weapons transfers into the country.
Critics inside the Parliament argue that by avoiding any mention of the UAE, the EU has ducked a key test.
They say Europe still struggles to confront powerful Gulf partners whose investment, energy ties, and diplomatic clout it values in other theatres, from the Red Sea to Libya and Yemen.
For civilians trapped in RSF-held areas, the argument in Strasbourg feels remote.
But activists say whether Europe is ready to confront alleged sponsors of the war — or lets a well-timed lobbying campaign define the limits of its outrage — will shape the international response far beyond this week’s vote.
Aid agencies warn that unless outside actors stop sending arms and open the way for food and medicine, more families in Darfur and across Sudan will starve, flee, or die under bombardment, whatever the wording of the next resolution in Brussels.
