Western governments prioritized strategic alliances over preventing predictable genocide in Sudan
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/husam-mahjoub. "These atrocities in Sudan were entirely predictable. So why did the rest of the world fail to stop them? | Husam Mahjoub | The Guardian." February 20, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
The author argues that Western countries could have prevented the massacres in Sudan but chose not to because they didn't want to upset their relationship with the UAE, which was secretly helping the killers. He says this approach of protecting friendships with powerful countries instead of protecting innocent people has failed and needs to change completely.
Conclusion
Western governments failed to prevent the predictable atrocities in El Fasher, Sudan because they prioritized strategic relationships with the UAE over civilian protection, and this approach must fundamentally change
Premises
- The atrocities in El Fasher were entirely predictable, with multiple warnings from civil society, humanitarian organizations, and government agencies being ignored
- The UAE has been the principal external supporter of the RSF through arms transfers, logistics networks, and financial pipelines, enabling the genocide
- Western governments continue to treat the UAE as a mediator despite evidence of its role in arming the RSF, creating a fundamental contradiction in diplomacy
- The current approach of elite bargains and treating armed actors as legitimate stakeholders has repeatedly failed and validates violence as a pathway to recognition
- Washington and London have chosen to maintain equilibrium between Gulf allies rather than confront the UAE's role, resulting in diplomatic paralysis
Assumptions
- Preventing genocide should be a higher priority than maintaining strategic alliances
- The UAE's support for the RSF is the primary external factor enabling the atrocities
- Western governments have sufficient influence to change the situation if they chose to act
- Civilian networks and resistance committees are more legitimate representatives than armed groups
- Clear accountability measures would be more effective than current diplomatic approaches