Since the current war in Sudan broke out, everything that has happened at the UN Security Council concerning it has been closely tied to military developments on the ground. It was therefore not surprising that the US move, backed by European states, to expand the arms embargo imposed on Darfur to cover all of Sudan came at the same time as such developments. But this coincidence raises legitimate questions about a double standard and about the distorted way certain international powers view the war.
It has been striking that several diplomatic moves have come at times when the Sudanese army and the forces supporting it were making significant gains on the ground, whether through selective sanctions or calls to expand the arms and aviation embargo. It is true that sanctions were also imposed on leaders of the Rapid Support Forces, but they were not sufficient to halt known and documented arms supplies or prevent the RSF from attacking strategic positions.
El Fasher may be the clearest example. The city remained under siege for some 18 months, and its residents endured extremely harsh humanitarian conditions, yet we saw no decisive international action commensurate with the scale of the warnings that might have prevented its fall. After the city fell late last year, shocking violations and massacres occurred, raising a basic question: Why did the international community not act with the same urgency when the warnings still left room for intervention to prevent the catastrophe?
Testimonies and international reports have documented routes for transferring weapons, drones, and mercenaries to the RSF through regional corridors, including Ethiopia, Chad, and Libya. Among the most prominent testimonies in this regard was that of Nathaniel Raymond, director of the Humanitarian Research Lab at Yale University, before the British Parliament in late June. He leveled explicit criticism at the British government, accusing it, along with other Western states, of hesitating to exert pressure on the party supplying the RSF with advanced weapons for fear of harming economic and political interests.
According to Raymond's presentation, he had submitted more than 70 reports and held 24 briefing sessions with British officials between 2023 and 2025, providing documents, satellite imagery, and repeated warnings of an imminent catastrophe in El Fasher. Even so, no sufficiently concrete steps were taken to prevent the city's fall.
From the beginning of the war, the external intervention fueling the conflict was known, as were many of the parties involved and the supply routes. But Western measures, particularly those led by the United States, to halt the flow of weapons to the RSF have remained, in the view of their critics, limited or merely formal, especially when it comes to the sources of supply or the states through which these shipments pass.
It was in this context that the US call at the Security Council this week came to expand the arms embargo imposed on Darfur to cover the entirety of Sudanese territory, including drones. The step was presented as an attempt to halt the flow of weapons fueling the war, coupled with a warning about the humanitarian catastrophe. But understanding the timing requires placing it in its broader context.
First, the call comes at a time when the military balance appears to be shifting more in favor of the Sudanese army, with its advances in important areas in the west of the country, the RSF suffering heavy losses in personnel and equipment, and defections continuing within its ranks. This raises the question: Is the purpose of expanding the embargo to weaken the army at this stage and give the RSF an opportunity to reorganize its ranks?
Second, UN Security Council Resolution 1591, issued 22 years ago, failed to halt the flow of weapons or end the fighting in Darfur, nor did it prevent the violations that the region has witnessed during the current war. What, then, will make expanding the resolution more effective today?
Third, the timing of the step raises further questions, particularly because it comes as the final report of the UN Panel of Experts on Darfur is awaited and before the arms embargo imposed on the region expires on September 12, unless a new arrangement is reached. A leaked draft indicated that the report deals in detail with arms supplies to the RSF and their sources, as well as the issue of Colombian mercenaries participating in the fighting.
Fourth, Security Council discussions revealed that expanding the embargo will not be a simple matter, after Russia warned against measures that could weaken the Sudanese army. Other states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and China, expressed positions affirming the importance of Sudan's sovereignty and the unity of its territory and institutions. No one denies the scale of the humanitarian tragedy in Sudan, and violations cannot be justified regardless of who commits them. But using the humanitarian dimension to justify selective policies does not help end the war. The real question is not only whether the war stops, but also how it stops, in what form, with what guarantees, and without the end of the fighting becoming the beginning of the collapse of the state.
The army is a national institution and a fundamental pillar of the Sudanese state. Weakening or dismantling state institutions is not a path to peace. The experience of the region and the world confirms that states whose armies have collapsed did not find themselves facing stable peace, but rather a security vacuum and chaos that are difficult to escape.
