Direct Responsibility

The United Arab Emirates:

1. Actively arming forces accused of genocide
2. Benefiting from looted gold resources
3. Violating UN weapons embargoes
4. Providing drones used in attacks on civilians
5. Using front companies and intermediaries to hide involvement
6. Facing no consequences for these actions

Egypt:

1. Supporting military's maximalist position
2. Providing weapons and military support
3. Preventing negotiated compromise
4. Prioritizing its own security over Sudanese lives
5. Using Sudan as buffer against instability

United States:

1. Called RSF actions genocide but won't pressure UAE (a strategic ally)
2. Destroyed pharmaceutical capacity with 1998 bombing
3. Imposed sanctions that hurt civilians more than leaders
4. Failed to lead international response
5. Prioritizes other conflicts over Sudan
6. Allowed "Quad" mediation to fail without alternative

Russia:

1. Historical involvement (Bashir era negotiations over military bases)
2. Current involvement through Wagner Group and Africa Corps
3. Arms sales to both sides
4. Using Sudan crisis to expand influence while West distracted

China:

1. Major economic investments in Sudan (especially oil)
2. Traditional support for Khartoum government
3. Not using economic leverage for peace
4. Prioritizing resource access over stability
5. Operating under "non-interference" policy that enables atrocities

Indirect Responsibility

European Union:

1. Minimal diplomatic engagement
2. Inadequate humanitarian funding
3. Strategic partnerships with UAE and Egypt prevent pressure
4. Historical colonial legacy created North-South divide
5. Migration concerns prioritized over Sudanese welfare

United Kingdom:

1. Colonial creation of Sudan's divisions
2. Minimal current engagement
3. More concerned with domestic scandals (Prince Andrew) than former colony's genocide
4. Failed to use Commonwealth connections for mediation

Saudi Arabia:

1. Half-hearted mediation attempts (Jeddah talks)
2. Regional rivalry with UAE limits effectiveness
3. Historical ties to both sides prevent taking firm stance
4. More interested in Yemen and Gaza

African Union:

1. Paralyzed and ineffective
2. Lacks resources and political will
3. No mechanism to enforce decisions
4. Individual member states pursuing contradictory policies
5. Failed to prevent or respond to crisis

International Criminal Court:

1. No prosecutions despite overwhelming evidence
2. Bashir precedent shows inability to enforce
3. Selective justice undermines legitimacy
4. Gaza receives attention Sudan doesn't

The Colonial Legacy

Britain's responsibility is fundamental:

1. Created artificial North-South division in 1922
2. Restricted movement between regions
3. Favored Northern elites in administration
4. Encouraged Christian missionaries in South while Islam dominated North
5. Left without ensuring unified national identity or equitable governance
6. Drew borders without regard for ethnic or cultural realities

As Sudan expert Sadik al-Mahdi noted: "What we need to apologize for is the association in the North, in our culture in the north, between Blackness and slavery. As Northerners we should apologize for this association between color and slavery."

Why Superpowers Prefer Chaos

Resource Extraction: Chaos enables exploitation:

1. Gold can be looted without regulation
2. No environmental or labor standards enforcement
3. Warlords offer better deals than legitimate governments
4. Competition between armed groups drives down prices
5. No accountability for origins of resources

Strategic Competition: Failed states serve great power interests:

1. Testing grounds for weapons systems
2. Proxies available for rent
3. Competitors can be bog down supporting failed clients
4. Instability prevents rivals from establishing influence
5. Access without responsibility

Arms Sales: War is profitable:

1. Constant demand for weapons and ammunition
2. No scrutiny of end-use
3. Multiple buyers competing
4. Can sell to both sides through intermediaries
5. Drones and high-tech weapons combat-tested

The Cynical Calculation: As one analyst put it: "All of us claim we love peace because peace allows political development, Economic Development, social cohesion. But in international relations, there are those who love war because War has economic benefits."

The truth is that powerful countries and companies benefit from Sudan's chaos while paying none of the costs. The suffering is borne entirely by Sudanese civilians who have no voice in international forums.

Conclusion: A Preventable Tragedy

Sudan's current nightmare was entirely preventable. At multiple points, different choices could have avoided this catastrophe:

1956: If Britain had not created the North-South division 1989: If the international community had not tolerated Bashir's coup 1991-1996: If Sudan had not hosted bin Laden, avoiding sanctions 2005: If the Comprehensive Peace Agreement had been fully implemented 2011: If South Sudan's independence had included mechanisms for the rest of Sudan 2019: If the revolution had been allowed to establish civilian government 2021: If the military coup had been decisively opposed 2023: If mediation had prevented the RSF-military conflict from erupting At each juncture, international inaction, superpower interference, or domestic power struggles pushed Sudan further toward catastrophe. Now, with the country effectively partitioned and genocide ongoing, the situation has become almost unsalvageable.