Developments Requiring Swift Action

Dr Inas Mohammed Ahmed

In a session that lasted three continuous hours, the Human Rights Council held, on Friday, 14 November 2025, a special meeting on the human rights situation in El-Fashir and its surrounding areas. It adopted a resolution requesting the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Sudan to conduct an urgent investigation into reported violations of international law and crimes committed against civilians in El-Fashir and nearby towns.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, stated that:
“None of us should be surprised by the reports indicating that, since the Rapid Support Forces’ (RSF) deployment in El-Fashir, mass killings of civilians, ethnically and tribally motivated executions, increased sexual violence, kidnappings for ransom, widespread arbitrary arrests, and attacks on health facilities, medical staff, humanitarian workers, and countless other horrific atrocities have spread. Satellite imagery has captured bloodstains on the ground in El-Fashir — the stain recorded in the history of the international community may be less visible, but it is no less damning.”
Thus ended Volker Türk’s remarks.
Today, El-Fashir is, in legal terms, a crime scene. The decisive evidence of the terrorist militia’s involvement is present, documented, and indisputable — alongside testimonies from eyewitnesses who escaped the horrors committed there. Sadly, the worst-case scenario of this war has materialised.
The resolution requested the Fact-Finding Mission to conduct an urgent investigation in accordance with its mandate — particularly into the violations and crimes committed — and further asked it to identify those suspected of responsibility to ensure that perpetrators do not escape justice.
The resolution also called for an immediate and complete cessation of hostilities and the establishment of an independent mechanism to monitor the ceasefire’s implementation. It reaffirmed the necessity of respecting Sudan’s unity and territorial integrity, and rejected any attempt to establish a parallel authority in areas under the rebel militia’s control.
On the other hand, the Sudanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs welcomed the resolution. It affirmed Sudan’s cooperation with human rights mechanisms operating in the country, including the OHCHR country office and the designated human rights expert on Sudan.
This time, we observe that the Human Rights Council’s language is decisive, particularly in instructing the Fact-Finding Mission to investigate the crimes in El-Fashir and to name suspected individuals. Although the Council lacks enforcement power, its resolutions carry legal and moral weight; they are used by international courts and can be referred to the Security Council. We are thus facing a resolution that moves the international community a significant step in the right direction.
In parallel, several notable statements have emerged — most prominently from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio during the G7 meetings in Canada, where he addressed various international issues, including the war in Sudan. He said:
“The fundamental problem we face is that the RSF agrees to things and then fails to honour them.”
He also called for halting foreign military support to the militia. At the same time, Canada’s Foreign Minister, Anita Anand, stressed the need to respect international law, ensure humanitarian access, and bring perpetrators of war crimes to justice.
Then — just two hours later — Mossad Bolus stated that the United States is urging the parties to accept a humanitarian truce.
This raises the question: Is there a divergence in US official statements?
Considering Rubio is a legal specialist with a record of championing human rights issues in China, Venezuela, and Cuba, did he deviate from the administration’s established line and speak according to his own convictions?
Is this simply a difference of opinion — or a deliberate division of roles?
Did Bolus’s statement aim to “correct” the Secretary’s tone and realign it with official US policy?
Or has the United States now entered a new phase of exerting pressure on all sides, with Rubio deliberately targeting one particular actor?
Whatever the case, the contradiction underscores a more important question:
How coherent is the US administration’s internal coordination on Sudan?
The two statements came within hours, in the same diplomatic context — yet they reveal a duality in the American approach. Ultimately, the United States seeks nothing but its own interests. This remains the constant in all American positions.
Yesterday, after President Trump met Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House, Trump announced that he is committed to finding a solution to end the war in Sudan.
This means the United States has moved beyond expressions of concern, condemnation, and regret to searching for genuine solutions.
Washington may now seek a resolution that ends the war and prevents the “Statelet of Evil” from financing and supporting the terrorist militia. But will the United States maintain its relations and “investments” with that statelet — or will it sideline it and replace it with Saudi Arabia, which Trump described as:
“A major non-NATO ally.”
Saudi Arabia has enormous investments and vital shared files with the United States, as well as a sustained negotiation track that has made “normalisation” possible. In all cases, a closer US–Saudi alignment does not serve the interests of the Statelet of Evil.
Amid all these developments and speculations, the Sudanese government must define its priorities and set its goals clearly. Foremost among them:
Designating the militia as a terrorist organisation and securing its international criminalisation for atrocities against civilians.
Expelling the Statelet of Evil entirely from the Sudan file and securing its international condemnation for supporting the militia.
Leveraging US statements and Saudi diplomatic momentum.
These steps are no longer optional — they are essential.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=8891