Sudan is suing the UAE in the International Court of Justice for allegedly arming the RSF, claiming this support prolongs the conflict. Sudan’s foreign affairs secretary argues that the war could have ended sooner without such intervention. The UAE has dismissed the allegations as a publicity stunt.
Sudan’s military-led government is asserting its right to bring legal action against the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for allegedly providing arms to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Hussein Shingrai, the foreign affairs secretary of Sudan’s People’s Democratic Party, argues that without UAE’s support, the ongoing conflict would have concluded much earlier. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has received Sudan’s claim, wherein the country accuses the UAE of violating the genocide convention due to its assistance to the RSF.
In response, the UAE has labeled Sudan’s allegations as a mere publicity stunt, dismissing the claims as lacking substance. Shingrai, speaking with VOA’s James Butty, insists on presenting evidence to substantiate Sudan’s accusations against the UAE, emphasizing the grave implications of arming rebel factions. This legal battle highlights the complexities of international relations in conflict scenarios, where allegations of external influence can further entrench hostilities.
The case filed by Sudan against the UAE underscores the serious nature of international agreements, particularly the genocide convention. The Sudanese government’s position reflects a need to hold external parties accountable for their involvement in regional conflicts, while the UAE’s dismissal of these claims emphasizes the contentious nature of geopolitical discourse. Evidence that Sudan plans to present will be crucial in determining the outcome of this legal struggle in the ICJ.
Original Source: www.voaafrica.com
