Britain has rejected heart-stopping plans for Sudan despite intelligence warnings that the town of El Faster will fall amid a wave of purges and possible genocide by the Guardian.
Government officials have scrapped plans for six months of the 18-month siege of el Fasther in favor of the “minimum option”
The town was captured last month by the paramilitary support forces (RSF), who immediately began to commit mass murders and rapes. Thousands of residents of the town were lost.
An internal British government paper, prepared last year, detailed four options for increasing “protection of civilians, including the prevention of fraud” in Sudan.
The options, reviewed by officials from the foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) in the fall of an “international protection mechanism” to protect civilians from crimes and sexual violence.
However, due to aid cuts, FCDO officials chose the “least ambitious” plan of Protect Sudanese civilians.
art report Deted October 2025, documenting the decision, said: “Given resource constraints, [the UK] chooses to take the least ambitious approach to avoiding atrocities, including CRSV [conflicted-related sexual violence]. “
Shayna Lewis, a Sudan Specialist with a US human rights organization PaEMA (Preventing and ending mass atrocities), said: “Atrocities are not natural disasters – they are a political option that can be prevented if there is political will.
“The decision of the FCDO [to pursue the least ambitious option for atrocity prevention] It is clearly shown the lack of priority of this government puts the control of the fame around the world, but it has consequences in life.
“Today the UK government is complicit in the ongoing genocide of the people of Darfur,” he said.
The British government’s approach to Sudan is considered important for several reasons, including its role as “archer“For the country of the UN Security Council – it means that it is the leader of the council’s activities in the conflict that has created the largest humanitarian crisis in the world.
Details of the options paper were cited in a review of British aid in Sudan between 2019 and mid-2019 by Liz Ditchbur, the head of the body that scrutinizes AIC spending.
His report for the independent commission for AID Impact (ICAI) said that the most ambitious plan to prevent violence for Sudan was not carried out by a part of the release and staff “.
It stated that a FCDO “options of options that” outlined four broad options but concluded that “an overstretched country team does not have a complex new programming area.
Instead, the officials chose the “fourth – and least ambitious – option”, which involves an additional £ 10m of funding to the Red Committee of the Red Cross (Other Organizations “for various activities, including protection”.
The report also found that funding constraints are compromising the UK’s ability to provide better protection for women and girls.
The conflict in Sudan is characterized by widespread sexual violence against women and girls, as confirmed by new testimonies from el Faster refugees.
“This [the funding cuts] The UK’s ability to support stronger protection outcomes in SUDAN – including women and girls,” the report said.
It added that a proposal to make sexual violence a priority was hampered by “funding constraints and limited program management capacity”.
A promised program for Sudanese women and girls, it is completed, only prepare “in medium until 2026)”.
Sarah Champion, Chair of the Parliamentary International Development Select Committeeas atrocity prevention should be the cornerstone of British foreign policy.
“I’m very concerned that in the rush to save money, some essential services are being cut,” he said. “Prevention and early intervention should be at the heart of all fcdo work, but sadly they are often seen as a ‘nice to have’.”
The Labor MP added: “At a time of rapidly shrinking AID budgets, this is a risky approach to take.”
The Ditchburn evaluation did, however, highlight some positives for the British government. “The UK has shown credible political leadership and strong negotiating power in Sudan, but its impact has been hampered by uneven political attention,” it read.
UK sources said “making a difference on the ground” with more than £120 million given to Sudan and that the UK is working with international partners.
They also referred to a recent statement by the UK to the UN Security Council which promised that “the world will stop the leadership of the RSF committed by their forces”.
RSF denies harming civilians.