Well, that is the setting, but at this time, I am looking a bit deeper. You see, I have seen several newscasts regarding Sudan and the UAE and for the most I ignored them. There is so much I can store in my brain and at times I have to set priorities (apart from the fact that the media is largely unreliable), but today I decided to weed through the stories. In this case, lets start at the end.
The Guardian
The Guardian gives us ‘Sudan fails in attempt to make UAE accountable for acts of genocide’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/05/sudan-fails-in-attempt-to-make-uae-accountable-for-acts-of-genocide) as such, this is on the accuser. They were unable to set the bar of making the UAE accountable for the alleged setting. Whilst the Guardian also gives us “An attempt by Sudan’s government to make the United Arab Emirates legally accountable for acts of genocide in West Darfur has been rejected by the international court of justice after the judges voted by 14 to 2 to declare they had no jurisdiction. By a narrower majority the judges voted 9 to 7 to strike the case entirely from the ICJ list.” And the setting of 14 against 2 is almost ridiculous. There is always a descending judge in these cases and in this case it is two. A such we can bring to the table that Sudan had close to nothing and the majority ruled to strike the case from the ICJ list, as such Sudan loses two to nothing. When we see the allegation “There have been repeated allegations during the two-year civil war in Sudan that the UAE has been flying arms to the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in an attempt to oust the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan.” And Here we see the lovely setting of transit weaponry. The first part is that there is a lack of evidence where the weapons came from, in the second setting, if we accept that weapons came through the UAE (not unimaginable) where is the evidence that they were from the UAE? Transit weapons happen, they happen all over the world (even through Rotterdam) but when the evidence lacks to where the original shipment came from the Sudan has little or no case. So the term “in an attempt to oust the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan” goes nowhere and that is also on Sudan. So how many transit shipments have they arranged for themselves? I actually do not know, but if the UAE can even get one piece of evidence to that, Sudan loses (yet again).
BBC
Two days ago, the BBC gave us ‘Top UN court rejects Sudan’s bid to sue UAE for genocide’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cze176ryw54o) with the text “The UAE categorically denied the accusations, branding the case “political theatre” and “a cynical publicity stunt”.
The International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that the case could not proceed because the UAE had opted out Article 9 of the Genocide Convention, which means that it cannot be sued by other states over genocide allegations.” It doesn’t sound overwhelming. But the BBC gave us useful info. With “Sudan case had claimed that the UAE’s alleged military, financial and logistical backing of the RSF – including weapons shipments and mercenary recruitment – enabled systematic attacks against non-Arab communities, particularly the Masalit, in Darfur.” So as I see it where is the evidence? The media gives us little (read: nothing) especially the financial and logistical backing require evidence. Were they entered into evidence? So, why didn’t the media give us anything? It is after the case, so they could have come with evidence at this point. I have seen nothing. And as the BBC gives us “Both the Sudanese army and the RSF have been accused of committing atrocities, including ethnically targeted killings, obstruction of humanitarian relief and looting.” I merely see a case of the pot calling the kettle massively less white. And the BBC gives us one additional gem “Sudan’s case at the ICJ was unusual because it targeted an alleged sponsor of atrocities, not the direct perpetrators.” As I see it, the Sudanese army wants money from the UAE and they go about it this way and it is alleged, there is as far as I saw it no proof of it. Even if it is transit undertaken by one of the around 116,500 millionaires in the UAE who might have seen the Sudan as a nice additional piggy bank to become even richer, the lack of evidence does not make it go anywhere. For that matter, is weapon transit even illegal in the UAE?
As such it is time to see one of the ‘many’ images. I have questions. This image gives us two clean soldiers, like it is their first day in uniform, even the buttons look clean. I remember war settings. My uniform never looked this clear and I was never on any front. Very very clean grenade tops with labels and all. Oh, that reminds me, where are those granites from? What was there origin? Any missile tends to have a number (for batch quality assurances), as such this weapons might not be focal point of the case, but weapons are key and they have serial numbers. As such the origin of the weapon might be traced. So was it someone from the UAE, or perhaps a sneaky Russian finding a more profitable market? All questions and no answers. But that is the setting. As I see it, for the most of the materials I have seen and the utter lack of evidence that the media never gave us, the UAE is clearly innocent. And I personally believe that a person (or organization) is innocent until PROVEN guilty.
A simple setting that the law tends to adhere to, even as some UN essay writers tend to ignore that simple fact, going all the way back to 2018. Karma does tend to suck.
Oh, and if the world (read: media) has actual and factual evidence I will look at this again. There is always the chance that I am wrong, but at present with the lack of evidence that is how I see it.
Have a peaceful great day.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 