The UAE has so much blood on its hands in Sudan. For its nominee to lead the UN would be an outrage | Nesrine Malik

The proposal is to appoint Lana Nusseibeh as secretary general of the United Nations. The role is the UN’s highest-profile leadership post, so the choice carries political and moral weight. Nusseibeh is the UAE’s minister of state and previously served as the country’s ambassador to the UN.

Her candidacy is controversial because she has been the public face of the UAE’s Sudan strategy. The article links the UAE to supporting the Rapid Support Forces, facilitating mercenaries, and using aid infrastructure to move weapons. Nusseibeh repeatedly affirmed the UAE’s denials and called allegations baseless. She also disputed a UN panel of experts’ findings.

Her bid is gaining momentum and endorsements despite anger among Sudanese refugees and activists. They see her appointment as rewarding a government accused of helping fuel the war. It could therefore affect confidence in the UN’s neutrality, especially among people suffering hunger, displacement, violence and loss.

The Rapid Support Forces, or RSF, are described in the article as a militia. The Sudanese Armed Forces, or SAF, are Sudan’s national armed forces. They are the two main armed sides in the country’s ongoing war. The article presents the conflict as a brutal struggle that has produced hunger, displacement and a vast humanitarian crisis.

The source does not set out the war’s original political or military trigger. It does show how the conflict has developed: external actors have become involved, while the UAE is accused of aggressively sponsoring the RSF. The article also says the RSF faces accusations of ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and sexual violence.

The fighting continues because outside supply lines have helped sustain it. The article calls the result intractable conflict and relentless momentum. That means Sudan’s disaster is not simply a clash between two armed groups. It is also a war shaped by foreign backing, weapons and wider geopolitical interests.

The article portrays Sudan’s war as an ongoing calamity of historic proportions. It says thousands of people have already been killed. Hunger and displacement are widespread, and the fighting has produced a major humanitarian crisis. These conditions show that the war’s impact extends far beyond battlefields and armed forces.

The article gives no precise total for deaths, people displaced or those facing hunger. Instead, it describes unfathomable losses, relentless suffering and refugees forced into camps. It also reports that some Sudanese refugees rejected UAE aid, accusing the country of helping kill their relatives. Those accounts show how the crisis has damaged trust as well as lives.

The current reality remains severe because the war continues and external supply lines sustain it. Without an end to fighting and foreign support, hunger, displacement and civilian deaths are likely to remain central features of Sudan’s emergency. The article offers no forecast or recovery plan.

The article links the UAE to supporting the RSF and prolonging Sudan’s war. It says the country facilitated mercenaries to fight alongside the militia and appropriated international aid infrastructure to smuggle weapons into Sudan. The UAE is also accused of using wealth and strategic partnerships to pursue influence around Sudan’s Red Sea coast and gold reserves.

The case rests on multiple media investigations, human rights activism, political condemnation and reports. The article says two US congressmen described the UAE as arming one faction and abetting genocide. A UK complaint demanded an investigation into Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan. It also refers to a UN panel of experts whose findings Nusseibeh disputed.

The UAE has denied the allegations, calling them baseless. The article says it used dissimulation, misinformation and digital propaganda. Taken together, the accusations describe foreign supply lines that helped keep the RSF capable of fighting, making the conflict more intractable and its losses greater.

Appointing Nusseibeh could carry a powerful symbolic message for Sudanese victims. She has represented the UAE’s denials while the country is accused of supporting the RSF. The article says her appointment would be a slap in the face to millions suffering war, a dereliction of duty toward those killed, and a green light for continued conflict.

The mechanism is institutional credibility. The UN depends heavily on trust when investigating abuses, delivering aid and pressing governments to protect civilians. Nusseibeh disputed a UN panel of experts’ findings and undermined international media reporting, according to the article. Her elevation could therefore make the UN look unable, or unwilling, to confront powerful states.

The broader consequence could be deeper cynicism about international concern for Sudan. The article criticizes performative statements that stop short of linking the war to external sponsors. If the appointment proceeds, Sudanese victims may see it as consent for the conflict’s prolongation rather than impartial international leadership.

The article does not explain how the secretary general is chosen or what powers the office has. Under the UN Charter, the Security Council recommends a candidate, and the General Assembly formally appoints that person. In practice, the process depends on agreement among powerful states, especially the council’s permanent members. The term is normally five years and can be renewed.

The secretary general leads the UN Secretariat, represents the organisation publicly and uses diplomacy to mediate conflicts. The office can bring crises to international attention, support humanitarian work and press governments to follow international law. A secretary general can also appoint senior officials and shape the institution’s priorities.

The limits matter. The secretary general cannot unilaterally impose peace, prosecute governments or command national armies. Major enforcement decisions depend on member states, especially the Security Council. That is why appointing a controversial candidate could still matter greatly: the office has influence and symbolic authority, even without unlimited power.

When a state is accused of arming a group responsible for atrocities, several accountability tools may apply. The UN Security Council can impose an arms embargo, sanctions or other measures. International investigators can document crimes and identify supply networks. The International Criminal Court may pursue individual perpetrators where it has jurisdiction, while courts can examine state responsibility under relevant treaties.

The key mechanism is evidence. Investigators must link weapons, money or logistical support to the armed group and then connect that support to unlawful conduct or a failure to prevent atrocities. States may also face diplomatic pressure, legal proceedings or targeted restrictions. An accusation alone does not establish legal liability; findings require credible investigation and due process.

These tools have limits. The Security Council can be blocked by political disagreement, and courts may lack jurisdiction or practical enforcement power. Accountability can still deter support, preserve evidence and raise the cost of complicity. The article describes investigations and condemnation, but does not report a final legal judgment against the UAE.