Britain sanctions Sudanese commanders over weaponised rape - Al Jazeera

The UK imposed targeted sanctions on 15 Sudanese military commanders, militia leaders and security officials. The people targeted come from both the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese Armed Forces. The measures respond to alleged war crimes during the fall of el-Fasher, including sexual violence, torture and attacks on civilians. They also aim to expose abuses and support accountability.

The sanctions include travel bans and asset freezes. Two named targets are Hussein Abu Jalak, an RSF colonel linked to atrocities during the siege, and Al-Nour Ahmed Adam, also known as “al-Qubba”. The Foreign Office identified him as playing a prominent role in besieging and attacking the city.

The sanctions do not end the fighting or automatically bring prosecutions. They restrict targeted people’s movement and access to assets. The UK said the wider goal is to ensure that the horrors at el-Fasher become known worldwide. The action came with aid for survivors and humanitarian relief.

A travel ban is a legal restriction that prevents a sanctioned person from entering, leaving or passing through countries enforcing the measure. An asset freeze blocks access to money, property or financial accounts within those countries’ jurisdictions. These tools are designed to pressure individuals without directly using military force.

For example, a commander sanctioned over alleged atrocities could be denied entry to the United Kingdom and have funds held there frozen. Banks and businesses may also avoid transactions involving that person. The practical effect depends on where the target travels, holds assets or conducts financial activity.

The article says the UK applied both measures to 15 Sudanese commanders, militia leaders and security officials. Sanctions cannot by themselves prove guilt or stop Sudan’s war. They can, however, signal international condemnation, limit resources and preserve pressure for accountability while investigations and evidence-gathering continue.

The Rapid Support Forces, or RSF, are a powerful Sudanese paramilitary organisation. The Sudanese Armed Forces, or SAF, are Sudan’s regular national military. Both became major armed centres of power after Sudan’s political upheaval. The source identifies them as the two sides of the ongoing civil war.

The article does not explain the war’s original cause. Established background reports describe a struggle over political control and the future relationship between the RSF and the army, including plans to bring the RSF under the regular military. Fighting began in April 2023 and spread across Sudan.

That conflict has produced sieges, attacks on civilians and a humanitarian catastrophe. Britain sanctioned people from both forces over alleged crimes at el-Fasher. The equal targeting matters because the UK says accountability should apply to commanders on both sides, not only one faction.

El-Fasher became a central focus of Sudan’s war as the city faced a prolonged siege before falling. Civilians were exposed to mass killings, widespread sexual violence and attacks on hospitals. The United Kingdom imposed sanctions one year after the city’s fall, citing alleged war crimes committed during that period.

The accusations cover both major armed sides. RSF and Sudanese Armed Forces commanders were sanctioned over sexual violence, torture and attacks on civilians. Hussein Abu Jalak was described as an RSF colonel linked to atrocities during the siege. Al-Nour Ahmed Adam was identified as playing a prominent role in besieging and attacking the city.

The events matter because the alleged crimes were not limited to battlefield clashes. They affected civilians, medical facilities and basic survival. UK-funded investigations also reported systematic starvation and conflict-related sexual violence. The sanctions seek accountability, while the continuing war means civilians remain at risk.

Sudan’s crisis is enormous. Amnesty International estimates that tens of thousands of civilians have been killed since the war began in April 2023. Fourteen million people have been displaced. These figures show that the conflict has uprooted a huge share of Sudan’s population and caused widespread civilian suffering.

The article does not provide a separate number for people affected by sexual violence or starvation. Instead, UK-funded reporting described a campaign of systematic starvation and conflict-related sexual violence against civilians. The Foreign Office said rape and starvation were still being weaponised one year after el-Fasher’s fall.

The response includes £5m for survivors of sexual violence and £10m in humanitarian aid. Those sums address urgent needs but do not measure the full crisis. Continuing attacks, displacement and hunger mean the scale may remain severe while the war continues and access to victims remains difficult.

Weaponising rape or starvation means using these abuses deliberately to achieve military or political aims. Rape can terrorise communities, punish perceived opponents and force people to flee. Starvation can weaken civilians, make them surrender or control access to food. The phrase therefore points to a pattern, not just individual criminal acts.

The article reports a campaign of “systematic starvation and conflict-related sexual violence against civilians”. It also quotes Ed Miliband saying rape and starvation were still being weaponised one year after el-Fasher’s atrocities. The source connects these abuses with the siege and attacks surrounding the city’s fall.

This matters because organised attacks on civilian survival may amount to grave international crimes and require more than ordinary battlefield discipline. Britain responded with sanctions, survivor support and humanitarian aid. Investigations can document patterns, identify commanders and strengthen future accountability, although the article does not report completed trials.

International sanctions can raise the cost of alleged crimes by restricting travel, freezing assets and signalling condemnation. Humanitarian aid can help people survive and support specialised services for survivors. War-crimes investigations can record testimony, identify responsible commanders and create evidence for possible future prosecutions. None automatically ends a civil war.

In this case, Britain sanctioned 15 people from the RSF and Sudanese Armed Forces. It also allocated £5m to support survivors of sexual violence and £10m in humanitarian aid. UK-funded investigations reported systematic starvation and conflict-related sexual violence, helping bring abuses into public view.

The likely impact depends on enforcement, access and political pressure. Active commanders may still move, fight or rely on outside support. The UK Foreign Secretary said external backing for the warring parties must end. If pressure continues, sanctions and evidence may narrow impunity; if not, atrocities and humanitarian suffering may persist.