Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch and current Princeton University professor, called for United Arab Emirates officials to face charges of aiding and abetting genocide in Sudan, arguing that accountability should extend beyond Rapid Support Forces commanders to their international supporters.

The statement, delivered via video, represents one of the most direct allegations from a prominent human rights figure regarding Emirati involvement in Sudan's devastating civil conflict, which has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions since fighting erupted between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the RSF in April 2023.

"UAE officials should be charged for aiding and abetting genocide in Sudan—not just RSF commanders," Roth stated, referencing widespread allegations that Abu Dhabi has provided weapons, funding, and logistical support to RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, commonly known as "Hemedti."

In the Emirates, as across the Gulf, ambitious visions drive rapid transformation—turning desert into global business hubs. Yet those regional ambitions have increasingly drawn the UAE into controversial interventions across the Horn of Africa and Middle East, from Yemen to Libya to Sudan, where pursuit of influence and economic interests has generated mounting human rights criticism.

The allegations center on UAE support for the RSF, a paramilitary force that evolved from the Janjaweed militias responsible for atrocities in Darfur during the 2000s. Multiple investigations, including reporting by CNN, the New York Times, and BBC, have documented Emirati weapons transfers, military equipment, and financial backing for RSF forces as they battle the Sudanese military for control of the country.

Roth's invocation of genocide carries specific legal weight. The term does not merely describe mass killing but rather acts committed with intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Human rights organizations have documented RSF atrocities targeting specific ethnic communities in Darfur and Khartoum, including massacres, sexual violence, and forced displacement—acts that potentially meet the legal threshold for genocidal conduct.

The "aiding and abetting" framework extends criminal liability beyond direct perpetrators to those who substantially assist crimes while knowing their nature. Roth's argument suggests that UAE officials understood the RSF's pattern of atrocities yet continued providing support, making them legally culpable under international law even without directly ordering or committing violations themselves.

The UAE has consistently denied supporting the RSF or any faction in Sudan's civil war, instead emphasizing humanitarian assistance and support for peaceful resolution. Emirati officials frame their Horn of Africa engagement as promoting stability, economic development, and counter-terrorism cooperation rather than backing specific armed groups or pursuing narrow national interests.

Yet evidence of Emirati involvement continues mounting. Investigations have traced weapons shipments through UAE-controlled ports, documented Emirati aircraft movements to RSF-held territory, and identified financial transfers from Abu Dhabi to RSF accounts. Gold smuggling routes from Sudanese mines to Emirati refineries have also raised questions about economic incentives driving potential UAE support for RSF control over resource-rich territories.

For Roth, whose 29-year tenure at Human Rights Watch established him as one of the most influential voices in international human rights advocacy, the call for charges represents a significant escalation. While human rights organizations routinely criticize government conduct, explicit calls for criminal prosecution under genocide conventions remain relatively rare and typically reserved for the most severe allegations.

The legal pathway for such charges faces substantial obstacles. The International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over Sudan and has issued arrest warrants for Sudanese officials, but extending prosecution to UAE officials would require either Security Council referral—unlikely given potential Russian and Chinese vetoes—or acceptance of ICC jurisdiction by the UAE itself, which is not a court signatory.

Alternatively, universal jurisdiction principles allow some national courts to prosecute genocide and crimes against humanity regardless of where they occurred. European courts have occasionally exercised this authority, though political and diplomatic constraints typically limit such prosecutions to individuals without significant state protection.

For the UAE's international reputation, the allegations present mounting challenges. Abu Dhabi has invested heavily in positioning itself as a responsible global stakeholder—hosting international organizations, mediating regional conflicts, and emphasizing business-friendly governance. Yet interventions in Yemen, Libya, and Sudan have generated persistent human rights criticism that complicates those branding efforts.

The Sudan conflict has received less international attention than simultaneous crises in Gaza, Ukraine, and elsewhere, allowing external actors to pursue interests with limited scrutiny. Yet the humanitarian catastrophe continues escalating, with millions facing famine conditions and entire cities destroyed in fighting—a scale of suffering that has begun drawing greater international focus and pressure for accountability.