Published on: 2025-11-03

Intelligence Report: Sudan ICC warns el-Fasher atrocities could be ‘war crimes’ – DW (English)

1. BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front)

The most supported hypothesis is that the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) are committing systematic war crimes in El Fasher, aligning with a broader pattern of violence in Darfur. Confidence level: Moderate. Recommended action: Increase international diplomatic pressure on RSF and their alleged foreign backers to halt atrocities and facilitate humanitarian aid.

2. Competing Hypotheses

1. **Hypothesis A**: The RSF is systematically committing war crimes in El Fasher as part of a broader strategy to control Darfur, supported by foreign actors.
– **Evidence**: ICC’s suspicion of war crimes, historical patterns of RSF violence, and accusations of foreign support.

2. **Hypothesis B**: The violence in El Fasher is primarily a result of chaotic civil conflict with no systematic intent, exacerbated by local ethnic tensions.
– **Evidence**: Historical ethnic violence in Darfur, lack of direct evidence linking foreign actors to current atrocities.

Using ACH 2.0, Hypothesis A is better supported due to the ICC’s focused investigation and historical patterns of RSF behavior, despite the lack of direct evidence of foreign involvement.

3. Key Assumptions and Red Flags

– **Assumptions**:
– RSF actions are centrally coordinated rather than opportunistic.
– Foreign actors have a strategic interest in supporting RSF.

– **Red Flags**:
– Lack of direct evidence linking foreign actors to RSF actions.
– Potential bias in reports due to political agendas.

– **Blind Spots**:
– Limited on-ground verification due to conflict conditions.
– Underreporting of local ethnic dynamics influencing violence.

4. Implications and Strategic Risks

– **Patterns**: Continued RSF aggression could lead to further destabilization of Sudan and neighboring regions.
– **Cascading Threats**: Potential for increased refugee flows, regional instability, and international condemnation.
– **Escalation Scenarios**: Foreign intervention or increased support for RSF could escalate conflict, leading to broader regional warfare.
– **Geopolitical Dimensions**: Strained relations between Sudan and countries accused of supporting RSF, impacting regional alliances.

5. Recommendations and Outlook

• Engage in diplomatic efforts to pressure RSF and their alleged backers to cease hostilities and allow humanitarian access.
• Enhance intelligence collection on foreign support networks to RSF.
• Scenario Projections:
  • Best: Ceasefire agreement and international peacekeeping intervention.
  • Worst: Escalation into a regional conflict involving multiple state actors.
  • Most Likely: Continued localized conflict with sporadic international diplomatic interventions.

6. Key Individuals and Entities

– Rapid Support Forces (RSF)
– International Criminal Court (ICC)
– United Arab Emirates (alleged supporter)
– Egypt (alleged supporter)
– Mirjana Spoljaric (ICRC President)

7. Thematic Tags

national security threats, regional focus, human rights violations, international law, conflict resolution