UAE’s Secret Strategy to Evade Genocide Charges at the International Court of Justice

Watan-Diplomatic sources have revealed that the UAE regime has developed a plan to evade the International Court of Justice (ICJ) after being accused of supporting genocide in Sudan through funding armed militias and fueling the civil war in the country.

According to the sources, UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan has formed a “crisis team” to explore ways to escape what could be the biggest legal scandal in the UAE’s modern history, as it faces prosecution in an international court.

The UAE regime’s plan includes:

First: Formation of a closed legal and intelligence operations room

The UAE has assembled a high-level defense team composed of international lawyers, particularly from the UK and France, along with advisors with intelligence backgrounds to coordinate media and political responses.

The current approach is to engage prestigious international legal figures and institutions to appear as if they are voluntarily defending the “nation of happiness” (the UAE), giving the UAE’s defense an institutional weight and appearance of neutrality—despite the fact that all these parties will be paid handsomely by the royal palace.

The team is led by members of the UAE Foreign Ministry, the UAE embassy in The Hague, and the UAE’s mission to the UN. Anwar Gargash has been assigned as the general coordinator between this team and the media cell.

Second: Four key axes of the UAE’s defense

1. Complete denial of involvement:
   The UAE will claim it was not a party to the war and did not provide military support to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). It will assert that it only provided humanitarian and food aid, presenting images of aid flights.

2. Challenging Sudanese evidence:
   Abu Dhabi’s lawyers will dispute the authenticity of documents and testimonies, claiming that boxes bearing “Emirati” labels may have been transferred through intermediaries or the black market, or that they do not constitute direct evidence of intent to support.

   They will also question satellite imagery, arguing that despite documented shuttle flights between the UAE and RSF-controlled areas, these flights were purely for humanitarian purposes and cannot be definitively linked to weapons or illicit materials.

3. Challenging the court’s jurisdiction:
   The UAE will argue that the court lacks jurisdiction because Sudan did not exhaust diplomatic avenues before resorting to litigation. It will contend that the issue is an internal Sudanese conflict that does not amount to an international crime.

4. Accusing Sudan of politicizing the case:
   Abu Dhabi will try to portray the lawsuit as a “political maneuver” by the Sudanese army to cover up its own violations. The media narrative will focus on questioning why similar lawsuits were not filed against other parties.

Third: Parallel media and diplomatic campaign

Led by Ahmed Al Hamli (Director of the Trends Center and former security officer) and Issa Al-Arabi (President of the Geneva-based Human Rights Funding Network), the UAE has launched a major propaganda campaign aimed at:

• Discrediting the Sudanese narrative.

• Preempting ICJ sessions with articles, tweets, and UN interventions promoting the UAE’s “commitment to stability.”

• Preparing paid Western “exonerating witnesses” and experts to appear in Western media.

Emirati-aligned African organizations (RADDHO, TACUDU, INHR) have already been activated to host “side events” supporting Abu Dhabi and openly attacking the Sudanese army. These are the same organizations preparing to target Saudi Arabia and Qatar to deflect attention from the UAE’s crimes.

Fourth: The UAE’s objectives behind the defense plan

The main goal is to prevent the emergence of a global consensus condemning the UAE—similar to what happened with other criminal regimes. Mohammed bin Zayed knows that a court conviction won’t come quickly, but the diplomatic and political damage could be devastating if not contained early.

This is why Abu Dhabi is trying to present itself as a “partner for peace” and has secured promises from its Israeli lobby backers to pressure countries like the U.S., France, and the UK not to support Sudan’s position.

But the real fear inside Abu Dhabi’s corridors is that this could set a legal precedent—the first of its kind against the UAE—turning its dark record from mere media reports into irrefutable judicial evidence.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated on Friday that it will consider Sudan’s lawsuit requesting emergency measures against Abu Dhabi, accusing it of violating its obligations under the Genocide Convention by arming paramilitary forces.

Sudan accuses the UAE of arming the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which have been fighting the Sudanese army in a civil war ongoing for two years. The UAE denies the charge, but UN experts and U.S. lawmakers have said the accusations are credible.

Sudan’s complaint to the ICJ concerns ethnically motivated attacks carried out by the RSF and allied Arab militias against the non-Arab Masalit tribe in 2023 in West Darfur.

The court stated that it will review Sudan’s request on April 10. ICJ cases typically take years to conclude, but countries can request emergency measures to prevent escalation between parties during the proceedings.

The Sudanese government is looking to the ICJ, the UN’s top judicial body, to issue a ruling that could hold the involved parties accountable and, at the same time, represent a significant step in advancing human rights protections in Sudan and Darfur.

Sudan’s permanent mission to the UN had previously filed a complaint with the UN Security Council against the UAE, citing its support for the RSF.

According to the complaint, “the UAE continues to provide support to the RSF, which includes acts of aggression that violate the UN Charter and pose a serious threat to regional and international peace and security.”