Member's statement: Sudan: Conflict
Member's statement by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on .
- MLA
- Ms Sinéad McLaughlin
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 11 November 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Sudan: Conflict
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5349061
Read the official Assembly record
Text
What is happening today in Sudan is one of the gravest humanitarian and moral crises of our time, yet it remains largely invisible on the world stage. The people of Sudan are enduring atrocities that would shock the conscience of every Government and international institution. In el-Fasher and across North Kordofan, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) are carrying out systematic killings, torture and sexual violence. They are targeting civilians because of who they are and where they live. Communities are being starved as a weapon of war. Hospitals, markets and even places of worship have been bombed. In one city, as many as 7,000 people were massacred last year, and the violence has only deepened since. It is not chaos without cause; it is a campaign of terror that is financed, armed and enabled by powerful international actors. Evidence shows that the United Arab Emirates has supplied weapons, drones and funding for the RSF, funnelling support through private military networks, mercenary contractors and others. In return, the RSF provides access to Sudan's gold and other natural resources. It is a trade in blood and suffering. Meanwhile, the international community has stood by. The United Nations Security Council has failed to act decisively, and the United Kingdom, despite its historical role in Sudan and its position as a UN penholder, has not matched its words with actions. Governments who claim to stand for international law have allowed impunity to prevail, because accountability would mean confronting their own economic interests. We cannot call for peace in one part of the world and turn away from a genocide in another. Sudan's conflict is destabilising an entire region from Sahel to the Red Sea. Its implications for global security, migration and human rights are absolutely immense. Immediate actions are needed. The United Arab Emirates must be held accountable for arming and financing the atrocities. The Rapid Support Forces should be designated as a terrorist organisation under international law. Arms sales to states that are fuelling the conflict must stop, and humanitarian access to the people of el-Fasher and Darfur must be secured without delay. Later this month, as chair of the all-party group (APG) on UNSCR 1325, women, peace and security, I will be hosting a number of women from Sudan who will give direct evidence of their first-hand experiences. It is a terrible atrocity happening in plain sight, and it is going unnoticed by the world. I beg Members to come and join me to hear that evidence at the APG.
418 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.05 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.76).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.90).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.09 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.76 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.90 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.09 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.30 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.25 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.16 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.13 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.12 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:37 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.