The Implications of U.S.-UAE Relations on Sudan’s Civil War

Conflicts Dante Raeburn September 29, 2024

The Implications of U.S.-UAE Relations on Sudan’s Civil War

This article discusses President Biden’s meeting with UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, highlighting the strengthening U.S.-UAE ties amid Sudan’s civil war. While both nations expressed concern for the humanitarian crisis, the UAE’s involvement in supporting the paramilitary RSF and its military actions were notably understated. The U.S. faces a dilemma balancing strategic interests with the need for accountability regarding the crisis in Sudan.

On Monday, President Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates made his inaugural visit to the White House, marking a significant advancement in U.S.-UAE relations amidst complex geopolitical tensions, particularly involving the ongoing conflicts in Gaza and the Israeli-Lebanese border. President Joe Biden emphasized the strengthening partnership by designating the UAE as a “major defense partner,” a title shared only with India, facilitating closer military collaboration. However, the discussions did not thoroughly address the UAE’s involvement in Sudan’s civil war, a critical issue given the severe humanitarian crisis that has resulted in the deaths of up to 20,000 people and the displacement of millions. While the U.S. and UAE acknowledged their shared commitment to ending the violence, this conversation lacked depth concerning the UAE’s contributory role—namely, its support for the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group accused of egregious human rights violations, including ethnic cleansing in Darfur. The UAE has been identified as a principal supporter of the RSF, led by Gen. Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo, supplying advanced weaponry and battlefield intelligence, despite Emirati claims of a humanitarian mission in Chad. This contradiction highlights the complexity of international involvement in Sudan, complicating the conflict which has drawn in various regional and global powers, each with their own strategic interests. The Biden administration appears to navigate this sensitive issue by balancing moral concerns regarding the humanitarian impacts of the conflict with strategic alliances in the region. President Biden’s call for the international community to cease arming the opposing military factions illustrates this tension, as it stands in contrast with the lack of public condemnation towards the UAE’s arms support for the RSF. In conclusion, as the U.S. seeks greater cooperation with the UAE under the guise of regional stability, it faces the moral imperative to confront the humanitarian crisis in Sudan—a pressing issue that may conflict with broader geopolitical strategies.

The civil war in Sudan, which erupted approximately 18 months ago, has resulted in a severe humanitarian disaster characterized by mass civilian casualties and displacement. The conflict primarily involves the RSF and the remnants of the Sudanese Armed Forces. The UAE is notably implicated in exacerbating the situation through support of the RSF, which has been linked to significant human rights abuses, particularly against marginalized groups. The geopolitical dynamics involve other nations, including Iran and Russia, who support different factions, further complicating the conflict. As nations, including the United States, work to build alliances based on regional strategies, the responsibility to address the humanitarian crises arising from these conflicts remains critical.

In conclusion, the meeting between President Biden and President al-Nahyan signifies a complex intersection of strategic partnerships and moral obligations. While the U.S. fortifies its alliance with the UAE, it faces an urgent need to address the grave humanitarian situation in Sudan, necessitating a clear public confrontation of the UAE’s role in the ongoing violence.

Original Source: www.washingtonpost.com