Middle Eastern Monarchies in Sudan’s Civil War: Analyzing Their Interests and Influence
The civil war in Sudan, involving the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces, has attracted external involvement from states including Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who provide covert support. The conflict is fueled by historical ties and strategic interests as the Gulf monarchies seek to influence the regional balance of power amidst significant humanitarian crises.
The ongoing civil war in Sudan, which erupted in April 2023, has drawn in several external actors, including Chad, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The conflict primarily involves the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, both vying for political and economic dominance, resulting in a severe humanitarian crisis.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE have reportedly provided financial and military assistance to the warring factions, albeit they publicly deny such involvement. Political scientist Federico Donelli explores the ramifications of their engagement and outlines both domestic triggers and international dynamics that have shaped the conflict in Sudan.
While internal factors primarily ignited the civil war, the indirect roles of external states also warrant attention. Over the last two decades, Sudan has notably interacted with Middle Eastern nations, with Saudi Arabia and the UAE being key players. Historical ties between Sudan and Saudi Arabia date back to Sudan’s independence in 1956, bolstered by geographical proximity and religious connections to the Islamic holy cities.
The UAE’s approach has significantly evolved since the early 2000s, as it sought economic investments in Africa, particularly post-Arab uprisings. Noteworthy is Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s bolstered presence in Sudan during President Omar al-Bashir’s regime as both sought to counteract Iranian influence within the region.
The relationship between the monarchies flourished until the post-Bashir era in 2019, creating an environment of increased influence. During this period, they supported different factions, with Saudi Arabia backing army leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the UAE aligning with Rapid Support Forces leader Mohamed Dagalo, or Hemedti.
Despite the emergence of differing political ideologies between the monarchies, neither Saudi Arabia nor the UAE precipitated the Sudanese conflict. Local actors were emboldened by external support, thus escalating internal conflicts. Their reluctance to withdraw such support post-conflict further complicates the delicate situation.
Sudan’s importance to the Gulf monarchies can be attributed to two pivotal factors: shifts in regional power dynamics and the strategic importance of the Horn of Africa. The Gulf states have seen the region as crucial due to its interconnected challenges such as political instability and jihadist threats.
Investments in Sudan’s agri-food sector by these monarchies, ranging from US$1.5 billion to US$2 billion, highlight their interest in securing food resources in a country rich in fertile land and water. This geographical positioning enhances Sudan’s potential to influence future geopolitical dynamics.
With the ongoing conflicts around the world, including Ukraine, the situation in Sudan appears increasingly intractable. The zero-sum perspective among the warring parties obstructs the path toward negotiations, while the current international balance of power fosters further hostilities. Consequently, the dual centers of power in Sudan are likely to become even more entrenched, complicating governance and resolution efforts.
In summary, the civil war in Sudan involves significant external influences, particularly from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, both of which have historical ties to the region. While domestic factors initiated the conflict, external support has exacerbated internal divisions. The strategic importance of Sudan combined with its rich resources further drives these Gulf monarchies’ interests. The complexity of the current situation raises concerns for future resolutions, suggesting that the division within Sudan will likely deepen.
Original Source: theconversation.com
Post Comment