Is the UAE Finally Cutting Ties with Sudan’s Notorious RSF Militia?
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is facing a moment of reckoning in its relationship with Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group accused of heinous mass killings in El Fasher. But here’s where it gets controversial: after years of backing the RSF, the UAE is now publicly admitting its policy in Sudan was flawed. Is this a genuine shift, or a strategic retreat to save face? Let’s dive in.
In a rare moment of self-criticism, Anwar Gargash, the UAE’s senior diplomatic envoy, recently acknowledged that the UAE and other nations erred by not imposing sanctions on the instigators of the 2021 coup. That coup, jointly led by the RSF and the Sudanese army, toppled Sudan’s fragile civilian government. And this is the part most people miss: the UAE’s initial reluctance to condemn the coup wasn’t just a mistake—it was part of a broader strategy to undermine civilian rule in Sudan.
A Troubling History of Intervention
Following the 2019 uprising that ousted Omar al-Bashir’s 30-year dictatorship, the UAE and Saudi Arabia actively worked to strengthen the military’s role while sidelining civilian leadership. They even championed RSF commander Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, as a key figure in economic policy. In a move that smacks of bailout diplomacy, the two Gulf nations provided a $3 billion loan to Sudan’s transitional military council. When civilians gained the upper hand in late 2019, the loan payments were conveniently halted.
Jonas Horner of the European Council on Foreign Relations argues that this financial cutoff not only weakened the civilian government but also paved the way for the 2021 coup and the subsequent civil war. Here’s the kicker: the UAE’s covert arming of the RSF, despite its denials, has been well-documented by the UN, independent experts, and journalists. Even the Biden administration imposed sanctions on Hemedti and UAE-based companies funding him earlier this year.
The Human Cost and UAE’s Response
Sudanese civilian groups had long warned that the RSF would commit ethnically targeted atrocities if it seized El Fasher. Yet, the UAE, which had the most leverage over Hemedti, failed to prevent the massacre. While the UAE has condemned the violence, it has also shifted blame onto the army’s refusal to compromise. In response to international criticism, the UAE claims it’s the victim of a disinformation campaign orchestrated by Islamists and left-wing NGOs. But is this just a deflection?
The UAE’s Motives: Resources, Islamism, and Regional Influence
Sudan’s natural resources, particularly gold, have long attracted Gulf states, including the UAE. Gold accounts for nearly half of Sudan’s exports, and the UAE is a major beneficiary, both through official and illicit channels. An estimated 90% of Sudan’s gold production—worth approximately $13.4 billion—is smuggled out of the country, often ending up in the UAE. But here’s the real question: is the UAE’s support for the RSF driven by profit, its anti-Islamist agenda, or both?
The UAE views the Muslim Brotherhood as a regional threat and has sought to counter Islamist influence in Sudan, as it has in Libya and Yemen. Hemedti’s RSF, despite its brutality, has been a useful ally in this effort. However, with the RSF’s atrocities making global headlines, the UAE’s association with the group has become a liability.
The Path Forward: Genuine Change or Strategic Maneuvering?
The UAE now faces pressure to contribute to resolving Sudan’s crisis. The U.S. hopes the UAE and Egypt, which backs the army, will jointly push their proxies toward a ceasefire. A recent joint statement by the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE outlined a plan for a humanitarian truce and a transition to civilian rule. However, talks in Washington have stalled, and Sudanese civilians remain excluded from the process.
Controversial Question: Can the UAE Truly Break with the RSF?
While the UAE claims it wants a return to civilian rule, its actions—and its reliance on Hemedti for access to Sudan’s resources—tell a different story. Yasmine Ahmed of Human Rights Watch suggests a key test of the UAE’s sincerity would be its cooperation with the UN panel enforcing the arms embargo on Sudan. But will the UAE prioritize its strategic interests over accountability?
Final Thought: What’s at Stake?
The UAE’s relationship with the RSF isn’t just a foreign policy issue—it’s a moral one. As Cameron Hudson aptly puts it, resolving Sudan’s conflict requires agreeing on basic facts about who’s driving it. Will the UAE take responsibility for its role, or will it continue to deny its involvement? The world is watching. What do you think? Is the UAE’s shift genuine, or is it merely a tactical retreat? Let’s discuss in the comments.
