The civil war in Sudan, which started in April 2023, showcases involvement from external actors, especially Saudi Arabia and the UAE, providing support despite denials. Their historical ties and strategic interests in Sudan, particularly post-2011 Arab uprisings, underline their motivations. Regional political dynamics and efforts to shield against instability contribute to the ongoing conflict, which remains difficult to resolve due to entrenched divisions and external backing.
The civil war in Sudan, initiated in April 2023, sees the Sudanese Armed Forces clashing with the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, igniting one of the worst humanitarian crises globally. Various foreign states, including Chad, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, have taken sides in this conflict, significantly influencing the situation. Notably, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have reportedly provided financial and military aid to the combatants, despite denials of these actions.
The UAE and Saudi Arabia’s involvement in Sudan can be traced back to deep-rooted historical ties. Relations date to Sudan’s independence in 1956, bolstered by geographical proximity and shared religious ties as Sudan is near the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina. The UAE’s influence, particularly, surged since the early 2000s with a focus on economic investments in Africa, notably in logistics and infrastructure within Sudan.
Following the Arab uprisings from 2014 to 2015, Saudi Arabia and the UAE increased their political engagement in Sudan, forging relationships under President Omar al-Bashir. They aimed to curb Iran’s influence in the Red Sea area and support a military operation against Houthi rebels in Yemen. Post-Bashir in 2019, the influence of both monarchies has continued to expand through established connections.
Both Gulf monarchies strive for greater international standing, viewing Sudan as a key testing ground for their influence in regional politics. They have each backed different factions within Sudan’s security framework, contributing to heightened internal friction. Saudi Arabia, in alliance with Egypt, supports army leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan while the UAE favors rapid support forces leader, Mohamed Dagalo (Hemedti).
Differences have emerged in the approach of both nations post-2019, especially regarding political Islam. Nonetheless, both countries recognized external support as a motivator for local actors to engage in conflict, making their withdrawal politically risky amidst fears of appearing weak.
The strategic significance of Sudan is multifaceted, linked mainly to its geographic positioning between two tumultuous regions, the Sahel and the Red Sea. Both regions experience severe interconnected issues like political instability and food insecurity. The UAE and Saudi Arabia regard Sudan’s fertile land and abundant resources as critical for their food security, having invested significantly in its agri-food sector.
The resolution of the Sudan conflict appears increasingly elusive. Each faction perceives victory as reliant solely on the other’s defeat, undermining potential negotiation pathways. Moreover, the ongoing global power shifts provide continued support to both warring sides, complicating the pursuit of peace. With two power centers emerging, it is likely that this division will be exacerbated as the crisis unfolds.
The article elucidates the complex interplay of foreign influences, particularly from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, in the Sudanese civil war. It highlights the historical ties these Gulf monarchies have with Sudan and the strategic importance they ascribe to the region. External intervention has intensified local conflicts and stalled the peace process, suggesting that a resolution remains difficult amid established divisions. The overarching concern remains the humanitarian impact of this war on Sudan’s population amidst the competing interests of external actors.
Original Source: www.inkl.com
