For over two years, Sudan has been the site of an unrelenting war that has ripped its cities, villages, and fragile social fabric asunder. What started off as a highly personalized tussle between two generals-Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, representing the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), and Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, popularly known as Hemedti, representing the Rapid Support Forces (RSF)-has evolved into nothing less than a fully-fledged civil war. The violence has uprooted millions, destroyed crucial infrastructure, and pulled regional powers into its orbit.
Among the external actors, the United Arab Emirates stands out, not just for its economic ties with Sudan but also for the contentious political and purported military role it has played. The UAE's relations with Sudan have been multifaceted for a long period: a combination of diplomacy, trade, and strategic ambition. Yet, as the war deepened, the Emirates' involvement became a source of fierce debate.
The Road to Ruin
The roots of Sudan's current crisis stretch back to 2019, when the overthrow of its longtime dictator, Omar al-Bashir, opened the prospect of a democratic transition. But it wasn't long before tensions erupted into violence between the army and the RSF - two power centers that had cooperated in toppling Bashir but distrusted each other's intentions.
These tensions boiled over into open war by April 2023. What started off with skirmishes in Khartoum quickly spilled across the country. The two sides competed for the key sites: airports, military bases, and gold-rich regions of Darfur. The capital became a battleground of smoke and debris. Civilians, trapped amid crossfire, suffered bombardment, hunger, and forced displacement.
The United Nations estimates that millions have been uprooted and tens of thousands killed. Whole neighbourhoods have disappeared, markets plundered and hospitals bombed. Sudan — which was once considered the breadbasket of Africa — is on the edge of famine.
The UAE's Public Image:
Mediator and Humanitarian
Publicly, the UAE presents itself as a diplomatic and humanitarian actor in pursuit of peace in Sudan. Emirati officials have called repeatedly for a ceasefire, offering to host mediation efforts. Abu Dhabi has taken part in international conferences on Sudan and pledged financial aid for humanitarian relief.
Neutrality and compassion are stressed in the UAE's official narrative. Emirati statements emphasize "deep concern" for the Sudanese people and underscore the need for a dialogue between the warring parties. This often finds the country's diplomats engaging with their Western and African counterparts in support of peace frameworks.
However, many Sudanese view this diplomacy with suspicion. Civil society groups and members of Sudan’s transitional government-in-exile accuse the UAE of double-dealing — proclaiming peace in public and secretly supporting one faction. This dual image has turned into one of the most contentious aspects of the war’s regional dimension.
The Hidden Layer:
Economics and Gold
To understand the UAE's role, one needs to follow the money — in this case, Sudan's gold. Over the last decade, Sudan became Africa's third-largest gold producer. The UAE emerged as its top buyer, importing billions of dollars' worth of Sudanese gold annually.
For a long period of time, gold has been a lifeline for the economy of Sudan, especially during its sanction-ridden isolation. Much of this trade, however, occurs underground. Smuggling, underreporting, and informal networks characterize the sector. Many analysts and activists believe a large proportion of Sudanese gold lands in Dubai, from where it enters the international market with little scrutiny.
The RSF, which controls several gold mines in Darfur and Kordofan, has been one of the biggest beneficiaries. The financial independence of the militia — through exports of gold — has enabled it to acquire weapons, vehicles, and fuel. Critics say the trade has indirectly linked the UAE's economy with the RSF war chest.
Emirati authorities deny facilitating illicit trade, but the opacity of global gold markets makes such transactions all but traceable. The result is a network where business, politics, and warfare intersect — and where economic interests may outweigh humanitarian concerns.
A Web of Influence:
The UAE's Political Strategy
Sudan is strategically positioned at the juncture of Africa and the Red Sea. For the UAE, the maintenance of influence there forms part of a broad regional policy to secure trade routes, ports, and agricultural investment zones.
Before the war, Abu Dhabi signed several agreements on port development and agricultural projects along the Nile and the Red Sea coast. Sudan is a prospective gateway to Africa for the Emirati companies, rich in resources, close to the Horn of Africa and the Suez Canal.
But when war broke out, the UAE's commercial ambitions ran headlong into political realities. As foreign embassies closed and investors fled, the Emirates needed to protect both its assets and reputation. It is this balancing act-between diplomacy and strategic interest-that defines its Sudan policy to date.
Allegations of Material Support
Apart from trade, Sudanese officials and international observers have accused the UAE of providing material or logistical support to the RSF. Investigations have pointed to shipments of vehicles, spare parts, and drones passing through neighboring countries that may have ended up in RSF hands.
But while absolute proof of state-sponsored arming has not been found, the allegations persist. Western intelligence agencies say commercial intermediaries operating from the Gulf have facilitated supplies under the cover of civilian exports. The RSF's battlefield mobility - its ability to move at speed with modern vehicles and communication tools - has fuelled suspicions of foreign assistance.
The UAE strongly denies these claims, insisting that its dealings with Sudan are limited to humanitarian and commercial relations. Yet the credibility of such denials has been eroded by patterns of evidence and the sheer scale of Emirati trade with RSF-linked businesses.
The RSF Connection:
Pragmatism or Patronage?
The relationship between the RSF and the UAE is grounded in pragmatism. During Sudan's short-lived transition, Hemedti made efforts to present himself as a modernizer-a man of business, open to Gulf investment. He nurtured close relations with Abu Dhabi, in particular during Sudan's involvement in the Yemen war, when RSF fighters were deployed alongside UAE-backed coalitions.
These ties created mutual familiarity: the UAE saw Hemedti as a useful partner - capable, influential and willing to secure trade corridors and mining regions. But when the RSF turned its guns on Sudan's national army, that partnership turned toxic.
Now, with international pressure ratcheting up, the UAE finds itself stuck between loyalty and legality — between a past of pragmatic cooperation and a present in which those same allies stand accused of war crimes.
The Human Cost
The war is taking a terrible toll on the people of Sudan. The skyline of Khartoum, once bright with commerce and culture, stands now as the dark silhouette of destruction. Hospitals barely function; food prices have skyrocketed-in Darfur, entire villages have been burned to the ground.
Desperate numbers of refugees spill across borders into Chad, South Sudan and Egypt. Camps overflow, convoys of aid are looted, and disease spreads uncontrolled. International relief groups find insecurity, bureaucracy, and airstrikes hinder their operations.
To many Sudanese, the rhetoric of diplomacy seems divorced from reality. "We need food, not statements," said one displaced mother in El Fasher. "Every day my children wake up hungry. Who cares who controls Khartoum when we cannot eat?"
Her words echo across Sudan's war zones-a reminder that beyond the geopolitics, this conflict is above all a human catastrophe.
The Global Response and Sanctions
The international community's response has been fragmented: the United States, European Union, and African Union have condemned the violence and called for ceasefires, but little has changed on the ground. Sanctions have targeted individuals and companies linked to both sides, including those accused of helping to facilitate the RSF supply chain.
These measures aim to cut financial lifelines to the warring factions, but their enforcement remains weak. Critics add that as long as sanctions have not touched the wider ecosystem of trade — including Gulf-based intermediaries — they merely scratch the surface.
Meanwhile, economic restrictions risk worsening the humanitarian situation by disrupting imports of food and fuel. The challenge is in crafting pressure that hurts the perpetrators, not punishes the population.
The Diplomatic Dilemma
As a result, UAE diplomacy in Sudan becomes an elaborate balancing act. Abu Dhabi aims to appear as a regional peacemaker, a reliable partner to the West and the Arab League, while it equally tries to maintain its influence over Sudan's economy and security landscape.
It does indeed pose a contradiction, often manifested in policy ambiguity. The UAE engages in mediation efforts while retaining business links with Sudanese actors. It donates millions in aid while facing accusations of fueling the very same crisis.
Analysts have described this as a "balancing act gone wrong"-an attempt to manage both sides that risks losing trust from all.
Economic Fallout:
Gold, Ports, and Power
The war has devastated the economy of Sudan, but the ripples are extending to the Gulf. With fighting disrupting trade routes and mining operations, gold exports have plummeted. The Sudanese pound has lost much of its value, and inflation has soared beyond control.
In late 2025, the UAE reportedly suspended several cargo routes from Port Sudan and tightened customs restrictions, effectively halting much of Sudan's gold trade. The move sent shockwaves through Sudan's fragile economy, leading to further currency collapse.
While some saw the embargo as an attempt to pressure the RSF to the negotiating table, others called it a tactical application of economic pressure. For the ordinary Sudanese, it translated into more shortages and more suffering.
The Regional Picture
The War in Sudan is not in a vacuum. It intersects with wider regional rivalries in the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa: the UAE, with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other powers, competes for influence over maritime routes and military outposts stretching from the Gulf to East Africa.
Instability in Sudan jeopardises these interests, particularly port investments and logistics corridors critical to the security of Gulf trade. Thus, engagement by the UAE reflects a strategy of containment as much as an interest in Sudan itself.
Some analysts say that Abu Dhabi's moves reflect a broader pattern: projecting power through economic might and selective alliances rather than direct military intervention. Sudan has revealed the limits of such a model: when local conflicts spiral, financial influence alone cannot restore order.
The View from Sudanese Civilians
Inside Sudan, public opinion of the UAE is sharply divided. To some, the Emirates represents a potential peacemaker that could bring investment and stability if peace ever comes. Others accuse it of taking advantage of Sudan's misery by exploiting chaos to expand its economic reach.
Protests, meanwhile, have been orchestrated by Sudanese activists and diaspora groups outside Emirati embassies, calling for accountability: "You cannot buy peace with gold stolen from our land," said one protest leader as a rally went on in Nairobi.
In Khartoum, those still in contested areas speak of exhaustion. “We hear about meetings in Jeddah, Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa — but none of them stop the bombs,” said a shopkeeper who lost his home to shelling. “We are dying while others discuss our fate.”
What the Future Holds
Peace remains elusive in Sudan. African and Arab mediators' efforts have failed amid mutual mistrust between the two sides. The RSF forces hold large swaths of territory, while the army congregates in Port Sudan, the temporary seat of government.
The way forward for the UAE is complicated: its image as a modern and responsible power has been dented by accusations of fueling instability. Yet, the Emirates still possess substantial economic, political, and diplomatic heft that, if leveraged responsibly, could help stabilize Sudan towards recovery.
To achieve this, Abu Dhabi would first have to take the following measures:
Increase transparency of its trading and gold import systems to prevent conflict financing.
Break ties with any Sudanese entities directly linked to violence or human rights abuses.
Support truly independent mediation through neutrals, not parties with financial interests. Ensure access to aid without political preconditions. Whether these measures are pursued sincerely will determine how history judges the UAE's legacy in Sudan. Conclusion: A Test of Principles The tragedy of Sudan represents one of the greatest humanitarian crises of the decade-a mirror reflecting the collision of local ambitions with global interests. The UAE's role, which is both beneficial and harmful, mirrors the blurred lines between diplomacy and power politics in the modern Middle East. If the Emirates really want to prove themselves as serious partners for peace, this must involve more than token aid and PR-splashed diplomacy. Genuine commitment means transparency, accountability, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths, even where financial or political loss is a factor. For now, Sudanese civilians continue to bear the brunt of a war that others debate from afar. In the rubble of Khartoum and the camps of Darfur, hope flickers weakly but stubbornly. Whether it will survive is a matter not only of Sudan's generals but also of choices made in faraway boardrooms and royal palaces, choices that might end a nation's suffering-or prolong it indefinitely.
0 Comments