President Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan’s visit to the White House solidified U.S.-UAE relations, coinciding with pressing discussions on the civil war in Sudan. Despite the UAE’s critical role supporting the RSF, the Biden administration’s response was vague, raising concerns over a potential disconnect between geopolitical strategy and humanitarian obligations.
On Monday, President Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) made a landmark visit to the White House, marking the first time an Emirati leader has engaged in such high-level dialogue with the United States. This visit highlighted the strengthening relationship between the U.S. and the UAE amidst ongoing regional conflicts, particularly in Gaza and the Israeli-Lebanese border. The Biden administration used this occasion to unveil several new areas of cooperation with the UAE, ranging from artificial intelligence and space exploration to clean energy technology and defense initiatives. President Biden notably designated the UAE as a ‘major defense partner,’ a distinction granted only once before to India, which facilitates closer military collaboration such as joint training initiatives. However, the discussions surrounding Sudan’s civil war and the UAE’s involvement in exacerbating the crisis presented a more ambiguous narrative. Within a joint communiqué that spanned nearly 4,000 words, the situation in Sudan received limited attention with fewer than 250 words devoted to it. This is concerning, considering the conflict has resulted in the deaths of up to 20,000 individuals, predominantly civilians, with considerable destruction in Khartoum and widespread displacement affecting around 10 million people. Alarmingly, 26 million individuals are at risk of hunger, and there are ominous warnings regarding potential famine and genocide, especially in the Darfur region. Despite expressing ‘deep concern’ over the crisis and affirming their shared desire to de-escalate the turmoil, the UAE and the U.S. did not specifically address the UAE’s significant role in empowering the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group implicated in grave human rights violations, including ethnic cleansing against the Black, non-Arab Masalit people in Darfur. Currently, the UAE is a principal supporter of the RSF, which is commanded by General Mohamed Hamdan ‘Hemedti’ Dagalo. It has been reported that the UAE has provided weapons, funds, and intelligence to this group, utilizing drones manufactured in China to gather battlefield data. While the UAE maintains that their presence in Chad is purely humanitarian—focused on aiding refugees—the evidence points towards their engagement in military support for the RSF. The RSF, an offshoot of the Janjaweed militia, is implicated in ongoing atrocities that echo the historical violence seen in Darfur since the earlier 2000s, including summary executions and sexual violence targeting women. This civil war, which has persisted for 18 months, sees the RSF clashing with the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. The conflict has developed into a proxy war, involving various regional powers, notably Iran and Russia, each aligning with different sides in order to extend their geopolitical influence over Sudan’s crucial maritime routes. The U.S. seems to view Sudan’s instability through the lens of broader geopolitical interests. Closer ties with the UAE, perceived as a moderate state, could position it as a counterbalance to Iran. Nevertheless, this dynamic creates an inherent conflict, as President Biden’s supportive rhetoric towards the Emirati leadership stands in stark contrast to his stronger declarations calling for a cessation of arms supplied to military factions, reflected by his statement: ‘The world needs to stop arming the generals.’ Currently, the U.S. administration appears to maintain a delicate balance—voicing concern for Sudan’s humanitarian crisis, while simultaneously fostering closer relations with the UAE without explicitly demanding that it cease its backing of a faction connected to many of the conflict’s brutalities. This cogency suggests a troubling discrepancy between U.S. foreign policy and the democratic principles it professes to uphold.
The backdrop of this discussion involves a civil war in Sudan that erupted 18 months ago, largely attributed to the power struggle between two military factions—the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). The civil war has resulted in extensive human suffering, with thousands dead and millions displaced. Additionally, external nations, notably the UAE, Iran, and Russia, have taken a keen interest in the conflict due to Sudan’s strategic location along the Red Sea. This geopolitical interest complicates the humanitarian narrative, as these nations are often seen supporting different factions for their strategic gains, exacerbating the violence and instability in the region. The UAE’s military involvement in Sudan has raised critical questions regarding its humanitarian claims and the ethical implications of its actions on both a regional and global scale.
In summation, the recent meeting between President Biden and President al-Nahyan reflects a multidimensional approach to U.S.-UAE relations, characterized by enthusiasm over new cooperative initiatives, particularly in defense and technology. However, it casts a shadow over the crucial issue of Sudan’s civil war, where the UAE’s military support for the RSF stands in stark contrast to the U.S. aspiration of global ethical leadership. The declared commitment to ending the violence in Sudan necessitates a clearer stance from the U.S. that holds the UAE accountable for its role in exacerbating the humanitarian crisis, ensuring alignment between stated values and actual policies.
Original Source: www.washingtonpost.com
