The editorial from The Guardian highlights the evident involvement of foreign powers in Sudan’s civil war, which has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths and a catastrophic humanitarian crisis. It discusses the roles of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt as backers of rival factions while detailing the dire consequences for civilians, including starvation tactics and disease outbreaks, amidst calls for improved international intervention to enable a resolution.
The involvement of foreign actors in Sudan’s ongoing civil conflict has become increasingly conspicuous, amid the devastation that has ensued since the outbreak of hostilities in April of last year. The conflict has resulted in the tragic loss of tens of thousands of lives, including numerous civilians, and has precipitated a severe humanitarian crisis. Recent developments have revealed tensions between the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), with the UAE alleging that the SAF bombed its ambassador’s residence in Khartoum, a claim that the SAF has firmly denied, attributing the attack instead to the rival paramilitary group, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which the UAE is accused of supporting. What remains indisputable is that both factions are engaging in acts classified as war crimes, facilitated by the continued support from various foreign governments. The relentless influx of weaponry has exacerbated an ever-growing humanitarian emergency, with United Nations experts highlighting the alarming use of starvation tactics against a staggering 25 million civilians. Furthermore, 10 million individuals have been forcibly displaced and diseases like cholera are proliferating in the midst of what is considered the most severe hunger crisis globally. Though the autumn harvest may provide some respite to immediate food shortages, the long-term outlook remains grim. Both warring factions have specifically targeted humanitarian volunteers, many of whom previously participated in resistance committees during past pro-democracy protests. This situation reflects an abominable reality where ordinary citizens are caught in a power struggle between rival strongmen, particularly poignant given the sacrifices made to overthrow a dictator and progress toward civilian governance. Despite the UAE’s denials of involvement with the RSF under the leadership of Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, credible reports have emerged indicating a flow of arms. The UAE’s interests in adjunct Red Sea ports and valuable resource extraction, including gold, further entrench its involvement in Sudan’s turmoil. Compounding the complexity, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have expressed their allegiance to the SAF, headed by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, who is purportedly seeking increasingly close relations with Iran. The situation has been characterized as a proxy conflict emanating from the Middle East, playing out within Africa, yet international diplomatic attention remains heavily focused on conflicts within the Middle East itself. Recent engagements between UAE’s leader, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, and U.S. President Biden indicated Sudan’s limited role, meriting merely two paragraphs in their extensive joint communiqué. Historically, the United States has failed to translate its rhetorical support for Sudan’s democratic transition into actionable strategic planning or meaningful assistance, particularly evident during the previous Trump administration’s efforts to compel the transitional government to normalize relations with Israel as part of the Abraham Accords. Recent attempts to initiate informal negotiations to resolve the impasse between the two leading generals have faltered. General Burhan’s miscalculation regarding the strength of his position, especially following his recent counteroffensive to regain control of Khartoum, further complicates the landscape. Achieving a resolution in Sudan appears elusive without the cooperation of pivotal external players, specifically the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. In light of the U.S.’s apparent reluctance to escalate its influence, the UK, as the current leader at the UN Security Council, must intensify its involvement. Furthermore, other actors, including the UAE, may respond to public pressure; instances such as the cancellation of a concert by U.S. rapper Macklemore in Dubai due to the UAE’s Sudan involvement underscore the potential impact of cultural boycotts and actions from notable sports figures and fans.
The civil war in Sudan has evolved into a complex humanitarian and geopolitical crisis, marked by intense involvement from foreign nations. Following a power struggle that escalated last April, the conflict has engaged various regional players, notably the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, all of whom have vested interests in the country’s resources and strategic locations. Consequences of the war have been severe, with widespread devastation affecting uncountable civilians and creating an environment rife with starvation and disease. Amid this turmoil, there are persistent allegations of violations and war crimes against both the SAF and RSF, stirring condemnation and calls for international intervention directly tied to the foreign support sustaining these factions.
The ongoing civil war in Sudan exemplifies the tragic consequences of foreign intervention in regional conflicts, leading to widespread suffering and a worsening humanitarian crisis. Amid allegations of war crimes and starvation tactics employed against civilians, the responsibility of foreign powers becomes increasingly evident as they continue to fuel the conflict through arms and support. Without a concerted effort from key international players to influence the resolution of this tragic situation, the prospects for peace and stability in Sudan remain bleak.
Original Source: www.theguardian.com
