The civil war in Sudan, beginning in April 2023, involves major foreign actors, particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which have provided support to different factions despite denials. Both monarchies view Sudan as strategically important due to its historical ties and geographic location. Their diverging interests have complicated the conflict, making resolution through negotiation increasingly difficult as both sides feel empowered by external support.
The civil war in Sudan, which erupted in April 2023, pits the Sudanese Armed Forces against the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, leading to a profound humanitarian crisis. This conflict has attracted the attention and involvement of several external actors, including Chad, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Notably, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been alleged to provide financial and military support to the combatants, despite their denials.
The UAE and Saudi Arabia’s interest in Sudan stems from a mix of domestic triggers for the civil war and their long-standing political relations with Sudan. Historical ties date back to Sudan’s independence in 1956, with both nations enjoying strong cultural and religious connections, largely due to their proximity and the shared significance of holy sites in Saudi Arabia.
Over the past two decades, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have expanded their influence in Sudan, particularly during and after President Omar al-Bashir’s tenure. Both monarchies aimed to counter Iran’s regional influence, especially as Sudan contributed troops to a Saudi-led operation in Yemen. This strengthened their direct connections with Sudan’s military forces, which have persisted into the post-Bashir period since 2019.
As both monarchies are status seekers, the conflict in Sudan provides a platform to exert influence and shape political outcomes within the region. This opportunity led them to support various factions within Sudan, exacerbating the internal power struggle, with Saudi Arabia aligning more closely with army leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, while the UAE supported the Rapid Support Forces under Mohamed Dagalo, known as Hemedti.
Recent changes in relations between the UAE and Saudi Arabia indicate diverging interests, particularly regarding political Islam and their approaches to the Sudanese crisis. Although their support initially helped the transition following al-Bashir’s removal, the rift deepened as local factions recognized external backing, which emboldened them to pursue war.
Sudan’s strategic importance heightened the stakes for both monarchies following the Arab uprisings. Changes in regional power dynamics prompted Saudi Arabia and the UAE to foster closer ties with African nations, with military and political engagements increasing steadily from 2012 to 2020. The UAE’s influence surged early on due to fears of protest spread from Sudan’s proximity to Egypt, while Saudi Arabia maintained consistent engagement.
Sudan’s geographical position between the Sahel and the Red Sea further complicates its situation. This area experiences multifaceted challenges, including political instability, poverty, and armed conflict, making Sudan a vital player in addressing regional crises. The Gulf states have also invested heavily in Sudan’s agricultural sector, with potential contributions between $1.5 billion and $2 billion, vital for their food security needs.
The ongoing conflict exhibits patterns similar to other global crises, where resolution through negotiations appears remote. Each combatant perceives their victory as hinging solely on the other’s defeat, while the international environment facilitates continued hostilities with external backing. This suggests a likely entrenchment of two separate power centers in Sudan’s governance, escalating the complexity of reconciliation efforts.
The involvement of Saudi Arabia and the UAE in the Sudanese civil war highlights their strategic interests shaped by historical ties and current regional dynamics. While both monarchies initially aligned to support Sudan’s transition post-Bashir, internal divisions and external motivations have led to diverging strategies and a complicated conflict environment. Sudan’s pivotal geographical location and agricultural potential further underscore its significance to Gulf nations, suggesting that resolution to the ongoing crisis remains elusive amidst entrenched local and external interests.
Original Source: theconversation.com
