The Debate Among U.S. Institutions About UAE Conduct and the Potential Benefits for Sudan

The clear and undeniable truth is that the debate among U.S. institutions regarding the UAE is inherently negative for the UAE. It portrays the country as unreliable to the extent that the U.S. government has committed, before Congress, to the burden of closely monitoring its behavior to ensure compliance with the commitments it has made to the U.S. government.

Due to the depth of mistrust and suspicion, Congress has not only mandated such monitoring but also required the U.S. government to provide detailed briefings on the outcomes of this oversight and the degree to which the UAE adheres to its obligations.

Moreover, these institutions have collectively classified the UAE as a state accused with solid, undeniable evidence. This classification prompted Congress to propose two bills to prevent the sale of U.S. weapons to the UAE, labeling it as an untrustworthy state. The strength of the evidence exchanged among these U.S. institutions compelled the government to confront the UAE with these accusations and evidence, extract commitments from it, publicize those commitments, and acknowledge that the UAE’s adherence remains in doubt, necessitating ongoing monitoring, which the U.S. government has pledged to perform and report to Congress.

This debate undeniably signifies much more than just a tarnished image of the UAE. It indicates that the UAE is cornered, with its relationship with the U.S. becoming a burden due to its controversial behavior under accusation, surveillance, and scrutiny.

Now, after the conclusion of this exchange of correspondence, the U.S. government has informed Congress that the UAE has responded like a disciplined student, modifying its behavior under scrutiny. It provided written commitments affirming that it is no longer supplying arms to the Rapid Support Forces and will refrain from doing so in the future. Consequently, Congress approved the completion of the multi-billion-dollar arms deal with the UAE and suspended its proposed resolution that would have blocked the deal.

People may differ in their interpretations of this institutional debate in the U.S. and its implications here or elsewhere. This article will explore these perspectives.

First: For the U.S.

The U.S. has achieved several gains from this institutional debate:

1. Economic Profits: The completion of the multi-billion-dollar arms deal.

2. Written Guarantees: Securing a documented commitment from the UAE to comply with U.S. arms sale standards and to assume moral or legal responsibility in case of non-compliance.

3. Leverage Over a Wealthy Partner: Pressuring its wealthy partner, making it more susceptible to functional exploitation as needed, particularly in the region.

The benefits for Sudan are numerous:

1. Advocacy in Congress: Gaining congressional members who adopt Sudan’s narrative and advocate for its cause, even pressuring the U.S. government to adhere to standards that sometimes conflict with American economic interests. These members are prepared to draft legislation that binds both the U.S. and UAE to specific actions.

2. Global Media Attention: The debate lends Sudan’s case significant global media momentum, amplifying its arguments not only through Sudanese officials but also within U.S. institutions themselves. This strengthens the positions of many pro-Sudan countries.

3. Increased Pressure on the UAE: Highlighting the UAE’s global culpability and keeping it under constant scrutiny and pressure.

4. Strengthening Sudan’s Case: Enabling Sudan to reinforce its complaints against the UAE, present its evidence consistently, and persist in its efforts until achieving a legal condemnation of the UAE.

5. Public Awareness in Sudan: Cementing the perception among the Sudanese public of the UAE’s transgressions against Sudan, attributing blame to Emirati collaborators among Sudanese politicians and parties.

The U.S. achieving its economic interests through billion-dollar arms deals with the UAE and maintaining a partnership with it does not negate the significant benefits Sudan can reap from the contradictions and confrontations within U.S. institutions over the UAE’s missteps and questionable actions. Sudan should capitalize on these opportunities to achieve the ultimate goal of holding the UAE accountable, imposing penalties, and compelling it to pay the price for its actions.