Imported from the U.S., Bombed in Sudan: How UAE Weapons Fuel Sudan’s Conflict

In Sudan, civilians live in fear as U.S.-made weapons, transferred through the UAE, devastate communities. These arms, originally designed for defense, now fuel a brutal war. The global arms trade is governed by legal frameworks like the U.S. Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), meant to prevent American weapons from falling into the wrong hands. Yet, despite these controls, U.S.-manufactured weapons have found their way into conflicts far from their intended recipients. One of the most devastating examples is the ongoing war waged by the Rapid Support Forces Militia (RSF) against the people of Sudan. U.S.-made weapons, reportedly used by the RSF, have wreaked havoc, intensifying an already brutal conflict.

At the heart of this crisis is the role of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a key player in supplying American weapons to the RSF. Known for its military interventions across the Middle East and Africa, the UAE has been providing arms and financial support to militias like the RSF. This involvement has not only escalated violence but also highlighted glaring loopholes in international arms control, allowing U.S. weapons to be used in ways that contradict American values and international law.

The growing concern over this situation has led several U.S. lawmakers to question the nation’s arms trade policies, particularly with allies like the UAE. A broader debate is emerging over how American-made weapons, sold under strict regulations, end up in the hands of militias committing war crimes and human rights abuses.

The UAE’s military support for the RSF is emblematic of its broader strategy of arming non-state actors across the region. The RSF, notorious for its human rights violations, has used advanced weaponry, including U.S.-made arms, against civilians in Sudan. This influx of sophisticated arms has not only prolonged the conflict but also made the RSF a more formidable force, capable of committing further massacres and war crimes. The result: widespread destruction, deepening Sudan’s humanitarian crisis.

The UAE’s role in Sudan underscores the risks of selling advanced weapons to authoritarian regimes in volatile regions. As one of the largest purchasers of American-made weapons, the UAE’s transfer of these arms to militias like the RSF reveals the dangerous consequences of arms proliferation. The violence has claimed thousands of lives, displaced millions, and exacerbated the humanitarian suffering.

The disturbing link between U.S. arms, UAE transfers, and the conflict in Sudan has sparked calls within Congress for a reassessment of arms sales to the UAE. Congresswoman Sara Jacobs has been among the most outspoken critics, urging a suspension of arms sales due to the UAE’s role in fueling violence in Sudan and elsewhere. Her stance reflects a growing movement within Congress to rethink U.S. arms exports.

In 2019, Senators Chris Murphy and Bernie Sanders led a bipartisan effort to block arms sales to the UAE due to its involvement in Yemen’s war. Though the resolution was vetoed by former President Trump, it marked a turning point in the debate over U.S. arms sales. More recently, in 2020, Representative Ilhan Omar introduced legislation to halt arms sales to the UAE, citing its military interventions in Yemen, Libya, and Sudan as evidence of a consistent pattern of misuse of U.S. weapons and violations of international law.

These efforts highlight a broader concern over the opaque nature of the global arms market, where legal and illegal channels often allow weapons to end up in the hands of those committing atrocities. The case of Sudan, where U.S.-made arms are reportedly being used by the RSF, underscores the unintended consequences of American defense exports and the urgent need for reform.

The use of U.S.-made weapons in Sudan raises profound ethical questions and places the U.S. in a precarious legal position. Under the Geneva Conventions, attacks on civilians are strictly prohibited, yet reports from Sudan indicate that UAE-supplied weapons have been used in such attacks, resulting in mass civilian casualties and widespread destruction. These potential violations of international law expose the U.S. to criticism for enabling war crimes through its arms exports.

Members of Congress, like Jacobs, are calling for more than just end-use monitoring. They advocate for a complete reassessment of arms sales to countries involved in regional conflicts, particularly when there is clear evidence of international law violations.

As Sudan’s conflict drags on and evidence of U.S. arms contributing to the violence grows, it is clear that the U.S. must reform its arms trade policies. Congressional leaders such as Jacobs, Murphy, Sanders, and Omar are pushing for greater oversight and stricter controls, particularly with regard to arms sales to the UAE. But reform must go beyond simply halting arms sales to problematic actors. A comprehensive reevaluation of the legal frameworks governing arms exports is needed, including stricter end-use monitoring and more robust international cooperation to prevent the illicit transfer of weapons into conflict zones.

Halting weapons transfers to the UAE would be an important first step in preventing further bloodshed in Sudan and restoring America’s moral standing on the world stage. Without such reforms, U.S.-made weapons will continue to fuel conflicts, tarnishing the nation’s credibility and contributing to humanitarian crises abroad.

Only through these reforms can the U.S. break the cycle of violence and ensure that its weapons are used for legitimate defense, not to fuel destruction.