The War in Sudan and the Decline of Emirati Influence

Dr. Kawthar Ahmed Al-Sajjan

Since the outbreak of the devastating conflict in Sudan on 15 April 2023, the United Arab Emirates has emerged as one of the key actors operating behind the scenes to fuel the war by providing political, financial, and military support to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The goal has been to expand its influence in Sudan and the wider region. As international reports continue to reveal the varied roles played by networks linked to Abu Dhabi, it has become clear that the UAE’s involvement is among the most significant factors reshaping the balance of power and prolonging the war in Sudan.

A look at the background of Emirati influence in Sudan reveals several motives behind its expanding role:

1. Sudan’s strategic location on the Red Sea and the gateway to Africa, making it part of the global competition over ports and maritime routes involving the United States, Europe, China, Turkey, and Gulf states.

2. Sudan’s natural resources, particularly gold and other strategic minerals, which have become a central point of contention.

3. The institutional vacuum and weakened governance in Sudan, which made it easier to penetrate or influence the state through local proxies or armed factions—such as the RSF—especially after the collapse of governing institutions following the 2019 popular revolution.

4. The UAE’s ambition to assert a powerful regional role in Africa and beyond the Gulf, consistent with its strategy of “deep investment,” regional projection, and cultivating informal influence through economic and security networks. The RSF appeared to the UAE as a cooperative ally capable of securing these interests.

The nature of UAE–Sudan relations can be summarized by noting that the UAE has for years been a primary importer of Sudanese gold. Numerous reports indicate that a large portion of Sudan’s gold is smuggled to the UAE through informal networks. Additionally, there are commercial ties and indirect investments carried out through intermediaries and mining alliances, rendering the Sudanese economy vulnerable to gold-smuggling networks linked to Gulf capitals.

The UAE’s intervention in the Sudanese conflict has taken several forms:

Financial and commercial support, particularly through gold extracted and smuggled to the UAE—providing a direct funding source for the conflict. This link between gold and financing networks has created a complex relationship between the informal economy and the war.

Recruitment of foreign mercenaries (including groups from Colombia and others), connected to networks operating in multiple conflict zones—including Sudan—thereby creating a rotating force of hired combatants available for various wars.

Military and logistical support, documented in multiple intelligence reports that mention weapons shipments flown into Darfur from points of departure in the Gulf and Africa through a network of ports and airports.

Control over logistical routes, using the UAE’s network across the Gulf and Africa to deliver materiel and logistical assistance.

Political influence via local proxies from political parties, business figures, and interest groups—establishing a parallel sphere of influence competing with Sudan’s official authority.

Such patterns of intervention transform the UAE’s role from that of an investment partner to an influential party in the conflict—especially as international reports increasingly expose its support for a faction accused of war crimes and genocide.

Sudan’s diplomatic and legal efforts to counter this influence have yielded gradual results, including:

Exposing foreign support for the RSF before the UN Security Council and the African Union.

Collecting official evidence for presentation before international courts.

Shifting international opinion, with Western and regional powers reassessing the UAE’s role as reports linking it to violations continue to grow.

With mounting reports and documentation from various international bodies and platforms, Emirati influence is experiencing a gradual erosion of moral and diplomatic legitimacy, accompanied by increasing international pressure. The Sudan file has become a tool in the hands of the UAE’s adversaries, used to portray it as a destabilizing actor in the Horn of Africa—placing Abu Dhabi on the defensive and diminishing its standing as a proactive regional player.

The association with military interventions in a war-torn African state—and with human rights violations linked to those interventions—also undermines African countries’ political and economic trust in the UAE. It dampens international investors’ enthusiasm to engage with Abu Dhabi, as its reputation as an investment hub risks becoming tied to financing conflicts and armed groups.

At the international level, ongoing investigations and media scrutiny may produce further decisive evidence connecting the UAE to support for the RSF. This could lead to sanctions or legal measures from the U.S. Congress, the European Union, or international courts, including:

Restrictions on arms sales to the UAE

Financial and trade limitations

Freezing of assets or investments

Opening criminal cases related to supporting war crimes

With Washington and European capitals hardening their positions on stability and human rights, the Sudan file may become a political instrument to pressure the UAE and extract concessions—whether military, commercial, or technological. Thus, the UAE’s role in Sudan risks shifting from influence-building to a strategic liability.

Sudan’s experience in confronting Emirati intervention represents a fundamental shift in understanding external influence in the Horn of Africa and at the gateway to the Middle East. Sudan today is not merely a nation suffering from internal conflict, but a “theater” where the model of informal Emirati influence may face a strategic setback if regional and international pressures persist.

Unless the UAE alters its approach and recalibrates its relationship with Sudan—moving from supporting militias to establishing state-to-state partnerships—it may face unexpected consequences: diminishing influence, diplomatic isolation, declining investment opportunities, and potentially exposure to international accountability.

Thus, the Sudan file may evolve from a vehicle for expanding influence into a strategic burden on Emirati foreign policy.