The Imperative for U.S. Accountability on Sudan amid Strengthened UAE Ties
President Biden’s recent meetings with UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed emphasized deepening ties amid regional conflicts. However, discussions regarding Sudan’s civil war revealed a lack of accountability for the UAE’s role in supporting the RSF, which has committed serious human rights abuses. The U.S. faces challenges in balancing strategic alliances with its humanitarian principles in a complex geopolitical landscape.
On a recent visit to the White House by United Arab Emirates (UAE) President Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the bolstering of ties between the United States and the UAE was emphasized, particularly amidst the ongoing conflicts in Gaza and the Israeli-Lebanese border. The Biden administration welcomed this opportunity to announce new areas of cooperation with the UAE, spanning artificial intelligence, space exploration, clean energy technology, and defense, culminating in the designation of the UAE as a ‘major defense partner.’ This designation allows for enhanced military collaboration, akin to current relations with India. However, the discussion surrounding Sudan’s protracted civil war revealed a contrasting narrative. Despite the significant human toll, with estimates of 20,000 casualties and millions more displaced, the joint communique touching on Sudan occupied only a minor fraction of the lengthy document. While both nations expressed a shared ‘deep concern’ and commitment to cease hostilities, there was a conspicuous omission regarding the UAE’s role in supporting the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), led by General Mohamed Hamdan ‘Hemedti’ Dagalo, which has been implicated in egregious human rights violations against the Black non-Arab Masalit people of Darfur. The UAE’s military backing of the RSF through advanced weaponry and intelligence, particularly its use of Chinese-made drones, exemplifies the complexities of the regional power dynamics. The UAE has denied such allegations, claiming its operations in Chad are humanitarian. Yet, independent reports suggest these operations might serve as a façade for military engagement in support of Hemedti. Moreover, Sudan’s civil strife has attracted involvement from multiple international actors, with the UAE, Iran, and Russia vying for strategic interests in the region. The United States’ alignment with the UAE appears primarily driven by broader geopolitical aspirations, including countering Iranian influence and potentially leveraging the UAE’s role for reconstruction efforts in Gaza. President Biden’s recent statements at the United Nations echoed the necessity for a cessation to arms supplied to military leaders, juxtaposed against his cordial expressions toward the UAE. Currently, the U.S. administration maintains a position that balances rhetorical disapproval of the human cost of the Sudanese conflict with a strategic partnership with the UAE, without pressing for unequivocal commitments for halting support to factions perpetuating violence. This duality raises questions about the alignment of U.S. values with its foreign policy, particularly concerning humanitarian considerations. As this situation evolves, the calls for a more cohesive and principled approach to addressing the crises in Sudan remain imperative.
The United Arab Emirates has increasingly become a vital ally for the United States in the Middle East. The recent visit of President Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan to the White House underscores the growth of these ties, especially given the backdrop of turbulent geopolitical climates, including conflicts in Gaza and tensions with Iran. The UAE hosts significant military capabilities and investments in advanced technology, making it a key player in U.S. foreign policy strategies in the region. Meanwhile, Sudan grapples with civil war, exacerbated by both internal divisions and external interventions by regional powers. The involvement of states like the UAE, which allegedly supports local factions in Sudan, complicates the humanitarian crisis and raises concerns about the U.S. administration’s stance on human rights and military aid. Growing international scrutiny necessitates a more transparent and principled U.S. approach to these partnerships, particularly when it involves nations implicated in severe human rights violations.
In conclusion, the evolving relationship between the United States and the UAE, marked by strategic defense collaborations, presents significant implications for the ongoing civil war in Sudan. While the U.S. articulates a commitment to human rights, the lack of direct accountability measures against the UAE for its role in the conflict raises ethical concerns. It remains crucial for U.S. foreign policy to reconcile these interests with its professed values, advocating for an end to violence and humanitarian support in Sudan. The recent developments necessitate a reassessment of the dynamics within the region and a commitment to uphold international standards of human rights in conjunction with geopolitical strategies.
Original Source: www.washingtonpost.com
