The Guardian’s Perspective on Foreign Influences in Sudan’s Civil War

The editorial discusses the detrimental impact of foreign powers on the civil war in Sudan, highlighting the humanitarian crisis as tens of thousands of civilians suffer and starve as a result of the conflict. The United Arab Emirates is accused of supporting one faction, while both the SAF and RSF are implicated in committing war crimes. The international focus largely remains on other regional conflicts, with little effective diplomatic engagement on Sudan, raising concerns about the future of peace in the nation.

The ongoing civil conflict in Sudan has drawn significant international attention due to the evident involvement of foreign powers seeking to gain strategic advantages amid a humanitarian crisis. Since the onset of hostilities in April of the previous year, the civilian population has suffered tremendously, with tens of thousands of lives lost. Recent accusations from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) claimed that the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) bombed its ambassador’s residence in Khartoum, although the SAF has attributed this attack to its rival, the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which is reportedly backed by the UAE. Ensuring the continuation of the conflict, both factions have been implicated in committing war crimes, enabled by foreign military support which has exacerbated the dire humanitarian situation. According to United Nations (UN) experts, combatants are employing “starvation tactics” against approximately 25 million civilians, leading to the displacement of 10 million individuals and the rapid spread of diseases, including cholera, amid what has been deemed the world’s largest hunger crisis. Although the autumn harvest may bring temporary relief, the longer-term outlook remains bleak, marked by persistent violence against humanitarian workers who risk their lives to aid the starving populace. The situation is particularly distressing given the backdrop of Sudan’s struggle for democracy, which saw the fall of a dictator shortly before the outbreak of civil war. Notably, the UAE’s involvement in the conflict, despite its official denials of supporting the RSF and its leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti), has raised concerns. Allegations of arms shipments from the UAE to the RSF are described as credible, driven by the UAE’s ambitions regarding strategic Red Sea ports and valuable resources. In contrast, the SAF, under the leadership of Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, receives backing from regional powers, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which further complicates the dynamics of the conflict. Characterized by some analysts as a Middle Eastern dispute manifesting in Africa, the international diplomatic focus paradoxically remains concentrated on conflicts in the Middle East, relegating Sudan to a minor position within broader discussions. For instance, a recent visit by UAE’s leader, Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, to the United States to meet President Biden barely acknowledged the Sudanese crisis within their joint statements. Additionally, a new study from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace highlights a lack of comprehensive strategic engagement from the U.S. despite its vocal support for Sudan’s democratic aspirations, particularly during the Trump administration’s focus on recognizing Israel within its Abraham Accords. Efforts for informal negotiations between the two military leaders have faltered, with Major General Burhan seemingly underestimating the strength of his position. Achieving a sustainable resolution to the conflict hinges on cooperation among key external actors such as the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. However, with the U.S. showing little willingness to intensify diplomatic pressure, it is imperative for the United Kingdom, as the current head of the UN Security Council, to amplify its efforts. The recent withdrawal of the American artist Macklemore from a concert in Dubai due to the UAE’s role in Sudan signifies a growing sentiment against the UAE’s international standing, suggesting that cultural boycotts and protests could catalyze a response from foreign powers invested in resolving the Sudanese crisis.

The civil war in Sudan, which erupted in April 2022, has since claimed tens of thousands of lives, predominantly among civilians. The conflict arose amid ongoing struggles for power between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), escalating further due to regional influences and foreign interests in Sudan’s strategic resources and geographical positioning. The humanitarian implications of this conflict are significant, with millions displaced and widespread starvation manifesting through tactics employed by the warring factions. This situation is exacerbated by the involvement of foreign governments, who provide arms and support to the conflicting parties while the global community largely overlooks the plight of the Sudanese people.

The situation in Sudan underscores the intricate interplay between civil conflict and international interests, as foreign powers engage in actions that prioritize strategic benefits over humanitarian considerations. The complicity of states such as the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt in fueling the conflict, along with the evident lack of robust diplomatic initiatives from the United States, draws attention to the urgent need for an international consensus aimed at facilitating peace in Sudan. As the humanitarian crisis continues to deteriorate, it is essential for the global community to hold these foreign actors accountable and to support initiatives that prioritize the welfare of the Sudanese people over strategic advantage.

Original Source: www.theguardian.com