The civil war in Sudan features the Sudanese Armed Forces against the Rapid Support Forces, with significant external involvement from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who provide support despite denials. This war is rooted in both internal dynamics and geopolitical interests, particularly relating to regional power structures and food security concerns. The conflict poses substantial challenges for resolution, as both factions are entrenched in their opposing positions.
The civil war in Sudan, which erupted in April 2023, involves multiple external actors, particularly the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. This conflict has led to severe humanitarian crises, with countries such as Chad, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) taking sides. Notably, Saudi Arabia and the UAE allegedly provide financial and military support to these factions despite their denials.
The involvement of the UAE and Saudi Arabia in Sudan is influenced by both domestic factors and broader geopolitical interests. Although the conflict has internal roots, the external influence of these Gulf monarchies highlights a history of political relations dating back to Sudan’s independence in 1956. Their interactions have intensified, particularly as the two states have increased investments in Sudan since the 2010s.
From 2014 onward, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE expanded their political footprint in Sudan, initially under President Omar al-Bashir. The monarchies aimed to counter Iran’s regional power, contributing troops to a Saudi-led operation in Yemen. Following al-Bashir’s ousting in 2019, this influence persisted, underscoring their ambitions to shape political outcomes in Sudan.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE, while once strategically aligned, have shown signs of divergence, especially regarding their stances on political Islam. Although both supported Sudan’s transitional government post-al-Bashir, rifts between local actors allowed them to exert influence that exacerbated the conflict. Subsequent to the outbreak of war, both monarchies refrained from withdrawing support to avoid appearing weak.
Sudan’s significance to these Gulf monarchies stems from geopolitical considerations and instability in the Horn of Africa. The Arab Spring and the US shift towards Asia led to regional power realignments, prompting Saudi Arabia and the UAE to seek closer ties with Sudan. Sudan’s strategic location and economic opportunities in agriculture enhance this interest, offering potential benefits to the Gulf states’ food security.
Prospects for resolution of the conflict remain bleak, as both factions perceive victory as contingent upon the total defeat of their opponent, precluding a mutually beneficial settlement. The international environment currently favors prolonged hostilities, complicating peace efforts. Consequently, the ongoing conflict has led to the emergence of dual power centers in Sudan, suggesting a deepening divide in governance.
In conclusion, the involvement of Saudi Arabia and the UAE in Sudan’s civil war underscores the intertwined nature of local and global dynamics. Their interests, driven by regional power strategies and food security concerns, continue to shape the conflict. With no clear resolution on the horizon, the situation in Sudan is likely to persist, reinforcing divisions within the nation.
The civil war in Sudan illustrates the complex interplay between local dynamics and the interests of external states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. As these Gulf monarchies pursue their regional strategies, their involvement exacerbates internal conflicts while highlighting the significance of Sudan in broader geopolitical contexts. With both sides entrenched and external support complicating peace negotiations, the path to resolution appears highly challenging.
Original Source: www.inkl.com
