Blood gold and backroom deals: Unmasking the UAE’s role in Sudan’s slaughter

The Sudanese civil war is the single most severe humanitarian crisis of the 21st century. Since the conflict began, more than 150,000 people have died, and 12 million more have been displaced from their homes. The brutal crimes committed by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) are heavily documented and are undeniable: the weaponisation of mass rape, systematic execution of civilians, and desecration of graves have all been occurring en masse over the course of the conflict.

Since the city of El Fasher was captured in October, footage of the brutalities committed by the RSF have exploded across the internet. Satellite photographs revealed piles of bodies in the streets of El Fasher, and the bloodshed of the murdered was so extreme that the discoloured ground was visible in satellite photographs of the massacre.

The massacre of El Fasher and the subsequent torrent of damning evidence finally dragged the conflict into the public eye. Increased scrutiny brought greater speculation surrounding the patrons of the RSF and the sources of their weapons and resources.

Many external powers have involved themselves in the conflict indirectly. Turkey and Egypt have both given support to the SAF (the Sudanese Armed Forces, an enemy of the RSF), while Russia has supported both sides through state-funded private military companies. The most prominent figure to intervene in the conflict is the UAE, where the RSF leader’s brother is located.

The UAE has been repeatedly accused by arms-tracking monitors and human rights groups of providing military equipment and resources to the RSF to fuel the conflict

In April, the Sudanese government accused the UAE of complicity in genocide at the International Court of Justice. The UAE stands accused of military support for the RSF through the sale of arms, despite arms embargoes. Evidence continues to mount that condemns the UAE and proves its guilt.

The UAE has been repeatedly accused by arms-tracking monitors and human rights groups of providing military equipment and resources to the RSF to fuel the conflict. UN experts claimed to have “credible” evidence that weapons had been supplied to the RSF by the UAE through the neighbouring country of Chad. Amnesty International concluded in an investigation that the UAE had re-exported Chinese weaponry to the militia and, in January, the US sanctioned several companies based in the UAE for providing weapons and financial support. The totality of the evidence is overwhelming and extremely damning.

A report by the Washington Centre for Human Rights discovered intense political, financial, and military ties between the UAE and Sudan, describing how the UAE and Russian PMC Wagner funnel arms to Sudan through Chad. Despite these allegations, the UAE continues to strongly deny any involvement. Again, there is significant cause to doubt such denials on the part of the UAE, and a former UN weapons monitor referred to these protests as a form of “geostrategic gaslighting”. On an official basis, the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs has “strongly condemned” attacks on civilians in El Fasher, calling for an immediate ceasefire and unhindered humanitarian access to the isolated region.

The answer to why the UAE is so heavily involved in the Sudanese conflict lies in the geography of Sudan and the history between the two countries. The former Sudanese head of state, Omar al-Bashir, who was overthrown in 2019 in the military coup that would eventually lead to the civil war, oversaw heavy investment in Sudan by the UAE towards the end of his rule. This investment was later withdrawn amid domestic crises in Sudan and concerns surrounding al-Bashir’s affiliations, especially towards political Islam.

Al-Bashir had come to power in 1989 through a coup with the support of the National Islamic Front (NIF), previously known as the Islamic Charter Front, and a splinter of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist movement and enemy of the UAE. It has been designated as a terrorist group by the UAE government since 2014. The RSF is willing to provide a buffer against the Muslim Brotherhood and restrict their expansion and influence in Sudan. In this sense, Sudan is a gateway for Emirati ambitions across the larger African continent.

The land of Sudan is also rich in mineral resources, especially precious metals such as gold, as well as natural gas and swathes of agricultural land – all resources the UAE is lacking. Sudan is currently Africa’s third-largest producer of gold, understood by the UAE as fertile ground for investment and mineral extraction, as well as trade more generally. The UAE holds a central position in the world gold trade and is the top buyer of precious metals from Sudan.

It has been reported that, months after it was first discovered, the UAE had re-exported British arms to the RSF, and the UK government continued to fulfil similar orders of military equipment

Central to the issue of weapons trafficking to Sudan by the UAE is the question of re-exportation, whereby weapons sold by China and Europe to the UAE are then resold to the RSF. Chinese rockets and artillery have been found in Sudan, and the UN received information last month that UK-crafted weaponry had also been used on the ground by the RSF. It has been reported that, months after it was first discovered, the UAE had re-exported British arms to the RSF, and the UK government continued to fulfil similar orders of military equipment.

The UK is bound by both domestic and international law to refrain from exporting arms when there is an obvious risk of use in international crime, says a former UN expert on Sudan. The UAE’s long history of re-exporting weaponry in order to commit crimes in violation of international humanitarian law is sufficient to condemn the initial sales of weapons, even before the revelation of evidence that the British-made weapons were used on Sudanese soil. No sale should ever have been made.

UK-crafted weapons used in Sudan for horrific ends are a catastrophic failure of UK export controls in granting licenses for weapons sales to the shadiest of customers. At best, it is evidence of a deeply incompetent and broken export system, and at worst, it is representative of a policy of international warmongering and proof of the complicity of the UK and other Western countries in perpetuating atrocities such as the Sudanese civil war.

In light of this, the prolonged political and media silence on Sudan prior to the outpouring of violence in El Fasher should no longer serve to confuse. The interests of a huge number of states centre on Sudan and the outcome of the Sudanese civil war, and deals such as these are more easily made in silence.