On September 23, the White House highlighted U.S. partnership with the UAE and expressed concern over Sudan’s crisis, calling for accountability. However, the UAE’s support for the RSF contradicts these claims. Reports suggest that while the UAE publicly claims to help, it is covertly inflaming the crisis. President Biden later urged global leaders to cease arms support for conflict leaders, raising questions about the sincerity of U.S. commitments amidst contradictory narratives.
On September 23, the White House issued a statement detailing the recent discussions held between President Biden and Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the President of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This statement underscored the alliance between the United States and the UAE while expressing concern over the ongoing crisis in Sudan. The leaders reiterated that there is no military solution to the conflict and called for accountability regarding the war crimes being committed. However, these affirmations appear disingenuous when juxtaposed with the UAE’s reported support for the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Sudan, a militia notorious for its numerous rackets and violent atrocities. The RSF, more akin to a criminal organization than a legitimate political entity, is actively involved in significant human rights violations, including widespread sexual violence and ethnic cleansing. Despite sustained calls for intervention from both the African Union and the United Nations, the RSF continues its offensive operations, particularly targeting El Fasher, the last major city in Darfur that remains outside its control. Moreover, the situation is exacerbated by revelations from the New York Times on September 21, indicating that the UAE is not merely providing arms, drones, and financial support to the RSF but is doing so while masquerading as a provider of humanitarian assistance. This duplicitous approach tarnishes the reputation of organizations like the Red Cross and undermines actual humanitarian efforts despite their public commitments to alleviating the suffering faced by the Sudanese people. The toll on civilians has been catastrophic, with approximately twelve million individuals displaced from their homes and widespread starvation looming as a dire threat in the ensuing months due to inadequate humanitarian access. Questions arise regarding the United States’ complicity in the UAE’s deceptive strategies. The White House statement, suggesting a shared vision for peace in Sudan, raises concerns about the validity of the U.S. government’s stance and its ability to hold conflicting parties accountable for their failures in peace negotiations. How are the beleaguered civilians in Sudan expected to interpret the U.S. endorsement of the UAE’s charitable initiatives amidst its clandestine military support for the RSF? Following his meeting with Sheikh Mohamed, President Biden articulated at the United Nations General Assembly on September 24 a call for global inaction against those perpetuating violence in Sudan, emphasizing, “the world needs to stop arming the generals… Stop tearing your country apart. Stop blocking aid to the Sudanese people. End this war now.” One can only hope that this strong message was indeed conveyed to the Emirati leader in private discussions, even though the public narrative may portray a different, more favorable viewpoint. Without tangible evidence to support a cohesive strategy from the United States, President Biden’s statements risk appearing hypocritical, ultimately undermining international trust and contributing to the plight of a nation in turmoil.
The ongoing conflict in Sudan, particularly involving the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), has led to widespread humanitarian crises, including massive displacement and starvation. The alleged involvement of the UAE in supporting the RSF while providing humanitarian assistance creates a complex geopolitical landscape, where mixed messages from key global leaders could exacerbate the hardships faced by civilians. Understanding these dynamics is essential to grasp the broader implications of statements made by U.S. officials in response to the crisis in Sudan.
The White House’s dual narrative towards the UAE’s actions and the situation in Sudan exemplifies the complexities of international relations in conflict zones. While advocating for peace and humanitarian access, the United States appears to be inadvertently supporting conflicting interests which undermines its credibility. The situation calls for a cohesive and strategic response to ensure that efforts align with the aspirations for stability and humanitarian relief in Sudan, thus reaffirming the U.S. commitment to genuine peace.
Original Source: www.cfr.org
