The UAE faces accusations from Sudan of complicity in genocide at the ICJ regarding its support for the RSF in the ongoing civil war. Sudan’s wealth in resources and strategic location make it critical for the UAE. Experts suggest the UAE’s motives extend beyond gold and involve countering Saudi influence. Despite potential reputational damage from the ICJ case, the UAE’s political prominence may shield it from serious fallout.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has come under scrutiny as Sudan accused it of complicity in genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This accusation draws attention to the alleged involvement of the UAE in Sudan’s ongoing civil war, particularly its support for the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group fighting the regular army, an allegation that the UAE denies.
Sudan is of significant interest to the UAE due to its vast natural resources, including agricultural lands, gas, and gold, making it the continent’s third-largest gold producer. Additionally, its strategic position bordering Libya and its Red Sea coastline opens vital maritime routes for oil shipping. The political dynamics intensified in 2021 when army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan executed a coup with RSF commander Mohamed Hamdan Daglo, leading to conflicts exacerbated by foreign powers like the UAE.
Andreas Krieg, a security expert, stated that the UAE’s primary goal in Sudan is to exercise political influence in this strategically important nation. The UAE views Sudan as a crucial hub for mineral investments and trade, particularly because it seeks resources that are scarce domestically. Researcher Hamid Khalafallah indicated a pattern of UAE collaboration with paramilitaries across Africa to exploit resources, exemplified by the smuggling of gold exports.
In 2022, a report by Swissaid highlighted that 66.5 percent of African gold exports to the UAE were smuggled. The UAE is the largest global buyer of Sudanese gold, primarily controlled by Daglo. However, Federico Donelli argued that the UAE’s interests extend beyond gold, aiming to counter Saudi influence and suppress political Islam, perceived as a security threat.
The UAE’s ties to the Sudanese military emerged from their collaboration in Yemen, where Sudan joined the Saudi-led coalition in 2015. Burhan and Daglo’s RSF fought alongside Saudi and Emirati forces, but recent rifts have surfaced, leading the UAE to support Daglo as a strategic challenge to Saudi objectives. The RSF’s ideological stance against the Muslim Brotherhood aligns with UAE policy, setting it apart from the Sudanese army connected to former dictator al-Bashir.
The conflict has seen both parties accused of war crimes, resulting in significant casualties and displacement in Sudan. In January, US lawmakers accused the RSF of genocide and highlighted the UAE’s alleged military support to the RSF, which the UAE refuted. Daglo’s financial operations are reportedly managed from the UAE, emphasizing their co-dependence.
In response to Sudan’s filing at the ICJ, claiming genocide complicity, the UAE dismissed the case as a “publicity stunt” and seeks to have it dismissed. While ICJ rulings are legally binding, enforcement is lacking. Experts suggest that this accusation may tarnish the UAE’s reputation internationally, particularly in Africa, but its financial and political clout may mitigate severe consequences.
In summary, the UAE’s involvement in Sudan reflects its strategic interests in resource acquisition and political influence amidst ongoing conflicts. The allegations of genocide complicity at the ICJ spotlight the UAE’s relationships with paramilitary groups like the RSF, as well as the broader implications of regional power dynamics. While the case may impact the UAE’s reputation, its established prominence may prevent significant repercussions.
Original Source: www.ndtv.com
