The ongoing civil war in Sudan, starting in April 2023, involves external actors such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, seeking to exert influence amidst a severe humanitarian crisis. This conflict is characterized by the struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces, with both Gulf states supporting different factions. Sudan’s strategic location and resources further highlight the complexities of regional and international interests at play.
The civil war in Sudan, which erupted in April 2023, has drawn in various external actors seeking to influence its outcome. The conflict predominantly involves the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces vying for political and economic supremacy, resulting in a severe humanitarian crisis. Nations such as Chad, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have positioned themselves by supporting different factions in this conflict.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been implicated in providing financial and military backing to the opposing factions despite their public denial of such actions. Political scientist Federico Donelli suggests that their involvement reflects broader geopolitical interests in the Horn of Africa region and goes beyond Sudan’s internal factors.
The historical connections between Sudan and Saudi Arabia trace back to Sudan’s independence in 1956, with deep-rooted people-to-people ties. Conversely, since the early 2000s, the UAE has bolstered its influence in Africa, particularly in sectors such as logistics and contributed to Sudan’s increasing prominence in their regional strategy following the Arab uprisings.
Increased political and military engagements from Saudi Arabia and the UAE occurred post-2014 as both monarchies sought to curb Iran’s presence in the Red Sea. After the deposition of Omar al-Bashir in 2019, the influence of both monarchies continued through established relationships with local military leaders, albeit with Saudi Arabia supporting Army leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the UAE backing Rapid Support Forces head Mohamed Dagalo.
Despite a tenuous partnership in the early years post-Bashir, the relationship between the UAE and Saudi Arabia has manifested divergence in views on political Islam and regional affiliations. While the conflict in Sudan is not solely a result of their rift, local combatants sensed the ongoing external support, emboldening them to engage militarily while both monarchies hesitated to withdraw their backing.
The strategic significance of Sudan ties into the Gulf monarchies’ interests. Following the Arab Spring, fears surrounding instability led both GCC states to strengthen ties with African nations. Particularly, Sudan’s location between the Sahel and Red Sea emphasizes its geostrategic importance amid regional challenges such as instability and food insecurity.
The investments of Gulf states in Sudan’s agri-food sector, valued between USD 1.5 billion and USD 2 billion, underscore Sudan’s potential to enhance their food security through its fertile land and water resources. This positions Sudan as a critical nexus in future regional dynamics.
The resolution of the Sudanese conflict appears challenging amid current global crises. The rigidity of both armed factions’ objectives hinders negotiations, coupled with an international landscape offering them external support, complicating pathways toward a peaceful resolution. The division within Sudan’s governance is expected to intensify, creating two distinct power centers.
In summary, the civil war in Sudan reflects a complex interplay of internal dynamics and external influences, particularly from Saudi Arabia and the UAE. These monarchies have vested interests in Sudan, seeking to enhance their regional influence amid a shifting geopolitical landscape. The humanitarian crisis resulting from this conflict, coupled with the strategic significance of Sudan’s geographical position, underscores the challenges to resolving hostilities. The rich resources of Sudan further complicate the situation as outside powers maintain their interests in the nation’s future.
Original Source: www.inkl.com
