Title: UAE's Sudan Gambit: A Risky Bet Against Regional Stability?
The situation in Sudan is deteriorating rapidly, with the city of El Fasher becoming a focal point of intense conflict. Recent reports point to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) allegedly supplying weapons to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group accused of mass executions and destabilizing the region. This alleged involvement raises serious questions about the UAE's long-term strategy in the region and the potential consequences for international stability.
The Allegations: Weapons and Proxies
Sudanese Ambassador to India, Mohammed Abdalla Ali Eltom, has publicly accused the UAE of providing weapons to the RSF, which he describes as a proxy force destabilizing Sudan. Eltom claims these weapons are being funneled through Libya and Chad. He also highlighted the RSF's use of "strategic drones" capable of long-duration flights, suggesting a level of support that goes beyond what a typical militia could acquire on its own. (This level of tech implies state-level backing, no question).
The Ambassador's accusations are serious, but it's important to consider the source. Ambassadors are, by definition, mouthpieces for their governments. However, the UN Security Council's "grave concern" over escalating violence and "credible reports of mass executions" lends weight to the claims of a dire situation on the ground. The EU has also condemned the RSF's "brutality," suggesting a broad consensus that the group is engaging in unacceptable behavior. But condemnation without action is just noise.
One has to ask: What exactly is the UAE's endgame here? Is it simply about securing resources, or is there a broader geopolitical calculation at play? And if so, what are the potential unintended consequences of destabilizing an already fragile region?
The Broader Context: Trade and Influence
The Philippines and the UAE have both recently applied to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). This move signals a desire to diversify trade relationships and counter potential tariffs, especially those that might arise from the US. From the UAE's perspective, joining the CPTPP could be a strategic move to strengthen its economic ties with Asia and reduce its reliance on traditional Western partners. More information on this can be found in Philippines and UAE apply to join CPTPP to counter Trump tariffs.
But here's where things get murky. While pursuing closer trade ties, the UAE is simultaneously accused of fueling conflict in Sudan. This apparent contradiction raises questions about the coherence of the UAE's foreign policy. Is it possible to pursue economic integration while simultaneously engaging in actions that destabilize regional security?
I've seen this kind of disconnect before, and it rarely ends well. Countries often compartmentalize their foreign policy objectives, leading to unintended consequences and a loss of overall strategic coherence. What's missing is a clear assessment of the risks and rewards of each action, and a willingness to prioritize long-term stability over short-term gains.
The Human Cost: Thousands Dead, Region at Risk
The most immediate and devastating consequence of the conflict in Sudan is the human cost. The siege of El Fasher alone is estimated to have resulted in several thousand civilian deaths. The UN has received "credible reports of mass executions," painting a picture of extreme brutality. The Sudanese envoy to India cited a report by the UN Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, who has reported that “mass executions and starvation” are taking place in El Fashir after the RSF entered the city.
Beyond the immediate death toll, the conflict threatens to destabilize the entire region, from the Red Sea to the Central African region. The RSF's actions could embolden other non-state actors and create a vacuum for extremist groups to flourish. This is not just a Sudanese problem; it's a regional crisis with potentially global implications.
And this is the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling. Why would the UAE risk so much for what appears to be a relatively limited gain? The potential for blowback seems to far outweigh any conceivable benefit.
A Reckless Gamble with Fuzzy Math
The UAE's alleged support for the RSF in Sudan looks, from a purely data-driven perspective, like a high-risk, low-reward gamble. The potential for regional destabilization, the reputational damage, and the risk of international sanctions all outweigh any conceivable short-term gains. The numbers simply don't add up.
