By Lara Kajs
Thinking Out Loud
Sudan’s civil war has become one of the world’s most severe humanitarian crises, marked by mass displacement, famine, and allegations of genocide in Darfur. While the conflict is primarily fought between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), growing evidence suggests that external actors are fueling the war. The United Arab Emirates has faced mounting accusations of providing support to the RSF, raising serious questions about international law, accountability, and the role of regional powers in prolonging Sudan’s devastating conflict.
On 15 April 2023, Sudan descended into violent conflict between the country’s regular armed forces, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The war traces its roots to the 2018 uprising that ousted Sudan’s longtime president, Omar al-Bashir, who was later indicted for war crimes and genocide. That uprising was meant to usher in a democratic transition. Instead, regional power politics quickly reshaped Sudan’s trajectory. Some neighboring states backed the Sudanese military, while others—most notably the United Arab Emirates (UAE)—supported the RSF. The question remains: to what end?
Sudan’s government, United Nations investigators, and multiple intelligence sources have since raised serious allegations regarding the UAE’s role in supporting the RSF. While the full scope of these claims continues to be debated, the available evidence raises urgent questions about external involvement in one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.
Sudan sits along the Red Sea and holds significant strategic value for Gulf powers. Analysts suggest the UAE’s interest in securing a port in Sudan fits within a broader pattern of Emirati extraterritorial engagement. By backing an influential actor such as the RSF, the Emirati government may seek leverage over Sudan’s future political order. This would not be unprecedented. The UAE has previously supported armed actors in regional conflicts and relied on RSF fighters—then known as the Janjaweed—to participate in the war in Yemen.
Intelligence Findings
United States intelligence agencies report that the Emirati government provided weapons, ammunition, and logistical support to the Rapid Support Forces in 2025. This support allegedly included air routes and transit hubs through neighboring states such as Chad, facilitating the movement of arms into Sudan. Intelligence from Libyan, Egyptian, and European officials similarly indicates that sophisticated Chinese drones, small arms, heavy machine guns, vehicles, artillery, and mortars were supplied to the RSF.
Evidence has also emerged showing that British and Chinese military equipment previously sold to the UAE was later found in Sudan and used by RSF forces.
A United Nations expert report documented credible evidence that weapons shipments were arriving multiple times per week through Amdjarass International Airport in northern Chad before being transferred to RSF units inside Sudan.
The UAE’s relationship to the RSF also extends into economic networks. The RSF controls or influences areas of Darfur where gold mining and other extractive activities occur. The United Arab Emirates has become a major center for gold trading and has imported large quantities of precious metals from Sudan. One analysis estimated that nearly US$2.3 billion worth of Sudanese gold was officially imported into the UAE in 2022.
The ICJ: Sudan v. UAE
In March 2025, Sudan’s Security and Defense Council filed a case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declaring the UAE an “aggressor state” and accusing it of participating in what Sudan described as a “genocidal campaign” in Darfur. Sudan alleged that the UAE violated the 1948 Genocide Convention by supplying advanced weapons to the RSF and contributing to attacks on Sudan’s infrastructure. Diplomatic relations between the two countries were subsequently severed.
In May 2025, however, the ICJ determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the dispute. The ruling was based on a reservation the UAE entered when acceding to the Genocide Convention, limiting the court’s jurisdiction under Article IX.
Transparency and Accountability
The RSF’s conduct in Darfur—particularly in El-Fasher—has included mass killings, forced displacement, sexual violence, and ethnic cleansing. These acts may constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
Under international law, states that knowingly assist armed actors committing such crimes risk legal exposure under doctrines of complicity and assistance. Even where legal responsibility remains contested, the moral and reputational risks are significant.
Sudan’s war illustrates the breakdown of international mechanisms designed to prevent atrocities. When external actors supply weapons to local armed groups, conflicts are prolonged, peace negotiations become more difficult, and civilian suffering intensifies. The situation underscores the urgent need for transparency and international oversight of arms transfers, logistics networks, and mercenary activity.
Beyond the legal questions lies the devastating human cost. Foreign involvement raises the price of war for civilians. For the UAE, allegations of involvement carry reputational risks, potential sanctions, and diplomatic fallout. The situation in Sudan reflects the absence of an effective international system capable of preventing or halting atrocities. For Sudan, the war and foreign intervention hinder pathways to peace, reconstruction, and stability. In a normal system, the international community would come in and say, “Stop arming people in this war.”
When external actors arm local militias, wars last longer, peace becomes harder, and civilians pay the price.”
How Much Is Enough?
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the situation is that before the UAE became involved, the Sudanese military appeared to be gaining the upper hand. External support to the RSF helped re-escalate the conflict at a moment when it might otherwise have ended. If the RSF were cut off from outside support, it would struggle to sustain itself militarily. The war could potentially end far sooner.
While world leaders often praise the UAE for its diplomatic role in the region—including the Abraham Accords—the broader record deserves scrutiny. The same government recognized internationally as a peacemaker now faces allegations of funding and supplying actors responsible for atrocities in Sudan. Is a direct flight between Dubai and Tel Aviv more valuable than human lives in Sudan or Gaza?
My question to Yousef Al Otaiba, the UAE Ambassador to the US, is why is your country feeding weapons into the largest humanitarian disaster on earth?
Why is your country complicit in genocide in Sudan? With the UAE’s immense wealth, how much more does it need that it would destabilize a nation and cause immense human suffering? Is a port deal or access to raw materials worth condemning Sudan to perpetual war? Your country sits on trillions of dollars—how much is enough?
Whether or not the UAE will ever be held legally accountable, or whether the allegations will become fully substantiated in the public record, remains to be seen. Meanwhile, the human cost in Sudan continues to mount.
Photo credit: United Arab Emirates Pavilion by Wojtek Gurak. Licensed under CC BY NC ND 2.0.
Published 18 November 2025
Atrocity Prevention Lens
Sudan’s war illustrates how external support to armed actors can escalate and prolong mass atrocity risks. When regional powers supply weapons, logistics, or funding to militias accused of targeting civilians, the likelihood of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity increases dramatically. Preventing such atrocities requires early international monitoring of arms transfers, enforcement of sanctions, and accountability mechanisms that deter states from enabling violence.
Legal Framework
International law prohibits aiding or assisting parties that commit war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide. Under the 1948 Genocide Convention, states have obligations not only to punish genocide but also to prevent it. Additional legal frameworks—including the Geneva Conventions, arms transfer regulations, and doctrines of state complicity—raise serious legal questions when governments knowingly provide material support to armed groups accused of committing atrocity crimes.
Policy & Accountability Implications
The UAE’s involvement in Sudan demonstrates how external interventions, even by influential states, can exacerbate conflicts and obstruct pathways to peace. Policymakers and international institutions must weigh strategic partnerships against the humanitarian costs of intervention. Accountability mechanisms, sanctions, and diplomatic pressure should be considered to prevent further civilian harm, reinforce norms against complicity, and encourage a resolution that prioritizes stability, reconstruction, and civilian protection.
About Thinking Out Loud
Thinking Out Loud is a commentary series by Lara Kajs examining international law, humanitarian crises, and the prevention of mass atrocities. Drawing on field experience in conflict and displacement settings, the column explores the legal and policy challenges that shape contemporary conflicts.
Lara Kajs is the founder and executive director of The Genocide Report, a Washington, DC-based educational nonprofit focused on atrocity prevention and international law. She is the author of several field-based books on conflict, displacement, humanitarian crises, and international humanitarian law, drawing on extensive research and field experience in Yemen, Syria, and Afghanistan. Her writing and public speaking focus on atrocity crimes, forced displacement, the protection of civilians, and the legal frameworks governing armed conflict.