Biden Must Leverage UAE Relations to Aid Sudan’s Civil War Resolution

The recent meeting between President Biden and UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan underscored the strengthening ties between the U.S. and UAE, particularly amid regional conflicts. While both expressed concern over Sudan’s civil war, the specifics of UAE’s involvement supporting the paramilitary RSF were largely absent, drawing attention to the complexities of U.S. foreign policy that balances strategic alliances with humanitarian needs.

The recent visit of United Arab Emirates President Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan to the White House marked a significant moment in U.S.-UAE relations, coinciding with ongoing conflicts in Gaza and the Israeli-Lebanese border. During this meeting, the Biden administration announced a variety of new cooperative efforts with the UAE, spanning areas such as artificial intelligence, space exploration, clean energy technology, and defense, designating the UAE as a “major defense partner”—a title shared only with India. However, the discussions regarding Sudan’s civil war revealed a more complicated narrative. The joint statement issued following the meeting allocated only a fraction of its content—less than 250 words—to the dire situation in Sudan, where approximately 20,000 civilians have lost their lives, and millions are displaced or facing severe hunger. Both leaders expressed a solemn commitment to ending the conflict but conspicuously omitted specific references to the UAE’s involvement in supplying weapons and intelligence to the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The UAE has been identified as a key supporter of the RSF, led by General Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo, which has amassed military strength through Emirati backing, including advanced weaponry and drones. Despite the UAE’s claims of providing humanitarian assistance in Chad, multiple independent investigations suggest otherwise, revealing military support efforts cloaked under the guise of humanitarian missions. The situation is further complicated by the presence of other external powers intervening in the conflict. The RSF is engaged in conflict with the remaining elements of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), which receives support from Iran. Historically, these conflicts in Sudan have often devolved into proxy wars, with various nations vying for influence in the region. The Biden administration’s approach towards the conflict appears strategic, aligning with the UAE as a moderate Arab ally while still acknowledging the humanitarian crisis in Sudan. This dichotomy is reflected in President Biden’s contrasting messages, where he offers praise for the UAE in one instance and urges an end to arming opposing forces in another. Currently, the United States seems to be walking a tightrope, engaging in enhanced relations with the UAE while failing to compel it to cease its support for factions implicated in grave human rights abuses. This contradiction between moral imperatives and diplomatic strategies underscores the complex nature of international relations in conflict regions.

The backdrop of this discourse centers on the ongoing civil war in Sudan, which has erupted into violence, leading to significant loss of life and widespread dislocation of populations. The conflict has escalated over the past 18 months, drawing in various foreign powers that seek to exert influence over the situation. The UAE has emerged as a prominent player, backing the RSF, which has committed numerous atrocities against civilians in the Darfur region. Meanwhile, the U.S. government seeks to strengthen its partnership with the UAE in various fields, a move which some critics argue undermines efforts to address the humanitarian crises resulting from the conflict. This situation is emblematic of larger geopolitical rivalries in the Middle East and North Africa, wherein nations like Iran and Russia also have vested interests in the conflict’s outcome.

In conclusion, President Biden’s meeting with UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan has highlighted the evolving strategic relationship between the United States and the UAE, particularly in light of concurrent conflicts in the region. While the leaders articulated a shared commitment to ending the violence in Sudan, the lack of a firm stance on the UAE’s role in perpetuating the conflict raises critical questions about the efficacy and ethical implications of U.S. foreign policy. The ongoing humanitarian crisis necessitates that the U.S. holds accountable all parties involved, particularly those contributing to the atrocities, thereby aligning its diplomatic endeavors with its stated values of human rights and international stability.

Original Source: www.washingtonpost.com