The civil war in Sudan which erupted in April 2023 has become one of the disruptive and most lethal conflicts in the world. The clash between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) under the command of General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), of Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti) has literally divided the country. As at the end of 2024, nearly 28,700 deaths had been reported as official statistics with 7,500 deaths being those of civilians. Unverified estimates, though, put the actual number at a much higher level with some saying that more than 150,000 have died.
Almost one in every third Sudanese or 45 million are displaced. The humanitarian organizations fear sweeping famine, infrastructural breakdown and rising ethnic fratricide. Although the war started as a tussle of power, its development is characterized by real foreign involvement to such an extent, one is tempted to ask; is this still a civil war that has turned into a proxy war over state interests evidenced by the involvement of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and others.
The UAE’s Alleged Support for the RSF
Arms, Drones, and Financial Lifelines
The transitional government of Sudan claims that the UAE is directly providing the RSF with weapons as well as surveillance drones and finances. The UN bodies and foreign press affiliated investigations have unanimously discovered that there are certain countries shipping arms through bases in the Red Sea, controlled by UAE, especially Bosaso in the Puntland area of Somalia. These arms are reported to be supplied through Eritrea and Libya and they are said to support the RSF activities and lead to security collapse in Sudan.
The use of Emirati drones An Emirati report in June 2021 described how the drone The attacks on oil infrastructure in the Red Sea and Port Sudan airport in mid-2025, which the Sudanese government accuses the RSF of carrying out, was made possible by the use of Emirati technology and logistical support. The operations have added to the seclusion of the rest of the government centers in Sudan and destroyed economic lifelines important in provision of aid.
Diplomatic Escalation and Regional Accusations
In May 2025, Sudan formally cut diplomatic ties with the UAE, declaring it a “hostile state.” The withdrawal was preceded by repeated months of suspected RSF attacks on civilian and military installations which were said to be assisted in their activities by Emiratis. During the Non-Aligned Movement Summit in July 2025, the Sudanese delegation accused the UAE of trying to influence international organizations to protect the RSF.
Sudan similarly accused the Arab League and the organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) of similar involvement in the move and issued a warning that such acts by the UAE violated not only the sovereignty of Sudan but the stability of the region. In reaction to this move, the UAE restated its call on a civilian-led interim in Sudan, a move that dismissed the government led by the SAF as illegitimate.
Proxy War Dynamics: Gulf Rivalries and Regional Fragmentation
Gulf State Competition for Influence
The arena of rivalry among the Gulf is taking place in Sudan. UAE although on the side of RSF, Saudi Arabia, allied to Egypt has inclined to SAF. The rivalry between these two states is not merely ideological; they are also quite strategic as they are both interested in gaining leverage over the Red Sea lane and the trade routes to Africa.
According to Federico Donelli, a Middle East geopolitics expert, the arrival of external aid minimizes the willingness by the two parties to negotiate. He observes: “Why compromise, when regional backers continue to provide arms and political cover?” This has weakened ceasefire initiatives as was recently witnessed with the 2024 Jeddah Declaration brokered between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.
The Spread of Regional Conflict
The RSF’s territorial ambitions now extend beyond the capital. Backed by resources allegedly supplied by the UAE, it has formed alliances with armed groups in Darfur and parts of South Kordofan. These coalitions are undermining SAF control and threatening to fragment Sudan along ethnic and ideological lines.
Libya’s warlord Khalifa Haftar—long backed by Abu Dhabi—has also been accused by Sudanese officials of facilitating cross-border operations in support of the RSF. Weapons from Turkey, Russia, and Chad have further complicated the conflict, but none has drawn as much controversy or alleged direct involvement as the UAE.
Humanitarian Consequences and Allegations of State Terrorism
Worsening Civilian Suffering
The worst humanitarian emergency in the word today is in Sudan. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the population of over 25 million (more than 50 per cent) is in an extreme state of food insecurity. More than 522,000 children have died due to famine circumstances and basic amenities have been wiped out in major parts of the country.
The hospitals are bombed or operational, humanitarian convoys are under regular attacks, and schools are closed down. The charges against the RSF include targeting aid groups, looting materials and killing civilians in territories it wants to control.
War Crimes and Genocide Claims
RSF with its ally militias have been accused of extensive atrocities, notably Darfur. Mass killings, rape, ethnic cleansing and burning of villages are reported by the international observers. In January 2025 the U.S. formally concluded that the actions of RSF were genocide. The EU and United Nations followed by imposing sanctions on RSF leaders for crimes against humanity.
Sudan’s leadership contends that the UAE’s backing of the RSF, in light of these atrocities, amounts to state terrorism. “No country with a conscience,” a Sudanese envoy declared at the African Union in March 2025, can look at this pattern of systematic terror and claim it is anything less than state-sponsored annihilation.
Aid Manipulation and Propaganda Warfare
The conflict’s complexity is compounded by information warfare. Both the SAF and RSF deploy coordinated disinformation campaigns online, including AI-generated content and deepfakes aimed at swaying international opinion. Humanitarian aid itself has become a weapon, as access is denied to regions under rival control or used to gain leverage.
Mohamed Chande Othman, chair of the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Sudan, warned in May 2025 that
“Foreign actors are not only sustaining the war materially but are also fueling the ideological battle with dangerous narratives.”
International Response and the Limits of Accountability
Sanctions and Political Paralysis
The international community has responded with sanctions targeting both factions and their foreign supporters. The United States, United Kingdom, European Union, and Canada have issued asset freezes and travel bans against RSF commanders and associated networks. However, these measures have not significantly curbed the flow of arms or financial support.
The UN Security Council remains hamstrung by internal divisions. Russia and China have blocked efforts to label the RSF as a terrorist organization, and Gulf states have prevented the inclusion of UAE complicity in official UN statements. Even African Union peace initiatives have faltered due to lack of consensus.
Legal and Diplomatic Obstacles
The prospect of holding the UAE legally accountable under international law remains slim. The classification of the conflict as a proxy war offers few concrete mechanisms for prosecution. If redefined as state terrorism, however, it could open paths toward international legal action, although such a shift would face immense geopolitical resistance.
International legal scholars argue that a growing body of evidence supports Sudan’s assertion that the UAE’s conduct goes beyond proxy warfare. But without collective diplomatic will, these arguments may remain academic.
The Debate Over Definitions: Proxy War or State Terrorism?
The terminology used to describe the UAE’s role is not trivial—it shapes international engagement and policy. Proxy war implies indirect involvement, plausible deniability, and geopolitical competition. State terrorism, on the other hand, suggests direct complicity in acts intended to terrorize a civilian population.
The UAE’s extensive military logistics, political lobbying, and alleged intelligence support to the RSF may tilt the scale. Analysts point to the precision of drone strikes, the coordination of cross-border attacks, and the continued delivery of war materiel despite clear knowledge of RSF atrocities.
If the world fails to grapple with this distinction, it may set a precedent for powerful states to use non-state actors as instruments of terror with impunity.
Sudan’s War and the Global Stakes
Sudan’s descent into chaos reveals the peril of unchecked foreign interference. As the war grinds into its third year, the line between civil strife and internationalized conflict has been erased. The UAE’s support for the RSF—denied officially, yet substantiated by mounting evidence—has not only prolonged the violence but reshaped its nature.
The implications stretch beyond Sudan. If states are allowed to manipulate armed groups for strategic gain without consequence, the international system’s norms governing war and peace may be irreparably eroded.
The world must now decide whether it is willing to confront the forces turning local conflicts into geopolitical battlegrounds. Whether through legal mechanisms, diplomatic isolation, or targeted sanctions, the question remains: will global powers hold the enablers of Sudan’s destruction accountable—or allow another nation to be torn apart with impunity?
