How has Sudan’s 2023 conflict affected UAE diplomatic and security relations with Khartoum?

1. A covert partnership alleged — How arms and logistics reshaped the frontline narrative

Reporting and expert analysis converge on the claim that the conflict made the UAE a central external security actor in Sudan by providing weapons, drones and logistical support to the RSF, according to multiple probes and assessments that UN and investigative panels found credible. These accounts tie material support to operational advantages for the RSF on the ground, describe the use of bases and transit routes through neighboring states, and identify networks that allegedly moved armaments and mercenaries to the militia ^{[1] [3] [5]}. The alleged flows of materiel and personnel produced not only battlefield consequences but also legal and diplomatic ramifications, including Sudanese government accusations of complicity in abuses, international scrutiny, and calls for arms‑embargo enforcement. At the same time, Abu Dhabi’s denials and the covert nature of the networks complicate definitive attribution, creating a contested evidentiary landscape where investigative findings and state statements clash ^{[6] [5]}.

2. Diplomatic rupture and public recriminations — Khartoum pushes back

The Sudanese government responded to alleged UAE support for the RSF by lodging formal complaints and publicly recasting relations with Abu Dhabi as adversarial, accusing the UAE at times of enabling atrocity crimes and seeking international forums to press its case ^{[1] [2]}. This diplomatic rupture manifested in cancelled meetings, strained bilateral channels, and a broader realignment in Khartoum’s foreign policy, including renewed ties with states once on the margins of Sudanese diplomacy. The political effect has been twofold: erosion of traditional security cooperation frameworks between Khartoum and Gulf partners, and the elevation of the Sudan question in Western and regional capitals that now weigh sanctions, arms‑embargo implementation and legal options against alleged external backers ^{[4] [2]}. Sudan’s accusations forced the UAE into a defensive posture and shifted the bilateral relationship from partnership to confrontation in international fora.

3. Economic leverage and the gold‑trade allegation — A transactional angle

Beyond direct military support, analyses point to economic levers—notably mining, gold smuggling and agricultural investments—that framed UAE interests in Sudan and provided potential revenue streams for armed actors. Reporting documents alleged channels where commodities, particularly gold, flowed through networks that financed RSF operations, tying commercial activity to wartime financing and making Abu Dhabi’s economic footprint in Sudan both a strategic asset and an exposure for reputational and legal risk ^{[3] [7]}. The dual character of UAE engagement—commercial investment alongside alleged security support—painted a picture of a transactional strategy aimed at securing long‑term access to resources while influencing political outcomes. That strategy generated criticism that the UAE prioritized investments and influence over civilian protection, and it became a focal point for calls to tighten sanctions and monitor illicit finance linked to the conflict ^{[3] [7]}.

4. International pushback and reputational cost — Allies and adversaries weigh in

The allegations prompted responses from Western and regional actors, including public criticism from the UK and scrutiny by UN bodies and investigative panels that described the evidence as credible in some instances, increasing pressure on Abu Dhabi to explain or change course ^{[1] [2]}. This external pushback carries reputational consequences for the UAE: states and international institutions now treat its Sudan policy as politically risky and potentially liability‑laden. At the same time, Gulf rivalries and regional competition provide competing narratives; some actors frame the UAE’s involvement as a defensive move against Islamist currents in Sudan, while others portray it as an opportunistic bid for influence—each framing serves distinct policy agendas and shapes how different capitals respond to calls for accountability ^{[7] [6]}. The result is a contested international environment that amplifies both pressure on the UAE and claims of bias by its critics.

5. The middle ground — Denials, reassessment and the prospect of policy change

Facing accusations, public criticism and evidence from investigative bodies, the UAE has publicly denied wrongdoing while sources indicate internal reassessment of Sudan policy and acknowledgement of mistakes in its approach. Analysts interpret these signals as the UAE weighing whether to distance itself from the RSF and to recalibrate its mix of security, economic and diplomatic tools to reduce blowback ^{[4] [6]}. Any such shift would reflect an attempt to restore diplomatic normalcy with Khartoum, protect commercial interests, and contain reputational damage, but it would also require navigating entrenched wartime networks and regional rivalries that have already altered local power dynamics. The conflict thus left the UAE with diminished diplomatic capital in Khartoum and a more complicated security posture across the Horn of Africa ^{[4] [3]}.