UAE tries to keep its reputation spotless. But with the war in Sudan, how can it?

[John Ashworth]

The UAE tries hard to keep its reputation spotless. But with the war
in Sudan, how can it?

Outrage is mounting about the Gulf country’s complicity in Sudan’s
catastrophic civil war – and it might be starting to hit them where it
hurts

Nesrine Malik
The Guardian
Wed 13 May 2026

There are certain states whose reputations in the global community are
tainted. For habitual violations of international law, they are
shunned, boycotted or slammed with economic sanctions. Reading these
words, perhaps you’re thinking of Russia, Israel, Iran or North Korea.
But there is one country that is rarely considered an outlaw, even if
its actions increasingly fit the bill.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is belatedly starting to draw some
scrutiny over mounting evidence that it is backing the Rapid Support
Forces (RSF) that have been terrorising Sudan for years. Since the
beginning of the civil war in 2023, which was triggered by a contest
for power between the RSF militia and the Sudanese army, the RSF has
been accused of ethnic cleansing and sexual violence. A United Nations
fact-finding mission concluded that its assault on non-Arab
populations in the west of the country carried “the hallmarks of
genocide”.

Over the course of the war, evidence has been found of the UAE
providing arms to the RSF, smuggling weapons and drones to them via
Chad, and backing Colombian mercenary forces that are providing
critical support to the militia. The UAE continues to deny all these
charges, saying it is a neutral party in the war. But this has become
an almost comical performance of outraged innocence in the face of
common knowledge. The act seemed to be working, though, as the UAE
broadly managed to weather the allegations of its complicity without
consequences.

But something is beginning to turn. Last week, in quick succession,
two blows landed. In the first, the human rights organisation
FairSquare called on the UK’s Foreign Office to investigate Sheikh
Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the deputy prime minister of the UAE and
owner of Manchester City, and sanction him over his alleged role in
the UAE government’s backing of the RSF.

The complaint, submitted to the UK government, stated that “there is
an abundance of evidence from multiple credible sources, including the
UN panel of experts on the Sudan, that the UAE has been providing
weapons, ammunition and other supplies to the RSF since June 2023”.
The complaint argues that Mansour’s alleged links to the RSF should be
investigated. It points out that should the UK decide to sanction him,
he would be disqualified from ownership of a football club under
Premier League rules. (FairSquare say they offered Mansour an
opportunity to respond to their complaint but did not receive a
response. I have also reached out to his office but have had no
reply).

It’s a big swing for an investigation into the UAE to name an
individual member of the Emirati government; it also frames inaction
against the UAE not only as a matter of poor principle, but a
potential violation of the integrity of the UK’s domestic
institutions. Mansour is also not just a remote owner of a football
club, but a royal whose private equity company owns swathes of
Manchester itself, notably after a deal with the city council that saw
land sold for a fraction of its value according to a 2022 report (the
council disagreed with the report’s findings, saying that it got the
best deal it could for each site).

But an even bigger swing against the entire UAE government has come
from the US. Two congressmen, the co-chairs of the bipartisan Tom
Lantos Human Rights Commission, sent letters two weeks ago to the Walt
Disney Company, the National Basketball Association and the National
Football League, urging them to “take a position of moral leadership”
and end all associations with the UAE, which include sponsorships and
joint ventures, in response to its role “in abetting genocide, war
crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing in Sudan by
arming one faction in that country’s civil war”.

Such calls – which detail not just the UAE’s complicity in the Sudan
war, but the extent of the country’s involvement in the economies and
entertainment and sporting industries of the west – inflict serious
reputational damage. The UAE is clearly sensitive on the issue: in
2024, when a Sudanese representative accused the UAE of supporting the
RSF at a UK-sponsored UN meeting, the UAE reacted by cancelling
ministerial meetings with Britain to punish the country for not
responding vociferously enough as the UAE was “defamed”. As the
Americans say, a hit dog will holler.

UAE’s reputation has been anchored in Dubai, a cosmopolitan safe haven
of sunny holidays and luxurious lifestyles. Less attention is paid to
the capital, Abu Dhabi, and its royals – the Al Nahyans, who hold the
presidency of the UAE and govern it in federal constitutional
partnership with Dubai’s royal family, the Al Maktoums. For years they
have been a destabilising force in the region and Africa, backing
separatist groups in Yemen against the Houthis, as well as Gen Khalifa
Haftar in Libya against the internationally recognised government. In
its regional operations, the UAE’s goal appears to be to anoint
leaders it can do business with and prevent the rise to power of
forces hostile to it. Sudan has precious port territory across the Red
Sea and a trade route that the UAE covets in order to consolidate what
has been described as its “archipelago of influence” in the region.

Sudan is also rich in gold, most of which since the war began has
ended up in Dubai, one of the world’s largest retail gold markets. But
more broadly, beyond assets and geostrategic clout, the UAE has been
on a campaign since the Arab spring 15 years ago to erect proxy
powers, considering nascent Muslim Brotherhood forces as the enemy of
established regimes and monarchies. Its ambitions for regional power
have broken the UAE from its Gulf partners – most recently in leaving
the oil cartel Opec, in what was seen as a rejection of Saudi Arabia’s
dominance within the organisation. It has also pursued a normalisation
policy with Israel. This week it was revealed that the UAE diverged
from the non-retaliatory approach of Saudi and Qatar and had secretly
launched a major attack on Iran before the April ceasefire.

The UAE’s efforts to establish itself as a regional player have left
war and devastation in its wake, most calamitously in Sudan. But it
has been supported in that by the US and the UK, not only political
allies but financial beneficiaries. At a parliamentary reception in
the House of Lords last month, an Emirati official boasted about the
UK and the UAE’s multibillion investment partnership, the product of
“deep institutional trust”. And last year, days before Donald Trump’s
inauguration, the UAE signed a $500m (£370m) investment in the Trump
family’s cryptocurrency venture. When so much money is involved, is it
any wonder that both countries have gone to farcical lengths to
express concern over the war in Sudan while avoiding any mention of
the UAE?

Both the US and UK have sanctioned the senior leadership of the RSF
and several UAE-based companies linked to the leadership of the RSF,
without naming the UAE as a sponsor. “The world must not look away
[from Sudan],” said the foreign secretary, Yvette Cooper, in reference
to sexual violence in the country, when the truth is that successive
British governments have studiously looked away from one of the
primary sponsors of the Sudan calamity.

But now the calls are getting louder, demanding that governments say
what they have yet to say: that the UAE has earned its place among the
ranks of the world’s outlaws.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/may/13/uae-sudan-civil-war-gulf-country

END
______________________
John Ashworth

ashwor...@gmail.com

+254 725 926 297 (Kenya mobile, WhatsApp and Signal)

PO Box 403 - 00206, Kiserian, Kenya