A high-stakes diplomatic gambit has complicated the already fractured peace process for Sudan, with a Sudanese envoy unequivocally stating that Khartoum will refuse to participate in any negotiations aimed at ending the devastating civil war if the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is involved in the mediation efforts.
This declaration signals a major blow to the international community’s attempts to broker an end to the conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which has spiraled into the world's largest displacement crisis.
The Core of the Dispute: Allegations of Bias
The foundation of the Sudanese government's position rests on the accusation that the UAE is not a neutral arbiter but a principal backer of the RSF. The SAF delegation has repeatedly accused Abu Dhabi of providing the paramilitary group with weaponry, financial support, and even mercenaries. This perceived alignment makes the UAE an unacceptable partner in any credible mediation framework, according to Khartoum officials.
The statement follows recent, failed ceasefire talks in Washington, sponsored by the so-called "Quad"—a group comprising the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE. Sources familiar with those collapsed negotiations indicated that the SAF delegation rejected the UAE’s participation outright, viewing them as a belligerent party rather than a mediator.
Adding to the tension, a Sudanese diplomat at the UN reportedly criticized the UAE’s previous participation in Security Council discussions, suggesting the Emirati representative spoke as if "Sudan is under the trusteeship of the UAE" and had "no right to speak about Sudan."
International Impact and Mediation Fatigue
This latest development underscores the deep mistrust and geopolitical complexities plaguing international efforts to resolve the conflict, which began in April 2023. The civil war between the SAF and RSF has caused widespread devastation, mass atrocities, and a critical humanitarian emergency with millions needing aid.
The inclusion of the UAE in the Quad framework—which recently proposed a roadmap involving a three-month truce followed by a permanent ceasefire—was intended to present a unified front among key regional and international players. However, the Sudanese rejection suggests that external coordination, while seemingly robust, is failing to account for the deeply entrenched loyalties and rivalries on the ground.
Previous mediation efforts, including the Jeddah Process and initiatives led by the African Union (AU) and IGAD, have also stalled, often due to a lack of consensus among mediators or the warring parties' refusal to halt hostilities while military fortunes fluctuate. The current situation, where the RSF has recently secured control of all of Darfur following the capture of El Fasher, further complicates any push for negotiation, as military success often discourages compromise.
Global Implications and the Search for Leverage
For global actors like the United States, which relies on its strategic partnership with the UAE for economic and technological interests, this situation presents a significant foreign policy challenge. Analysts suggest that Washington's prioritization of its relationship with Abu Dhabi has, at times, undermined its leverage over the Sudan file, as the Sudanese government perceives a lack of pressure on its perceived external backers.
The international community, including the UN Secretary-General, has repeatedly called on all countries interfering in the war and supplying weapons to cease their involvement. The envoy’s ultimatum now places direct pressure on the US and other Quad members to reassess the composition of their mediation team if they wish to secure the cooperation of the SAF.
Furthermore, the perception that mediators are more focused on geopolitical alignment than on the welfare of Sudanese civilians—who are enduring famine and systematic human rights violations—risks further delegitimizing the entire peace architecture. A sustainable resolution requires not just a ceasefire, but a diplomatic framework that all major Sudanese stakeholders deem impartial.
As the conflict enters a grim new phase, marked by territorial shifts and a worsening humanitarian catastrophe, the Sudanese government’s firm stance against the UAE’s involvement throws another significant hurdle onto the already perilous road toward peace in Sudan.