Since Sudan’s devastating civil war erupted in April 2023, pitting the Sudanese Armed Forces against the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, the country has fallen back into a cycle of violence and institutional collapse after a fleeting period of hope for political transition.
Sudan now faces one of the world’s worst humanitarian disasters, while regional and international actors put forward competing visions for the country’s future. Throughout this turbulence, the UAE has maintained one of the clearest and most consistent positions: a firm commitment to protecting civilians, rejecting violations by all parties and opposing the return of the Muslim Brotherhood to Sudan’s political arena. At the heart of the UAE’s approach is the belief that Sudan’s recovery depends on a credible, civilian-led political order capable of rebuilding the state on solid foundations.
From the early days of the conflict, the UAE’s statements, both domestically and at the UN, expressed deep concern about widespread abuses in Khartoum, Darfur, El Fasher and across the country. Abu Dhabi has repeatedly stressed that the protection of civilians is a moral and legal imperative that supersedes all political considerations.
The Emirates has condemned attacks on residential neighbourhoods, hospitals and critical infrastructure, describing them as clear violations of international humanitarian law. The UAE has also insisted that any actor – whether the army, the RSF or other armed groups – must bear responsibility for such actions. It has consistently called for immediate humanitarian corridors and a comprehensive ceasefire to prevent famine and the collapse of basic services.
This humanitarian stance is inseparable from the UAE’s assessment of Sudan’s political trajectory. For decades, the networks of the Muslim Brotherhood have played a central role in hollowing out the Sudanese state. The 1989 coup that elevated Omar Al Bashir – engineered by the National Islamic Front – ushered in a systematic restructuring of state institutions, the politicisation of the military and security services and the entrenchment of ideological patronage networks throughout the economy. These policies fractured institutions, fuelled successive civil wars and left Sudan unable to sustain genuine political stability.
For Abu Dhabi, attempts by the Brotherhood to re-enter the political scene today by capitalising on the current chaos pose a strategic threat – not only to Sudan but to the wider region. Allowing such groups to shape the future would recreate the very conditions that led to Sudan’s collapse in the first place. This is why the UAE maintains that extremist organisations tied to the Brotherhood cannot be part of any future political arrangement, and that empowering them would only guarantee further cycles of conflict.
This forward-looking assessment informs the UAE’s role within the International Quartet alongside Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the US, backing a road map that begins with a durable ceasefire followed by a foundational political process led by legitimate civilian actors. Abu Dhabi has underscored that the future must be shaped by Sudan’s genuine civic forces rather than militias or transnational ideological movements.
Central to the UAE’s vision is the conviction that Sudan needs a new political compact, one that redefines the state’s priorities, ensures fair representation for its diverse regions and establishes a civilian authority with real decision-making power. Such a measured, phased approach offers Sudan a viable path out of collapse and towards reconstruction.
Equally essential is the reform of Sudan’s military and security sectors. No sustainable transition is possible without a unified, professional national army under elected civilian oversight, accompanied by the integration or dismantling of parallel forces and militias. Abu Dhabi recognises that any political agreement not paired with meaningful security sector reform will remain fragile. Durable peace, in its view, requires addressing the fragmentation of armed groups, not simply declaring a temporary ceasefire.
The UAE has also made accountability a cornerstone of its approach. The atrocities committed in Darfur, Khartoum, and other regions – documented by survivors and international observers – cannot be brushed aside. Meaningful accountability is vital to the rights of victims and to preventing future abuses. The UAE has therefore expressed support for impartial international mechanisms to document violations and hold perpetrators to account.
Despite recurring allegations, particularly claims that the UAE supports one faction over another, Abu Dhabi has consistently affirmed that its engagement in Sudan is grounded in international law. The humanitarian flights and aid it provides serve civilian needs and are not designed to prolong the conflict. The UAE maintains that Sudan’s crisis cannot be resolved militarily, and frames the struggle not as a binary clash between two armies but as a contest between two competing visions: a stable civilian state capable of governance and development versus ideological networks and armed militias that perpetuate fragmentation.
Through this integrated humanitarian, political and security-focused approach, the UAE aims to support the Sudanese people through a critical and painful chapter in their history. Abu Dhabi believes that Sudan, rich in natural and human resources, can recover if provided with stable political conditions, strong institutions and a civilian leadership that genuinely reflects the country’s diverse social fabric. Supporting Sudan, the UAE argues, is not only a political choice but an ethical responsibility. And if peace does return, Sudan’s future should be that of a modern national state, not a battleground for militias or ideological projects that have already cost the country dearly.
