A remarkable diplomatic breakthrough suddenly burst forth in the marble-lined halls of Washington’s Capitol building as lawmakers hailed an agreement by the United Arab Emirates to make a crucial promise: to withhold any weapons support to the paramilitaries of Sudan-a commitment possibly to reshape the trajectory of one of Africa’s bloodiest conflicts.
“It is not about selling the weapons or diplomatic agreements,” said Dr. Sarah Mitchell, a Middle East policy expert at Georgetown University. “We could be talking about perhaps turning the tide in a conflict that has devastated untold numbers of lives.”
This happens at the most opportune time when the US has announced a new package of 200 million dollars in aid for Sudan, whose humanitarian crisis keeps worsening by the day. Since April 2023, the conflict has left a trail of destruction that aid workers describe as catastrophic.
Speaking passionately from the Senate floor, Senator Chris Van Hollen described the contents of a letter sent by Brett McGurk, the White House’s Middle East policy point person. The correspondence emphasized the UAE’s commitment to halting all arms deliveries to the RSF, while earlier reports had suggested otherwise. “Every day this conflict persists, more lives are lost,” Van Hollen stated, his voice resonating within the Senate chamber. “Employing our diplomatic leverage isn’t merely good policy – it’s a moral imperative.” The stakes in this diplomatic interplay are considerable, because two lawmakers had earlier threatened to obstruct $1.2 billion in advanced rocket and missile sales to the UAE. Although it is uncertain how things would have turned out, this proposal would have had a tremendous influence on the Gulf nation’s military modernization ambitions. Only the UAE’s fresh promises might influence their decision to put a stop to this opposition.
Representative Sara Jacobs, who spearheaded comparable attempts in the House, struck a cautiously optimistic note. “Cutting off weapons supply lines could force the RSF to the negotiating table,” she explained during a brief interview. As staff in Va. pointed out, the absence of military aid changes math of this war significantly.
The position of the UAE in this tangled relationship map is the best to portray the reality of diplomacy being in the Middle East. They also used to cooperate with the RSF while operations against Yemen’s Houthis so their current position is rather multifaceted. It has always been a UAE tradition to deny arming the RSF but UN experts were able to unearth evidence that showed that weapons had been channeled through Chad.
Moving forward, while the White House is set to evaluate these assurances by the January 17 Just to say, this will be few days to a different President taking oath. This timeline makes it relevant for monitoring the organization since both Van Hollen and Jacobs have vowed to keenly monitor the organization.
The case also perhaps best illustrates the volatility of the US foreign policy. Specifically, during Trump’s administration, former President Trump had demonstrated more agility in the arms transfer decisions than how it is being described above regarding F-35 jets to the UAE in exchange for its recognition of Israel. Peculiarly, similar agreements have been under increased pressure since Biden became the President of the United States.
Thus, with the Sudanese civilians in the middle of all these powers struggle the outcome could be far reaching. What local aid workers say is that any withdrawal of support from the military to warring factions could open up such spaces for peace talks.
While political brokers in Washington wade through these fragile diplomatic waters, the prospect of slowing down the supply of arms gives the faintest of indicators for a war that has seen tens of thousands die. If this diplomatic achievement is going to come to a meaningful change on the ground still has to be seen but, in any case, it has brought about a rather major paradigm shift in the attitude of the international community to the Sudan crisis.
