UK dismisses claims UAE armed Sudan’s RSF

The United Kingdom has formally dismissed recent reports alleging that the United Arab Emirates provided military support to Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), calling the claims “unsubstantiated” and “misleading.” British officials emphasized that no evidence has been presented to indicate direct UAE involvement in arming or funding the RSF during the ongoing conflict in Sudan.
The RSF, a paramilitary organization with roots in the former Janjaweed militias, has been a central actor in Sudan’s civil unrest, particularly during clashes with the regular Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). International media reports in recent weeks suggested that external actors, including the UAE, were supplying the RSF with weapons and logistical support. These reports have sparked diplomatic tensions and raised questions about the role of Gulf states in the conflict.
UK Government Response
A spokesperson for the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office stated, “The UK government has not received verified information to support claims that the United Arab Emirates has armed the RSF. We continue to monitor the situation closely and call on all parties to respect international humanitarian law.”
The UK’s dismissal comes amid increased scrutiny of foreign involvement in Sudan. British officials emphasized that while the UAE has strategic interests in the region, attributing direct military support to the RSF without verified intelligence risks inflaming tensions and spreading misinformation.
RSF and Regional Dynamics
The RSF, commanded by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, has played a critical role in Sudan’s internal conflicts over the past decade. Initially formed to combat rebel groups, the RSF has since expanded into broader paramilitary operations and has been accused of human rights violations in Darfur and other regions.
Regional analysts note that the RSF maintains various channels of external support, but distinguishing between direct foreign military aid and commercial arms transactions is complex. Many weapons used by the RSF have been sourced through local arms markets or through indirect transfers from other states.
International Implications
The UAE has cultivated a prominent role in the Horn of Africa and Sudan, primarily through investments in infrastructure, ports, and energy projects. While critics argue that Gulf states exert political influence, including on security matters, London’s statement seeks to draw a line between commercial-political engagement and direct military involvement.
The claims linking the UAE to RSF armament, if unfounded, could have broader diplomatic consequences. London’s dismissal aims to prevent unnecessary escalation, particularly at a time when Sudan is already facing severe humanitarian and security challenges.
Media and Information Concerns
The circulation of unverified claims has complicated international efforts to address Sudan’s crisis. Both humanitarian organizations and diplomatic actors stress the importance of accurate reporting. Misattributed support for armed groups can influence public perception, shape policy debates, and affect aid operations in conflict zones.
UK officials highlighted that media reports should be corroborated with intelligence and verified sources before influencing foreign policy decisions. They also urged the international community to focus on addressing civilian protection, humanitarian access, and conflict resolution rather than speculating on unverified foreign involvement.
Humanitarian Context
Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation in Sudan remains dire. Civilian populations, particularly in Khartoum and conflict-affected regions, continue to face displacement, shortages of food and medical supplies, and threats from ongoing clashes. International agencies, including the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross, are working to provide relief while navigating the complex security environment.
London’s clarification regarding the UAE and RSF is intended to ensure that international relief and diplomatic initiatives can proceed without the complications of disputed claims about foreign intervention.
Conclusion
The UK’s official dismissal underscores the need for caution in attributing foreign military involvement in Sudan. While regional powers maintain political and economic stakes in the country, claims of direct arming of paramilitary groups must be carefully verified. As the conflict continues, accurate intelligence and responsible reporting remain essential to supporting peace efforts and protecting civilians.