Global Migration & Politics
Beyond the headlines and debunking myths, the geopolitics and power games of the Middle East.


ArticlesMiddle EastUnited Araba Emirates

External actors in Sudan’s war – a struggle over gold, geography and influence.

By Yasmin Abdel-Hak

ANALYSIS//SUDAN// The conflict in Sudan is not merely an internal struggle between the army and a paramilitary faction. It has become a complex chessboard where regional and international powers use Sudan as a battleground for influence, resource control and economic gain.
At its centre lies the question of who controls the country — and who benefits from the chaos. In other words, the conflict is driven as much by external interests as by domestic divisions. And for that reason alone, peace remains a distant prospect.

Historical background

As a nation, Sudan was under both British and Egyptian colonial rule during the 19th and 20th centuries. Although the country gained independence in 1956, civil war soon broke out — driven primarily by deep ethnic, religious, and economic divisions between the north and the south.

Northern Sudan, bordering Egypt, is predominantly Muslim, while Southern Sudan is largely Christian and animist.
The two official warring parties are the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) — the national army — and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a powerful paramilitary organisation.
It is the latter that has been held responsible for the most recent massacre against civilians in South Sudan’s El Fasher region.

Complicating matters further, both sides are backed by regional powers.
The SAF receives support from Egypt (Sudan’s northern neighbour) and Saudi Arabia, while the RSF is supported — and demonstrably financed — by the United Arab Emirates (UAE)

The core of the conflict

Sudan’s wars are far from new. The country has been ravaged by armed conflict for decades — first through two long civil wars (1955–1972 and 1983–2005). A peace agreement in 2005 temporarily halted the fighting and paved the way for South Sudan’s independence in 2011.
But in April 2023, violence erupted again when the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) attacked bases belonging to the official army, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF).

Beneath the immediate clashes lie long-standing tensions: deep ethnic, religious and economic divisions — and, crucially, the fight for control of Sudan’s natural resources.

Resources fuels the war

Sudan is paradoxically one of the world’s poorest countries and yet rich in natural resources such as gold, copper, iron — and formerly, oil.
When South Sudan seceded in 2011, Khartoum lost around 75% of its oil reserves. Most of the oil and gas fields were located in the south, while pipelines, refineries, and the export hub Port Sudan remained in the north.

The split meant that Sudan lost ownership of the resources, but retained the infrastructure — a fragile dependency that external actors have exploited ever since

The war in Sudan and South Sudan
Wikimedia Commons

Gold is the new oil

For that reason, gold and mineral extraction have gained increasing importance.
According to several research institutes, gold production has become central to financing the war — for both warring parties, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF).

Armed conflict creates a “war economy” — a system in which unreliable states, militias, and external actors can profit from weapons trading, smuggling, resource extraction, and security services.This makes peace harder to achieve, as too many actors have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

For instance, the RSF controls several gold fields from which gold is exported — often through obscure channels — to states such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
This creates an economic incentive for certain external actors to sustain the conflict: instability offers access to resources, smuggling routes, and political influence.

Proxy wars and the war economy

There are several layers to the question of why some countries have an interest in maintaining instability in Sudan.

From a geopolitical perspective, Sudan is strategically significant due to its borders along the Red Sea and its control of the port city of Port Sudan.
These are geographical routes that grant access to trade, maritime security, and regional influence.
Moreover, gold and other minerals provide a financial foundation not only for the country’s internal war actors but also for external states seeking export or investment channels. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is widely regarded as a particularly active player in this dimension of the conflict.

The proxy conflict concept is, in many ways, the key to understanding the persistence of the war.
For key actors such as the UAE, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, Sudan has become an arena in which to project power and secure alliances without engaging in direct warfare.
The UAE’s support for the RSF, and Egypt’s backing of the SAF, are clear examples of this dynamic.

Then, there is the question of economic profit in war. Armed conflict creates a “war economy” — a system in which unreliable states, militias, and external actors can profit from weapons trading, smuggling, resource extraction, and security services.This makes peace harder to achieve, as too many actors have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Egypt has long-standing historical ties to Sudan — through the Red Sea and Nubian relations — and views stability in the north as vital to its own national security.
For this reason, Egypt tends to support the SAF, albeit without positioning itself as a front-line player.

On the other side of the conflict stands the United Arab Emirates (UAE), arguably the most active regional actor.
The UAE has been accused of supplying the RSF with weapons, investing in agriculture and port infrastructure in South Sudan, and receiving gold exports from RSF-controlled territories.

Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, combines diplomatic initiatives with strategic calculation: for Riyadh, Sudan represents not only a security concern but also a test of leadership within the Arab world. A way to maintain its status as the region’s central political power.

The art of strategic corruption

The list of foreign actors involved in the Sudanese war is impressively long: China, Iran, Qatar, Turkey, Ethiopia, Chad, Eritrea, Russia and Ukraine, alongside Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
In a paradoxical convergence, both Russia and Ukraine have extended support to the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). According to credible reports, Ukrainian technicians were dispatched early in the conflict to service and repair the army’s fighter jets.

The conflict has created one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises: over 11 million internally displaced civilians, millions suffering from hunger, and an economy in free fall. Labour, agriculture and essential services are collapsing as infrastructure crumbles.

For some external powers, this chaos can paradoxically be an advantage: the greater the disorder, the easier it becomes to act unilaterally and secure privileged access to resources.
This is what analysts often describe as strategic corruption — when war and instability are deliberately maintained for political or financial gain.

A 2024 Amnesty International report revealed a steady flow of weapons and ammunition — rifles, drone jammers and mortars — imported into Sudan despite an official arms embargo, with Russia, Turkey, China and the UAE among the key suppliers.

A convenient war for power and profit

Sudan and South Sudan are therefore not merely victims of internal conflict. They have become a strategic centre of regional power competition.
When resources, ports, strategy and smuggling routes converge, the war is no longer only about governance or ideology — it becomes a marketplace for influence.

To understand Sudan today is to see which countries profit from its instability.
As long as gold, weapons and geopolitical leverage remain on the agenda, there will be little incentive for peace.

In the meantime, it is the civilian population that continues to pay the ultimate price.

For this article, I have used the sources listed below. I highly recommend these. For anyone who wish to gain a deeper understanding of the background to the conflict between Sudan and South Sudan:

Yasmin Abdel-Hak 80 posts 0 comments

My name is Yasmin Abdel-Hak, I am human rights lawyer with an additional masters in Contemporary Middle Eastern Studies. I have always had an interest in politics and the power games in the Middle East. Analysing the power games in the region, what does it mean, and what is the impact of the politics of the rest of the world. When we understand the dynamics of the region, it is easier to adapt our approaches and policies towards the region. There is power in knowing is understand which is always first step towards progress

Translate »