Sudanese Activists Are Fighting US and UAE Complicity in Sudan’s Genocide

In April 2023, Sudan’s two main military factions broke out into an all-out war that has devastated much of the country in the nearly two years since. The two factions, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), had previously worked together to repress the popular revolution that ousted Omar al-Bashir in 2019, jointly committing the June 2019 Khartoum massacre and overseeing the 2021 coup before turning against each other in a bloody power struggle. The current war should therefore be understood as a counterrevolutionary war, smothering the 2018 Sudanese Revolution that had put forward the possibility of a civilian, democratic alternative to military rule and revived hopes in the wave of revolutions that had spread across the Middle East and North Africa since 2011.

Though both military factions have committed war crimes throughout the course of this war, the SAF — the state military — has positioned itself as the “lesser evil” nationally and internationally to gain favor and legitimacy, a claim that Sudanese activists continue to push back against. Numerous global and regional countries have backed the SAF, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran and Russia, among others. On the other hand, regional powers, in particular the United Arab Emirates (UAE), have sustained the war through their support of the RSF. In January 2025, after 21 months of war in Sudan, the Biden administration issued sanctions first on the RSF, then on the leader of the SAF, raising questions as to the timing of these sanctions and to double standards in comparison to Israel’s war crimes. Nonetheless, the war in Sudan also amounts to genocide, and deserves attention and accountability. Now, President Donald Trump’s halting of USAID funds is compounding an already severe hunger crisis caused by two years of war. Activists in the Sudanese diaspora are working to clarify the roles of those involved in the war and to build campaigns, especially against the UAE’s continued fueling of the war.

In this roundtable, Shireen Akram-Boshar speaks to members of the Sudanese Resistance Front (SuRF), an organization of Sudanese activists, about the U.S.’s sanctions, the relationship between the RSF and SAF, and the role of the UAE and other regional and global powers in maintaining the war in Sudan. Noon Elsaeyed is a Sudanese organizer and writer who works on political education and awareness as a member of SuRF. Salome Ayuak is an organizer, member of SuRF and writer dedicated to building solidarity among Africans on the continent and in the diaspora in the pursuit of liberation. Mazen Alsafi is an independent filmmaker and organizer and a central committee member of SuRF. Through film and design, Alsafi wields culture as a weapon of resistance, using visual storytelling to challenge oppression and amplify revolutionary movements.

These interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Shireen Akram-Boshar: On January 7, the U.S. announced in a statement that it had concluded that Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and its allied militias have committed genocide in Sudan. In the statement, the U.S. declared sanctions against RSF leader Mohamed “Hemedti” Dagalo, and on several RSF companies. One week later, the U.S. also imposed sanctions on the head of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. What were your reactions to these statements? Why do you think these sanctions were imposed now, and will they make a difference?

Noon Elsaeyed: The U.S. sanctions and genocide designation show how serious the crisis in Sudan is, but we can’t rely on imperialist tools to free our people. Sanctions in the past, like those during al-Bashir’s rule, hurt the Sudanese people far more than they hurt the regime. They crushed the economy, isolated the country and pushed people deeper into poverty, while the regime found ways to adapt and even strengthen its grip on state funding within an elite circle.

Targeting both sides of the conflict with sanctions sets a dangerous precedent for further U.S. interventions under the guise of accountability, used as a framework to embolden deeper economic restrictions or political manipulation. Imposing sanctions without addressing the conflict’s historical and systemic roots oversimplifies a complex situation, and sidelines Sudan’s sovereignty. Such actions often justify imperialist meddling while leaving core issues of militarization, exploitation and foreign dependency unresolved. Targeting Hemedti and al-Burhan might look like accountability, but it risks being another symbolic move that leaves civilians struggling with the same corrupt systems in place.

Salome Ayuak: My reaction to the United States’ sanctions on the RSF and SAF is rooted in a deep skepticism shaped by historic patterns of U.S. involvement in Sudan. These sanctions evoke memories of 2004 and the U.S. response to the Darfur crisis, which also involved calls for intervention.

The RSF’s rise to power is a direct consequence of decades of imperialist intervention. In the lead-up to the partition of South Sudan in 2011, the U.S. actively funneled arms and other military resources into the region, playing all sides to deepen internal divisions. Many of these weapons ultimately ended up in the hands of the RSF, equipping them to consolidate power and commit atrocities. This is not a relic of the past; arms shipments from U.S. allies like the UAE continue to sustain the RSF’s operations today. The U.S. government’s declaration of genocide now conveniently ignores its role in creating the conditions for such violence, allowing it to position itself as a moral arbiter while deflecting responsibility for the chaos it sowed.

True peace lies in supporting Sudanese-led movements for justice, self-determination and liberation.

Foreign intervention, economic control and military manipulation have shaped the country’s struggles. In 2018, the Sudanese Revolution was a challenge to this system, but the counterrevolution followed swiftly. In April 2019, RSF leader Hemedti helped remove Omar al-Bashir — not for the people, but to secure power. He and SAF leader al-Burhan worked together to suppress the uprisings that continued after al-Bashir’s ouster, with the RSF massacring over 100 civilians at a sit-in in Khartoum on June 3, 2019. Their alliance soon collapsed, revealing a struggle between military leaders, both supported by foreign interests.

Elite peace deals — ceasefires, power-sharing agreements and IMF-driven reforms — only serve to legitimize military control while sidelining Sudan’s grassroots movements. These agreements uphold the same structures that created Sudan’s crisis, rewarding military groups for their violence. True peace lies in supporting Sudanese-led movements for justice, self-determination and liberation.

Akram-Boshar: On January 11, the SAF recaptured Wad Madani, a key city in Sudan, from the RSF. While there was relief and celebration that the RSF’s brutality in the city was ending, Sudanese activists also cautioned against the idea that the SAF takeover was the “liberation” they were hoping for. The idea that the RSF is specifically responsible for the genocide and 21-month war in Sudan suggests that the SAF are the “lesser evil” or more desirable force to remain in control in Sudan. But a look at the RSF’s origins suggests otherwise. Could you talk about the relationship between the RSF and the SAF historically? How do Sudanese people on the ground in Sudan, and in the diaspora, perceive the two forces?

Ayuak: The RSF and SAF are deeply intertwined historically, emerging from the same systems of violence and repression that have defined Sudan’s modern history. The RSF originated from the Janjaweed militias, armed and supported by the SAF during the Darfur conflict to carry out genocidal campaigns. In 2013, the RSF was formalized under Hemedti and became part of the state’s security apparatus, demonstrating the SAF’s role in institutionalizing these militias. This historical relationship shows that the SAF and RSF are not fundamentally different forces but rather extensions of the same oppressive structures.

Both the SAF and RSF have perpetrated violence against civilians to consolidate their power. The SAF, under leaders like Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, has a long record of targeting marginalized regions such as Abyei, South Kordofan and Blue Nile. In Abyei, the SAF used northern militias to displace the Dinka Ngok communities and exploit the region’s oil resources, prioritizing power and economic interests over the well-being of the people. Similarly, the RSF’s brutal actions in Darfur and later in Khartoum during the 2019 massacre follow the same pattern of state-sanctioned violence.

The perception that the SAF might offer liberation obscures their history of complicity in Sudan’s suffering. This framing also detracts from the ongoing work of grassroots resistance committees and neighborhood councils, which have been at the forefront of revolutionary movements demanding civilian leadership. Sudanese activists reject elite peace deals that legitimize military actors like al-Burhan and Hemedti. Agreements such as the 2020 Juba Peace Agreement [signed between the post-Bashir transitional government and several armed groups] often sideline civilian efforts by focusing on power-sharing among armed groups and enforcing economic reforms that harm the people, such as the removal of fuel subsidies and IMF-driven austerity measures.

The SAF’s recapture of Wad Madani is not a step toward liberation but a continuation of the same oppressive structures that the SAF and RSF have always embodied. Organizers argue that true liberation requires dismantling these militarized bodies and centering the demands of civilian-led movements.

Akram-Boshar: Sudanese activists have decried the UAE for its involvement in the 21-month war in Sudan. The UAE has repeatedly denied its role, but evidence against it is mounting. While the U.S. statements in early January neglected to mention the role of the UAE, the country’s role in prolonging the war has become impossible to ignore. But Sudanese activists in the diaspora have been organizing to bring attention to the UAE’s culpability, while calling for a boycott of the UAE. What has the UAE’s role been in maintaining the war? Why is the U.S. ignoring it?

Elsaeyed: The UAE has had a longstanding financial and military relationship with the RSF before the current war in Sudan. This partnership includes the exchange of gold for weapons, and deployment of RSF soldiers to fight for the UAE in Yemen. Evidence of their involvement is no longer just an accusation; it is well-documented. Not only do RSF fighters use UAE-manufactured weapons, but flights of Emirates planes have been repeatedly documented traveling to and from RSF strongholds, delivering cargo and transporting the injured. There have been reports of tons of gold being smuggled out of Sudan, with the UAE playing a central role in this illicit trade.

The SAF and RSF are not fundamentally different forces but rather extensions of the same oppressive structures.

Despite this overwhelming evidence, the U.S. and other Western imperial powers have remained vague and unwilling to directly address the UAE’s role in the conflict. This silence persists even after formal accusations were made by the Sudanese government to the UN Security Council, clearly laying out the UAE’s complicity in fueling the war. The interests of the UAE include resource and land grabs in resource-plentiful Sudan. Gold, agricultural land and livestock exist in so much abundance that they have been fueling the Gulf states’ incursions in Sudan for decades. The U.S.’s reluctance to confront the UAE is driven by strategic interests, particularly as the UAE was recently declared a major defense partner, and is crucial to the U.S.’s Middle East strategy, including in its efforts to counter Iran. The UAE’s role is thus overlooked or downplayed, enabling it to continue its involvement without facing any accountability, much less than a stern warning. This not only shields the UAE but also highlights the double standards of Western foreign policy in Sudan.

Ayuak: The U.S. and UAE’s interests are deeply aligned as co-conspirators in maintaining a system of global exploitation and control. The U.S. provides much of the military hardware, intelligence and geopolitical support that enables the UAE to act in Sudan and across the region. U.S. weapons are routinely used by the UAE to suppress resistance movements, not just in Sudan but also in Yemen, Libya, and elsewhere. Both powers are united in their quest to maintain regional instability as a tool for economic gain, using conflict to secure trade routes, exploit natural resources and suppress the political agency of the people in the region. This control is not only about access to resources like gold in Sudan, but also the geopolitical leverage it provides in a broader regional strategy that includes everything from the occupation of Palestine to undermining Yemen’s sovereignty.

The resistance to this system requires more than just symbolic boycotts; it demands a structural rethinking of how imperial powers, led by the U.S. and backed by regional actors like the UAE, perpetuate war for profit. Boycotts of the UAE, while essential, must be part of a larger strategy that directly challenges the U.S.-UAE axis, exposing their shared role in the suffering of Sudanese people and dismantling the imperialist system that sustains it. Solidarity with Sudan, Palestine, Yemen, and beyond is essential, not just for immediate political gain, but for challenging the global systems of violence and control that the U.S. and UAE both perpetuate.

Akram-Boshar: What have campaigns against the UAE’s role looked like? Have they gained traction or successes thus far?

Mazen Alsafi: The UAE has played a central role in fueling the war in Sudan, arming the RSF with weapons that have devastated cities, displaced millions and entrenched counterrevolutionary violence. Despite extensive documentation of the UAE’s arms shipments, international institutions have failed to act. Many organizations and campaigns have worked tirelessly to expose the UAE’s complicity, raising critical awareness and laying the groundwork for further action. However, awareness alone is not enough — we must escalate our efforts into direct disruption of the supply chains sustaining the counterrevolutionary war. Governments and global bodies have proven either unwilling or incapable of enforcing an arms embargo, which is why the Sudanese Resistance Front is advancing a People’s Arms Embargo — a campaign to directly disrupt the supply chains sustaining the war.

SuRF has already been part of a broad coalition targeting institutions complicit in the UAE’s imperialist interventions, including academic institutions like New York University (NYU), which maintains deep financial and political ties with the UAE. The UAE financially supports NYU’s Abu Dhabi campus, an extension of its soft power strategy, while at the same time funding and arming counterrevolutionary forces in Sudan. As part of our larger December campaign centering the 2018 Sudanese Revolution and its demands, we called for NYU to divest from its partnerships with the UAE, recognizing that such ties directly enable a regime that bankrolls war, repression and imperialist expansion in Sudan and beyond.

Sudanese activists reject elite peace deals that legitimize military actors like al-Burhan and Hemedti.

In recent months, organizations have successfully exposed and disrupted arms shipments to Israel, revealing the material ways in which logistics networks facilitate the occupation of Palestine. Investigative research and direct action have brought to light how shipping companies transport military goods, forcing corporations to confront their complicity. We seek to apply similar methods in exposing and challenging the flow of weapons from the U.S. and UAE to the RSF, ensuring that these networks are not allowed to continue unchecked. This requires building a united front with labor unions, anti-imperialist organizations, Sudanese diaspora networks and solidarity movements that have taken action against imperialist-backed militarism in Palestine, Yemen, and beyond.

The People’s Arms Embargo is a material intervention — not just a call for sanctions or a moral condemnation, but a strategy to undermine imperialist war-making through collective action. This means mass political education, direct mobilization at ports and embassies, and coalition-building with organizations that share our goal of dismantling the networks that fuel this war. Those looking to take part in this campaign can join our research efforts, mobilize in their cities and help forge the united front necessary to cut off the UAE and U.S. role in Sudan’s destruction.