Sudan's Forgotten Crisis: Gulf Powers, Regional Stability, and the Humanitarian Catastrophe

In the shadow of global headlines, Sudan's devastating civil war continues to rage with alarming intensity. For nearly two years, this conflict has torn apart Africa's third-largest country by area, yet remains criminally underreported in international media. Today, I want to shine a light on this crisis, examining not only its humanitarian toll but also the complex web of regional interests that continue to fuel the fighting.

The Invisible Humanitarian Catastrophe

The scale of suffering in Sudan defies comprehension. Approximately 150,000 people have perished since fighting erupted in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), commanded by General Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo (known as Hemedti). More than 11 million people—nearly a quarter of Sudan's population—have been displaced, creating one of the largest displacement crises in the world.

Widespread famine now grips large portions of the country. The United Nations has warned that millions face acute food insecurity, with children particularly vulnerable to malnutrition and preventable diseases. Healthcare systems have collapsed across conflict zones, with reports indicating that over 70% of healthcare facilities in affected areas are no longer functional.

Yet despite this staggering human toll, Sudan's conflict receives a fraction of the global attention and resources dedicated to other crises. Media coverage remains sporadic, international aid is woefully insufficient, and diplomatic pressure lacks the urgency the situation demands. While other conflicts dominate headlines and diplomatic agendas, Sudan's people suffer in relative obscurity, their plight acknowledged but seldom prioritised.

This discrepancy in global attention reflects troubling patterns in how we value human suffering based on geopolitical interests, perceived strategic importance, and, sadly, geography. The question lingers: how many more must die before Sudan's crisis commands the urgent global response it deserves?

Gulf Powers: Competing Interests and Proxy Warfare

What makes Sudan's conflict particularly complex is how it has evolved into a battleground for regional influence, particularly among Gulf states whose competing interests have transformed a domestic political struggle into a dangerous proxy war.

Saudi Arabia maintains perhaps the most balanced approach, with connections to both warring parties. Having worked with the RSF during campaigns against Houthis in Yemen, while also maintaining historical ties with Sudan's military establishment, the kingdom has attempted to leverage these relationships to mediate the conflict. Saudi Arabia's proximity to Sudan and its strategic interest in Red Sea security positioned it as an early leader in humanitarian response and evacuation efforts when fighting broke out.

The United Arab Emirates has pursued a more controversial role, maintaining particularly close economic and security ties with Hemedti and the RSF. UN experts and investigative reporting have alleged that the UAE has provided weapons disguised as humanitarian aid via neighbouring Chad, accusations the Emirates firmly deny. Nevertheless, the United States sanctioned seven UAE-based companies for trading gold and facilitating weapons purchases for the RSF, underscoring the concerning degree of external support fueling the conflict. The Sudanese Armed Forces have publicly accused the UAE of being the RSF's primary military backer—allegations that have escalated to confrontations at the United Nations.

Qatar, meanwhile, has maintained closer alignment with the official position of the Gulf Cooperation Council and Arab League, recognising the Burhan-led Sovereign Council as Sudan's legitimate authority. This position reflects Qatar's historical relationship with Sudan's political establishment, though its current role appears limited primarily to providing humanitarian aid through Port Sudan. Qatar's support has purportedly been more diplomatic and humanitarian than military, offering a somewhat stabilising counterbalance to more direct interventions Egypt, Turkey, and various African states have also reportedly provided support to the SAF, while Iran and Russia have been implicated in supporting different factions. This complex web of international backing not only intensifies the fighting but also complicates efforts to reach a peaceful resolution, as each external actor pursues its own strategic interests in the region.

Regional Stability at Stake: The Risk of Contagion

Sudan's conflict threatens to destabilise an already fragile region. The country shares borders with seven nations—Egypt, Libya, Chad, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Ethiopia, and Eritrea—many of which face their own challenges and limited capacity to absorb humanitarian spillover.

The massive refugee outflows have placed enormous strain on neighbouring countries. Chad, for instance, has received hundreds of thousands of refugees, despite its limited resources and infrastructure.

Beyond the immediate humanitarian impact, the conflict risks triggering wider regional instability through several mechanisms:

1. Border insecurity: Porous borders allow for weapons trafficking, militant movement, and the spread of conflict dynamics into neighbouring territories.

2. Resource competition: As displaced populations seek safety in border regions, competition for scarce resources like water, arable land, and basic services intensifies, potentially triggering local conflicts.

3. Political contagion: The successful use of military force to resolve political disputes in Sudan could embolden similar approaches in neighbouring countries with fragile political systems.

4. Economic disruption: Regional trade routes and economic partnerships face severe disruption, undermining development efforts across East Africa and the Horn.

The African Union and regional bodies like the Intergovernmental Authority on Development have attempted to address these risks through mediation efforts, but their initiatives have been undermined by competing interests and insufficient resources. For Africa's stability, finding a sustainable resolution to Sudan's conflict must become an urgent priority for the international community.

The Spectre of Terrorism: Extremist Opportunities

Perhaps one of the most concerning long-term risks of Sudan's continued instability is the opportunity it presents for terrorist and extremist groups to expand their influence and operational capacity. The power vacuum created by the conflict, combined with widespread grievances and desperate humanitarian conditions, creates fertile ground for radical recruitment and territorial control.

Al-Shabab, the Somalia-based militant group affiliated with Al-Qaeda, has already demonstrated its ability to exploit regional instability to extend its reach. With Sudanese security forces focused on fighting each other rather than monitoring borders and remote territories, the risk of cross-border infiltration by extremist elements grows substantially.

Sudan's vast, under-governed spaces could provide safe havens for terrorist groups seeking to establish training camps, smuggling networks, or staging grounds for attacks against regional and international targets. The abundant flow of weapons into the conflict zone further increases the risk that sophisticated armaments could fall into the hands of extremist organisations.

Historical precedent underscores this concern. During previous periods of instability, Sudan provided sanctuary to various terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda in the 1990s. While the current situation differs significantly from that era, the fundamental security vulnerabilities created by civil conflict remain.

Beyond organised terrorist groups, the economic desperation and social dislocation caused by the conflict create conditions where criminal networks and local militias can flourish, further undermining security and governance across the region. Breaking this cycle requires not only ending the current conflict but also establishing effective governance and security arrangements that can prevent extremist groups from exploiting the inevitable fragility of any post-conflict environment.

Red Sea Security: A Global Shipping Lifeline Under Threat

Sudan's conflict adds another layer of instability to the already precarious security situation in the Red Sea, one of the world's most critical maritime corridors. Approximately 12% of global trade, including a significant portion of Europe's energy supplies, passes through the Red Sea and Suez Canal each year, making its security vital for the global economy.

The region has already experienced severe disruption from Houthi attacks related to the Gaza conflict, with commercial shipping companies forced to reroute vessels around the Cape of Good Hope, adding weeks to transit times and significantly increasing costs. Sudan's continued instability creates additional security concerns along the western shores of this crucial waterway.

Port Sudan, the country's main commercial port, has remained relatively functional throughout the conflict, partly due to its distance from the main fighting in Khartoum and western regions. However, its operations have been affected by the overall economic collapse, infrastructure degradation, and security concerns that make commercial shipping more complex and costly.

More concerning is the potential for the conflict to disrupt international efforts to combat piracy and maintain maritime security in the region. Sudan's coast guard and maritime security capabilities have been severely compromised by the conflict, creating potential security gaps that could be exploited by non-state actors or criminal networks.

The overlapping challenges of Houthi maritime attacks, potential resurgence of piracy, and general insecurity along Sudan's coastline represent a worrying convergence of threats to a waterway that the global economy cannot afford to see disrupted for extended periods. Restoring stability in Sudan is therefore not merely a regional humanitarian concern but a matter of global economic security.

Economic Development: Gulf Ambitions and Sudanese Stability

For Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, Sudan's stability is inextricably linked to their ambitious economic transformation plans. Saudi Vision 2030—the kingdom's sweeping blueprint for economic diversification and development—heavily emphasises projects along the Red Sea coast, most notably the futuristic city of Neom, planned as a $500 billion showcase of technology, sustainability, and tourism.

These investments rely fundamentally on regional security and stability. Persistent conflict in Sudan not only creates direct security risks but also undermines investor confidence in the broader Red Sea region. The successful implementation of Saudi Arabia's economic diversification depends on transforming perceptions of the Red Sea from a zone of conflict to a corridor of commerce and tourism.

Sudan itself represents significant economic potential for Gulf investors. The country possesses abundant agricultural land, substantial mineral resources (particularly gold), and strategic positioning for trade and transportation infrastructure. Gulf states have signed numerous agreements for agricultural investments aimed at enhancing their own food security—a critical priority for countries with limited arable land and water resources.

The UAE has been particularly active in developing Sudan's gold sector, with Sudanese gold exports to the Emirates valued at billions of dollars annually. This economic relationship helps explain the UAE's continued engagement with various power centers in Sudan, as it seeks to protect substantial existing investments while positioning for future opportunities.

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have all previously pledged significant financial support for Sudan's economic development, particularly following the 2019 transition that ousted long-time president Omar al-Bashir. The current conflict has largely frozen these initiatives, but they represent the potential for mutually beneficial economic partnerships that could help Sudan rebuild once stability is restored.

The economic interdependence between Gulf states and Sudan creates both complicated entanglements and potential leverage for peace. Gulf countries possess the financial resources and political influence to incentivise compromise and support reconstruction efforts, if they can prioritise shared stability over competing for influence.

The Path Forward: Cooperation Over Competition

Despite the bleak current reality, pathways to peace in Sudan exist if regional and international actors can align their interests toward stability rather than competition. The most promising approach requires Gulf states to leverage their substantial influence with both warring parties to facilitate meaningful dialogue and compromise.

Saudi Arabia, with its relatively balanced relationships with both sides, remains perhaps the most credible Gulf mediator. The Jeddah process, launched in partnership with the United States in May 2023, offered early promise but has been hampered by insufficient follow-through and competing initiatives. Revitalising this framework, while ensuring broader inclusion of African regional bodies and neighbouring countries directly affected by the conflict, could provide a foundation for renewed dialogue.

Turkey's recent offer to mediate between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the UAE represents an interesting new dynamic. Despite historical tensions between Turkey and the UAE, Abu Dhabi's willingness to accept Turkish mediation suggests recognition that resolving the conflict may require fresh approaches and uncomfortable compromises.

Any sustainable resolution must address several core elements:

1. An immediate, monitored ceasefire with consequences for violations

2. Secured humanitarian corridors to address the acute food crisis

3. A transitional governance framework that provides security guarantees for both military factions while creating a pathway to civilian rule

4. International support for reconstruction and development conditioned on adherence to peace terms

5. Regional security arrangements that address the concerns of neighbouring countries and external stakeholders

Most critically, Gulf states must recognise that their long-term interests in Red Sea security and economic development are better served by a stable Sudan than by short-term influence gained through backing one faction against another. The enormous economic and political leverage they possess could be transformative if applied toward peace rather than proxy competition.

Conclusion: A Call for Attention and Action

Sudan's catastrophe demands our attention not only for humanitarian reasons but also because its implications radiate far beyond its borders. The conflict's potential to destabilise the region, empower extremist groups, disrupt critical global shipping routes, and undermine economic development plans makes it a crisis of truly international significance.

Yet while the world's gaze focuses elsewhere, Sudan bleeds. Eleven million displaced, 150,000 dead, and millions facing starvation represent not just statistics but individual human tragedies multiplied beyond comprehension. The relative silence surrounding this suffering reflects troubling patterns in how we prioritise humanitarian crises based on factors other than human need.

The path forward requires concerted international pressure on all parties—both the warring factions and their external backers—to prioritise civilian protection and meaningful dialogue. Gulf states, with their unique influence over the conflict's protagonists, bear particular responsibility to use their leverage constructively rather than competitively.

For those of us watching from afar, we must refuse to let Sudan's crisis remain invisible. Raising awareness, supporting humanitarian organisations operating in the region, and pressuring our governments to prioritise diplomatic engagement and humanitarian assistance represents the minimum moral response to such overwhelming suffering.

Sudan's people deserve peace. The region requires stability. And our common humanity demands that we not look away from what may be the world's most neglected crisis.

By Jack Alderman