The Complex Web of Arms in Sudan: A Call for Accountability

The situation in Sudan has taken a worrisome turn, prompting an in-depth investigation by the United Nations. The inquiry seeks to unravel the mystery of how weapons, notably mortar rounds that originated from Bulgaria and were sent to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), ended up in the possession of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia in Sudan. This scenario is not merely a case of lost accountability; it raises profound questions about arms trafficking and the ethics of global arms sales.

According to a confidential letter reviewed by Reuters, these munitions were seized in North Darfur during a military operation led by pro-government militias in November 2024. This incident underscores a grim reality on the ground—one where the lines between international regulations and local conflicts blur, often with devastating consequences.

What makes this case particularly alarming is the revelation that the serial numbers on the seized mortar rounds reportedly correspond with those of weapons exported by Bulgaria to the UAE back in 2019. Images and videos disseminated by the militias post-seizure vividly displayed these markings, creating a damning narrative that raises eyebrows around the world.

As we delve deeper into this issue, it is apparent that the incident shines a spotlight on the potential diversion of arms in the region, alongside suspected violations of international arms agreements. How could a reportedly well-regulated chain of arms export become a vehicle for conflict? The broader implications of such a breach echo in humanitarian crises everywhere. Could this be a signal that the international community needs to scrutinize its arms dealings more closely?

Last year, Sudan’s UN ambassador, Al-Harith Idriss al-Harith Mohamed, publicly accused the UAE of supplying arms to the RSF. This militia has been in a fierce struggle against Sudan’s army since April 2023 and stands accused of committing ethnic war crimes, a claim that was corroborated by Al Jazeera. In this charged atmosphere, the ambassador stated that Khartoum has tangible evidence of these arms transfers and plans to file a formal complaint against the UAE with the International Criminal Court. One can’t help but wonder about the broader implications of such a move. What precedent does this set in international law, and how will it affect geopolitics in the region?

Bulgaria’s Position: A Denial Amid Accusations

Bulgaria has vigorously denied any wrongdoing. They assert that they exported 81mm mortar rounds to the UAE military in 2019 and never authorized their re-export to Sudan. In a formal letter to the UN, Bulgaria’s permanent mission confirmed the shipment but emphasized that permission for resale to a third party was never granted. This defense raises another question: how can nations ensure accountability in their arms exports? The murky waters of international arms deals often leave gaps that can be exploited.

In a statement addressing the allegations, Bulgaria’s foreign affairs ministry reiterated that no authorization had been granted to re-export the munitions. “We adamantly declare that the Bulgarian competent authority has not issued an export license for defense-related products to Sudan,” the ministry stated. Yet, this assurance brings little comfort to those fearing the consequences of unregulated arms spread across conflict zones.

UAE’s Strategies Under Scrutiny

On the other hand, the role of the United Arab Emirates in the African landscape cannot be understated. Often hailed as a diplomatic and commercial powerhouse, the UAE has demonstrated an increasing penchant for wielding military, financial, and political influence across Africa, particularly in conflict-affected states. In Sudan, this role is now under intense scrutiny as the country spirals deeper into a humanitarian crisis.

The UAE’s involvement raises pressing questions. Are they merely observers in Sudan’s turmoil, or are they active participants, allegedly supplying arms and supporting militias? This complex situation reveals a broader geopolitical agenda that has been quietly unfolding across the African continent and beyond. Over the years, the UAE has faced accusations of arming various African governments, some of which are authoritarian regimes and military juntas. Such actions inevitably provoke concerns regarding the destabilization of governance structures and the perpetuation of conflict.

Despite claims from the UAE that they have ceased arming the RSF, reports suggest otherwise. Even amidst U.S. pressure to halt military support, the UAE might have continued arms shipments via regional networks, often disguised under the pretext of humanitarian aid. This strategy calls to mind an important question: how can the international community monitor and regulate the flow of arms effectively, especially when they are masked as benevolent assistance?

The UAE itself refutes the allegations of arming the RSF, relying on a U.N. report that found no tangible evidence. However, the plot thickens as investigative reports reveal ongoing probes into the UAE’s activities. The refusal to disclose flight manifests for cargo flights headed to Chad only adds layers of complexity to an already convoluted narrative.

In an escalating move, Sudan has filed a case with the World Court, accusing the UAE of violating the Genocide Convention. The UAE, however, argues that this court lacks jurisdiction, further complicating the geopolitical chess game in which humanitarian rights are often treated as pawns.

At this juncture, it is crucial to pause and reflect: what does accountability look like in a world teetering on the brink of humanitarian disaster? As nations navigate the murky waters of international relations, it is up to us to demand transparency, justice, and a commitment to human rights. Only then can we hope to prevent future atrocities and work toward a more peaceful global landscape.

As the investigation continues, the eyes of the world remain focused on Sudan, Bulgaria, and the UAE. Will the truth emerge, and if so, what repercussions will follow? Only time will tell, but the stakes could not be higher.

Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times International–Monitoring.