France’s silence on UAE role in Sudan has become a point of sharp criticism because it sits at the intersection of diplomacy, arms exports, and alleged complicity in one of Africa’s worst wars. Human Rights Watch says Paris, together with some other Western governments, has spoken in vague terms about “external support” to the conflict in Sudan, while avoiding any direct public naming of the United Arab Emirates. That hesitation, rights campaigners argue, is not a neutral diplomatic choice but a political shield for a strategic partner.
The importance of this controversy arises because the UAE in question is not being considered as an observer. The role of the UAE as the key external party involved in the conflict, which through its supposed support has allowed the Rapid Support Forces to continue conducting military campaigns and committing atrocities, has been revealed by the reporting of Human Rights Watch. It is precisely this that has led France to remain silent on this matter.
What the HRW report alleges
The key argument by Human Rights Watch is that the evidence of Emirati support for the Rapid Support Forces has grown too significant to be overlooked. The organization has reportedly conducted investigations for more than a year on one form of Emirati support: the transportation of Colombian fighters who served as a backup unit for the RSF in Sudan. In its report, HRW asserts that the fighters used a covert transportation route that covered at least four countries.
This suggests that there is systematic support as opposed to private and freelance activities. According to the report, the involvement of the United Arab Emirates is intertwined with the fighting capability of the RSF. The report adds that the support system of the Emiratis has assisted the RSF in committing crimes and has allowed it to stay functional. HRW believes that the world organizations and governments in Europe have been too cautious about naming the UAE.
Colombian fighters route
One of the most detailed parts of the reporting concerns Colombian recruits. HRW says the men were recruited in Colombia, transported to the UAE, trained on Emirati facilities, and then sent onward into Sudan as part of a covert pipeline. Other reports linked to the same investigation say UAE airports and military bases were used as transit and training points, including Ghiyathi and Al Wathba in Abu Dhabi, before the fighters moved toward Darfur.
The significance of this route is not just logistical; it suggests coordination. HRW says the pattern of movement across several jurisdictions indicates a structured operation, not an ad hoc transfer of individuals. The organization also said the network involved Abu Dhabi-based Global Security Services Group, which it says hired hundreds of Colombian private military contractors for deployment to Sudan. That finding is central to HRW’s argument that the UAE is not merely a bystander but a enabling power.
Figures and scale
The scale of the Sudan conflict is enormous, and the report from HRW situates the UAE scandal within the larger humanitarian disaster. According to HRW, around 14 million people have been internally displaced in Sudan, whereas another 4 million have left the country. It helps understand the significance of the charges of foreign involvement because any external assistance could prolong the conflict that already leads to mass displacement, famine threats, and atrocities. As for the military aspect, the Amnesty investigation carried out in 2024 has introduced a new problem.
Thus, Amnesty revealed that the French-made Galix defense systems had been discovered on the Emirati-made armored vehicles used in Sudan, which was probably a violation of the United Nations arms embargo against Darfur. Additionally, according to Amnesty, the French companies had delivered an estimated €2.6 billion worth of military equipment to the UAE in 2014-2023. The mentioned statistics help understand why France has been accused, as its cooperation with the UAE is significant.
French weapons connection
The French connection is one reason the story is politically sensitive in Paris. HRW says French military equipment, including the Galix passive defense system manufactured by Lacroix Défense in collaboration with Nexter, ended up on an Emirati-made armored vehicle that was later found in RSF hands. HRW says the original sale terms expressly prohibited re-export to third parties, making the appearance of that equipment in Sudan especially troubling.[hrw]
Amnesty’s findings echoed that concern by identifying French-manufactured military technology on vehicles used in the Sudan war. Amnesty said the Nimr Ajban armored personnel carriers, built in the UAE by Edge Group and fitted with the French Galix system, have been in use by the RSF. Its investigation suggested that this is not simply a case of exported equipment being seen in a conflict zone, but a potential breach of the conditions attached to the original sale.
France and the UAE ties
France’s silence is also being evaluated from the perspective of its overall dealings with the UAE. According to HRW, the UAE is considered to be one of the major strategic allies of France in the Middle East as well as the biggest buyer of weapons. However, critics argue that in the case of the UAE, France’s caution has been self-defeating. As pointed out by HRW, despite there being evidence that French equipment has found its way to Sudan, France is still continuing to supply weapons to the UAE.
In effect, what this means is that France is now having to choose between maintaining an economic and strategic relationship on one hand or using that same relationship to deter the commission of atrocities in Sudan.
UAE response and denial
The UAE denies the allegations, according to the rights reporting cited here. Emirati officials have also sought to present themselves as humanitarian actors in the Sudan crisis rather than military enablers. At a Paris conference, the UAE pledged $100 million, while reporting also cited a total of $150 million in aid and the establishment of a field hospital in Chad.
Those humanitarian gestures, however, have not resolved the core accusation. The tension is that the UAE is simultaneously presenting itself as a donor and being accused of helping sustain a war machine linked to mass atrocities. For critics, aid pledges do not cancel out the implications of alleged weapons transfers, transit networks, and contractor pipelines.
Wider Western caution
Other countries have been equally condemned, but France occupies a special position due to its military and diplomatic relations. According to Human Rights Watch, the EU and the UK have similarly used diplomatic jargon such as “external support” instead of identifying the United Arab Emirates as the source of weapons. It suggests that the use of this kind of diplomatic language is weakening the international pressure on the UAE and protecting it from any blame. This tendency is politically significant. The fact that even countries, which have access to intelligence and diplomatic information, do not want to identify the UAE as the supplier means that it is going to be hard for the public to learn the truth.
Why the issue is explosive
This story is explosive because it merges three sensitive files at once: Sudan’s war, the UAE’s alleged backing of the RSF, and France’s arms-export policy. HRW says the conflict has become so severe that failures to pressure external supporters may be prolonging atrocities on the ground. Amnesty’s findings about French-designed military systems in Sudan make the issue even more combustible for Paris because they tie the country’s defense industry directly to the battlefield.
There is also the legal dimension. HRW and other rights groups say the movement of arms or equipment into RSF use may amount to breaches of the UN arms embargo on Darfur. That raises the stakes from moral condemnation to potential international legal scrutiny. For France, continued deliveries to the UAE now carry reputational risk as well as political risk.