The EU at a Crossroads: Principles, Power and the War in Sudan
As Sudan descends, according to the United Nations, deeper into one of the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophes of the 21st century, Europe’s response remains muted. The war, soon entering its third year, has turned cities into battlefields and left millions on the brink of starvation. In Darfur, in the west of Sudan, and particularly around the city of El Fasher, fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has unleashed mass killings, torture, and the destruction of hospitals. The RSF’s seizure of El Fasher marks a turning point, with heavily documented, ethnically targeted atrocities by the RSF and allied militias. At the same time, both RSF and SAF have committed other serious violations elsewhere.
Brussels has not been entirely silent. In a recent joint statement, EU High Representative Kaja Kallas and Commissioner for Crisis Management Hadja Lahbib condemned the takeover. They demanded de-escalation in line with UN Security Council resolutions. The EU emphasised the importance of humanitarian law, pledged €270 million in aid, and urged a return to diplomatic talks.
But is that enough? Does the EU have a common Foreign and Security Policy for Sudan?
Some EU governments would argue that the conflict in Sudan is distant and of little direct relevance to European interests. Yet, the EU has long portrayed itself as a normative power1 or soft power, a defender of human rights, humanitarian principles, and the rule of law. In Sudan, that self-image is under stress. Despite the scale of the slaughter, European action has been limited, and critics warn that the EU risks surrendering both credibility and moral authority.
Meanwhile, the war is fuelled by regional and international actors. The RSF receives weapons and logistical support from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), including drones and other materiel. Russia and Turkey act opportunistically, collaborating flexibly with both sides, now more interested in access to the Red Sea, now cooperate with the SAF. Before, they were more interested in resources, such as gold, collaborating with the RAF. European-made arms have also reportedly found their way into the conflict via third parties, raising uncomfortable questions about export controls. The SAF, for its part, is backed militarily by Egypt and Iran, and more politically and diplomatically by Saudi Arabia. All international partners from the conflict parties seek to exert influence and gain access to Sudan’s vast resources, including gold and the Red Sea in the east, which facilitates worldwide trade.
The human toll is staggering: 25 million people face hunger, unofficial estimates suggest that well over 100,000 people, possibly 150,000 or more when including indirect deaths, may already have died. However, precise figures are impossible to verify. Nineteen million children are unable to attend school. The crisis traces back to the 2019 overthrow of long-time dictator Omar al-Bashir and a fragile power-sharing transition to democracy, which collapsed into open war between the SAF and RSF in April 2023. Currently, the RSF controls much of the west and southwest of Sudan, particularly Darfur and parts of Kordofan, while the SAF holds most of the centre, north and east, including the Red Sea coast and Port Sudan. Both sides are willing to go until the end to win Sudan for their party.
A tool for the EU could be the support of civil society organisations within Sudan, despite various war crimes; people make it to support each other with food and shelter. They built “Emergency Response Rooms” (ERRs), knowing exactly where support is needed. The informal grassroots structures of the ERRs are a valuable remnant of the democratic revolution against the former dictator, Omar al-Bashir. Still, some have vanished, struggled or kept fighting, dying in the fights between SAF and RSF.
But Europe’s total limited response stands in contrast to its assertive stance on Ukraine and its vocal positions on Gaza. Analysts argue that if the EU wishes to be taken seriously as a defender of international norms, it cannot selectively ignore atrocities beyond its borders. The bloc still has more tools at its disposal: economic leverage, diplomatic pressure, arms-tracking enforcement and demands for transparency from partners like the UAE, pressing them to fulfil their image as a peace-making actor, Western marketing partner and diplomatic partner in the world.
European Council President António Costa visited Abu Dhabi in late October. He said about the UAE: “[They are] an important and reliable partner for the EU: for the prosperity, stability and security of both our regions and beyond.” If that is the case, the EU could halt the sale of weapons to actors like the UAE to build more pressure. Sudan’s ambassador to the EU warned in this context that an increasing number of weapons from the EU are being used by the UAE to prolong the conflict, undermining the EU’s moral stance and values in the world. The remarks of Sudan’s ambassador to the EU regarding the EU’s ethical duties and Costa’s words highlight the paradox between the EU’s economic and security interests in Sudan, on the one hand, and its normative interests, on the other.
But could economic, security and normative interests not merge in the long-term perspective?
Beyond ethics, self-interest is at stake. A prolonged conflict could trigger new refugee flows toward Europe, risking another migration crisis and further strain on EU domestic politics. Looking the other way may seem geopolitically convenient. The UAE is a valuable economic partner, but inaction today could bring instability tomorrow. Moreover, Sudan could be a valuable partner for the EU, given its resources, access to the Red Sea and its former status as a strong agricultural actor in Africa.
Even the United States, under Donald Trump, has attempted to pressure external actors in the conflict, partly driven by political ambitions, as seen in a statement with central actors in the conflict, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. The group called for a negotiation process that would end the war through a transition to a civilian government. Yet Washington’s efforts, like those in Gaza, have so far failed to halt the bloodshed. The SAF rejected the process because it would favour the positions of RSF and the UAE too much in the conflict.
Meanwhile, Europe talks. The EU Council conclusions “strongly condemn” the violence and lament Sudan’s humanitarian collapse. The European Parliament voted on a resolution condemning atrocities in Sudan’s civil war, labelling RSF abuses of human beings as potential genocide. The parliament called for sanctions on militias and on unnamed “external enablers.” However, the text did not mention the UAE as a party responsible for fuelling the conflict. The resolution ultimately omitted references to the UAE after a major lobbying push by Emirati officials. The UAE insisted that it plays a constructive, peace-seeking role in Sudan and strongly denied any support for the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Attempts by the Socialists (S&D), Renew, and the Greens to include criticism of the UAE were blocked by the European People’s Party (EPP), supported by right-wing groups. EU–Emirati officials describe trade negotiations with the UAE as progressing very quickly, a context in which some EU actors appear reluctant to confront Abu Dhabi directly over Sudan.
Unless the EU’s words do not name the problematic actors involved in the conflict, favouring economic interests over its proclaimed liberal values, its international credibility will continue to erode. The consequences will not only be confined to Sudan. They will reverberate across Africa, the Middle East, and ultimately Europe itself.
If the EU truly intends to stand for human dignity, the rule of law, and peace, Sudan is the test it cannot afford to fail.
Dear readers, the situation in Sudan is highly volatile, and regional powers quickly and flexibly shift their alliances. I am trying to keep track of new developments, but please always fact-check before using my information and sources. Thank you!
Interested? Read more on Euractiv, Politico EU, Blätter, EEAS and European Council.
- The concept of the EU as a “Normative Power” comes from the work of Ian Manners, a British political scientist, who introduced the term in his influential 2002 article “Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?” In his view, a normative power is an actor that influences global politics through the diffusion of norms embedded in its identity and legal-political order, rather than through military or economic coercion. His framework centres on a core set of constitutive norms (peace, liberty, democracy, the rule of law, and human rights) supplemented by additional norms such as social solidarity and sustainable development. ↩︎
