The role of external actors in the escalation of the civil war in Sudan is becoming increasingly apparent. Recent reports indicate that the conflict cannot be explained solely by local dynamics; rather, it has been shaped by the indirect or direct interventions of global and regional powers. In this context, the support provided by Colombian mercenaries, backed by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), to paramilitary forces in Sudan necessitates a reassessment of the nature of the conflict.
According to a report, a network of Colombian mercenaries is alleged to have provided critical military support to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group in Sudan.[i] This support has played a decisive role, particularly in the process of capturing the city of El-Fasher in Western Sudan. The RSF’s control over this city is regarded not merely as a military gain, but also as a turning point leading to the deepening of a humanitarian disaster.
One of the most striking aspects of the report is that it is based on technological data analysis. Tracking of mercenaries’ mobile phones has concretely revealed their movement routes and areas of operation. In this context, it has been established that certain elements who set out from Colombia travelled to Sudan after receiving training at military facilities in Abu Dhabi.[ii] This situation provides the basis for establishing a direct link between Abu Dhabi and the RSF.
The revelation of such a relationship brings the concept of a “proxy war” back into the spotlight. It is well known that states often adopt a strategy of intervening in conflicts through third-party actors, thereby avoiding direct military intervention, a tactic frequently observed in the Middle East and Africa. From this perspective, claims that the UAE is involved in Sudan’s civil war as an indirect actor are gaining credibility.
The presence of Colombian mercenaries, meanwhile, opens a separate area of debate. Years of internal conflict and military experience in Latin American countries have led to former soldiers from this region playing an active role in the international mercenary market. Indeed, it is reported that these Colombian elements are engaged in roles such as drone operation, artillery support and military training. This situation demonstrates that modern wars are increasingly taking on a “privatised” structure.
The collapse of El-Fasher, however, is not merely viewed as a military development, but is also associated with serious human rights violations. The events, which have been assessed by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court as war crimes and crimes against humanity, have been described by United Nations investigators as actions “bearing the hallmarks of genocide”.[iii] At this point, it is believed that the drone support provided by mercenaries prolonged the siege and contributed to the intensification of attacks on civilians.
Another key finding of the report highlights the extent of the logistics network. Connections identified across different regions such as ports in Somalia and transit points in Libya demonstrate that this operation is not confined to Sudan alone. Such a multi-layered logistics network reveals the highly organised nature of international arms and mercenary transfers.
The UAE government categorically denies these allegations. In previous statements, it has been asserted that accusations of support for the RSF are “baseless”.[iv] The denial of actions that could entail direct state liability is viewed as a strategy to avoid legal sanctions.
Another notable aspect to consider here is the stance of the United States (US). On this matter, the US Department of the Treasury acknowledges that Colombian mercenaries provided support to the RSF; however, it refrains from explicitly establishing a direct link between this support and the UAE.[v] This situation illustrates how power balances and diplomatic sensitivities operate within the international system. Indeed, the UAE stands out as one of the US’s key allies in the Middle East.
Colombian President Gustavo Petro, however, has harshly criticized this situation. Describing mercenaries as “ghosts of death”, Petro characterises their recruitment as a form of human trafficking.[vi] This perspective reflects the unease felt by Latin American countries regarding the use of their own citizens in global conflicts.
These developments are reopening the debate on state responsibility and the regulation of mercenary use from an international law perspective. Although states deny direct involvement, the legal nature of military activities conducted through third-party actors is increasingly being questioned. In this context, the organised deployment, training and active role of mercenaries in conflict zones raises not only individual but also indirect state responsibility. In particular, the use of such actors in military activities with high impact capacity, such as drone operations, exacerbates the devastating consequences for civilians and increases the risk of violations of international humanitarian law. Consequently, the Sudanese example clearly demonstrates the extent to which existing international legal mechanisms fall short in regulating such hybrid warfare practices and ensuring accountability.
Consequently, it is evident that the civil war in Sudan is not merely a local conflict; instead, it presents a complex structure in which global powers, mercenary networks and regional actors are intertwined. This indirect intervention, carried out through Colombian mercenaries, demonstrates that modern wars are increasingly taking on a “hybrid” character. The growing role of non-state actors highlights the inadequacy of existing instruments of international law in regulating such situations. In this context, the international community must focus not only on the consequences of the conflict but also on such covert and indirect interventions. Otherwise, as in the case of Sudan, the deepening of humanitarian crises and the prolongation of conflicts become inevitable.
[i] Usher, Barbara Plett. “UAE-backed Colombian mercenaries provided support to Sudan paramilitary, report says”,BBC News, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4vk13wgwwo, (Date of access: 26 April 2026).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Ibid.
