Three years have passed since the large-scale outbreak of war in Sudan. Ever since, civilians have borne the brunt of violence. Cities have been reduced to rubble, healthcare systems have collapsed, and millions have been displaced within and beyond Sudan’s borders. The scale of suffering is staggering. Families have been torn apart, livelihoods destroyed, and access to food, water, and basic services severely restricted. Humanitarian access remains limited, leaving many without essential aid. Reports of widespread human rights violations, including indiscriminate attacks, sexual violence, looting, and the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure, paint a harrowing picture of a war waged with little regard for human life. The war has not only devastated Sudan’s present: it is eroding its future.
Yet beyond the visible destruction lies a central driver of the conflict: the struggle for control over Sudan’s natural and mineral resources. Control over gold and gum arabic economies fuels the conflict, enabling armed actors to generate critical revenues through looting, taxation and smuggling. These commodities are deeply embedded in global supply chains, which help sustain and entrench this dynamic. This analysis builds on our previous research on European and Dutch involvement in arms supplies to Sudan, as well as the links between gold and gum arabic trade and the conflict.
Gold and gum: the fuel of the conflict
Gold, in particular, has become a lifeline for armed actors. Sudan is one of Africa’s largest gold producers, and much of this gold is extracted in areas under the control of armed groups. The lack of transparency in the gold trade enables these actors to sell gold through international markets, including via trading hubs such as the United Arab Emirates, generating significant revenues. These are then used to sustain military operations, including the procurement of weapons.
Similarly, gum arabic – a natural resin widely used in food, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics – plays a crucial but often overlooked role. Sudan has long been the world’s primary supplier of gum arabic. Despite the ongoing conflict, exports continue, with armed groups generating revenue by taxing production and trade and controlling smuggling routes into neighboring countries, where the resource is often marketed as conflict-free. European buyers and companies further down the supply chain fail to properly check supply chains and verify the true origin of the products, allowing them to indirectly contribute to the conflict.
Weapons pour into Sudan
As resources flow out of Sudan, weapons continue to flow in. This is happening despite international sanctions intended to curb arms transfers. Weapons are entering the country through complex networks involving regional actors and international trade routes. Evidence suggests that the United Arab Emirates has provided support to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), raising serious concerns about the continuation of arms flows into Sudan and the role of the UAE in fueling the conflict and atrocities against civilians.
Europe’s responsibility
This is where Europe’s role becomes critical. Arms trade relationships between European companies and the UAE risk contributing, directly or indirectly, to the conflict in Sudan. When European companies supply weapons or military equipment to countries implicated in transferring arms to conflict zones, they become part of a chain that fuels violence elsewhere. The same global markets that import Sudanese gold and gum arabic are, in parallel, linked to the supply of arms that sustain the war.
Here also lies a clear role and responsibility for European financial institutions: the banks, pension funds, insurers and asset managers financing –and thereby enabling- arms producers that sell weapons to countries where there is a high risk of these weapons being used in or diverted to controversial destinations. Especially now, now that defense spending is surging like never seen before, arms producers are making massive profits and the financial sector is under increasing pressure to invest more in the arms sector, it is imperative that financial institutions set clear limits and do not finance companies that supply arms to high-risk destinations.
This interconnected system – resources out, arms in – demands urgent action.
What Europe must do now
European governments, businesses, and financial institutions cannot remain passive. They have the power to change these dynamics, and so they should. This is how:
- Gold originating from Sudan should be formally labeled as conflict gold. This would increase awareness and accountability, helping to disrupt the financial flows that sustain armed actors.
- Companies importing gum arabic must implement robust due diligence processes. Greater transparency is essential to ensure that supply chains are not tainted by conflict financing. Claims that supply has simply shifted to other countries must be scrutinized carefully.
- European financial institutions, including banks, pension funds and insurers, should reconsider their portfolios. Investments in arms companies that sell to countries implicated in the Sudan conflict carry significant ethical and legal risks. Responsible investment means refusing to profit from violence.
- Companies must take decisive steps to halt arms sales to the UAE where there is a clear risk of diversion to Sudan. Preventing further harm requires closing the loopholes that allow weapons to reach those perpetuating the conflict.
Three years on, the people of Sudan continue to suffer the consequences of a war sustained not only by local actors but by global systems of trade and finance. A system we can change. Breaking this cycle is not only possible: it is imperative.
