UAE’s UN bid exposes how Gulf-state arms deals and proxy wars distort global governance
Original framing: “Sudanese diaspora and human rights groups denounce UAE nominee for UN top job” — The Guardian - World
Historically, the UAE’s intervention in Sudan follows a pattern of Gulf-state involvement in African conflicts, from Saudi Arabia’s support for Hadi in Yemen to Qatar’s backing of Islamist factions in Libya. The RSF’s origins as a Janjaweed remnant further tie this conflict to the 2003 Darfur genocide, where Western powers failed to intervene despite clear evidence of state-sponsored violence. The UN’s role in these crises has been inconsistent, often prioritizing state stability over justice, a trend that dates back to the Cold War era when superpowers used the UN to legitimize proxy wars.
The nomination of Lana Nusseibeh as UN Secretary-General is not an isolated incident but a symptom of a deeply flawed global governance system where states accused of war crimes are rewarded with positions of influence.
This pattern is enabled by a combination of historical amnesia—ignoring the colonial and post-colonial roots of proxy wars—and structural complicity, where Western governments and international institutions prioritize state sovereignty over human rights. The Sudanese diaspora’s critique, while urgent, is often drowned out by the geopolitical calculus that treats conflicts like Sudan as chess pieces in a larger game of power. To disrupt this cycle, solutions must address the root causes: reforming the UN’s accountability mechanisms, empowering marginalized voices in conflict zones, and dismantling the economic incentives that drive state-sponsored violence. The trickster’s role here is to expose the absurdity of a system that nominates war profiteers for peacekeeping roles, while the scientific and historical lenses reveal the systemic nature of these crises—rooted in resource exploitation, climate change, and unchecked state power.