Our country is fighting an existential battle to restore its unity, and the Saudi–American initiative came after the statements of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, which confirmed that the war is being waged by proxy, driven by greed for resources.
These statements reshaped the rules of the game and legitimized narratives that Khartoum had long repeated without finding resonance in regional or international discourse. In this article, we discuss these ideas alongside the golden opportunity for negotiation and peace.
The discussion has shifted from “how to end an internal war” to “how to halt external interventions that use the war to pursue economic gains and ambitions.” This is a fundamental shift that makes any political settlement impossible unless the three levels of the conflict are addressed together:
An internal level between the state and a militia supported from abroad;
a regional level where rival blocs are competing for influence in a country of immense wealth;
and an international level that approaches the crisis from a risk-management perspective rather than supporting the restoration of Sudanese sovereignty and the preservation of state institutions.
The significance of the UN statement lies in the fact that, for the first time, it confronts the international community with its responsibilities: Sudan is not merely a local conflict zone but a supra-regional arena where proxy war is waged in pursuit of resources and wealth.
In this bleak environment, the state is attempting to reassert its position. The visit of the President of the Sovereignty Council, Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan, to Al-Qitaina and its messages regarding internal cohesion are a conscious effort to rebuild legitimacy from within, at a time when external actors—chief among them the UAE, according to international reports—are attempting to reengineer the political scene in favor of their own agendas.
The insistence of the army and the government that the war is not a choice but an existential necessity counters narratives that sought to equate the army with the militia. These narratives lost ground after the UN acknowledged external interventions.
In discussing negotiation and what has emerged regarding the Saudi vision for a solution, it is important to note that the position of the military institution is not on the table for two objective reasons:
First, because the army has become, by virtue of the war, the sole guarantor of the state’s continuity, not a political actor subject to bargaining or coercion;
Second, because the fragmented and weakened political parties are currently unable to form a unified civilian bloc capable of supporting a coherent transition.
Accordingly, negotiation does not aim to redefine the army’s status but to enable it to fulfill its role in protecting the state’s trajectory, while holding it accountable for presenting a clear vision for peace—not turning it into an object of political bidding.
This requires a new vision for the negotiation process: one grounded in the realism of power, not in imagined political engineering. The process must be managed through an equation that balances state authority with societal legitimacy, restoring the fundamentals of sovereignty without sliding toward militarizing politics or internationalizing national decision-making.
The Saudi–American initiative comes at a moment of global political suffocation, as Washington and Riyadh seek to cement their roles before the balance of power changes on the ground. The challenge, however, lies in the initiative’s failure to fully acknowledge that one of the key accused parties—the UAE—has become both publicly and officially unacceptable after the declared rupture. Here, a legitimate question arises:
Why does the Sudanese government not announce a well-structured roadmap that excludes the UAE and relies on more trustworthy actors such as Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey?
The answer is not moral but political: Sudan is operating within a delicate web of pressures, and any direct exclusion may open a wider diplomatic confrontation, while the main goal is to neutralize the Emirati role practically without creating an open dispute. Thus, the practical solution appears to be expanding the mediation circle rather than replacing one actor with another—achieving the needed balance and reducing the influence of any single power without triggering additional regional tension.
With the widening conflict and the erosion of the political structure, the question of societal legitimacy emerges as a decisive factor in protecting the negotiator’s position. The political forces are not in a state that allows them to provide a negotiating mandate, which necessitates integrating Sudanese society through practical mechanisms that ensure meaningful participation without descending into chaos. This can be achieved through three main tools:
First: A societal consensus platform that includes community leaders, experts, Sufi orders, unions, youth, and women to provide public authorization and unify the national vision.
Second: A negotiation principles document announced to the public, clarifying national constants, the conditions for a ceasefire, what is negotiable, and what is off the table.
Third: A gradual consultation mechanism accompanying each negotiation phase through briefings to the Sudanese public and regulated engagement with political and social actors to ensure transparency and reinforce internal cohesion.
With this gradual approach, society becomes a support pillar for the negotiator, not a burden, and the army becomes a guarantor of the transition, not a political rival. The negotiation process thus shifts from an externally imposed design to a national project deeply rooted in the country’s foundations.
In the same context, regional positions have grown clearer—most notably the recent statements of Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty, who affirmed that preserving Sudan’s unity and sovereignty has become a shared regional interest. The minister stressed during his meeting with the UK National Security Adviser the importance of preparing the environment for an inclusive political process and achieving a comprehensive ceasefire, within a broader vision that links the Sudanese crisis to the security of the Red Sea—reflecting the geostrategic weight the crisis has acquired.
According to #Face_of_Truth, Sudan today stands at a crossroads. The true challenge is not merely managing negotiations but reinforcing the state’s narrative, restoring its ability to impose sovereign conditions, and building a strong internal front that enables Sudanese people to advance toward a just peace—one that reflects the golden equation of negotiation and peace, shaped not by external balances but by the will of Sudan’s people.
Wishing you well and in good health.
Monday, 24 November 2025
Shglawi55@gmail.com
