The Face of Truth: Beware the Return of the Quartet to the Forefront
Ibrahim Shglawi
The recent activity of the international Quartet concerned with Sudan—comprising the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and recently Egypt—comes within the context of rearranging the balance of power in the region, rather than being a goodwill effort to end the Sudanese war as might be understood from the surface of their statements. This Quartet, which effectively emerged following the fall of the Al-Bashir regime in 2019 without a clear popular or international mandate, raised the banner of “supporting democratic transition.” However, its experience reflected a top-down approach that sought to impose political arrangements not rooted in the Sudanese interior but rather driven by regional and international calculations.
The history of the Quartet indicates a tendency to exploit political fragility in Sudan, especially during the tenure of Dr. Abdalla Hamdok’s government, which lacked an electoral mandate. This opened the door to direct interventions in Sudanese affairs, most notably its support for the “Lawyers’ Draft Constitution” project, which was criticized for entrenching an unrepresentative civil elite dominance and paving the way for foreign interventions under a legal-political guise. Furthermore, the support given by the Quartet to the Framework Agreement—which equated the military institution with the Rapid Support Forces militia—played a significant role in creating a state of deep division within the Sudanese political landscape. Human rights reports such as “Human Rights Watch” (HRW, 2022) viewed this as a threat to the stability and unity of the state.
Following the outbreak of the war on April 15, 2023, as a result of the failed coup attempt led by the Rapid Support Forces militia with regional and local support from some political forces, the international Quartet returned to the forefront under the banner of “ending the war.” However, this return was not accompanied by a serious review of the policies that contributed to complicating the situation, whether regarding the passage of the UN mission headed by Volker Perthes or the pressure to impose a one-sided political settlement.
Notably, the recent meetings held in Washington, according to Reuters, suggest a desire for repositioning rather than a genuine desire to resolve the crisis. The American insistence on “rejecting a military solution” lacks effectiveness as long as it is not accompanied by halting the ongoing external support received by the Rapid Support Forces militia—especially in light of the non-implementation of the Jeddah Agreement signed on May 11, 2023, which has not been activated on the ground despite over two years having passed since its signing.
Despite the welcome expressed by some Sudanese political forces, such as the “Sommoud Alliance,” regarding this meeting, concerns remain valid. Experience has shown that international and regional actors tend to use the Sudanese crisis as a card in the power struggle, more than they seek to establish sustainable peace that responds to the aspirations of the Sudanese people.
It has become clear that any real solution cannot be imposed from the outside and cannot be born from selective settlements. Rather, it must come from an inclusive national dialogue held within Sudan, involving all Sudanese people, based on an independent national vision that restructures the relationship between civilians and the military on new foundations—where the military is the guarantor of the country’s unity and security. More importantly, the path to stability must begin with the dismantling and reintegration of militias into the armed forces, in accordance with the Sudanese Armed Forces Law, along with holding accountable those involved in the coup, thereby ending the state of impunity and duality of arms and ensuring that the country does not return to war.
In light of regional and international changes, Sudan is no longer that “backyard” to be tampered with or whose path can be dictated from the outside. It has become more aware of the magnitude of the challenges and more determined to protect its sovereignty and preserve its national unity. The international Quartet must realize that if it is truly serious, its role should not be to engineer power from the outside, but rather to enable the Sudanese people to shape their own destiny—without guardianship or interference.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau once said: “The people are the sovereign. No individual or institution may override their will. Sovereignty is the essence of the state, and the social contract that binds the people to the state can only be based on the will of all. Freedom means governing yourself by laws you make as part of the community—not being led by foreign powers or institutions that impose guardianship.”
According to our view from the #Face_of_Truth, ending the war in Sudan will not come through deals between capitals, but rather as the result of a purely national project that grows from within Sudanese society and relies on its people’s will to reclaim their homeland from the grip of chaos, the power of arms, and foreign intervention. True peace will only be achieved through a comprehensive national initiative, free from guardianship, that elevates the popular will to build a just and stable Sudanese state—one that prioritizes the homeland over cross-border agendas.
Wishing you well and good health.
Thursday, June 5, 2025
Shglawi55@gmail.com