Face of Truth: Sudan: The Account of Blood and Politics..!

Ibrahim Shglawi

Since the outbreak of the war on April 15, 2023, Sudan has faced a true existential test after the Rapid Support Forces began an armed coup against the state. What followed were bloody acts against civilians in Darfur, Kordofan, Khartoum, and Al-Jazira, described as ranging from war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and possibly genocide.

These militias did not stop at rebelling against the national army, but used civilians as human shields, and carried out systematic killings, rapes, and looting, in behavior reminiscent of militias in the worst African conflicts.

In this reality, Darfur recorded in just 10 days the killing of 160 civilians, including 16 who were executed in the field, according to the United Nations Human Rights Office. In Kordofan, the Rapid Support Forces launched a brutal attack on the village of “Shaq Al-Noum” in the city of Bara in North Kordofan state on July 12, which led to the death of more than 450 civilians, including women and children, according to shocking testimonies reported by AP News, in addition to similar violations in villages in Eastern Al-Jazira such as Al-Sareeha, Wad Al-Noora, Al-Hilaliya, and others.

Regrettably, the world held its breath in the face of these crimes, and international stances did not rise to the level of these events. However, in early 2025, the US Secretary of State announced that the Rapid Support Forces and their militias had committed genocide, primarily directed against ethnic groups such as the “Masalit,” accompanied by financial sanctions on the militia leader and his support networks.

At the heart of this humanitarian and political crisis, diplomatic movements have recently begun to emerge. In Switzerland, the President of the Sovereignty Council, Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, met with US envoy Mossad Boulos in a meeting that was not officially announced, but imposed itself as a first step toward a peace plan that includes a ceasefire and the delivery of humanitarian aid. Saudi Arabia also renewed its call to return to the Jeddah platform and adhere to what was signed on May 11, 2023. Likewise, Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar declared their support for a ceasefire.

Diplomatic parallelism reached Libya, where reports indicated that US envoys met Khalifa Haftar in his areas of influence, in an attempt to cut logistical support lines for the militia, and perhaps to provide pathways for the repositioning of the Rapid Support Forces fighters outside the country as a sign of calming and containing the rebellion.

All these efforts raised central questions: Can the state bypass the blood of the victims without justice? Will the Sudanese street accept an agreement that does not address the real roots of the conflict or change the balance of power? Can political reconstruction respond to the humanitarian reality?

The battle, as seen, is not only on the frontlines, but in the rule of law and in the credibility of the national voice toward the inside and the world. Peace without justice will not last, and if those who practiced violence or supported the coup are allowed to share or engage in building the future without accountability, we will reproduce the same crisis again.

At the heart of this pivotal moment, the positions of the ruling Sudanese elite are diverging, interwoven with increasing international and regional pressure. On one side stands the current calling for military resolution as the path to protect Sudan from fragmentation and to restore the state’s prestige. On the other side, emerges a discourse calling for a “realistic” political settlement, that transcends the binary of victory and defeat, even at the cost of part of justice.

The statements of General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, President of the Sovereignty Council, during his participation in the funeral of the operations commander of Al-Baraa Brigade, Muhannad Fadl, were decisive in their stance on this issue. He stressed his rejection of any reconciliation with the Rapid Support militia and its supporters and vowed to continue fighting until “the state returns to the people and its institutions.” This speech came at a moment when some internal and external forces were hinting at the need for calm and engagement in a comprehensive settlement.

On the other hand, statements by the Vice President of the Sovereignty Council, Malik Agar, sparked wide controversy when he called for reconciliation and moving beyond the past, which some considered an affront to the feelings of the victims’ families and a retreat from the principled stances the state had long adopted. However, a critical analysis of Agar’s speech reveals an attempt to propose another option, not necessarily stemming from leniency, but from an understanding of the high human, political, and economic cost of open war, even though some see this as an attempt to impose a new reality on the exhausted people, through a political bargain that bypasses truth and justice.

The issue here is not in the details of the settlement, but in the principle of justice itself. Can Sudan be rebuilt on sound national foundations without recognizing and holding the Rapid Support Forces accountable for their crimes? Can 10 million displaced people, thousands of deaths, and thousands of rape cases be overlooked under the banner of “national reconciliation”? And if the state does not protect the dignity of its citizens, how does it differ from the militia that assassinated that dignity with weapons?

In light of the #Face_of_Truth, what Sudan needs today is not just a ceasefire, but a new political contract that restores the true meaning of the state: a state of law, justice, and sovereignty. A settlement without accountability is not peace, but a pause for another war. Even military resolution, if it happens, cannot substitute for a comprehensive political project that rebuilds the state and prevents the return of arms. Therefore, the account of blood and politics remains the essence of the coming equation; there is no politics without memory, and no state with impunity. Thus, the new social contract must be based on the legitimacy of ethics and the sovereignty of the rule of law.

Wishing you peace and wellness.

Thursday, August 28, 2025
Shglawi55@gmail.com