Face of Truth: Kuala Lumpur and the Engineering of the Sudanese Scene..!
Ibrahim Shglawi
Over the course of three days, between August 26 and 28, 2025, a consultative workshop was held in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, at the invitation of the French organization “Promediation” and in coordination with Malaysian authorities. This gathering represented a new attempt to open a political margin in the Sudanese scene, which is almost entirely closed.
These Sudanese political forces gathered in an effort to revive a national project worn down by division and deepened by war, in order to explore an alternative approach that redraws the lines of the crisis on political foundations, away from zero-sum conflicts.
The final statement, which was widely circulated, reflected a clear tendency to redefine the Sudanese crisis as an armed rebellion against the state and its institutions. This was evident from the opening lines, which began with a tribute and appreciation for the sacrifices of the armed forces, the regular forces, and the mobilized personnel, with an explicit affirmation of the legitimacy, unity, and sovereignty of the state.
This precise characterization, considered a political, moral, and solidarity stance with Sudanese people in the hardship of war, came in the context of attempting to redraw the national position at the international level, in the face of narratives seeking to internationalize the crisis and reframe it outside the state’s narrative.
The statement emphasized the unity and full sovereignty of Sudan, amid rising discussions about partition projects. It focused particularly on the city of El Fasher, describing it as a catastrophic model of the humanitarian situation, calling on the international community to bear its responsibilities. According to the statement, the Rapid Support Forces militia committed atrocities that may amount to war crimes, based on UN and independent reports.
Despite the accusatory tone directed toward the Rapid Support Forces, the statement did not lean toward escalation. Rather, it emphasized a commitment to a political solution through the call for a charter of honor that guarantees freedom of expression and paves the way for a transitional path without exclusion. This indicates a remarkable awareness that war, no matter how prolonged, cannot impose a lasting solution, and that political reconciliation remains the most viable option if governed by legal frameworks.
On another front, the statement did not stop at political diagnosis but proceeded to propose an alternative path that combines preserving state institutions and laying the foundations for a peaceful and secure political transition. It affirmed the commitment to a comprehensive political solution and called for a national charter of honor that guarantees freedom of expression and opens the door for political understandings based on rejecting exclusion and rebuilding trust among national forces.
The statement also showed clear concern for the humanitarian crisis, considering it a national priority. However, this call remained within the framework of intentions, without clarifying implementation mechanisms or the responsible parties. This reflects a familiar gap in Sudanese political discourse between theoretical propositions and practical reality.
The international dimension was present in the statement, whether through criticism of regional support for the rebellion or through the call to build partnerships with entities that support the official stance. The statement sought to maintain a balance between rejecting the internationalization of the crisis and accepting the need for international support in areas such as relief and reconstruction.
Notably, the statement emphasized the pursuit of a unified army operating independently of political and partisan influences, reflecting national consensus on the professionalism of the military institution. This aligns with the history of the Sudanese army, which has typically remained apolitical, with its interventions in governance usually occurring at the behest of political forces rather than by its own initiative.
The statement was signed by: the National Congress led by Ibrahim Mahmoud, the Reform Now Movement, the National Movement for Construction and Development, the Builders of Sudan Party, and the National Reform and Change Forces Party. These formations represent a diverse spectrum within the Islamic current, alongside conservative forces and newly established national organizations, giving the document a degree of diversity, although it remains far from comprehensive representation of Sudan’s political and societal forces.
It is noteworthy that this meeting was preceded by a similar invitation from the same organization in April 2025 for a consultative meeting in Doha that was postponed. The same signatories had announced their attendance, while other parties boycotted it. While the National Congress faction led by Ibrahim Mahmoud participated, the party leadership under Ahmed Haroun refused, considering any dialogue before the end of the war and the restoration of full sovereignty an implicit recognition of a reality shaped by militias and their foreign backers.
Nevertheless, the positions revealed by both sides do not reflect a fundamental disagreement in political orientation, but rather a divergence in assessments, timing, and priorities.
The Kuala Lumpur statement raises an important question: Could it form a basis for rapprochement between the two wings of the National Congress, or even an opportunity to unify the Islamic currents divided since the fall of President al-Bashir’s regime in 2019? And could it pave the way for a broader initiative to unify ranks in the face of the current national challenges?
As for “Promediation,” it is a French organization active in mediation in conflict zones across the African continent. It has participated in organizing previous meetings related to Sudanese affairs, whether in Geneva or Cairo. While it presents itself as a neutral party, some Sudanese voices view it as a tool for reestablishing a French–European position in Sudan under the guise of dialogue and civil support.
In light of #FaceOfTruth, and despite reservations regarding the limited representation and the external context of the meeting, the Kuala Lumpur statement is a political indicator worth pausing at. It reflects a possible return of politics as a tool for resolution and grants some actors room for repositioning. However, its usefulness remains contingent on its ability to move from the symbolism of a statement to the effectiveness of a project—by overcoming divisions and establishing a serious national path that keeps pace with the complexities of the moment and rises to meet the country’s challenges.
Wishing you all well and in good health.
Monday, September 1, 2025
Shglawi55@gmail.com