The Face of Truth: Sudan and the Quartet… A Renewed Betrayal!
Ibrahim Shglawi
At the beginning of the week, Sudanese citizens were preoccupied with what became known as the initiative of the Quartet group—the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE—which was proposed as a new settlement for the Sudanese crisis. However, according to the assessment of many Sudanese actors, it merely reproduces the same crisis through a traditional and ineffective approach that perhaps deliberately reflects a lack of understanding of the internal reality and the balance of power on the ground. In this article, we attempt to discuss this initiative from a political perspective and analyze its internal, regional, and international contexts.
Despite the soft diplomatic cover that accompanied the Quartet initiative, particularly the call for a three-month humanitarian truce followed by a short-term transitional period, the initiative was met with widespread rejection inside Sudan, both officially and popularly. This is due to the fact that it equates the state with a rebellious militia and proposes a political path that ignores the national will consistently expressed by the majority, who reject any externally imposed solutions.
The Sudanese government did not reject the principle of international mediation per se, but it drew clear red lines, namely that any initiative that does not respect national sovereignty, does not start from the recognition of the legitimacy of state institutions, or seeks to equate the national army with an externally supported militia, will not be accepted. In fact, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs went even further, describing the Rapid Support Militia as a terrorist group committing systematic war crimes, warning the international community of the danger of blurring concepts and overlooking clear legal and political facts.
This rejection extended to national, political, and popular forces that expressed a principled stance against the contents of the initiative—particularly the participation of the UAE, which these forces, in clear terms, accuse of supporting the militia with money, weapons, and mercenaries. They consider that those who lack political and moral eligibility cannot be impartial mediators.
This rejection was voiced by various entities such as the Broad Islamic Current, the National Congress Party, the Islamic Movement, the National Movement, the Popular Congress Party, and the National Movement for Building and Development. They view the initiative as an attempt to impose an imbalanced settlement that does not reflect the balance of power nor take into account the aspirations of the Sudanese people.
In reality, the Sudanese people have become more aware of the nature of the conflict their country is undergoing and are less willing to repeat the experiences of externally imposed settlements. They realize that the state is facing an armed rebellion supported by regional powers, not just a political crisis between rival parties. Therefore, any solution that does not emerge from within and does not respect the legitimacy of the state and the unity of the country is, in their view, a ready-made recipe for chaos and the perpetuation of violence.
As for the Quartet, its attempt to present itself as a neutral mediator faces two main obstacles:
First, the lack of public trust—especially in two of its members, the UAE and the United States—due to what is perceived as a clear bias toward the militia.
Second, the superficial reading of the Sudanese scene and the failure to comprehend the significant changes on the ground, whether in military balance or in the public and political mood within Sudan.
Domestically, the Sudanese army continues its field advances on several fronts, especially in Greater Kordofan, which weakens the militia’s position day by day. This progress has been reflected not only on the ground but also in the growing popular support for the armed forces, alongside the internal divisions within the militia and the rising calls for a genuine internal dialogue led by national forces that believe in Sudan’s unity and sovereignty—away from any foreign guardianship or pressure.
Regionally, the Quartet’s stance does not reflect real coherence, despite the joint statement. While the UAE is seen as a non-neutral party, Saudi Arabia and Egypt tend to adopt a more cautious approach and may be ready to revise their positions in alignment with Sudan’s stability—especially since its security is part of their direct national security. This divergence within the Quartet may deepen with field developments and increasing public criticism within Sudan of the parties involved in supporting the militia.
As for the international community, it seems to be in a state of confusion between peace slogans and complex realities. The United States includes Sudan within its “regional stability” files but has not clearly defined its stance. Meanwhile, the United Nations appears incapable of enforcing Security Council resolutions in the face of international division and the absence of political will.
This situation may push Sudan to strengthen its relations with other international powers that are more open to the state’s narrative regarding the nature of this war, such as Russia and China, among others—within a realistic foreign policy that ensures Sudan remains a key regional player, not a follower subjected to diktats.
Amid this entangled scene, Sudanese feelings of betrayal are renewed toward those who are supposed to be “peace partners,” while they see in their initiatives nothing but attempts to recycle a crisis that can only be resolved from within—through a national project that ends their suffering and redefines authority based on state sovereignty and the will of its people.
The Sudanese experience has proven—according to #The_Face_of_Truth—beyond any doubt, that real change is not made by a Quartet statement, nor achieved in an operations room beyond the borders. A sustainable solution begins from within and is achieved by the will of the Sudanese alone, when the national vision is unified, and the public interest rises above geopolitical calculations and miserable balances.
Sudan is a country worthy of life, dignity, and sovereignty, and it is capable of overcoming new interventions—whatever form they may take.
Wishing you well and in good health
Sunday, September 14, 2025
Shglawi55@gmail.com