The Face of Truth | Ibrahim Shglawi
Sudan: Negotiation on the Edge of the Abyss..!
Questions are mounting regarding what is rumored to be secret negotiations between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia in Washington. Even though the government and the Sovereignty Council have issued statements denying the existence of any direct or indirect negotiations with the militia, this denial was not accompanied by a full explanation of the ongoing meetings or the nature of the current diplomatic and media activity. This has left the situation ambiguous and opened the door to speculation and rumors.
The United States invited an official Sudanese delegation to a bilateral meeting regarding the crisis, which is normal. However, the government could have announced this clearly from the beginning.
The issue, therefore, is not about whether negotiations exist, but about the lack of transparency. Ambiguity creates a crisis of trust between the government and the public, and enables hostile media to manufacture misleading narratives. A clear and early statement could have clarified that the meetings with the Americans were diplomatic and unrelated to negotiations with the militia, avoiding all this controversy. Instead, the government handled the situation reactively, forced under pressure to present unconvincing answers whenever media and political pressure increased.
The Sudanese people, exhausted by war, have not lost their insight or inherent intelligence. They still rely on transparency and openness in any upcoming political or security steps. For that reason, they completely reject deals made in secrecy or imposed from the outside.
The statement by General Shams al-Din Kabbashi in October 2023—after leaving the General Command and the Karari military base—declaring that he was going to Jeddah for negotiations arranged by mediators, is clear evidence that the military institution does not hide behind closed doors, but announces its steps openly and responsibly.
Since then, as we know, the Sudanese army has adhered to negotiations only within recognized frameworks and with approved mediators, avoiding attempts to impose new mediation paths or to blur the process.
Today, a year later, the public asks: What is happening in Washington? And what is the nature of the visit by Foreign Minister Mohieddin Salem? Is it related to peace arrangements, alongside answering the renewed question: What does America want, and what are the requirements for normalizing relations in the correct direction?
Another framework is represented in recent official statements from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Sovereignty Council: there are no direct or indirect negotiations between the armed forces and the militia. What is happening in Washington is merely bilateral political consultations between Khartoum and Washington on recurring strategic issues, including regional security, counter-terrorism, economic cooperation, and Red Sea security.
Despite media reports claiming indirect meetings between representatives of the army and the militia under American supervision, the absence of credible sources—along with official denials from Khartoum—makes such reports closer to systematic media misinformation aimed at confusing the scene and preparing public opinion to accept a rejected Emirati role within what is known as the International Quartet.
The Sudanese army understands that introducing the UAE as a mediator would necessarily grant political legitimacy to an armed rebellion or keep it within the future settlement equation. This contradicts the clear national stance that considers the RSF an armed rebellion that must be dismantled under military law, through a process that includes demobilization and reintegration for those who respond to the Commander-in-Chief’s call to surrender themselves to military units.
Informed Sudanese sources indicate that these consultations with the U.S. government involve discussing security and strategic matters, and have touched on the possibility of arranging a temporary three-month ceasefire on the condition that the militia withdraws from cities and lifts the siege on El Fasher, in addition to stopping Emirati military and media support to the militia — as preliminary conditions for building trust.
From this, it becomes clear that the Sudanese position is based on three firm pillars:
First: No negotiation with the militia except within the framework of dismantling it, disarming it, and reintegrating its members.
Second: No Emirati mediation until Abu Dhabi ceases its direct and indirect support for the rebellion.
Third: No acceptance of externally imposed solutions that compromise sovereignty or territorial unity.
Observers believe that the greatest strategic mistake would be rushing into military negotiations before neutralizing the regional actors involved in the conflict, foremost among them the UAE. The national priority requires a frank dialogue with Abu Dhabi about its support for the militia, and re-activating the Quartet mediation in a balanced manner without the UAE.
In the longer term, any genuine political process must address compensation, justice for victims, and the recovery of militia assets inside and outside Sudan to be used in reconstruction and reparations for those affected by the war.
The official Sudanese position today, if indeed as it appears, reflects a deep awareness of the complexity of regional and international interests, and an understanding of the danger of turning the Sudanese tragedy into a battleground for competing foreign influence. Therefore, Sudan insists that the solution must be purely Sudanese, based on national sovereignty and excluding all those who fueled or contributed to the conflict.
According to #The_Face_of_Truth, what is happening in Washington is not peace negotiations, but bilateral political discussions that some regional and political actors supporting the militia are trying to exploit to polish their roles.
By firmly rejecting Emirati mediation, Khartoum sends two clear messages:
First, to the international community: Sudan will not allow its sovereign file to be managed from outside except under its own terms.
Second, to the internal public: The government and the army remain committed to a purely national path toward peace and security, with no place for militias or foreign interests. Sudan is not negotiating on the edge of the abyss, but on the principle of dignity and sovereignty.
Wishing you well and in good health.
Saturday, October 25, 2025
Shglawi55@gmail.com
