The Face of Truth | Ibrahim Shaglawi The General Assembly .. Engineering Positions and the Dilemma of Possibilities

It is clear that the War of Dignity has moved from the battlefields to international forums through the struggle over national decision-making, making Khartoum’s participation in the meetings of the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly a difficult political test in which international pressures intersect with calculations to reshape the state and push it toward understandings that may go beyond ending the war to shaping its political and sovereign future.

This trend is revealed by the delay in issuing President Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan’s visa to New York. According to “Reuters,” the visa appears to be linked to the country’s position on a U.S. proposal for a 90-day ceasefire, which raised the concern of United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres and prompted the Secretariat to raise the matter with Washington.

It is clear that the visa has become a political card. If it is issued, this could mean separating the political dispute from the obligations associated with hosting the meetings of the international organization. If its issuance continues to be delayed, however, the matter places the United Nations before a test of the limits of its ability to ensure the participation of member states in its forum, while adding a new dimension to the strained relationship between Khartoum and Washington.

If it is established that the visa is being linked to a political condition, the issue goes beyond travel to Sudan’s sovereignty and its right to full participation in the General Assembly.

At that point, the matter becomes deeper than a dispute between Khartoum and Washington. The General Assembly is a forum for member states, not a platform where visas are used to impose political will or blackmail states. Sudan has every right to address the world with its just cause. No one has the right to seize the will of the Sudanese people at the doors of international forums.

In this context comes Al-Burhan’s article published in the American magazine Foreign Policy, calling for a permanent end to the war, an end to foreign intervention, and linking peace to a Sudanese political process, while focusing on violations and external support for the Rapid Support Forces militia. Therefore, Al-Burhan’s choice of an influential American platform gives the Sudanese narrative an opportunity to reach regional and international public opinion, as well as political, media, and research circles inside the United States.

But the battle over the narrative alone does not determine the international position, as states act according to their interests and the realities on the ground. From this perspective, Guterres’s call to hold accountable the countries prolonging the war gains importance for Khartoum, as it opens broader space to discuss the impact of foreign intervention on the continuation of the conflict.

In contrast, the presence of Abdalla Hamdok and the “Sumoud” delegation stands out in parallel international meetings, despite the fact that he does not hold an official mandate to represent Sudan in these forums.

This presence may be driven by efforts from international actors to present him as an alternative voice, particularly given the perception among a segment of Sudanese people of “Sumoud’s” political proximity to the Rapid Support Forces. Here, the multiplicity of tracks is no longer merely a diversity of positions; it may turn into a struggle over who speaks on behalf of Sudan.

Here, three tracks intersect: the state in New York, political forces in international capitals, and the Sudanese–Sudanese dialogue inside the country.

They may appear distant from one another, but they can become components of a national path if they converge around the fundamental issues, rather than becoming competing arenas for representing Sudan.

This becomes more important because, according to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sudan enters the General Assembly with interconnected files: ending the war, humanitarian assistance, protection of civilians, foreign intervention, sovereignty, political settlement, and reconstruction. Any treatment of one of these issues will affect the others. Therefore, the issue is not only how the war ends, but also how the phase that follows it will be managed and what kind of state will emerge from it.

This context can be described as the “Dilemma of Possibilities.” The matter does not stop at what will happen in New York, but extends to the pressures and understandings that may emerge from it. Washington may move toward escalation, push for a ceasefire, or combine pressure with a settlement, while geopolitical calculations may overshadow any unified international position.

At the same time, Sudan does not have the luxury of waiting. The more the national vision and project are absent, the wider the space for intervention and pressure on its decision-making.

According to #TheFaceOfTruth, the General Assembly meeting is not merely a platform for speeches, but an arena for engineering positions. The visa itself has become part of this scene. Therefore, Sudan needs to transform its international presence from merely presenting positions into effectively managing interests, building understandings, and protecting its sovereignty and national decision-making.

Wishing you continued health and well-being.
Wednesday, September 23, 2026. Shglawi55@gmail.com