Political settlement and rights to justice..! – The face of truth – ✍️ Ibrahim Shaqlawi
The Sudanese issue is today under international and regional pressure to push the Sudanese parties towards a submissive political settlement, the motivations of which are multiple and whose objectives are contradictory.
A meeting brought together Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi and US President Donald Trump’s senior adviser, Massad Boulos, in Cairo on Thursday to discuss ways to end the war in Sudan, which is entering its third year. The meeting took place against the backdrop of the International Quartet, which includes the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.
It is clear from official declarations that Cairo seeks to consolidate its position as regional guarantor of any future settlement, given what it has accomplished in Gaza, while Washington seeks to restore balance in the region through the Sudanese issue.
On the other hand, the Italian capital, Rome, witnessed a parallel diplomatic move including Saudi Arabia, Chad and the United States, with the aim of formulating a common vision on the future of Sudan. Thus, it appears that the Quartet is working to impose a settlement reproducing the previous framework agreement, but in a modified form, seeking to integrate the rapid support militia into the political scene, after having disarmed it, and to retrain it as part of the transition phase.
However, this approach, which ignores the bloody reality of the war and attempts to legitimize a militia involved in widespread violations, comes up against an internal will which always focuses on the restoration of the State and not on its division.
We know that the vision promoted by the Quartet does not arise from the interests of the Sudanese, but expresses the interests of the parties involved in this alliance of circumstance, in particular the United Arab Emirates, which the Sudanese hold directly responsible for supporting the Rapid Support Militia, whether with money or weapons, through channels that have been revealed.
Thus, its involvement in a settlement raises moral and political questions that cannot be ignored, especially in light of documented reports of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in areas such as El Geneina, Nyala, Khartoum, Wad El Noura and Hilaliya.
Above all, the biggest dilemma arises: what about the rights of the millions of Sudanese who lost their homes and property, were forced to flee, or faced death, rape and starvation? Any settlement that does not place justice at the heart of its concerns and does not guarantee that the guilty will be held accountable will only be a political farce that perpetuates impunity and accumulates the causes of the coming explosion.
Reparation is a legal and moral right, and material and moral compensation cannot be separated from a real path to peace.
As the Sovereign Political Committee works to prepare for a new phase of transition, including consultations with national forces in Port Sudan, reports are circulating of a plan to reorganize the political scene with new mechanisms starting with a ceasefire and ending with transitional arrangements under the auspices of the Quartet. But fears are growing that this process is a reproduction of the same old tools of destruction and deception, through formal assurances that perpetuate an opportunistic regime and marginalize those who paid the price.
If there is a national settlement that can be constructed, it will be one that puts the honorable fighters who defended the state at the heart of the equation, not those who commercialized it, tore it apart, or sought to dismantle it. As for Sudan, managed from the capitals, and having ready-made road maps imposed on it, alternating hotels and trenches, it is not a question of peace, but rather of an extension of the war with new tools. Those who paid the bill for war do not agree to make peace through blood and have established their authority over the remains of the victims.
The Sudanese do not reject the very idea of a settlement, but rather a peace without justice, without national sovereignty and without accountability. They refuse to allow the country to be ruled from outside, while they risk death at home. They refuse to reproduce the same failed political elites who created the war, as if nothing had happened.
Perhaps the convening of the Security and Defense Council, led by Lieutenant General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, whose meeting was held recently amid these repercussions, reveals that the country is approaching a crossroads, between a settlement concluded by external powers and one constructed on the ground by the will of the Sudanese people. History is merciless and people who do not create their own destiny do not deserve respect.
According to #Face_of_Truth, it is no longer a simple ceasefire, but rather the formulation of a national project capable of taking the country out of dependence and dependence and of rendering justice and loyalty to those who defended the State, without rewarding those who sold it.
May you always be well.
Saturday October 18, 2025 AD (email protected)
