12/07/2025
Face of Truth | Ibrahim Shglawi
Sudan: Deferred Justice and a Possible Settlement
Amid a bloody war that has ravaged cities and nearly brought down the state, regional and international initiatives are racing to propose political settlements to the Sudanese crisis. Yet, the popular reality imposes a different equation: no justice without accountability, and no peace without reckoning. In this article, we analyze why settlement projects keep clashing with the Sudanese people’s will — and why the street still holds the final word.
Sudan is experiencing a historic moment, with its political crisis escalating beyond the local scene to regional and international dimensions. The war between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which erupted in April 2023, has turned into an unprecedented humanitarian tragedy, marked by geographic and social fragmentation, mass displacement, and cities reduced to forgotten ruins.
Amid this disaster, external efforts are mounting to promote what is called a "political settlement"—from regional security meetings to international statements—all aiming, according to official declarations, to end the war and “restore stability.” In August 2024, the Egyptian city of El Alamein hosted a meeting between Sudan’s Sovereign Council President, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the commander of eastern Libyan forces, Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar. The meeting, sponsored by Egypt, addressed tensions at the tri-border area, according to Asharq Al-Awsat. It was followed by a trilateral meeting in Cairo involving officials from Egypt, Libya, and Sudan, focusing on security challenges amid increasing accusations that Haftar supports the RSF.
On the international stage, former U.S. President Donald Trump brought Sudan back into the spotlight during a speech at an African economic summit held in Washington last week. He stated that "Sudan and Libya are among the regions where we are facilitating peace," affirming that "anger in Africa is beginning to find a resolution." However, despite its diplomatic tone, the speech has not translated into tangible initiatives and fails to conceal the reality that Sudan is not a top priority on the U.S. agenda in Africa, which remains focused on rare minerals, countering Chinese and Russian influence, migration, and terrorism — as seen in the Congo, the Sahel, and Somalia.
Despite this diplomatic momentum, all these pathways run up against a major obstacle: the widespread public rejection of any settlement that would return the RSF to the political or military scene in any form. This rejection stems from a long record of brutal atrocities committed by the RSF, especially in El Geneina, Nyala, and Al-Jazira. Human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Médecins Sans Frontières, have documented acts of ethnic cleansing and mass killings of civilians (HRW, May 2024; MSF, June 2024). The Sudanese public is not opposed to the principle of a settlement, but insists that it be based on real justice and legal accountability—not on elite-driven deals imposed under regional pressure or international power balances.
According to observers, the current efforts do not go beyond “security-humanitarian arrangements,” such as the Jeddah process, which has focused on ceasefires and the withdrawal of RSF forces from cities and key facilities to camps in preparation for integration or disarmament. While necessary to mitigate the humanitarian catastrophe, this track does not amount to a comprehensive political settlement. It is merely a temporary response that fails to answer critical questions regarding the structure of the state, transitional justice, and accountability.
In contrast, the National Dialogue Initiative launched last week by Prime Minister Dr. Kamal Idris stands out as an internal attempt to develop a Sudanese vision for rebuilding the state—through a political process that includes civil and societal forces, away from foreign interference. It is, so far, the only initiative to emerge from within the crisis rather than from outside it. It reflects aspirations to build an inclusive national project, despite the political and structural challenges it faces.
In the background, the United States appears divided between its official institutions and informal power networks—especially as figures close to President Trump seek to steer the Sudan file toward Gulf-driven interests. Notably, businessman Masad Boulos, known as "the dealmaker," is reportedly working to coordinate a four-party conference involving the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the U.S., pushed by Abu Dhabi, which aims to reestablish its political influence in Sudan through a settlement initiative—after being directly accused of supporting the RSF in the early stages of the war, according to Axios (July 2024).
These moves highlight how U.S. decision-making on Sudan has become a battleground for competing interests, illustrating the decline of traditional U.S. institutions in shaping foreign policy.
From the perspective, any settlement that does not stem from the free will of the Sudanese people—and does not recognize the blood of the victims or end impunity—will lack popular legitimacy. Experience has shown that externally imposed solutions do not last. The public consciousness, forged in the crucible of war and suffering, will accept nothing less than a new social contract that restores state sovereignty and centers justice. Sudan does not need top-down settlements but rather a unified national project—one that lays the foundation for a state whose constitution is written by its people, not a deal that reproduces failure or absolves perpetrators.
With best regards,
Saturday, July 12, 2025
[email protected]
