International Positions on Sudan During This Week

By Dr. Mohammed Osman Awadallah

In this article, we present statements made by four presidents about Sudan, followed by an analysis of what these remarks reveal about their countries’ positions and the broader international stance.

1. President Trump

“I used to think the situation in Sudan was chaotic and crazy, and that there was no government (meaning he now acknowledges the existence of one). But the prince explained the history and culture to me in a beautiful and impressive way. We began working on Sudan half an hour after he explained its importance. I now see the matter very differently from how I saw it yesterday.”

Yesterday, he was influenced by a single narrative—
the Emirati narrative—which denies the existence of a government and equates it with the militia, implying chaos.
But the Saudi crown prince presented another narrative about Sudan’s history, civilization, and its solid institutions that cannot be equated with a militia committing crimes and deserving terrorist designation.

2. President Erdoğan

“Turkey’s security is directly linked to Sudan’s security. But narrow-minded people never understand this. When we look from Ankara, we see Khartoum right next to us.”

3. President Sisi

“Egypt’s security is tied to Sudan’s security, and it is tied to the institutions of the legitimate government, which can never be equated with militias.”

4. U.S. Secretary of State

“Members of Congress discussed with me a bill to designate the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) as a terrorist organization. As for the UAE, it is involved in the Sudanese conflict, and its membership in the Quartet does not shield it from accountability. It must stop its support immediately.”

These statements confirm a major and fundamental shift in the international position regarding the conflict in Sudan. Their implications are clear and significant, including the following:

First: Implications of the U.S. Position

1. The U.S. has shifted from the Emirati narrative—claiming Sudan has no government—to the Saudi narrative affirming the existence of a legitimate government and state institutions.
   This suggests Washington may reassess its stance toward the Sudanese government and the RSF, with potential terrorist designation, as indicated by the Secretary of State.

2. A public criticism of the UAE, accusing it of involvement in the war, and stressing that UAE’s Quartet membership does not protect it.

3. The U.S. now aligns with Saudi and Egyptian positions supporting Sudan’s state institutions.

Second: Implications of the Saudi Position

1. Saudi Arabia is now redefining the conflict as one between a legitimate government and a rebel militia.

2. It emphasizes Sudan’s deep statehood, institutions, and remarkable history—as reflected in Trump’s remarks.

3. It corrects the crisis narrative from “a stateless chaos” (the Emirati narrative) to “a terrorist rebellion against a legitimate and solid state,” prompting Washington to reposition itself—within only half an hour, according to Trump.

4. Riyadh is openly working to halt the UAE’s destabilizing role in the region.

Third: Implications of the Turkish Position

1. Turkey directly links its national security to Sudan’s security.

2. It views Khartoum as part of its strategic sphere, and developments there as directly affecting its interests.

3. Ankara supports the legitimate government to protect the Red Sea, economic influence, and regional balance of power.

Fourth: Implications of the Egyptian Position

1. Egypt links its security to Sudan’s security.

2. It affirms that the legitimate government cannot be equated with the militia—fully consistent with Egypt’s policy since the war began.

3. Egypt rejects any legitimization of the RSF.

4. Egypt considers the war a direct threat to its water and border security.

Fifth: Implications for the Sudanese Government

1. Sudan’s government is gaining increasing moral and political support that shifts the balance of power in its favor.

2. An international shift is emerging—with U.S. approval—toward recognizing the government.

3. International pressure on the UAE and the RSF is steadily increasing.

Sixth: Implications for the UAE

1. The UAE faces explicit accusations of involvement in the war.

2. Its membership in the Quartet is no longer seen as diplomatic protection.

3. It is now under simultaneous U.S., Saudi, and Egyptian pressure.

4. It will no longer be able to continue its previous roles and must reconsider its position in Sudan.

Seventh: Implications for the International Community as a Whole

1. The likelihood of designating the RSF as a terrorist organization is rising—especially if Congress acts, with U.S. administration support and backing from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. It becomes only a matter of time.

2. The international community increasingly recognizes the existence of a legitimate Sudanese government.

3. Previous misleading narratives are declining.

4. The diplomatic equation is changing completely.

5. Legal and human-rights cases may now be opened against the RSF and its supporters as a terrorist entity.

6. The roles of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt in post-war arrangements will be strengthened.

The potential scenarios resulting from these major shifts will be discussed in the second part of this article.