The Media Battle Over the Discourse of Return to Sudan

Dr. Moatasim Aqra

Dr. Amani Al-Tawil stated that her claim regarding a request by the Sudanese government to the Egyptian authorities to return Sudanese citizens to their country is not a documented fact and lacks supporting sources. She clarified that what she presented was merely an inference she drew from hearing Sudanese officials—including the Prime Minister—encouraging Sudanese citizens to return to Sudan and observe Ramadan there. The problem, however, lies in the oddity of this inference: there is a stark and illogical contradiction in interpreting encouragement by Sudanese officials for voluntary return as a request directed at the Egyptian government to deport Sudanese nationals.

The Sudanese government has no authority to compel any Sudanese citizen to return, nor does it possess the power to dictate to the Egyptian government how it should deal with Sudanese residents within its borders. The final decision in this matter rests entirely with the Egyptian government, whose policy toward foreigners is its own sovereign responsibility, regardless of any requests or wishes expressed by the Sudanese government.

The Egyptian government has the sovereign right to regulate the presence of foreigners within its territory. This right is natural and of critical importance to both the Egyptian state and its people, particularly given the presence of tens of millions of displaced foreigners from Africa and the Middle East whom Egypt has hosted with unparalleled generosity, despite severe economic, financial, and security challenges, as well as its extremely high population density.

After acknowledging Egypt’s sovereign right to manage foreign presence and limit any negative repercussions, it is still legitimate to appeal to the Egyptian authorities to treat their Sudanese guests with special care, in light of the devastating effects of war on them and the deep historical and social ties between the peoples of the Nile Valley.

No one familiar with Egypt, Sudan, or the developing world more broadly would be surprised to learn that the implementation of Egyptian policy cannot be perfect, and that some individuals may be subjected to harsh treatment, just as Egyptians themselves sometimes are. Yet none of this alters the fundamental fact that Egypt has been, without dispute, the most generous country in hosting the Sudanese people, both before and after the war. Despite its economic difficulties and severe population congestion, Egypt has hosted more than six million Sudanese, including large numbers who crossed the border irregularly.

Compare this with neighboring Ethiopia, which has made it difficult for Sudanese to settle within its borders and imposed a monthly fee of one hundred US dollars on each Sudanese resident in its cities. This means that each family pays hundreds or even thousands of dollars every month to the government merely for the right to reside. This is in spite of the fact that Sudan hosted millions of Ethiopians for many years during Ethiopia’s prolonged civil wars. If the author has praised the sisterly United Arab Emirates for hosting a quarter of a million Sudanese, then he should praise Egypt twenty-four times over.

Regardless of the professor’s intentions—which we do not know and for which we assume good faith—what the Amani Al-Tawil episode has practically achieved is the following:

• Exonerating the Egyptian government from responsibility for its recent policy toward the Sudanese people by shifting the blame onto a Sudanese government that has no authority over Egypt’s sovereignty.
• Portraying the Sudanese government, without evidence, as a malicious and irresponsible entity that forces its citizens to return to war zones and dangerous living conditions.
• Distorting the Sudanese people’s victory over the Janjaweed and foreign aggressors by depicting the fruits of this victory—namely, the return of millions of refugees—as a conspiracy orchestrated by a cruel and merciless state forcing its people back into camps of death. Reframing the voluntary return of refugees as a coercive plot by a heartless government is a classic tactic in media warfare, one that reshapes narratives and defines the contours of public debate. Through this process, minds and hearts are redirected from celebrating a people who have revived precious parts of their homeland to condemning an unjust government allegedly forcing its citizens back to dumps and graveyards.

As previously noted, the return of life to Khartoum unsettles one party to the conflict, prompting attempts to prevent it through a combination of drone strikes and media bombardment.

The most striking aspect of this debate, however, is the assertion that citizens should not return to their homes unless conditions become nearly ideal. This view ignores a fundamental principle of resilience: return as a means of reconstruction. Why should citizens passively wait for others to rebuild their cities on their behalf? Why should they not return voluntarily to reclaim, repair, and revive their homeland themselves?

Why undermine the resolve of those who wish to return of their own free will with endless stories about risks they already understand well and do not need a foreign expert or a local bureaucrat to remind them of?

The natural focus of the discussion should be on supporting safe, dignified, and sustainable voluntary return, and on recognizing complex sovereignties and historic generosity, rather than circulating baseless inferences that contribute only to confusion, division, and the poisoning of relations between peoples.