Washington Bans Sudanese… Let Them Keep Their Visas, and We’ll Keep Our Dignity

By Rashid Shawish

In a move that surprised no one who reads the global scene with clarity and awareness, the United States has added Sudan to the list of countries whose citizens are banned from entering American soil, under the pretext of “security concerns.” As usual, the stated excuse does not necessarily reflect the true reason, but rather serves as a cover for old-new policies with one title: “Interests above principles, and bans for those who don’t fall in line.”

Before analyzing the ban, we must ask ourselves: Who truly threatens international security? The Sudanese who left his land only by force, or those who fund conflicts, ignite fires, and manage proxy wars?

Sudan, despite its many wounds, has never been a source of external threat. It has not sent militias beyond its borders, has not threatened the national security of any country, and has not been a source of cross-border chaos. On the contrary, it has always been a victim of regional and international conflicts, a passageway for power struggles, and a testing ground for global powers.

The U.S. Ban: Politics Disguised as Security

The American ban has nothing to do with genuine security concerns, but is directly tied to Sudan’s current political position—its attempt to break free from international tutelage and its refusal to surrender to a regionally backed militia coup. Washington, used to dealing with weak, subservient regimes, was surprised to find that the Sudanese people—despite appearing fragile—refuse to be remotely controlled.

America did not ban those involved in war crimes, nor those who fund chaos in Sudan, but instead chose to punish the victim. It didn’t issue bans against warlords or the financiers of the Rapid Support Forces. Instead, it closed the door in the face of Sudanese citizens—those displaced by war, whose homes were destroyed by militias, and who are left clinging to a small dream of a dignified life.

Where Was Washington When Khartoum Burned?

Where were the statements of concern when the Sudanese capital was invaded? Where were the condemnations when hospitals were stormed, women were raped, banks were looted, and homes were violated? Why weren’t the militia’s backers designated as terrorist sponsors, despite overwhelming evidence and repeated atrocities?

The answer is clear: Washington does not see through the eyes of the victims, but through the lens of its own interests. It doesn’t care about protecting the Sudanese people—it cares about protecting its tools and spheres of influence. And if people’s rights clash with those interests, then to hell with those rights.

The Israeli Isn’t Banned… Because the Scales Are Crooked

If the standard for bans is a threat to security, then the Israeli should be banned before the Sudanese. That entity, which commits daily massacres in Gaza, threatens regional stability, and flagrantly violates international law, is far more deserving of a ban than the Sudanese defending their homeland against a hired militia.

But Israel is an ally, and Sudan is uncertain. This is where the double standards are exposed, slogans collapse, and the true face of politics emerges: pragmatic, devoid of morality.

We Don’t Need Visas… We Need Dignity

Sudanese people must understand this moment well. Our dignity is not measured by a passport stamp or a visa sticker on a consulate wall, but by our firm stance, our determination to protect our land, and our refusal to be pawns in someone else’s game.

We are not against peace, and we are not lovers of war, but we will not kneel to a militia trying to occupy us, nor to a power seeking to domesticate us. If the world chooses to close its doors, we will open our hearts to defend our soil and rebuild our nation despite the wounds.

In Conclusion: Let’s Keep What’s More Precious

Let America keep its visas and its double standards. As for us, we will keep what’s far more precious: our faith, our dignity, our unity, and our determination to remain free in a free homeland.

History will not remember those who were banned from entering the U.S., but it will remember those who stood against war, faced tyranny, and endured on the battlefield.