Yes to Peace Free from Deceit and Delusion

By Moatasem Aqraa

Condemning foreign invasion and the brutality of a militia involved in systematic sexual slavery does not equate to calling for war or opposing peace. Taking a firm stand against militia invasion simply reflects a rejection of the savage forces that destroy peaceful societies through killing, looting, and enslavement. This firm stance affirms that outsiders have no right to invade sovereign nations, plunder their resources, buy off their politicians, or dominate their societies through extreme violence.

Distorting this principled rejection of barbarism and portraying it as a call for war is a grave mistake that serves the aggressors and war instigators. This confusion may stem from complicity with the invaders or from a simplistic mindset reliant on clichés incapable of dissecting a complex — albeit very clear — reality.

Or — in Sudan specifically — this distortion may arise from a warped perspective held by a politicized class that is psychologically and intellectually traumatized after three decades under Bashir’s regime, during which it lost its intellectual independence and moral discernment.

The mindset of this class now operates solely through reflexive opposition to any position associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Its only reaction is to oppose whatever the Brotherhood supports, regardless of context or the essence of the issue. This deepens the national crisis caused by a bourgeoisie that has failed to develop or protect Sudan — even failed to protect its own existence and dignity. It has become a sorry version of a dressed-up rooster, clinging to moral superiority through a pacifism that, at its core, is surrender. In this view, the duty of any victim, at any time or place, is to face their rapist with a slogan of nonviolence, sit down with them, and offer part of their flesh in exchange for peace.

I have been firmly opposed to war since the mid-1990s, and I have written repeatedly that military intervention to oust Bashir only led to massive destruction, opening the gates of hell and unleashing chaos. The current position of some former advocates of violence — both individuals and parties — now posing as champions of peace is largely laughable. It reveals either their complicity with the militia or a dangerously naive and oblivious state of mind.

Calling for peace while avoiding a firm stance against invasion amounts to excessive complicity with the militia — whether intentional or not. This is pacifism in a vacuum — a false equivalence between victims defending their communities and perpetrators committing atrocities. It frames the conflict as a battle between equals, rather than the brutal assault that it truly is. Such pacifism essentially encourages war by equating aggressor and victim, placing equal blame on both for the destruction of the conflict.

True peace advocates — including myself — bear the responsibility of clearly opposing both foreign invasion and violent militias. To call for peace without condemning colonialism and militia atrocities is dangerously close to intentional or unintentional complicity. It establishes a false moral equivalence between victim and executioner, and equates the heroism of self-defense with the violence of aggressors.

This platform has always defended peace — but equally opposed colonialism and sexual violence militias. We have never used our commitment to peace as an excuse to avoid taking a firm stand against invaders and their violent allies. We have never used our pro-peace stance to evade the core question: where do we stand on invasion and barbarism?

As for justifying the invasion by pointing out that the army is also supported by other countries — that’s nonsense. Every army in the world maintains relationships with other countries, exchanges weapons, and receives various forms of aid. This is a legitimate practice in politics and international law. One cannot equate the universally accepted reality that any state military acquires weapons from abroad — including the Russian, American, and Chinese armies — with the existence and arming of a family-owned militia engaged in sexual slavery and ethnic cleansing, funded by foreign powers. I know of no political context in which the existence and arming of such a militia is justified simply because the national army receives foreign support.

In short:
Yes to peace.
A double yes to peace.
No to invasion.
No to a looting militia owned by a family.
We will never equate a guilty aggressor with someone defending their community, their people, and their homeland.
No to complicity with war in the name of peace built on deceit and delusion.