The Thatcher, the Technical, and the Balanced Lie Speech: How Sudan’s Division Is Justified in the Name of Neutrality

By Amjad Farid Al-Tayeb

“Government is not merely authority, but a moral contract between the ruler and the ruled.”
– Jean-Jacques Rousseau

The deceptive narrative of “two governments,” which the arms of the “Sumud” alliance are trying to promote after their meetings in Abu Dhabi, attempts to cloak itself in a false neutrality by speaking of “two governments contesting legitimacy” in Sudan. This aims to normalize and impose the absurd idea of the “Rapid Support Forces in Nyala” as a de facto government. However, it is a disguised form of bias that continues the false equivalency these actors have adopted since the war broke out. It is a flawed approach pushed by parties bankrupt both politically and nationally, trying to cement a narrative that barters the unity of Sudan against the continuation of war, serving the goals of those who fan its flames.

There has only ever been one Sudanese government and one state apparatus since the country’s inception. The political conflict has always revolved around who leads this apparatus and in which direction, but never in Sudan’s history has there been such an openly divisive discourse. John Garang fought the central government for more than forty years on clear national grounds. His struggle did not involve Janjaweed or Emirati ambitions, and he never attempted to form a parallel government or to divide the state apparatus. Government and state are not just titles and seats — they are institutions meant to deliver public service. So we must ask: What public service do the architects of “Sumud” and “Ta’sees” and their propagandists expect to provide to the Sudanese people from atop the Janjaweed’s “techinicals”?

This dangerous form of posturing, which attempts to legitimize the country’s division, is a product of the era of “turbaned civilianism,” in which nationalism vanished from the core of political practice and was entirely cast aside. Its advocates are unmoved as armies of mercenaries from Cuba, Colombia, Mali, and elsewhere pour into Sudan to kill its sons, violate its women, and destroy its infrastructure — all while they fraternize with their Emirati patron.

To accept this discourse is not neutrality; it is betrayal. A betrayal cloaked in the language of neutrality while holding the knife that severs the nation’s limbs. Civilian politics cannot be built on compromising the country’s unity, nor on foreign-backed arms, nor on the vehicles of militias.