The Quad’s Sudan Statement: Sovereignty in Name, Hypocrisy in Practice

By Sabah Al-Makki

Sovereignty Denied
On September 12, 2025, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Abu Dhabi regime issued a joint statement on Sudan. At first glance, the declaration clothes itself in the language of sovereignty, humanitarian concern, and democratic transition. Yet beneath its polished words lies a document that denies Sudanese sovereignty, equates a constitutional army with a mercenary militia, and launders the crimes of the Abu Dhabi regime through the theater of diplomacy.

Sovereignty, in its true essence, is the right of a people to determine their destiny without external dictation. Any authentic framework must involve Sudan when discussing Sudan’s fate. Yet Sudan was neither consulted nor invited to the Quad summit. Decisions about governance and transition were drafted in foreign capitals. At the same time, the Abu Dhabi regime, a country with which Sudan severed ties for arming the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), sat at the table as a supposed partner for peace. If sovereignty is redefined to mean the exclusion of the sovereign state itself while elevating its aggressors, then the word has been emptied of meaning. It becomes not a principle but a mask for external control over Sudan’s future.

False Equivalence: SAF and RSF
The Quad proclaims that there is “no military solution” and calls for the “active participation of SAF and RSF.” Such language erases the fundamental truth. The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) are not just one faction among many, but the constitutional army of the Republic of Sudan, entrusted with the defense of its sovereignty and the protection of its civilians. The RSF, by contrast, is a militia sponsored by the Abu Dhabi regime, accused of genocide, atrocities, and mercenary recruitment.

To equate the two is to insult the Sudanese people, to dishonor the sacrifices of their army, and to reward those who have burned villages, massacred civilians, and besieged cities. No sovereign state on earth would accept such a degradation of its armed forces. Unless, perhaps, the Quad’s true intent is to prepare the ground for an even greater distortion: elevating the RSF’s so-called parallel government, which exists only in “cyberspace,” to the same footing as Sudan’s legitimate state institutions.

History underscores the hypocrisy. The United States has repeatedly relied on military force to resolve its own conflicts. Saudi Arabia and the Abu Dhabi regime have waged war in Yemen for more than fifteen years. Israel continues its relentless campaign in Gaza on the conviction that military victory is attainable.

Why then is Sudan alone denied the right to defend itself with arms against an Abu Dhabi regime-backed militia? Why is military action permitted for others but forbidden to Sudan, whose army is fighting not abroad but on its own soil?

If the National Guard rebelled, would the United States negotiate with it or use military power to restore order? Egypt itself waged a relentless military campaign for years after 2013 to crush those it labeled as Islamists in Sinai, because it considered them a threat to its national security. Would Saudi Arabia or the Abu Dhabi regime treat an armed rebellion as a legitimate political partner or crush it with force? And if they do not believe in military victory, why did they launch the war against Yemen in the first place, and why do they refuse to negotiate with the Houthis while continuing to bomb Yemen after fifteen years of war? They would never extend such recognition. Yet Sudan is told to do precisely that. This is not neutrality. It is a calculated strategy to weaken and dismantle the SAF, the last standing national institution of Sudan, while grooming a proxy authority acceptable to foreign capitals.

Humanitarian Narratives Weaponized
The United Nations and the World Food Programme have documented RSF crimes: aid convoys blocked, trucks attacked, and civilians starved. When Washington demanded that the SAF open access to El-Fasher within seventy-two hours, the army complied. The RSF refused, then brazenly attacked convoys in broad daylight. Similar tactics unfolded in Khartoum, El-Gezira, and Sennar, where starvation became a systematic weapon.

Yet international truces followed the same pattern: announced when the SAF advanced, broken by the RSF, and exploited by the RSF militia to rearm with weapons funneled from the Abu Dhabi regime. Statements then condemned “both sides,” shielding the perpetrators.

This record reveals the Quad’s real agenda. Humanitarian law has been twisted into a political weapon against Sudan’s army. Humanitarian access has been reduced to a bargaining chip, used to pressure Sudan’s government into concessions while the RSF continues its atrocities unchecked.

The Democracy Hoax
The Quad’s roadmap, a three-month truce followed by a permanent ceasefire and then a nine-month transition to civilian rule, is built on falsehood. By referring to “warring parties,” it equates Sudan’s sovereign army with the Abu Dhabi regime-sponsored militia. Such wording prepares the ground not for sovereignty, but for custodianship. Shall Sudan be placed under external guardianship? Shall a foreign-appointed governor preside over our land?

And when the Quad speaks of a “civilian-led transition,” what credibility do Saudi Arabia and the Abu Dhabi regime have to define democracy? They have never held elections, not even at the level of a district. They have no elected parliaments. They have no history of democratic governance. Egypt fares no better. Since its independence in 1952, it has been governed by the army, either in uniform or in suits. The only brief exception, a single year of elected civilian rule, ended with another coup.

Sudan, by contrast, has a long and living political tradition. We have known multiple democratic experiments. We have seen revolutions topple dictators. We have nurtured a political life spanning all walks of society. For these countries to lecture Sudan on democracy is not statesmanship. It is satire, staged at our expense. Only in Sudan, it seems, can democracy be imposed by those who have never practiced it. This is not support for democratic institutions. It is preparation for installing proxies acceptable to foreign capitals.

Imported Labels and Double Standards
The clause warning against groups “linked to the Muslim Brotherhood” imports a narrative crafted abroad. Strictly speaking, the Brotherhood was an Egyptian movement founded in 1928 and suppressed by the army in 2013. Yet regimes like Egypt, the Abu Dhabi regime, and Saudi Arabia have weaponized the label to brand any Islamic-leaning political actor as extremist.

By this logic, Türkiye’s ruling party would be outlawed, Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi institutions branded extremist, Israel’s religious state called radical, and America’s Judeo-Christian politics deemed suspect. But only Sudanese are singled out. Meanwhile, the real extremist force, the RSF, which burns villages, starves cities, and recruits foreign mercenaries, escapes mention.

The hypocrisy deepens in the debate over external military support. The SAF, as Sudan’s institutional army, has the sovereign right to enter bilateral defense agreements. By contrast, the RSF is sustained entirely by foreign arms, cash, and mercenaries from the Abu Dhabi regime: weapons via Libya and Chad, mercenary pipelines from Colombia, and cash streams from Abu Dhabi. Yet the architect of this proxy war remains unnamed, uncondemned, and unsanctioned.

If the Quad truly believes external support fuels conflict, then let the United States halt its arms to Israel, which prolongs the war in Gaza and blocks peace. Let it stop selling weapons to the Abu Dhabi regime, whose American-made arms have surfaced in RSF hands. And let it begin with Saudi Arabia, which still relies on Sudanese troops to guard its southern borders, alongside American bases entrenched in both Saudi Arabia and the Abu Dhabi regime.

When the SAF provides soldiers to serve the security of others, it is applauded as a legitimate effort. Yet when it seeks assistance to defend its own soil, it is condemned as fueling war. Such double standards erode the meaning of the word ‘principle’. This is not justice. It is hypocrisy.

Iran Narrative Hypocrisy
In this context, sanctioning Treasury Minister Dr. Jibril Ibrahim and the Al-Baraa Brigade is both absurd and revealing. The Al-Baraa Brigade has already been absorbed into the SAF, which means the Quad is, in effect, sanctioning Sudan’s national army itself, the very foundation of Sudan’s sovereignty.

The claim that Dr. Jibril Ibrahim has links to Iran is laughable. The record of others tells a different story. In March 2023, Saudi Arabia and Iran restored relations through a deal brokered by China. In just the first seven months of 2024, trade between the Iran–Abu Dhabi regime exceeded $16 billion in non-oil exchanges. The regime now hosts more than 8,000 Iranian companies, nearly 800,000 Iranian nationals, and 122,000 Iranian businesspersons actively trading there. On September 9, 2025, Egypt’s Foreign Minister, Dr. Badr Abdelatty, met his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, in Cairo to discuss regional issues and Iran’s nuclear file with the IAEA. Even the United States continues direct negotiations with Tehran.

So what is the principle here? With Saudi Arabia, the Abu Dhabi regime, Egypt, and Washington, Iran is a negotiator, a trading partner, a diplomatic actor. But when Sudan is the subject, Iran becomes the specter of “jihadism,” invoked to justify sanctions and dismantle Sudan’s institutions. This is not consistent. It is hypocrisy dressed as principle.

Red Sea Security: Smugglers as Guardians
Weapons flow through Libya and Chad. Cash and fighters are funneled through Bosaso in Puntland and through ports in Somaliland, both of which the Abu Dhabi regime has turned into logistics hubs for its proxy wars. From there, maritime corridors controlled by its proxy militias in Yemen fuel wars designed to dissect and dismantle Yemen itself. It was also from Bosaso that drones were launched in attacks on Port Sudan.

These pipelines destabilize not only Sudan but the entire Red Sea basin, threatening trade routes, borders, and maritime security. So how can the Abu Dhabi regime, whose networks sustain these very crimes, pose as a guarantor of Red Sea security? It is as absurd as appointing a smuggler to head customs. Sudan knows the truth. Absolute security will come only when the RSF is dismantled and the foreign pipelines that sustain it are cut off at their source.

Jeddah, Cairo, and the Final Hypocrisy
The Quad lauds the Jeddah and Cairo processes as inclusive platforms. In practice, they prolonged the war and fragmented the Sudanese civilians. Jeddah collapsed into truces that the RSF immediately violated. Cairo gathered handpicked “civil forces” in hotel halls, sidelining genuine voices while smuggling in puppets and RSF sympathizers. Worse still, the “civilian spectrum” was left vague enough to reinstate RSF allies while explicitly excluding Islamists.

By what right does the Quad presume to determine the fate of Sudan’s people? If Sudanese citizens choose parties rooted in Islamic culture, will the Quad bomb us? Kill us? The hypocrisy is staggering. The Quad claims to defend democracy while its own members, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Abu Dhabi regime, imprison thousands of their own citizens for tweets, protests, or dissent. Why not begin by engaging their own opposition before lecturing Sudan?

And through it all, the most glaring contradiction remains. The Abu Dhabi regime, the architect and treasurer of Sudan’s war, sits at the Quad table as a peace partner. Its fingerprints are on every RSF crime: arms shipments through Libya and Chad, Colombian fighters in Darfur, drones launched from Bosaso, and the cash that underwrites massacres and sieges. Sudan severed ties with the Abu Dhabi regime precisely because of this role. To invite it to sign a declaration on peace is to hand the arsonist the pen to draft the fire code. Peace never comes from hands dripping with blood. Sudan has declared that the Abu Dhabi regime must not be engaged in any talks and has classified it as an aggressor state. Yet it is welcomed to the table because of its petrodollars. From the outset, this renders the Quad a failure irrelevant to the Sudanese people. Sanctions, embargoes, famine, and war have all been endured. Sudan will not kneel.

Conclusion
The Quad’s statement cloaks itself in humanitarian language but strips Sudan of sovereignty. It equates a sovereign army with a militia, shields the Abu Dhabi regime from accountability, and imposes external timelines drafted in foreign capitals.

How can Sudan take seriously a statement on peace that elevates its chief aggressor as a guarantor of stability? The Quad claims to oppose external military support yet embraces the state most guilty of it. It claims to protect civilians yet shields the power financing their starvation and massacre.

If the Abu Dhabi regime is a peace partner, then words have lost their meaning. This is not neutrality. It is complicity, laundering Abu Dhabi’s crimes through diplomatic communiqués. History will render its verdict. Sudan knows the truth. The Abu Dhabi regime is not a partner for peace but the treasurer of war, and no statement signed in Washington, Riyadh, or Cairo can disguise that fact.

This declaration is nothing more than a farce drafted in Abu Dhabi, purchased with petrodollars, and rubber-stamped abroad. It does not concern Sudan. Sudan is not the eighth emirate, nor is it a backyard for foreign powers; it is not weak, nor is it poor. On the contrary, Sudan holds fertile lands, abundant resources, and sweet waters, the treasures over which future wars will be fought. Sand cannot feed nations. Sudan’s soil and waters can. That is why they covet it, and that is why we will never yield it.

The Abu Dhabi regime believed Sudan could be dismantled in days, that our state could be seized in a quick coup. Instead, they are left exposed, bleeding, and failing. They will never wash away the blood on their hands, never dismantle Sudan, and never erase its sovereignty.

The Sudanese are not naive people. We have witnessed the outcomes of the Quad’s experiments in Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Astoundingly, the very architect who scripted the so-called transition in Syria, only to stand by as flames consumed the country, is the same envoy later dispatched to Sudan: Mr. Volker Perthes. Deceive me once, the shame is yours; deceive me twice, the shame is mine. As the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative and head of UNITAMS, Mr. Perthes emerged as the principal architect of the Framework Agreement of December 2022. It is an accord many Sudanese rightly recognize as the spark of today’s war, a blueprint for a “smooth coup” that sought to weaken the Sudanese Armed Forces and confer legitimacy upon a mercenary militia. Nor was he acting alone. The Framework Agreement was underwritten and championed by the same Quad, composed of the United States, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, with Egypt conspicuously absent at the time.

To the world, we declare: Sudan will not kneel. To our army, we say: advance, crush the mercenaries, and free our land. To the Quad, we say: your plan has already failed. We will fight until the last mercenary is expelled, until Darfur is free, and until every inch of Sudanese soil, including the so-called liberated territories, is reclaimed.

This is not the end of Sudan. It is the end of illusions. Sudan will endure. Sudan will resist. Sudan will prevail.