To the Sudanese People: Beware of the Ominous Enslavement

Osman Jalal

(1)
“Ominous enslavement” is a term coined by the scholar Abd al-Rahman al-Kawakibi in his book The Nature of Despotism and the Struggle Against Enslavement. By it, he meant the exploitation by watchful powers of moments of weakness and disorientation within a targeted state. In such moments, predatory states move to control and dominate a country mired in fragility and turmoil, until the lost and brittle state dissolves into the consequences of ominous enslavement. This condition often cloaks itself in glossy, deceptive slogans, yet the essential traits of enslavement known throughout human history are plainly evident behind every façade.

(2)
The weakening of Sudan and its submersion in the mire of conflict and fragmentation is the product of an old and ongoing Zionist–American–British–French plan, renewed through changing vessels. A unified Sudan—rich in resources, diverse in its societies, and politically stable—poses an existential threat to Israel and a cultural and civilizational challenge to Christian Africa. When this alliance realized the impossibility of implementing its scheme through its direct instruments, it resorted—shrewdly and maliciously—to exploiting our internal contradictions. It has long fueled rebellions against the central state to stretch and sever the peripheries, culminating in the secession of the South as an independent state in 2011.
Thereafter, it continued to stoke wars in Darfur, the Nuba Mountains, and Blue Nile. Its strategic objective has been to preoccupy the Sudanese state with internal fighting, preventing the conclusion of a social contract that would end identity-based conflicts and lay the foundations for state- and nation-building on the principles of sustainable democratic governance—thereby mobilizing all state resources to establish the pillars of development and venture into the horizons of comprehensive civilizational renaissance.

(3)
The war of April 15, 2023, is, in this view, a product of the American–Israeli–British–French quartet. The United Arab Emirates, the Dagalo family militia, and the leaderships of “Sumoud” and “Ta’sis” are merely functional instruments in this war. The quartet planned it as a swift, decisive strike aimed at eliminating the Sudanese Armed Forces and replacing them with the Dagalo militia; installing Hemeti as ruler, with the leaders of “Sumoud” and “Ta’sis” as ministers; integrating Sudan into a sphere of Zionist dependency; and plundering its resources—while humiliating the Sudanese people in the snares of what Kawakibi termed ominous enslavement.
Accordingly, rape, looting, violations of honor, humiliation of elders, the abduction and enslavement of women, and the pillage of historical and cultural treasures constituted a systematic policy carried out under the watch, acquiescence, and blessing of the quartet alliance, aimed at tearing apart the moral and value structures of Sudanese society.

(4)
After the quartet alliance’s plot and its internal tools were shattered by the legendary unity of the people with the army in the battle for national honor, the Western mind—aware that decisive wars generate major transformations in the trajectories of states and nations—adjusted its strategy. History offers precedents: the Thirty Years’ War in Europe (1618–1648), which ended with the Peace of Westphalia and gave birth to the sovereign nation-state; and the wars of the French Revolution in the Napoleonic era, which concluded with the Congress of Vienna in 1815, laying down principles of international law and diplomatic representation and ushering in nearly a century of peace in Europe.
Accordingly, the quartet shifted to a policy of miseducation—spreading misinformation and falsehoods through glossy, deceptive propaganda to distract minds and energies from the battle for dignity. It then mobilized its internal mouthpieces—the leaderships of “Sumoud” and “Ta’sis”—to launch slogans casting doubt on the morality and honor of the War of Dignity, branding it as a war between two generals, or an Islamist bid to return to power, or a war of regret. The aim is to break society’s unity with the army and pressure state leadership into a settlement that restores the criminal militia and its civilian political wing to the forefront, keeping Sudan trapped in a cycle of civilizational weakness until a new historical moment for domination and control matures—but to no avail.

(5)
In the theory of challenge and response, Arnold Toynbee argues that the greater the challenges and dangers confronting nations, the more resolute the response that free societies generate in confronting and repelling aggression—until decisive victory is achieved and what Toynbee described as the “golden mean” is reached: the emergence of a state possessing comprehensive elements of power, rising from beneath the rubble of destruction and collapse.
If this holds true, then the Sudanese people have no option but to persist in resistance and fighting, shoulder to shoulder with the army, until the final defeat of the criminal militia and the foiling of the quartet’s conspiracy—thereby attaining the golden mean. Otherwise, the alternative is to fall into the snares of ominous enslavement. May God grant the Sudanese people and their army victory and glory.