The Prime Minister in New York: “Every Move Comes with a Blessing”

Al-Wathiq Kamir

In Sudan, there is a saying: “Every move comes with a blessing.” It is often used to describe action driven more by good intentions than by careful planning. Regrettably, this proverb captures with striking accuracy the circumstances surrounding the Prime Minister’s visit to New York to participate in a UN Security Council briefing on December 22—both before the trip and during it.

From the moment the visit was announced, confusion and a lack of transparency prevailed. Official statements about its objectives were contradictory. Some spoke of a diplomatic breakthrough; others promoted the idea of presenting a revised version of the government’s roadmap to end the war; there was talk of a meeting with the UN Secretary-General; and some even claimed the visit aimed at meeting Emirati officials through US–Saudi mediation. This confusion opened the door wide to speculation and raised legitimate questions: Why now? Why in this form? And who exactly was the intended audience for this message?

This ambiguity was not a minor detail. It was an early indicator of weak political and media preparation—weaknesses that became evident inside the Security Council chamber itself, in the management of the speech and in the handling of responses and remarks.

Addressing a Room Without a High-Level Audience

The briefing session was convened at the request of Sudan’s mission, without the presence of the UN Secretary-General. The Council listened instead to reports from the Assistant Secretary-General for the Middle East, Asia and the Pacific, and from the Director of the Crisis Response Division at the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). This is routine in briefing sessions, but it becomes questionable when a prime minister of a war-torn country travels thousands of miles to address a room largely composed of permanent representatives or their deputies—at a politically dead moment marked by the Christmas and end-of-year holidays.

The result was a speech effectively delivered to an audience that Sudan’s permanent representative could have addressed without the need for such a politically and protocol-wise costly trip.

A Roadmap in the Wrong Forum

According to official media, the purpose of the visit was to present a “revised version of the government’s roadmap to end the war.” Yet the Security Council is not a negotiating platform, nor does it endorse national initiatives. Presenting a roadmap in a briefing session—without prior international consensus or direct sponsorship by an influential power—produces neither support nor commitment. It simply ends when the session ends.

A Serious Procedural Failure Inside the Chamber

The most serious issue was not the level of attendance, but what transpired inside the session. The representative of the United Arab Emirates strongly responded to the Prime Minister’s accusations. Under the Council’s rules, Sudan had the right to an immediate reply. However, Sudan’s mission did not request this right. The session therefore concluded with the UAE’s statement, leaving it as the last—and most forceful—impression in the minds of those present and in the Council’s official record.

This was not a minor protocol oversight, but a grave procedural failure that weakened the government’s political position and left serious allegations unanswered on one of the world’s most important international platforms. It cannot be justified by politics or circumstances, only by poor judgment and inadequate preparation.

Putting the Mission in an Unnecessary Predicament

The Prime Minister’s insistence on remaining in the chamber until the end of the session further complicated matters. In diplomatic practice, leaders deliver their statements and then leave, allowing the permanent representative to manage responses. Had the Prime Minister departed after his speech, Ambassador Al-Harith Idriss could have requested the right of reply and responded on equal footing. His presence, however, constrained the mission’s room for maneuver and placed it in an unnecessary bind.

The Right of Reply: What Should Have Happened?

Under Security Council procedure, any state subjected to direct accusations is entitled to request the right of reply—an uncontested right in Sudan’s case. The peculiarity of this session lay in the personal presence of the Prime Minister, a political stature that protocol does not permit to engage in a direct exchange with another state’s representative, regardless of the sharpness of the latter’s remarks.

This protocol consideration, however, does not negate the state’s right to respond. In my view, Sudan’s mission will seek to reclaim this right institutionally by preparing a detailed written statement addressed to the President of the Security Council, refuting the UAE representative’s claims and requesting its circulation as an official Council document. This is a recognized UN procedure, used when political or protocol constraints prevent an immediate oral reply. At the very least, the Prime Minister could have alluded to this during the stakeout—had it not been held unusually before the session rather than after.

The Absent Press Conference

One of the Prime Minister’s advisers stated that the purpose of the visit was to hold an international press conference to present the government’s roadmap to end the war. This objective, however, did not materialize. No international press conference, in the professional sense, was held. Instead, there was only a limited stakeout in the UN corridors—at a time when the organization’s premises were nearly empty due to the holiday season.

As a result, a rare opportunity to leverage the visit media-wise was lost. The speech was neither politically nor media-wise capitalized upon, once again reflecting poor planning, miscalculation, and weak coordination between the Prime Minister’s office and Sudan’s permanent mission in New York.

Conclusion: From “Every Move Comes with a Blessing” to Calculated Policy

The problem was not the Prime Minister’s decision to go to New York, but the mindset of “every move comes with a blessing” applied to a file that cannot afford randomness or reliance on good intentions alone. Foreign policy—especially in times of war—requires clarity of purpose, proper timing, meticulous preparation, and professional management of every detail, inside and outside the chamber.

If lessons are not drawn from this experience, such moves will shift from tools of diplomatic pressure to additional political burdens, reinforcing an image of confusion and disarray in the management of the country’s most critical files—at a moment when Sudan needs a state that calculates before it moves, rather than hoping for “blessings” afterward.