A Statement That Provoked the Foreign Ministry’s Ire… When the African Union “Wears the Kadmoul”

Sudan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation has expressed deep regret over the content of the joint statement issued by the African Union Commission on January 6, 2026, titled “Joint Statement between the African Union Commission and the United Arab Emirates.” The ministry said the statement’s handling of Sudanese affairs lacked objectivity and merely reiterated a narrative that equates Sudan’s legitimate government with an extremist militia designated as terrorist and condemned by the international community, including the African Union itself on several occasions—the most recent being its explicit condemnation of the El Fasher massacre.

The Sudanese Foreign Ministry noted that the joint statement was issued in partnership with a country it described as a supporter of the rebel militia and a direct accomplice in the bloodshed of the Sudanese people and violations against them. This, it said, raises serious questions about the background and timing of the statement, particularly as it was released without any clear occasion or within a forum that included other African Union member states. Moreover, the statement was issued jointly with a country that is not a member of the African Union, a move Khartoum described as alarming with regard to the role expected of the AU Commission in resolving conflicts on the continent, in line with the slogan “African solutions to African problems.”

The ministry also expressed surprise at the joint statement’s repeated call for an unconditional humanitarian truce, despite the Sudanese government’s clear and declared position on a ceasefire. This position was reaffirmed through the “Sudan Peace Initiative” announced by the Prime Minister on December 22, 2025, before the UN Security Council—an initiative welcomed by the UN Secretary-General and endorsed by several regional and international organizations, including the African Union itself. The government viewed this as a puzzling contradiction that raises questions about the AU Commission’s true stance toward the initiative.

In its statement, the Sudanese government reaffirmed its firm commitment to achieving peace in line with the aspirations and legitimate hopes of the Sudanese people, stressing its readiness to engage positively with any initiative that adheres to this path and respects the country’s sovereignty and the interests of its people. Conversely, it underscored that any initiative that places the government on equal footing with the terrorist Al-Dagalo militia, or reproduces the same content contained in what it described as the regrettable statement, will find no acceptance among the Sudanese people and will not be dealt with by the government in any form.

Meanwhile, Egyptian Foreign Minister has stated that his country will not accept the division of Sudan or the establishment of any parallel government. This comes amid what appear to be extensions of behind-the-scenes negotiations involving various international and regional actors active in the Sudanese arena.

Dr. Bakri Mohamed Al-Sir, a Sudanese university lecturer and political affairs analyst, said the African Union persists in what he described as weak and hesitant positions, resembling those of states that lack independent decision-making and political will. “The fundamental role of the African Union should be to defend its member states, not to contribute to their destabilization or ally itself with a non-African state that it fully knows threatens the security and stability of an African member state—one that is not only a member but a founding state of the Union,” he said, adding that this approach has characterized the AU’s presence and that of its organizations in Sudan since the beginning of the war and even before.

He added that the UAE would gain no additional leverage from any African Union stance, arguing that the Sudanese crisis has effectively moved beyond the AU’s framework. “If the UAE were to assess what it has gained from the African Union’s positions, and how much it has spent to secure them in terms of cost-benefit calculations, it would find that it has lost money for nothing. The Union cannot impose a position on the Sudanese government; had it possessed such authority, the UAE would not have needed to exert all this effort,” he said.

Dr. Al-Sir further noted that the UAE is now attempting to bypass the US-Saudi initiative and revive the Quadrilateral Initiative by any means and at any cost—much as it previously pursued the implementation of the Framework Agreement, exerting pressure on political forces and the army until war erupted. “Now it is repeating the same approach with the Quadrilateral Initiative, pushing relentlessly and pressuring international and regional actors to impose it on the Sudanese government and the army, in a way that ensures the militia’s return to the military and political forefront. This is categorically rejected not only by the army but also by Sudanese citizens who have lived through the war and experienced the militia firsthand,” he said.

For his part, Dr. Osama Hanfi, Professor of Political Science at Sudan University, believes the African Union has removed itself from the search for a solution to the Sudanese crisis through its positions on the war since its outbreak until today, and through what he described as its dependence on non-African states seeking to impose their tutelage over an AU member state. He added that the UAE is seeking a symbolic victory, aiming to assert that any initiative that excludes it will not pass quietly, given its influence within the continent, its support from Sudanese political actors, and backing from regional and international institutions.

“I am not surprised by the African Union’s position,” Dr. Hanfi continued. “The AU and IGAD donned the ‘kadmoul’ from the very first days of the war, providing—alongside countries such as Kenya, Ethiopia, Chad, the Central African Republic, and Haftar—support to the Rapid Support Forces militia. When the African Union wears the ‘kadmoul,’ it does not surprise me; it is precisely the stance one would expect from a Union that has become a tool in the hands of regional and international powers capable of paying its bills.”