Chairman of Sudan’s Sovereign Council and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Lieutenant General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, affirmed that the “Battle of Dignity” will continue and will not end until the rebellion and its supporters are defeated.
Al-Burhan performed Friday prayers in the Ad Babiker area of East Nile. In remarks following the prayers, he called on Sudanese citizens to remain united and vigilant in safeguarding the country, warning that “the enemy is lying in wait.”
He stressed that the Sudanese people will not accept injustice or humiliation, adding: “The Sudanese people will not accept imposed solutions or alien values, nor will they accept anyone coming to destroy their values.”
The Secessionist Truce: A Political Reading of Sudan’s Future
By مني أركو مناوي
Since the outbreak of war in Sudan, talk of “humanitarian truces” has become a recurring political refrain, invoked whenever the humanitarian catastrophe reaches its peak. Yet the truce currently being proposed comes in a different and far more dangerous context. It follows the commission of genocide and ethnic cleansing by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF–Founding) in the city of El Fasher—one of the most horrific humanitarian disasters in modern Sudanese history.
El Fasher, once a symbol of diversity and coexistence, has been reduced to a devastated, depopulated city. In the aftermath of this major crime, the international community has once again floated the idea of a “humanitarian truce,” a move that demands a careful political reading—one that goes beyond moral slogans to examine motives and potential consequences, particularly with regard to Sudan’s geographic, social, and political unity.
The Truce: A Path to Peace or a Gateway to Fragmentation?
A popular saying goes: “If you see a poor man eating chicken, either the man is sick or the chicken is sick.” This proverb aptly captures the essence of legitimate political suspicion surrounding the timing of this truce.
In principle, humanitarian truces are meant to alleviate civilian suffering and may pave the way toward ending conflicts. What raises concern, however, is that this truce was proposed after the catastrophe—not before it—and after the RSF (Founding) categorically rejected any humanitarian commitments, including the protection of hospitals and the securing of safe corridors.
Today, humanitarian organizations are already operating in most parts of Sudan, including Darfur, despite severe security challenges and in the absence of a truce. This raises a legitimate question: why now, and in whose interest is this truce being proposed at this particular moment? Such contradictions fuel suspicion that the objective goes beyond humanitarian considerations and instead seeks to reshape Sudan’s political and geographic reality.
Historical Precedents: Lessons That Must Not Be Ignored
Modern history is replete with examples where humanitarian truces evolved from de-escalation tools into pathways toward fragmentation and secession. In Western Sahara (Polisario), Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and South Sudan, truces were not always bridges to peace; more often, they became transitional stages toward state division and the erosion of sovereignty.
In Sudan’s own experience, Operation Lifeline Sudan in 1993 stands as a stark example of how humanitarian action was politicized, eventually culminating in the secession of South Sudan following a long process of normalizing division.
Today’s situation is even more dangerous and complex. This is not a case of a government negotiating with a political movement that has national demands. Rather, it is an unprecedented scenario in which two actors each claim to represent the “government” within a single state: the legitimate Government of Sudan on one hand, and the RSF (Founding), which seeks to entrench a parallel entity, on the other.
The Trap of Disguised Political Recognition
Negotiating between two “governments” within one state constitutes a perilous political trap aimed at extracting recognition for a de facto force through the truce. A joint signature alone confers parity and legitimacy on the rebel party—an outcome fundamentally at odds with the immense sacrifices made by the Sudanese people in defense of national unity and sovereignty.
This path represents a direct violation of the core principles for which martyrs fell and women were widowed, foremost among them:
First: The Principle of Sudan’s Unity
The RSF (Founding) has violated this principle by recruiting foreign elements and mercenaries, exploiting external support, and imposing forced demographic changes in an attempt to reshape Sudan according to agendas detached from the national will.
Second: The Unity of Government and Constitutional Legitimacy
Efforts to establish a “parallel government” directly undermine the legitimacy of the Sudanese state, erode the foundations laid since independence, and open the door to political chaos and institutional fragmentation.
Third: The Unity of the Military Institution
The RSF’s receipt of weapons and military equipment from foreign states, and its reliance on looting and self-financing, fundamentally contradict any talk of security sector reform or the building of a unified national army, effectively entrenching the reality of multiple armies within a single state.
Opaque Negotiations and the Absence of Transparency
Concerns deepen amid the lack of full transparency surrounding the truce. Why are negotiations conducted behind closed doors? Why is the Sudanese people excluded from knowing what is being agreed in their name? How can foreign states negotiate on behalf of a people bleeding under war and displacement? Who has greater right to define the priorities of peace than the very people enduring the war?
Most troubling is the fact that the same party “holding the pen” in the political process is also “holding the gun,” perpetrating killing and ethnic cleansing—an ethical and political paradox that cannot be accepted.
The Truce as a Threshold to Comprehensive Disintegration
A comprehensive reading of developments suggests that this truce is closer to being a gateway to dismantling the Sudanese state than a bridge to saving it. It risks entrenching a reality of division: zones of influence, multiple armies, different currencies, parallel central banks, rival foreign ministries, and conflicting passports—a state without a state, and sovereignty without sovereignty. This is a contagious disease that will, sooner or later, afflict all those along the coast, the river mouth, and the source.
Conclusion: Between Humanitarian Duty and National Vigilance
There is no dispute over the priority of improving humanitarian conditions and protecting civilians. However, the truce being pushed today may offer temporary stability at the cost of a grave strategic price: the erosion of Sudan’s unity.
National duty requires the highest levels of vigilance and caution so that the truce does not become a political trap completing the project of state disintegration. History shows no mercy to those who squander their homeland, nor does it forgive those who trade national sovereignty for external dictates—while fully acknowledging that the roots of the crisis are deep and historically accumulated.
Hope ultimately rests on the awareness of the Sudanese people and their ability to unite at this critical juncture, in defense of one homeland, one army, and one state—indivisible and free from guardianship, shaped only by the will of its people through established, legitimate frameworks, not by force or the imposition of realities at gunpoint.
