Beyond Short-Term Truces: Sudan Demands Accountability for the Genocidal Militia (2-3)

Mubarak Mahgoub musa

Amid the brutal conflict engulfing Sudan, it has become clear that the war is not merely a military confrontation between a state striving to preserve its existence and a militia that has broken free from every rule of discipline. It is, first and foremost, a war of narratives—crafted meticulously and amplified maliciously to project an inverted image of reality. While Sudan works to affirm its natural right to restore its security and sovereignty, intertwined regional and international actors promote a narrative portraying the government as a “party that refuses to negotiate,” conveniently ignoring undeniable facts on the ground.

The Sudanese Roadmap: A Goodwill Gesture That Was Deliberately Ignored

Since February 2025, Sudan has presented a comprehensive political roadmap for its future and submitted it to regional and international bodies as the foundation for any fair settlement. Yet some actors intentionally conceal this truth, instead depicting Khartoum as inflexible or unwilling to engage in dialogue—an attempt to muddle the situation and drag the country into an imposed political process tailored to appease perpetrators while marginalizing victims.

But the central truth being deliberately bypassed is this: the roadmap could not be implemented without first stopping the war.

And plainly, the war will not stop as long as the UAE continues fueling it relentlessly with a steady supply of weapons and mercenaries, in blatant defiance of all international legitimacy. No political process—no matter how well designed—can take effect while one party is sustained by a foreign machinery that invigorates the war and prolongs its devastation. Ending the war does not begin with fragile calls for a ceasefire, but by stopping the hand that feeds the fire.

Negotiation: A Means, Not an End

It is Sudan’s right—indeed its moral and sovereign duty—to demand clarity regarding the nature of any negotiations:

What is the agenda?
Who are the parties?
And what is the intended outcome?

Negotiation is not an end in itself but a tool to achieve genuine peace built on justice—not a reward for those who committed atrocities, looted cities, and violated the lives of innocents.

The “Humanitarian Truce”: Putting the Cart Before the Horse

Many voices today promote the need for a “humanitarian truce,” as if such a truce is a magic cure for everything.
Yet the obvious question is: Where were these calls when the people of El Fasher were dying of hunger, thirst, and bombardment?
Why was the world silent when a truce could have saved thousands—only to rediscover humanitarianism after the catastrophe had already unfolded?

International Shock… A Manufactured Surprise

The “shock” displayed by certain Western circles over the events in El Fasher rings hollow, especially as UN expert panels and satellite imagery had documented—year after year—the steady flow of weapons to the militia despite the 2005 UN arms embargo on Darfur.
The world silently watched the repeat of genocide in Geneina and Wad Al-Noura and elsewhere, only to feign surprise at what happened in El Fasher, as if the crimes unfolded behind a curtain rather than before the eyes of orbiting satellites.

Resolution 2736… and the Crime of International Silence

On 13 June 2024, the Security Council issued Resolution 2736 demanding that the terrorist militia immediately lift the siege on El Fasher.
Yet the siege continued, and the international community made no move to enforce the resolution.
Only Yale University repeatedly issued warnings—more than six times—of impending catastrophes, while the world looked on.

The Seven-Day Truce… Sudan Accepted, the Militia Rejected

Sudan’s government accepted the humanitarian ceasefire proposed by the UN Secretary-General last June to save the besieged population in El Fasher.
But the militia openly rejected it, and again the international community took no action—another green light to continue killing and starvation.
This double standard reveals a bitter truth: humanitarian action has become a political instrument in the hands of powerful actors, rather than a tool to save human lives.

The Myth of the “Truce as a Universal Cure”

Some actors treat the truce as if it were a panacea.
But this view ignores the very nature of the militia, as described by U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Mark Ribeiro, who besides affirming over and over again, his government ‘s official position; announced last January, that the RSF militia has indeed committed genocide and ethnic cleansing in this war once again, came to state unmistakably that this militia is structurally rooted in criminality, and is inherently incapable of ceasing violence.”

On his part, David Shinn, former US ambassador to Ethiopia and Burkina Faso, former deputy chief of mission at the US embassy in Sudan, and a researcher at the Middle East Institute in Washington, considered Rubio’s statements to mean that “the United States has concluded that the Rapid Support Forces are the main villain in the Sudanese conflict.”

Hence, if this is the assessment of United States’s foreign minister and its national security advisor, how can Sudan be expected to trust ceasefire promises from an entity that knows only the language of blood?

Rehabilitating the Perpetrators Through the Backdoor of “Humanitarian Ceasefire”

The same actors calling on Sudan today to accept an urgent truce have been unable—despite two weeks passing since the El Fasher massacre—to take any serious step against the militia or its regional sponsor.
Worse still, they are attempting to impose that sponsor as a mediator and guarantor of peace—an absurd narrative increasingly rejected by the world as its destabilizing and resource-plundering role becomes ever clearer.

But, as the saying goes, every cloud has a silver lining—this growing exposure is shifting the balance of global awareness.

Talk of the crimes after having been committed appears less like a humanitarian act and more like an overt political maneuver:
to provide cover for reintegrating the militia into the political process and converting its record of atrocities into political capital.

Conclusion: The Narrative Battle Is a Battle for Sovereignty

Some are working—cunningly—to turn genocide into “leverage,” siege into “negotiating capital,” and massacres into “a pathway for political return.”
But Sudan’s battle today is not only on the ground—it is a battle to preserve the truth itself.

The Sudanese national narrative—rooted in documented facts and a clear political will—is the first line of defense against rehabilitating perpetrators and against any political process built on rewarding those whose hands are stained with the blood of innocents across the Sudan.