Sudan and the UAE: How Can a Settlement Be Built Without Rewarding War or Reproducing It?| Sudanow Magazine

At a deeply sensitive political moment, public discourse has become increasingly occupied with reports suggesting possible moves toward talks or dialogue with the United Arab Emirates — a profoundly delicate issue given the painful legacy the UAE has imprinted upon the collective consciousness of the Sudanese people. This opens the door to questions far more complex than merely repairing diplomatic relations between the two countries in the context of the devastating war imposed upon Sudan, with all its painful narratives and enormous costs.

The war has now entered its fourth year. Meanwhile, the UAE continues to deny its involvement, as though attempting to cover the sun with one hand, despite the consequences of its sponsorship of aggression through the rebellion in full view of the world. The issue is no longer a transient political disagreement; it is a multidimensional crisis tied to a destructive war that has exhausted the Sudanese state — its land, people, and institutions — leaving behind millions of victims, displaced persons, and refugees, while striking at the very core of Sudan’s national, security, economic, and social fabric.

These discussions unfold while the UAE remains in a state of denial, even as its support for the rebellion continues through influence, financing, weapons, protection, and political advocacy. Sudan — both leadership and people — does not fear any state so long as it has not initiated harm or conspired against it.

The Sudanese people have every right to pay close attention to any reported development, whatever its nature, because of the profound implications it carries for their future and national destiny. Any potential negotiation track cannot merely be viewed as a vague attempt to reduce tensions; rather, it must be understood as a historic test of the Sudanese state’s ability to transform the sacrifices and suffering of its people into a collective national negotiating position that is honorable, cohesive, and capable of preventing the recycling of the causes of war or paving the way for a new version of chaos under the banners of fragile settlements, external agendas, or regional interests without addressing the catastrophic damage the war has inflicted.

First: The Logic of Force Alone Is Insufficient — The Logic of the State Is Required

Over the past period, the Sudanese Armed Forces, supported by the resilience and sacrifices of the Sudanese people, have managed to alter the military landscape significantly, regain strategic areas, and reclaim the momentum of victory despite conspiracies and external agendas. This, in turn, has politically shifted the tone of many regional and international capitals toward the Sudanese crisis.

Yet regional experiences demonstrate that military victory alone is insufficient to establish sustainable peace unless it evolves into a clear state-building project with a national political, legal, and security vision for the post-war period grounded in firm principles. Here lies the importance of any such diplomatic direction: it suggests that Khartoum may be beginning to recognize that managing the battlefield cannot be separated from managing the potential political outcome — but through a transparent national framework written with the blood, pain, sacrifices, and destroyed livelihoods of this great people.

However, the seriousness of such a step, if it indeed exists, requires that it become a clear public national position declared by the state itself, not a short-term political bargain crafted behind closed doors and surrounded by suspicion. What has happened to Sudan is enough to shame any free conscience. The Sudanese people seek a dignified step that reflects their pride and sacrifices — not one that merely extinguishes the fire temporarily while leaving the fuel beneath the ashes.

Therefore, what is required is not simply the “restoration of relations” that Sudan never sought to tarnish, but rather a complete redefinition of the rules governing Sudan’s relationship with any regional actor involved in this aggression, according to one clear principle: respect for Sudan’s sovereignty, unity of national decision-making, and immunity of its internal affairs from interference or harm.

Second: What Should Sudan Bring to the Negotiating Table?

If Sudan is to enter any negotiation process with the UAE or others, it must first establish a “national negotiating doctrine” based on declared constants so that this file does not become subject to individual improvisation or temporary calculations. What has occurred requires national clarity and courage in confronting violations that touched every dimension of dignity and sovereignty.

These principles may be summarized in several foundations:

1. Recognition of the Scale of Damage

What occurred cannot be treated as a mere political misunderstanding. The war caused massive destruction in Khartoum, Darfur, Al Jazirah, Kordofan, and across much of Sudan, producing one of the gravest humanitarian catastrophes in the country’s modern history and becoming among the largest crises globally.

Any serious political process must begin with clear recognition of the humanitarian, political, and security catastrophe that occurred, because bypassing this reality effectively legitimizes war as a future instrument of political pressure.

2. Ending All Military or Logistical Support to Militias

This is a condition repeatedly expressed by both the state and the popular will. It must move beyond political rhetoric and become a binding negotiating clause supported by clear regional and international guarantees, including monitoring and enforcement mechanisms rather than vague diplomatic promises or incomplete settlements while the wounds remain open.

Sudan does not need a temporary truce; it requires a comprehensive framework that prevents the reproduction of war and rebellion in any future form.

3. Refusing to Reward War Politically

This is among the most dangerous issues in the Sudanese scene. Any settlement that grants direct political or economic gains to the armed force that fought against the state — or to those who supported it — would send a catastrophic message to the future: that violence is the fastest path to power and reward while crimes are erased.

Therefore, any settlement must clearly distinguish between:

* The humanitarian track;

* The political track;

* And the criminal and judicial track.

Justice must not be subordinated to political bargaining.

Third: Who Represents Sudan? A Critically Important Question

One of the gravest challenges Sudan has faced over past decades is that major national files were often managed through the logic of quotas, loyalties, or competing power centers rather than through the logic of the state and its supreme national interests.

Thus, any future negotiation process requires:

* A highly qualified negotiating team;

* Incorporating legal, diplomatic, security, and economic expertise;

* Possessing detailed knowledge of war crimes, violations, financing networks, and foreign interventions;

* Operating under a clear national mandate rather than personal interests, competition over positions, or monopolization of representation.

Moreover, involving public opinion in a carefully structured manner remains essential, because the Sudanese people can no longer tolerate deals made behind closed doors and disconnected from their sacrifices and aspirations.

Fourth: What About the Rapid Support Forces?

This question will remain central to any future settlement because genuine stability cannot be built without addressing the fate of the armed force that waged war against the state and plunged the country into catastrophe.

Here, it is necessary to distinguish between three levels:

First Level: Criminal Accountability

Anyone involved in killings, ethnic cleansing, looting, or violations against civilians must face accountability under national law and international standards of transitional justice. Peace that bypasses justice usually transforms into a fragile truce and an incomplete bargain.

Second Level: Military Dismantlement

No parallel military formation or militia outside the official national framework can be permitted to survive. This issue concerns the future of the state itself, not merely the current war.

Third Level: Social and Humanitarian Treatment

Thousands of young people were drawn into the war due to poverty, mobilization, or social collapse. These individuals require disarmament, rehabilitation, and reintegration programs so they do not become permanent fuel for transnational instability or instruments of regional manipulation.

Fifth: Why Are Regional Guarantees Necessary?

What occurred in Sudan demonstrated that Sudanese national security has become deeply intertwined with regional balances in the Red Sea, the Horn of Africa, the Sahel, and neighboring states.

Therefore, any real settlement requires:

* Guarantees preventing border territories from being used for arms smuggling or fighter movements;

* Regional security understandings that protect Sudan’s unity;

* Oversight of cross-border financing networks;

* And explicit commitment to respecting Sudanese sovereignty and refraining from constructing parallel centers of influence within the country.

Sudan has every right to pursue peace efforts in any direction without fear or hesitation, so long as such efforts are governed by national interests and the immense suffering imposed upon its people by war and destruction. In this context, movements taking place in various capitals may be understood as attempts to redefine the war and contain its regional repercussions, especially amid growing fears regarding the war’s impact on Red Sea security, maritime navigation, and regional stability.

Finally: What Do Sudanese People Expect From Their Leadership?

The Sudanese people are not waiting for emotional rhetoric or political vengeance. But neither do they want a weak settlement that wastes the blood of victims, discards their rights, trivializes their suffering, or reproduces the causes of war.

What people expect today is:

* Confident leadership;

* Negotiation guided by the logic of the state rather than the logic of crisis;

* Clarity regarding national red lines;

* Protection of sovereignty without isolation;

* And justice capable of preventing the repetition of tragedy.

Sudan has paid an extraordinarily heavy price in this war. Its people now deserve to see a national project capable of transforming pain into a historic opportunity to rebuild the state on foundations of greater justice, resilience, and sovereignty.

Settlements built upon courtesy, pressure, temporary rewards, or inaccurate calculations will not create peace; they will merely postpone the next explosion. Trust between the people and their leadership, shaped through the sacrifices of this existential war and all its burdens, must remain the compass guiding any serious peace effort — whether with the UAE or any other actor.

Current Affairs

Sudan and the UAE: How Can a Settlement Be Built Without Rewarding War or Reproducing It?

Analysis: Implications and Significance of Recent Rapid Developments and Shifting Stances Toward the Situation in Sudan

Livestock Wealth: Challenges and Opportunities