Message to the African Union summit: Five myths about war in Sudan

By Mekki ELMOGRABI
[email protected]

The First Myth:

This is a war between two generals, Burhan and Hemetti.
The Fact: What happened was an aggression carried out by ‘specific countries’ to enforce their control over Sudan and impose a ‘puppet government’ on the country. These countries implemented this agenda through civilian agents. Still, they decided to complete it by replacing the national army, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia. In this regard, international reports are available to prove these accusations. The fact again is, “It is a war against Sudan and not a war in Sudan, between Sudanese.” Unfortunately, the big countries have also given the green light to this aggression because they want to share Sudan’s stolen resources with those aggressors.

The Second Myth:
The so-called “Forces of Freedom and Change(FFC)”, which rebranded as the “Alliance of Democratic Civic Forces-Taqadum”, claims they represent citizens and supporters of democracy in Sudan.
The Fact: These parties represent the militia and the agenda of the countries that sponsor the militia. They were not interested in democracy; they wanted to extend the ‘transitional period’ to ten years or more. They used the intimidation that Sudan would return to the Islamists in the elections. It was a conspiracy to deprive Sudanese citizens of their rights and democracy.

The Third Myth:
The presence of those who believe in Islamic ideas in the Sudanese army is something bad and undemocratic and must be changed.
The Fact: The opposite is true! The military in any country naturally must resemble the people in the country. The majority of Sudanese believe in Islamic and conservative ideas. Even the majority of political parties formed before Sudan’s independence and before the existence of the Islamists in Sudan were based on religious sects; they were non-secular. Therefore, using politicized accusations against SAF will lead to the total rejection of whoever does so because a citizen or a member of a national army should not be punished for their ideas and beliefs. Some politicians don’t like Islamists. Ok, beat them in elections. If the majority of Sudanese military officers believe in Islamic, conservative, and moderate ideas, that is normal, and it is not advisable to interfere in that issue at all. Practically, It is better to look for Islamic thinkers in Sudan and have a dialogue with them to help Sudan on its way to democracy.

The Fourth Myth:
The militia controls large parts of Sudan.
The Fact: The word “control” is unsuitable to describe what the militia and its gangs are doing. RSF has indeed taken areas from the control of SAF and the legitimate government, but it lost ‘security control’ in the parts it took from the army. Therefore, the militia has not established any service or administrative system nor fixed the one it has destroyed. RSF cannot guarantee the minimum level of security control or services. Worse still, the militia returns every day to its primitive version: gangs of mercenaries and criminals who come together only to attack stable civilian life and then scatter in small groups. The correct expression is that “parts of Sudan are under militia sabotage and not under militia control.”

The Fifth Myth:
The solution lies in a political dialogue that excludes no one.
This Fact: It is necessary to reject those representing the militia and serve the goals of the countries that fund and support it. Dialogue with the militia puppets is unacceptable unless they decide to move from the side of the militia to the side of the Sudanese people. The coalition claiming civilian rule and democracy should be reclassified as a non-civilian pro-militia organization. Afterwards, if parties, organizations, or individuals leave this coalition and join the Sudanese people against the militia, they can enter into the political dialogue.

Conclusion: Again Facts are:
1. It is a war against Sudan and not a war in Sudan launched by aggressors who serve the agenda of other countries.
2. FFC represents the militia and the agenda of the countries that sponsor the militia, and not civil government or democracy.
3. The majority of Sudanese believe in Islamic and conservative ideas. Of course, the military in any country resembles the people in the country. There is nothing wrong with the Sudanese army on this point.
4. Parts of Sudan are being under the sabotage of the militias and not ‘controlled by the militias’. Worse still, the militia returns every day to its primitive version: gangs of mercenaries and criminals.
5. The coalition that claims democracy must be reclassified as a non-civilian pro-militia organization.