Chances of success of the Sudanese initiative before the Security Council policy

The initiative presented by Sudanese Prime Minister Dr. Kamel Idris in the open briefing meeting of the Security Council in New York has sparked intense controversy in the Sudanese political scene since it was presented, and generated a number of questions related to its nature and the results it could lead to, and whether it is a new direction adopted by the Sudanese government or is it a confirmation of previous positions presented in a new guise?

The reasons that called for these ongoing discussions are related to the desire of the Sudanese to quickly end this war in a way that achieves their ambitions and equals the price of the sacrifices they paid during the war.years The last three.

Also, the visit of the Sudanese Prime Minister to New York came in the midst of an international and regional campaign trying to propose solutions that work to formulate agreed-upon principles, from which the fundamental visions for ending the war and establishing the foundation for the coming period will emerge.

It is important to emphasize that this session in which the initiative was put forward was organized based on a request from the Sudanese government submitted at the beginning of December 2025, and was supported by important countries: Russia, China, Pakistan, Algeria, Somalia, and Sierra Leone. It may also have come with advice from friendly countries in the international quartet, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Arab Republic of Egypt.

Regarding the details of the initiative, Dr. Kamel Idris focused on a ceasefire under the supervision of the United Nations, the African Union and the League of Arab States, provided that this coincides with the withdrawal of the Rapid Support Militia from the areas it occupies, before agreeing on the mechanisms and timings for its disarmament and the implementation of the integration and demobilization program for its fighters. Then he talked about political, economic and social measures in order to prepare the country to return to normal civil life and hold elections to end the state of conflict and political discord that has continued since the fall of the previous regime in 2019.

It is noted that the initiative, in its essence and content, is an (enlarged and revised) copy of the document that the Sudanese government had previously submitted in early 2025 to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, and was called (the government road map), in which it was stated: (There can be a ceasefire, but it must include a complete withdrawal from the state of Khartoum, Kordofan, and the surroundings of El Fasher, and gathering in the states of Darfur that can accept the presence of the militia within a maximum period of ten days).

The document then talked about humanitarian arrangements and the return of displaced persons and refugees, and concluded with the political track in which it called for holding a Sudanese national dialogue in which the Sudanese would decide the future of their country.

So, in terms of content, this is not the first time that the Sudanese government has presented such ideas, but the value of the initiative lies in the place where it was presented, which is the Security Council, and in its submission directly from the Prime Minister. However, essential points can be extracted from the presentation of this initiative at this time, which are as follows:

• Firstly: It is clear that the Sudanese government is trying to consolidate its narrative of the war, a narrative that has been distorted by some Sudanese and regional circles. While the truth about this war remains that it is an aggression launched by the Rapid Support militia against the national army and against defenseless innocent citizens, backed by significant regional support, the militia machine and those who support it are trying to promote that it is a war between two generals competing for power.

Kamel Idris denied this narrative by saying: “Peace cannot be achieved without accountability and a single national authority.” Although he avoided using the term “aggression” in describing the war, the Sudanese Security and Defense Council had previously adopted this term in its definition of this war.

It was clear that some of those who attended the meeting were influenced by that distorted narrative, led by the spokesman for the United States of America, who held (both parties) responsible for the violations, as well as the British and French delegates.

But the interventions of Russia, Algeria, China, Turkey, and the Arab Republic of Egypt were clear and unambiguous, which is a great gain for the Sudanese government.

• secondly: The international and regional scene has been dominated during the last period by the International Quartet initiative as the only card on the table to solve the Sudanese problem.

It is known that the Sudanese government rejected the proposals of the International Quartet, and reserved some of its membership. The question before the Sudanese government was: What are your options after you rejected the International Quartet?

This currently proposed initiative represents an answer to those pitiful or condemnable questions. What distinguishes this initiative and gives it the necessary strength is that it came from the Sudanese government, which has an interest in stopping the war, and is also capable of implementing important pledges in order to make any efforts for calm, ceasefire, and delivering aid to those in need a success.

• Third: With this high-level move, the Sudanese government is trying to create an international and regional situation that is sympathetic and supportive of the Sudanese positions, while besieging the militia at the same time.

Dr. Kamel, who has long experience working with the United Nations, knows that this open meeting will not issue an immediate decision in favor of Sudan, but it can deepen the discussion and proposals that crystallize positive opinions that may turn to the corridors of the Security Council at any moment and decisions will be issued. But the important thing in this context is that this move came amid an international and regional movement in support of Sudan.

Muhammad Belaish, the African Union envoy to Sudan, stated after his meeting with the head of the Sudanese Transitional Sovereignty Council, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, in Port Sudan, that the systematic violations committed by the Rapid Support Forces are condemned in the strongest terms, and that their perpetrators will not escape punishment.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also reaffirmed, during his statements in December 2025, that there are “countries providing weapons to the warring parties, especially the Rapid Support Forces,” and confirmed that he held talks with all parties in order to stop this.

In the context of the positions supporting the Sudanese government, the Secretary-General of the Arab League welcomed the Prime Minister’s initiative, which he considered (a good framework on which to build).

The Egyptian government issued a statement last week at the conclusion of Al-Burhan’s visit to Egypt, which he arrived one day after his visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Egyptian presidency’s statement stated that there are red lines in Egyptian policy, including the unity and integrity of Sudanese lands. For the first time, the Egyptian government spoke about the joint defense agreement signed between the two countries in 1976.

It seems that relations between the militia and the state of South Sudan will develop for the worse in the coming days against the backdrop of clashes that left dozens dead and wounded between the militia and the army of the state of South Sudan in the Heglig region, which the state of South Sudan entered based on understandings made between the three parties, but the Rapid Support militia tried to violate those understandings and impose its control over the Heglig oil complex by force before the defense forces of the state of South Sudan dealt with it.

Fourth: The initiative focused largely on humanitarian issues, due to the extent of the suffering experienced by millions of those who were forced to leave their homes, and against whom crimes of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and forced displacement were committed.

This file has been the subject of controversy with the international community since the outbreak of the war, and the Quartet plan, which was rejected by the Sudanese government, focused largely on it, and even built its initiative based on it.

Although the government has lost its international crossings with Chad and Libya, it would like to be reminded of its responsibilities for its citizens wherever they are, and of its sovereignty over its lands, even if they are under the control of the militia.

This is not the first initiative, but its value is that it was presented from the Security Council podium and by the Prime Minister

Chances of success of the initiative

Immediately, the Rapid Support Militia quickly rejected the initiative completely, which is expected in light of the militia’s control over the Darfur region and large parts of the Kordofan region, and it is also proud of what it believes to be victories in Al-Fasher, Babanusa, and Heglig.

But this is not the only thing that makes it reject this initiative. The decision to continue and stop the war is no longer a matter specific to the Rapid Support as a military and political system. Because the Sudanese war itself today is no longer between the army and a faction that rebelled against it, but has become a war of aggression against the Sudanese people, in which the Rapid Support Rifle is used by regional parties that have interests and ambitions linked to this war and its results.

Any possible settlement must address those parties that have a broad ability to support, arm, and bring in foreign mercenaries, who have become a force that is almost independent in its movements and control from the Rapid Support Command. If the militia and those behind it had agreed to this initiative, they would have previously agreed to the government’s plan that was submitted to the United Nations.

On the other hand, in order to understand how the Rapid Support Militia deals with such initiatives, we must know the nature of its project, which is based on destructive thinking for Sudan in its old form, and the establishment of another Sudan in which it will be its mainstay, and forced displacement is nothing but a systematic demographic change in order to implement that plan. Therefore, it does not see, or rather those who are planning it from the outside, any opportunity for any solutions under the roof of recognition of the state system and its national army.

Under no circumstances will the militia give up its weapons and its current political status except in two cases:

• Firstly; The army resumes its war plans with a firm will to liberate the areas it controls, and deprive it of maneuvering in those areas as a blackmail card.
• As for the second one: It is for this initiative to develop and be adopted by the Arab League and the African Union, and then the UN Security Council, and supported by some countries such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Arab Republic of Egypt, Turkey and others.

Accordingly, pressure is being exerted on the militia, and a comprehensive siege is imposed on it, and at the same time the campaign of military pressure on it continues at the field level until it submits to the authority and sovereignty of the state, and abandons its deadly military ambitions.

Likewise, it is expected that the fighting will continue at this moment, especially since the militia is supported by the forces of Abdulaziz Al-Hilu, especially since they partially took control of the city of Kadugli, the capital of South Kordofan State, especially since the militia leadership saw that the terrible crimes it committed in El Fasher only cost it some timid condemnations here and there.

Therefore, the Sudanese government needs to continue to raise the olive branch, but at the same time it must take its field book firmly, and always remember that what the Prime Minister said that peace cannot be achieved except by one authority, his complementary sentence must be: (And that one authority is imposed only by the strength and prestige of the state).