Dialogue with the Principal is Preferable to His Subordinates and Agents

Inspired by Al-Burhan’s Meeting with Mossad Boulos:
Dialogue with the Principal is Preferable to His Subordinates and Agents

Professor Ahmed Magzoub Ahmed
It is neither surprising – rather, it is logical and a national duty – that the United States of America should plan to achieve and maintain its global dominance, striving to secure its political, economic, and security future. It is among its foremost obligations to utilise every available means, both direct and indirect, to execute this strategy. Should it turn a blind eye to its agents, it does so in the knowledge that they are fulfilling their duty in advancing its agenda. And should it intervene directly – as it did with China – this remains its prerogative. In all these ways, it works to safeguard its strategic position, at times manoeuvring with certain stances or decisions to buy time until the appropriate environment emerges for realising its aims. This is nothing other than skilful management and a deft use of its scientific capacities and human and material resources in pursuit of its objectives.
The failure and shortcoming, however, lie in the inability of other states to appreciate this reality. They sometimes proceed without guidance or foresight, in both domestic and foreign affairs. Instead of working to secure their own national interests, some of their leaders – regrettably – become mere tools for serving external powers (as was the case with Gorbachev in the Soviet Union). Responsibility thus falls into the wrong hands, institutions become hostage to external agendas, and diplomatic relations are built, envoys dispatched, and meetings held without any guiding strategic objective or tactical positioning. Delegations travel and return, yet there is no harvest, no fruit borne.
The truth, well known to many, is that what is unfolding in Sudan is not isolated from the US strategy. Much evidence affirms that events have taken place under its sponsorship, through the oversight of its ambassador, the planning of its institutions, the execution of its allies and agents, and the support of its organisations – falsely described as international.
Outwardly, this is an “accusation they do not deny, and an honour they do not claim.”
The United States has in fact openly declared its vision for establishing a “New Middle East.” It has founded research centres, prepared studies, and adopted strategies towards this end. This is a well-known reality to most observers of US politics. They will be familiar with the “Middle East Strategy” prepared by the Albright Commission, with Hadley and others as members. The recommendations of this committee became the foundation of US foreign policy, aligned with Zionism, and now shape every diplomatic initiative, economic activity, and cultural enterprise. When persuasion does not suffice, other tools are employed – ranging from enticing those eager for gain to intimidating the obstinate with firm national will.
This background explains the earlier silence of the United States regarding Sudan. It was complicit in shaping events there, despite internal press investigations and statements by members of Congress concerning the Rapid Support Forces’ (RSF, or “Rapid Collapse Forces”) human rights abuses, ethnic cleansing, and the violation of Sudanese sovereignty by certain states before US’s very eyes. Washington remained silent – or rather, feigned ignorance – while closely monitoring the performance of those entrusted with bending Sudan towards US loyalty. These included states, parties, organisations, media and cultural outlets, and individuals groomed for the task – deluded leaders, dupes, useless to their nations.
Thus, the United States cast aside all pretence of upholding liberty, democracy, and human rights. Its slogans vanished like smoke as it pursued its strategic objectives. Empty rhetoric has no currency in this marketplace. Reality reveals its alignment with the rebellion, sometimes declaring this openly, sometimes hiding behind banners. Yet whenever pressure mounted upon its agents and signs of defeat appeared, it rushed to launch an initiative or issue a statement – to breathe life back into the rebellion’s dying corpse.
All this demonstrates that the United States is an essential party to what is taking place in Sudan. Hence, dialogue with the principal is more valuable than dialogue with its proxies – whether they be the conspiring state, the failing rebel force, or the hidden agents, ignorant stooges, and rabble of opportunistic politicians. The Chairman of the Sovereignty Council’s decision to meet with Mossad Boulos, Senior Advisor to the US President on African Affairs, is therefore a sound step. It demonstrates, first, the government’s commitment to protecting the nation and ensuring the safety of its citizens, and second, its pursuit of security and peace within a framework of state sovereignty and independent decision-making – in line with international covenants.
Direct dialogue is faster, more useful, and more effective in resolving disputes and overcoming obstacles. But – and under this “but” lie many lines – the government delegation must distinguish between the US’s tactical positions and its strategic ones. This is a priority. While we recognise that strategy forms the basis of military action, reminding ourselves of this distinction is vital in a world tossed by waves, where elephants clash and the strong devour the weak.
Accordingly, what is heard from an envoy must be assessed with precision and interpreted against the backdrop of the realities that drive US policy in the region. This means the Sudanese side must emphasise the imperatives that guide its foreign policy, and approach dialogue from a position of strength:
Victory over an unprecedented conspiracy in terms of arms, resources, and political and financial backing.
A strategic security and economic location influencing international navigation.
Diverse economic resources are lacking in many other countries.
A resolute national will that defeated the conspiracy.
Sudan’s belief in mutual interests, peaceful coexistence, and global peace and security as a priority of its foreign policy.
It respects international conventions.
Its pursuit of justice and the rejection of double standards.
Its conviction that each state bears responsibility for the safety of its people and the defence of its sovereignty.
Awareness of these factors will safeguard the delegation from being dazzled by empty compliments, statements, or tweets – all of which may conceal cunning stratagems, devised in political chambers and intelligence agencies specialised in manipulation. The positions of states are not defined by a single meeting, a passing remark, or an envoy’s words, but must be judged within the record of US policy towards Sudan, Africa, and the Middle East, and by the trajectory of its evolving stance.
In this way, the Sudanese delegation will deliver a powerful message: it acts according to a clear strategy, with inviolable principles.
It is fortunate that this meeting coincided with the Armed Forces’ celebrations, where the Chairman of the Sovereignty Council and Commander-in-Chief affirmed in his address: there shall be no compromise on sovereignty, no debate on independence of decision, no division of unity, and no return of those who destroyed the nation – looting its wealth, squandering its heritage, betraying comrades, breaking the covenant upon which relations were founded.
Thus, the US side must realise that there is no longer a second party that can be marketed to the Sudanese people. They now know their true enemy – one that has destroyed villages, towns, and cities alike, plundered resources, violated dignity, and inflicted suffering across the land.
Therefore, there is no political place for those who allowed themselves to become instruments for the dismemberment of Sudan, the tearing of its social fabric, and the destruction of its economy.
A negotiator who recognises this embodies the aspirations of a people who have stood, with their own lives and resources, behind their armed forces – defending the homeland against an assault supported by several states under the watchful eyes of the United States and its international and regional institutions.
The Sudanese people refuse to sit with any state that has chosen to be a financier, a propagandist, or a leader of this campaign of destruction. They reject this, for they have witnessed with their own eyes what such a state has done while implementing the policies of its master – the master who taught it sorcery, and turned it into a tool for achieving its designs, while remaining silent about its excesses without shame.
If there must be dialogue, let it be with the principal, not with his underlings and agents.
There is no doubt that the level of performance and victories achieved by the Sudanese Armed Forces compelled the sorcerer himself, the architect of the conspiracy, to seek direct dialogue with Sudan.
And with the same strength shown in the field, dialogue sessions must proceed. This is a world that respects only the strong. Strength is not merely weapons and machinery, for if that were so, Sudan would have perished.
Sudan – in its people and its land – shall remain strong before every covetous foe and conspiring agent.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=7093