Truth Perspective | Ibrahim Shglawi Khartoum… The Price of the Three No’s

Not every capital that makes history escapes the cost of doing so. Some cities pay the price for their positions, and some countries bear the consequences of the roles they have played. Khartoum is one of those capitals that entered the memory of Arab politics through its widest gates, when it hosted in 1967 the Arab League Summit, which represented one of the most influential moments in the history of the Arab and Islamic worlds, and no similar moment came after it.

 

The Khartoum Summit was one of those milestones that transcended the limits of time and place. It was a moment in which Khartoum redefined its regional role after the June 1967 defeat, placing Sudan at the heart of the region’s equations through what emerged from it: “No peace, no recognition, no negotiations” before the restoration of rights. Those three No’s represented a balanced political position in confronting a reality of disappointment, carrying a message that willpower can confront moments of collapse, and that states are not measured only by their military strength, but by their ability to produce a historic position that preserves their standing.

 

On that day, Khartoum was not merely a capital that hosted a summit; it was the capital of an Arab decision. It brought together rivals, hosted reconciliation between opponents, and presented a rare model in the history of Arab regimes when higher interests were able to rise above disagreements. Therefore, Sudan’s name became associated with that moment as a country capable of playing roles beyond its geographical borders.

 

However, history always carries two faces. The status that grants states political weight may also make them a focus of attention and ambitions. Sudan is not an ordinary country in the region’s strategic calculations, given its location at the heart of the Arab world and Africa, the Red Sea, its agricultural, water, and mineral resources, its livestock wealth, and its lands that provide food security for the region.

 

These factors have made our country a state of importance that extends beyond its borders. Countries that possess strategic location, resources, and the ability to influence inevitably become part of the calculations of major powers. From this perspective, some analysts believe that Sudan has remained for decades an arena of competing interests, and that weakening the Sudanese state has been deliberate.

 

From this angle, the war of April 15, 2023 can be viewed as more than just a military rebellion. It was a moment when Sudan was attempting to rebuild state institutions after years of instability, only to become an arena of conflict and ambitions over its future. The war targeted cities, the economy, and the social fabric, displaced millions, and plunged Sudan into one of the largest humanitarian crises in the world.

 

Many Sudanese believe that their country is now paying a delayed price for its historical positions and its strategic location. Sudan, which embraced the Arabs at a pivotal moment in 1967, found itself during its current crisis facing a painful feeling that Arab solidarity has not been at a level proportionate to the scale of the tragedy. The issue was not only the volume of aid, but rather the absence of a political and popular stance reflecting the seriousness of what a fellow Arab country has been facing after decades of presence in regional issues.

 

This feeling deepened with the continuation of violations committed by the Rapid Support Forces militia against civilians, especially following the tragic events in Geneina, El Fasher, Wad Al-Noura, and Al-Hilaliya, along with the accompanying war crimes and crimes against humanity.

 

While some Western capitals witnessed broad movements and condemnations, Sudanese people felt that the official and popular Arab voice was not present to the extent they expected, especially given the depth of the humanitarian and historical relationship.

 

At the heart of this crisis, the Sudanese-Emirati dispute emerged as one of the most sensitive issues, following accusations by Khartoum against Abu Dhabi of supporting the Rapid Support Forces militia and contributing to the continuation of the war. The escalation reached an unprecedented level following decisions by the Sudanese government, through the Security and Defense Council, to consider the UAE an aggressor state and to withdraw the Sudanese ambassador from it. This trajectory reveals that the war in Sudan is no longer merely an internal crisis, but has become part of a regional and international conflict in which interests and influence intersect.

 

Nevertheless, the most important lesson Sudan must draw from its history is that protecting states does not come only through confronting opponents, but through building internal strength. A state that lacks strong institutions becomes vulnerable to pressures, ambitions, and attempts to engineer its will, regardless of its resources and strategic position.

 

Khartoum is not paying the price of the Three No’s because it declared them, but because it was once a capital capable of shaping positions and making difficult decisions. Today, the real challenge facing Sudanese people is not only ending the war, but restoring the state that transforms Sudan’s location into strength, its resources into prosperity, and its history into a future for generations.

 

The price of the Three No’s is not an eternal fate; rather, it is a lesson learned: Sudan can only be protected through the cohesion of its state and the sovereignty of its national decision. Fifty-six years after the Khartoum Summit, the question remains: Did Sudan pay the price only for its geopolitical position and resources, or also for its historic positions when Arab will was silent during some of its most sensitive moments? There may be no definitive answer, but what remains certain is that the country has continued to face pressures and sustained depletion, reaching its peak with the April 15, 2023 war, which targeted the state and its institutions and plunged millions of Sudanese into one of the largest waves of displacement and refuge in the modern era.

 

According to #Truth_Perspective, Sudan’s war has revealed a harsh reality: there is no permanent ally in the age of interests, and no savior comes from abroad when ambitions take precedence over principles. It also places upon Arab states, along with the peoples who stood watching one of the region’s greatest tragedies, a moral and historical responsibility that cannot be ignored. At the same time, Sudanese political forces must realize that reliance on external powers no longer builds a nation or resolves a battle, and that protecting Sudan begins with the unity of its will and the construction of a strong state that possesses its national decision, because nations that cannot protect themselves will not be protected by others.

 

Wishing you health and well-being.

 

Monday, July 20, 2026Shglawi55@gmail.com