The Pickup, the Coffin, and the Myth of Balanced Lies: How Sudan’s Partitioning Is Justified in the Name of Neutrality

The Pickup, the Coffin, and the Myth of Balanced Lies: How Sudan's Partitioning Is Justified in the Name of Neutrality

Amgad Fareid Eltayeb

"Government is not merely an instrument of power, but a moral contract between the ruler and the ruled."

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

The deceptive narrative of "two governments," now being peddled by affiliates of the Sumood alliance following their meetings in Abu Dhabi, is an attempt to rebrand a false neutrality. By claiming that "two competing governments" are vying for legitimacy in Sudan, they seek to legitimize and normalize the farce of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Nyala as a de facto government. This is a disguised act of partisanship, continuing the false equivalence they have adopted since the outbreak of war—an equivalence that pretends to balance two sides while in truth legitimizing the militia's violent seizure of power.

This is not a sound or honest position. It is the product of a politically and morally bankrupt faction trying to entrench a narrative that trades Sudan's unity for continued war—and in doing so, serves the very forces fueling its destruction. It is a clear act of blackmailing with the unity of the country. There has only ever been one government and one state apparatus in Sudan since its founding. Political conflict has historically revolved around who should lead that state and in which direction, but never before has Sudan witnessed such a blatant and dangerous discourse of partition masked as pragmatic neutrality. Even John Garang, who fought the central government for over forty years on the basis of clear and nationally grounded demands—demands that never involved Janjaweed warlords or Emirati ambitions—never sought to establish a parallel government, nor to dismantle the state's institutional unity. Because government is not a title or a seat; it is a system of institutions designed to provide public service. And so we must ask: what public service do the theorists of "Sumood" and "Ta'sis," and their media mouthpieces, believe they are offering the Sudanese people from the backs of Janjaweed pickups? What purpose is served by a so-called government born from the convoys of militias and mercenaries?

This reckless escalation—an attempt to legitimize and normalize the partitioning of Sudan—is a direct outcome of the era of "the Kadmoul Republic", in which national foundations are stripped off from political practice and erased from its priorities. In this framework, those who once chanted for revolution seem unbothered by the flood of foreign mercenaries—from Cuba, Colombia, Mali, and elsewhere—who now roam Sudan, killing its people, violating its women, and dismantling its infrastructure, while these very actors exchange pleasantries with their Emirati patron.

To accept this narrative is not neutrality. It is betrayal. A betrayal that dresses itself in the language of balance and neutrality all while gripping a knife to dismember the nation.

Civilian politics cannot and must not be built on bargaining over the unity and integrity of the country, nor on weapons funded from abroad, nor on the back of militia pickups.