The shooting dead of peaceful demonstrators in the Sudanese capital Khartoum is an outrage that deserves to be condemned. A denunciation of the governing transitional military council, which was almost certainly behind the bloody act, is required urgently. This needs to be reinforced by a message that the international community cannot normalise relations with Sudan, designated by the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism, until power is ceded to democratically elected politicians. The generals ought to be disabused of the idea that they can use months of peaceful demonstrations to entrench their own rule. Only elections and civilian government offer a chance to shake off Sudan’s status as an international pariah after decades of isolation.

For months, protesters have been demanding that a civilian government take over the running of the country. The killing of those who had been staging a sit-in in front of the army headquarters for two months is only the most bloody act of terror by the authorities in a series of atrocities against peaceful demonstrators. Today’s violence saw a total lockdown in Khartoum. The revolt had led to the ousting of Omar al-Bashir, Sudan’s president since 1989, in April, and his successor, Ahmed Awad Ibn Auf, a day later. Yet the louder the calls for democracy have become, the tighter the junta clings to power.

Sudan’s military leaders did sign an agreement with the opposition alliance for a three-year transition period to a civilian administration in mid-May. However, any idea that the generals were going anywhere was dispelled when leader of the military council, Lt Gen Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and his deputy, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as “Hemeti”, conducted a whistle-stop tour of regional autocrats in Cairo, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi in the wake of the “peace deal”.

Both men are close to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Lt Gen al-Burhan commanded Sudanese troops in Yemen in support of Saudi forces. Hemeti was in charge of the brutal Janjaweed militias – the Arab fighters that brought death and destruction to Darfur 16 years ago. Now he is calling the shots in Khartoum. The three regional players – the UAE, Saudi and Egypt – see “people power” as a risk to themselves as well as Sudan; they fear their nations falling into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood; or being drawn into an Iranian orbit. The first fruit of Sudan’s rulers’ trips was to silence al-Jazeera and its coverage of pro-democracy events.

The junta has a lot to lose. Security swallows two-thirds of public spending, compared with just 5% for public health and education. The Sudanese economy is dominated by companies that are connected to the military and security services. High prices were one of the triggers for revolt, while unemployment remains stubbornly high. Instead of prising its fingers off, neighbouring powers are strengthening the military’s grip on Sudan. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have given Sudan $3bn worth of aid.

The only outside players in Sudan are the ones who want to cement military rule. This has to change. Before the protests began, Washington was looking at ways to remove Sudan from the list of terror-supporting states, which block much-needed investment. An aid package from multilateral lenders is needed. These things should only happen if there is a democratic transition in Sudan. Last month Norway, the UK and the US implied as much. The west needs to spell this out – and tell autocratic allies that non-violent democratic change is possible in the Muslim world.