The Sudan Crisis and Türkiye’s Conscience-Based Approach

Sudan is experiencing one of the most devastating periods in its history due to the civil war that broke out in April 2023 and has been ongoing for more than two years. The conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people, the displacement of millions of civilians, and the collapse of state authority across much of the country. Hunger, disease, and the destruction of infrastructure have driven the country into a humanitarian catastrophe. Unfortunately, the disaster continues with unrelenting intensity to this day.

In the face of this destruction, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, in a statement made upon his return from Oman, outlined Türkiye’s position on developments in Sudan within a humanitarian and diplomatic framework. Confronted with the humanitarian tragedy in Sudan, Erdoğan described Ankara’s approach in terms of strategic planning and humanitarian diplomacy with the following words:

“It is impossible to act without a plan. First the plan, then the project. We will carry these out. After all, Sudan is a country that expects Türkiye to extend a helping hand at any moment. Every pain, every massacre, every tragedy there pierces our hearts. Moreover, they have expectations of us. In response to these expectations, we are evaluating what kind of support we can provide together with our friends, and we are continuing our efforts in this regard. Unfortunately, thousands of people have lost their lives in Sudan over the past two years. Millions have been displaced and sent into exile. Children are struggling with hunger and disease. We hope that the conflict in Sudan will be resolved and that the shedding of fraternal blood will come to an end. What is happening is also wounding the conscience of humanity. We believe that this conflict must end as soon as possible and that the problems must be resolved through dialogue. We are fully aware of the weight of our responsibility in this matter. As Türkiye, we cannot stand by and watch what is happening here from afar. We will continue our diplomatic efforts to ensure peace and security in Sudan. The Sudanese people can be certain that Türkiye stands by them.”

Erdoğan’s emphasis on “plans and projects” is not merely rhetorical; it actually points to planned diplomacy. This statement also indicates that developments in Sudan will not be met with impulsive reactions, but rather approached within the framework of a concrete strategic plan.

Background and Positions on the Sudan Crisis

The civil war in Sudan took shape during the transitional period that began with the overthrow of the Omar al-Bashir regime in 2019. In the post-Bashir period, the SAF and RSF began to operate within the transitional administration alongside civilian elements. However, when the transition process stalled on key issues such as the shift to civilian rule, the restructuring of the security sector, resource sharing, and existing structural problems, it evolved into conflict. These structural problems can be summarized as follows: the coup tradition dominating the country, militarized political structures, institutionalized discrimination, the perception of differences as threats, the state’s habitual use of militia elements, and geographical and administrative fragmentation.

Today, Sudan is “divided” between two different authorities. While the army maintains control in the north and east, the RSF controls the Darfur region in the west and parts of southern Sudan. Although the capital, Khartoum, and its surroundings remain under SAF control, they continue to be areas of conflict. The war is advancing on such a deep and polarizing foundation that it is not merely a military struggle—it also reshapes the identity of the country, the future of the state, and the balance of power in the Horn of Africa. Perhaps for this reason, the issue is not solely about the SAF and the RSF. At present, the conflict has transformed into a war between two distinct armed alliances: one composed of 18 separate armed groups clustered around the SAF, and the other made up of 19 groups aligned with the RSF.

Another complex dimension of the conflict is regional intervention. The various agendas and shifting positions of countries involved in the war make the conflict even more complicated. Many of these countries do not even attempt to conceal their priorities or agendas. Some pursue security, others economic interests, and still others spheres of influence. This situation turns the crisis in Sudan into not just a local issue, but a geopolitical power struggle. For this reason, President Erdoğan’s statement is significant in understanding Ankara’s position. What sets Ankara apart is its non-partisan stance focused on dialogue and peace. The absence of any agenda in the President’s statement beyond “peace for the Sudanese people” illustrates this distinction. From this perspective, it is accurate to say that Ankara’s priority is not to establish influence, but to establish peace.

Erdoğan’s statement—“Every pain, every massacre, every tragedy in Sudan pierces our hearts; the Sudanese people can be certain that Türkiye is by their side”—is significant. These words show that Türkiye is not only a diplomatic actor but one that also assumes the burden of moral responsibility. Taking such positions in conflict zones is both a moral and strategic choice.

Of course, putting this approach into practice on the ground is not easy. The conflict between the SAF and RSF is not a classical “civil war” but rather a zero-sum war in which two alliances formed during the war are trying to destroy one another. The negotiations held so far show that the idea of returning to a political transition has not yet matured. In other words, both sides are dominated by the belief that they must win the war in order to come to the table. This mindset, which is untenable under current conditions, also limits mediation efforts.

In fact, the current situation enhances Ankara’s potential to emerge as a neutral yet effective actor. This is because President Erdoğan’s statement constitutes a declaration that Türkiye is not seeking to be the victor in the conflict, but rather to be the actor that prioritizes the construction of peace. Another important point is Erdoğan’s emphasis on “first the plan, then the project,” which suggests that Türkiye’s approach to Sudan is not only diplomatic, but could also evolve into an aid-oriented operational strategy and an initiative aimed at rebuilding a collapsed state.

Planned Diplomacy: A Three-Stage Peace Agenda

President Erdoğan’s statement, “first the plan, then the project,” could serve as the foundation of Türkiye’s approach to Sudan. This plan could proceed through a three-stage peace agenda.

The first stage involves a humanitarian ceasefire and confidence-building. This step should include the protection of civilians and the unobstructed delivery of humanitarian aid to all Sudanese. Institutions such as AFAD, TİKA, and the Turkish Red Crescent possess strong infrastructures that will bolster Ankara’s presence on the ground. The humanitarian support provided during this first stage could also constitute the initial step in building diplomatic trust.

The second stage is political transition negotiations. Türkiye can facilitate negotiations on the transitional government and electoral process in coordination with the UN, the African Union, IGAD, and other countries interested in the Sudan issue. In this process, Ankara’s role should not be that of a “mediator,” but rather a “facilitator” country that has relationships with both parties. This is because gaining the trust of the parties is crucial in assuming responsibility for resolving the conflict in Sudan. That trust is a prerequisite for keeping the peace table intact.

The third stage is reconstruction, state-building, and development. Conflict in Sudan is not a new phenomenon. It has both historical roots and underlying dynamics that fuel it. Therefore, lasting peace is not merely a military or political decision—it is fundamentally a societal demand. We are speaking of a people struggling to survive between deprivation and war. Thus, the solution clearly requires addressing institutionalized problems, ensuring economic development, building a functioning state structure, and reinforcing social stability. Türkiye—and other relevant countries to the extent that they set aside their own agendas—have the capacity to achieve this. Accordingly, Ankara can become not only a diplomatic actor but also the on-the-ground architect of peace, together with relevant partners.

The three-stage approach we are attempting to formulate could be the concrete expression of President Erdoğan’s emphasis on “planning first.” What matters is to focus—alongside ceasefire and humanitarian efforts—on the underlying causes of the conflict, the factors that influence it, and the issues that must be addressed to prevent its recurrence. Another crucial point is to construct an equation in which all parties living in Sudan are participants in the solution. Otherwise, the issue may give rise to new crises, and sustainable peace may not be possible.

Moral Diplomacy and Strategic Depth

It is clear that Ankara’s approach to Sudan goes beyond the traditional understanding of diplomacy. In this approach, diplomacy is not merely an expression of interests, but also of moral responsibilities. This is because the “language of conscience” evident in Erdoğan’s rhetoric gives Türkiye’s foreign policy a humanitarian framework. At a time when major global powers operate in conflict zones primarily based on calculations of interest, Ankara’s approach—representing conscience—offers a strategic advantage. Thus, Ankara stands out in terms of both humanitarian legitimacy and diplomatic credibility. In other words, it stands as a representative of justice, humanitarian values, and dialogue.

What is clear is that the ongoing civil war in Sudan is a tragedy that tests not just the conscience of one nation, but of all humanity. In an environment where thousands of civilians have lost their lives and millions have been displaced, the international community’s entrapment in calculations of interest is a major problem. By making it clear that it has no agenda other than “achieving peace,” Ankara presents an alternative to the interest-centered nature of the global system. President Erdoğan’s words—“The Sudanese people can be certain that Türkiye is by their side”—summarize this vision. With this statement, Erdoğan emphasizes that Türkiye conducts a humanitarian-based foreign policy rather than one driven by interests, and that it has assumed responsibility for establishing peace in Sudan.

In fact, this statement goes beyond being a diplomatic message—it is a political manifesto of global conscience. The role that Türkiye will assume in Sudan and other similar crisis zones is not only a matter of diplomatic success; it also means defending the dignity of humanity. For when we witness the suffering of the Sudanese people, we see that true peace lies not only in silencing the weapons, but also in the rediscovery of the voice of human conscience. “Ankara must assume the responsibility of becoming the voice of conscience itself and take the necessary steps for the people of Sudan.