The Turkish Initiative and the Missing Link in Resolving the Sudanese Crisis
Khalid Massa
The "bazaar" of international initiatives to address the crisis created by Sudan’s April war remains wide open, inviting bids from those eager to showcase the value of their proposals.
It is evident that these initiatives are driven by shifting dynamics in military confrontations on the battlefield and the evolving international political landscape, influenced by ongoing wars such as the one between Russia and Ukraine, the conflict in Gaza, the situations in Lebanon and Syria, and competing interests in the Red Sea region. Amid these dynamics, the Sudanese war crisis sees its prominence in international and regional focus rise and fall.
At their core, all proposed initiatives have shared a common framework: bringing Sudan’s Armed Forces leadership and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) to the negotiating table to facilitate dialogue and achieve a ceasefire. Whether through inducements or coercion, this approach assumes that a solution can be reached by negotiating directly with both parties.
This was the premise of the Jeddah platform, facilitated by the United States and Saudi Arabia: (two conflicting parties + mediator = negotiated solution). While the timing of this mediation at the outset of the war may excuse its limited scope—given that the conflict had yet to fully reveal its complexities—this formula has become insufficient after two years of ongoing war.
Subsequent initiatives by the African Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), and mediators from Uganda, Kenya, and Djibouti have adhered to the same formula. The U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan, Tom Perriello, pursued this same model, as did the Algerian diplomat and UN envoy Ramtane Lamamra. Their efforts, identical in approach, have produced similarly limited results.
A shift in the mediation approach came with Egypt’s Neighbouring Countries Initiative, which introduced a new component to the formula: the inclusion of stakeholders directly affected by the war. This idea also underpinned the U.S.-sponsored Geneva Conference, where countries like Egypt and the UAE, along with other organizations, participated as "observers." However, this adjustment led Sudan’s government delegation to boycott the conference.
Turkey’s entry into the landscape of Sudanese mediation was signaled by a phone call between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Sudanese Sovereign Council Chairman Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. This marks a practical step into the arena of initiatives, but with a distinct approach that deviates from the established formula.
Unlike the Jeddah platforms direct focus on warring parties, Erdoğan’s initiative takes a different route. Turkey has proposed mediating between Sudan and the UAE as a gateway to addressing the broader crisis.
As a NATO member and part of an unofficial alliance with the U.S. and Israel against the Russia-Iran-Syria bloc, Turkey wields substantial political and diplomatic influence. Its success in weakening the Assad regime in Syria bolstered its standing against the Russia-Iran coalition in a high-priority region for both the U.S. and Israel.
Turkeys diplomatic strength has been further demonstrated in its mediation between Ethiopia and Somalia. These two nations were on the brink of military confrontation over a memorandum granting Ethiopia access to a Somali port for military use, which prompted Egyptian intervention. Through Erdoğan’s efforts, the "Ankara Declaration" was signed, de-escalating tensions and ensuring Somalia’s sovereignty while granting Ethiopia a commercial and civilian port access point. This achievement added to Turkey’s credentials as a mediator in similar regional disputes.
According to the Sudanese Sovereign Council’s media statement, al-Burhan welcomed Erdoğan’s initiative and reaffirmed the strong Sudan-Turkey relationship. Given Turkey’s track record, it is evident that this phone call was likely preceded by behind-the-scenes coordination with the UAE regarding the proposal.
This initiative reflects Turkey’s broader ambitions: fulfilling its responsibilities within its geopolitical alliances, securing its interests in the Horn of Africa—particularly in Sudan—and cementing its role as a key player in the international arena.
For Sudanese observers, the critical question remains: will Turkey’s mediator manage to mend what war has broken? Could this initiative provide the missing piece in the puzzle of resolving the Sudanese crisis? Only time—and the developments following this diplomatic overture—will tell.
