Sudan has been fighting for survival in the grip of a civil war since April 15, 2023. Despite being one of the biggest humanitarian disasters of this century, the visibility of this crisis is not as high as in Gaza or Ukraine. The country-wide collapse is not only the product of a political power struggle, but also the result of a systemic unraveling driven by geopolitical interests, underground resources and international indifference. Reading Sudan as a multi-layered tragedy is essential to understanding the humanitarian devastation on the ground.
The conflict that erupted in 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) was in fact a sign of the collapse of the civilian transition process that began with the 2019 revolution. The power struggle between the SAF, led by General Abdulfettah al-Burhan, and the RSF, commanded by General Hemedti, was initially seen as a reflection of a political crisis, but over time it took on ethnic, economic and socio-political layers. In this process, regions such as Darfur, Kordofan and Khartoum became direct targets. The ongoing civilian massacres against the Masalit people, especially in Darfur, bear the traces of an atrocity that can be characterized as genocide in international law.
The first months of 2025 marked a period of escalation and a new phase of the war. The SAF regained control of Khartoum in March, which appears to have been an important strategic gain, but the security situation across the country remained chaotic. Immediately after this process, the RSF attack on Zamzam camp in Darfur in April revealed the extent of inhumane acts. The camp, inhabited by hundreds of thousands of displaced people, was systematically targeted and civilians were massacred. At least 400 people were killed in this attack, leaving the camp virtually unusable.[1]
May was marked by RSF taking the war to the eastern borders of the country. Port Sudan, long under SAF control, had functioned as a refuge and temporary capital. However, drone strikes organized by RSF showed that this area is now a direct target of the war. Both infrastructures and civilian facilities have been damaged in these attacks, and humanitarian aid flows have been severely disrupted. This shows that the RSF has changed its war strategy and started to focus not only on ground control but also on psychological warfare.
The main devastation of Sudan’s civil war is not limited to deaths, destroyed cities or lost infrastructure. Some 13 million people have been displaced, with more than 3 million seeking refuge in neighboring countries.[2] Access to aid inside the country has become almost impossible, and the United Nations (UN) and civil society organizations have been forced to abandon their work sites. Access to safe water has fallen dramatically and epidemics have spread unchecked. Lack of medical supplies has reduced birth rates in refugee camps, making women and children the most vulnerable groups. At this point, the Sudanese people are struggling to survive in a desert wasteland forgotten by the world.
The silence of the international community in the face of such devastation is another tragedy. The fact that the tragedy in Sudan does not receive the attention it deserves in the international media is not just a coincidence, but a reflection of the structural dynamics of the media sector . In 2024, leading news agencies such as Reuters and the BBC gave far less coverage to the crisis in Sudan than to Gaza or Ukraine. This shows that the perception of newsworthiness is shaped by geopolitical interests.
Gaza is directly linked to the political and cultural agenda of the Western World, while Ukraine concerns issues such as energy security and European stability. Sudan, on the other hand, lags behind in media priorities as it does not play a critical role in energy supply chains in a “quiet” corner of Africa. The low engagement rates of Sudan-related content on social media platforms suggest that audience habits also contribute to this invisibility. This condemns the tragedy of the Sudanese people not only to a physical desert wasteland, but also to a desolate corner of the global media agenda. On the other hand, there has been no effective diplomatic effort from the UN Security Council, nor has the African Union been able to play a decisive role in crisis management. The United States of America (USA) and the European Union (EU) have not shown the same reflexes for Sudan as they have for Ukraine or Gaza.
What makes Sudan so important is not only its human tragedies, but also its strategic location and underground resources. The country has one of the largest gold reserves in Africa, as well as strategic minerals such as oil, uranium, iron and chromium. Gold in particular is used by both the RSF and the SAF as a means of financing the war. These resources shape not only the power between local factions, but also the interest of global powers in Sudan. The complexity of these conflicts of interest is illustrated by Russia’s attempts to increase its influence in the region through the African Corps (formerly Wagner), allegations that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is providing arms and logistical support to the RSF, and Iran’s interest in and support for the military.
At this point, Sudan is heading towards collapse, not only because of the civil war, but also because of the indifference of global powers, the media’s closed eyes and the lack of will for a solution by local actors. The ever-expanding conflicts on the ground could destabilize neighboring countries as well. This situation may harm not only Sudan but also all the balances in the Horn of Africa and the Sahel. The containment of the Sudan Crisis is not only possible through a cessation of violence, but also through socio-economic reconstruction, the establishment of justice mechanisms and the initiation of an impartial international mediation process.
Turkey’s role in this process can be multifaceted and not limited to humanitarian assistance. Since 2023, institutions such as the Turkish Red Crescent, the Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD) and the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TIKA) have rapidly delivered basic humanitarian aid such as food, health services, tents and clean water to conflict-affected areas in Sudan. The Turkish Embassy in Khartoum was active in evacuation and diplomatic crisis management during the height of the conflict, and Ankara remained one of the few neutral actors able to contact both SAF and RSF. At the same time, Turkey has built considerable trust with the people of the region thanks to the diplomatic, humanitarian and cultural know-how it has acquired on the ground since 2005 under the African Opening Policy. This experience makes Turkey not only a humanitarian aid provider but also a counterweight that can play an effective role in crisis management.
In the coming period, Turkey could host a peace conference in coordination with the African Union or offer a facilitating table to the Sudanese parties. Peace in Sudan is possible through a comprehensive reconstruction and mediation process, not just a ceasefire. Turkey, in coordination with the African Union , could host a peace conference bringing together SAF and RSF leaders, local civil society representatives and regional actors (Egypt, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, UAE). The success of the African Union’s mediation in the Ethiopian-Tigray War could serve as a model for Sudan. In this process, Turkey could bring the parties to the table by offering economic incentives such as humanitarian aid and infrastructure projects, while building trust as a neutral mediator. The UN Security Council’s tightening of sanctions on the RSF’s gold trade and reconsideration of peacekeeping missions will also be critical in containing the conflict. In the longer term, the establishment of an international development fund for Sudan’s socioeconomic recovery could be supported by the experience of Turkish institutions such as TIKA and AFAD.
In addition, Turkey’s “civil-military integrated diplomacy model” in Africa is a viable model for countries like Sudan that need post-conflict reconstruction. Turkey’s simultaneous use of diplomacy, development and humanitarian aid to prevent this “silent catastrophe” in Sudan would be an important contribution to both the people of the region and global stability.
The organization of a new peace conference in Sudan may be on the agenda in the coming months. In particular, it is likely and essential for the African Union to bring its mediation experience from the Ethiopian-Tigray War to bear on Sudan. The RSF’s eagerness to monitor cross-border trade routes carries the risk of the conflict evolving into a conflict involving neighboring countries. For this reason, structures such as the UN and the Arab League should be expected to take a more active position as well as intra-African diplomacy. If the war in Sudan turns into a struggle for influence by extra-regional actors, it could cause irreversible damage not only to the Sudanese people but also to the stability of Africa.
As a result, Sudan has become the name of a tragedy that is much more than a civil war. This tragedy is fueled not only by the bullets rained down on the people by the armed forces, but also by the double standards of the international system, media blindness and the prioritization of geopolitical calculations over human life. Recording what is happening in Sudan is not only a responsibility, but also a requirement of human conscience and analytical reason. Otherwise, this disaster will become the prototype for similar collapses in the future.
[1] OCHA, Sudan: Displacement in Zamzam Camp, North Darfur State – Flash Update No. 01. ReliefWeb, April 15, 2025. https://reliefweb.int/report/sudan/sudan-displacement-zamzam-camp-north-darfur-state-flash-update-no-01-15-april-2025 (Accessed: 04.05.2025).
2 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), “Sudan Situation Update”, https://www.unhcr.org/emergencies/sudan-emergency, (Accessed: 04.05.2025).
