Indonesia’s position on the Sudan conflict

As Sudan’s civil war continues with devastating humanitarian consequences, a quiet diplomatic conversation has begun thousands of miles away in Jakarta. Indonesia — the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation, a rising economic actor, and one of the top contributors to United Nations peacekeeping forces — is considering how, and to what extent, it should engage in one of the world’s most entrenched and complex conflicts.

Indonesia’s position toward the Sudan conflict is emerging gradually, shaped by three factors: humanitarian concern, non-aligned foreign policy principles, and the potential for long-term strategic cooperation.

The humanitarian dimension is the most immediate and least controversial. The war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has displaced millions and produced severe shortages of food, medicine, and basic services. Indonesia has already provided humanitarian aid and previously evacuated nearly a thousand of its citizens from Sudan. Human Rights Minister Natalius Pigai recently affirmed that Indonesia is prepared to provide further humanitarian support, particularly in community reconciliation and trauma recovery.

“We do not intervene in political matters or large-scale conflict,” Pigai stated after meeting Sudan’s Ambassador to Indonesia, Yassir Mohamed Ali. “We focus on ensuring reconciliation, peace, sympathy, and empathy toward the people in Sudan.”

This reflects Indonesia’s longstanding principle of non-interference, rooted in its post-independence foreign policy doctrine: diplomacy should avoid deep entanglement in the internal political disputes of other states.

Yet Indonesia’s non-interference stance does not mean disengagement. Instead, it tends to translate into involvement through multilateral institutions and peacekeeping mandates. Foreign Minister Sugiono made this explicit when he stated that Indonesia is open to sending peacekeepers to Sudan — but only under a clear United Nations authorisation. This aligns with Indonesia’s record: it is currently the fifth-largest contributor to UN peacekeeping, with deployments in Lebanon, Congo, and other conflict zones. Peacekeeping represents a way for Indonesia to participate in conflict stabilization without becoming politically aligned with any party.

The question of mediation is more complex. Members of Indonesia’s House of Representatives have called on the government to play a more active diplomatic role, pointing to Indonesia’s reputation as a neutral actor with ties across both the Middle East and Africa. Sudan itself has shown interest in more diverse mediation, proposing Turkey and Qatar be included alongside the US, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt. In this context, Indonesia could, in theory, serve as an additional facilitator — one not deeply embedded in regional rivalries.

READ: Sudanese army rejects US ceasefire proposal, vows to continue fighting

But Jakarta appears cautious. The Sudan conflict is not only internal; it is shaped by competing strategic interests among regional and global powers, including disagreements over arms flows, sanctions, and political legitimacy. Entering such a diplomatic arena without clear leverage or alignment could expose Indonesia to political risk. The government has signalled that any deeper involvement must be carefully coordinated through international frameworks.

The third factor shaping Indonesia’s position is long-term partnership potential. Sudanese Ambassador Yassir Mohamed Ali has spoken of Sudan’s desire to build a strategic relationship with Indonesia, particularly in reconstruction, infrastructure, and resource development after the conflict ends. Sudan imports pharmaceuticals, textiles, and palm oil from Indonesia, while Indonesia imports agricultural products such as sesame and cotton from Sudan. The current volume of trade is modest — under $50 million — but both countries believe it could expand significantly in more stable conditions.

Indonesia’s recent membership in BRICS and its expanding engagement across Africa suggest that Sudan may be viewed not only as a humanitarian concern but also as a future economic partner. However, Jakarta has not framed its Sudan policy in economic terms; economic cooperation is seen as a future possibility rather than a driver of present engagement.

Taken together, Indonesia’s position in the Sudan conflict is defined by cautious openness. It is willing to support humanitarian relief, willing to consider peacekeeping under a UN mandate, and potentially willing to contribute to post-conflict stabilization. But it is not prepared to take on unilateral mediation, endorse one party over another, or enter negotiations shaped by external rivalries.

This posture is consistent with Indonesia’s broader foreign policy identity as an independent, non-aligned actor focused on international stability rather than geopolitical contestation. It allows Indonesia to engage without escalating its commitments — and without compromising its diplomatic neutrality.

The future of Indonesia’s role depends largely on developments beyond Jakarta’s control: whether negotiations make progress, whether the UN authorises new peacekeeping measures, and whether the humanitarian crisis worsens further. For now, Indonesia is positioning itself not as a decisive power in Sudan, but as a steady, neutral participant — prepared to contribute where it can, but not seeking to define the terms of peace on its own.

OPINION: Indonesia and Kuwait: A friendship stuck in neutral

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.