Sudan: UN Security Council Private Meeting 29 Apr

Report from United Nations

Security Council Report (SCR)

What’s In Blue

Dated Sunday, 28 April 2024 - here is a full copy:

Sudan: Private Meeting

Tomorrow morning (29 April), the Security Council will convene for a private meeting to discuss the security and humanitarian situations in Sudan. Malta, April’s Council president, scheduled the meeting following bilateral consultations with some Council members and the parties concerned. Assistant Secretary-General for Africa in the Departments of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs and Peace Operations (DPPA-DPO) Martha Ama Akyaa Pobee and Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Joyce Msuya are expected to brief. Sudan is expected to participate under rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure.

Tomorrow’s meeting comes against the backdrop of a severe escalation of violence across several parts of Sudan, particularly in the city of El-Fasher, the capital city of North Darfur state. One year into the conflict that erupted on 15 April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), headed by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, Sudan’s military leader, and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group led by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (also known as Hemeti), the fighting continues to have devastating consequences for civilians. As at 14 April, more than 15,500 people had reportedly been killed since the onset of the conflict, according to the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), a non-governmental organisation that collects conflict-related data.

In 2023, the RSF made significant advances, taking control of parts of Darfur, Khartoum, and Kordofan. El-Fasher remains the only capital city in the Darfur region outside the RSF’s control. The final report of the Panel of Experts assisting the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee, dated 15 January, noted that amidst initial violence in April 2023 local authorities in El-Fasher had brokered a ceasefire agreement, dividing the city between the SAF, the RSF, and the armed movements in Darfur, which are signatories to the Juba Peace Agreement. This arrangement allowed the SAF and the RSF to maintain positions on the west and east sides of the city, respectively, with a central area designated as a buffer zone under the control of the joint force of the armed movements. Recently, the joint force reportedly renounced its neutrality in the conflict and pledged support to the SAF, apparently citing the RSF’s provocations, including attacks on its positions and threats to block humanitarian aid, as the reasons for its decision.

In recent days, several UN officials have raised the alarm about the potential outbreak of full-scale fighting in El-Fasher and the resulting humanitarian consequences. In a 13 April statement, Secretary-General António Guterres expressed concern about escalating tensions between armed actors in El-Fasher, noting that an attack on the city “would be devastating for civilians…and could lead to an expansion of the conflict along intercommunal lines across the five Darfur states”. He reiterated his call for an immediate ceasefire and a durable cessation of hostilities. He also called on the warring parties to abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law and human rights law to protect civilians and facilitate full and unrestricted humanitarian access to all areas in need.

On 19 April, Council members met to discuss the situation in Sudan, at the request of the UK, the penholder on Sudan. In her remarks, Msuya said that on 13 April, following weeks of rising tensions and airstrikes, RSF-affiliated militias attacked and burned villages west of El-Fasher. Since then, she added, there have been continuing reports of clashes in the eastern and northern parts of the city. She further noted that the continuing violence poses an extreme and immediate danger to the 800,000 civilians residing in the city and risks triggering further violence in other parts of Darfur—where more than nine million people are in dire need of humanitarian assistance. At the same meeting, Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs Rosemary DiCarlo informed the members that in the north of El-Fasher, clashes had erupted between the RSF and SAF-aligned members of the joint force in the district of Mellit. She added that “fighting in El-Fasher could unleash bloody intercommunal strife throughout Darfur…[and] would also further impede the delivery of humanitarian assistance in an area already on the brink of famine”. (For background and more information, see our 19 April What’s in Blue story.)

At tomorrow’s meeting, Msuya is expected to provide an update on the humanitarian situation in the region in light of the evolving security developments. A 26 April OCHA press release said that the security situation has effectively cut off humanitarian access to El-Fasher—which serves as an important hub for reaching other parts of Darfur, including for aid shipments through the Tine border crossing from Chad and from Port Sudan. It added that more than a dozen trucks with lifesaving supplies for 122,000 people remain stranded in Ad Dabbah in the Northern state, due to persisting insecurity and lack of guarantees for safe passage.

On 27 April, Council members issued a press statement, co-authored by the UK and members of “A3 plus one” grouping (Algeria, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, and Guyana). The statement expressed concern about the escalating tensions and military operations around El-Fasher. Members called on the SAF and RSF to end the build-up of military forces, take steps to de-escalate the situation and comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law. They reiterated their call for an immediate cessation of hostilities, leading to a sustainable ceasefire. In addition, they urged all member states to “refrain from external interference which seeks to foment conflict and instability and instead to support efforts for a durable peace” and reminded the Sudanese warring parties and all member states to comply with the arms embargo obligations, imposed by resolution 1556 of 30 July 2004 and most recently renewed by resolution 2676 of 8 March 2023. Several members are expected to reiterate these points at tomorrow’s meeting.

Another key issue that is likely to feature in tomorrow’s discussion is the flow of arms into Sudan in violation of the arms embargo. The 15 January final report of the Panel of Experts indicated that since the onset of the conflict, the RSF had been able to secure new supply lines to and through Darfur for weapons, vehicles, and logistics, including through eastern Chad, Libya and South Sudan. The report noted that the accusations levelled by the SAF that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Chad had provided military support to the RSF through Amdjarass were found credible. Furthermore, the report found that, from July 2023 onwards, “the RSF deployed several types of heavy and/or sophisticated weapons including Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs), howitzers, multiple-rocket launchers and anti-aircraft weapons such as MANPADS [Man-Portable Air Defence Systems]”, which had a massive impact on the balance of forces, both in Darfur and other regions of Sudan—in violation of the arms embargo.

Today (28 April), Sudan’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Al-Harith Idriss al-Harith Mohamed, apparently sent a letter to the Council claiming that the UAE’s support to the RSF represents a “flagrant violation” of the UN Charter and the Sudan sanctions regime. The letter requested the Council to convene an emergency meeting to discuss the “UAE’s aggression against Sudan…[and] hold it responsible for the crimes committed against the Sudanese people”. The UAE has denied these allegations on several occasions, most recently in a 21 April letter addressed to the Council, which said that “[a]ll allegations of the United Arab Emirates’ involvement in any form of aggression or destabilization in Sudan, or its provision of any military, logistical, financial or political support to any faction in Sudan, are spurious, unfounded, and lack any credible evidence to support them”.

Tags: Insights on Africa, Sudan, Sudan (Darfur)

About What's In Blue

When the Security Council approaches the final stage of negotiating a draft resolution, the text is printed in blue. What's In Blue is a series of insights on evolving Security Council actions designed to help interested UN readers keep up with what might soon be "in blue".

View original: 

https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2024/04/sudan-private-meeting.php

_________________________________________________________________________________

SUDAN WATCH UPDATE on Mon 29 Apr 2024 22:39 GMT: The above report, originally entitled Sudan: Private Meeting has been retitled and updated by What's In Blue as follows:

Sudan: Closed Consultations*

*Post-script (29 April, 9:50 am EST): After the story’s publication, the format of the meeting was changed from private meeting to closed consultations. An earlier version of the story indicated that Sudan will participate in the meeting under rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure. After the changing of the meeting’s format this was no longer possible, as closed consultations do not allow participation of non-Council member states. The story was amended to reflect these changes.

View original: 

https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2024/04/sudan-private-meeting.php

END 

FULL TEXT: UK statement at the UN Security Council: The risk of famine in Sudan is of extreme concern

NOTE, the UK and the US are permanent Members of the UN Security Council. The UK is the penholder on Sudan. The US is penholder on South Sudan, Sudan/South Sudan, Sudan sanctions and South Sudan sanctions. 

Here is a transcript of a speech delivered in the UN Security Council meeting on Sudan by UK Ambassador James Kariuki on 20 March 2024.

Speech

The risk of famine in Sudan is of extreme concern: UK statement at the UN Security Council

Statement by Ambassador James Kariuki at the UN Security Council meeting on Sudan 

From: Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office and James Kariuki

Published 20 March 2024

Location: United Nations, New York

Delivered on: 20 March 2024 (Transcript of the speech, exactly as it was delivered)

Thank you, President. I thank Ms Wosornu, Mr Martina and Mr Skau for their briefing. We are grateful to OCHA, WFP and FAO for alerting the Council to this urgent crisis. And to Switzerland and Guyana for convening the Council so swiftly. I welcome the participation of the Representative of Sudan.

President, the risk of famine in Sudan, set out in OCHA’s White Note, is of extreme concern.  After a bad harvest, severe hunger will deepen, harming vulnerable people the most. Most of the fatalities will be children under five. We pay tribute to the UN, international and Sudanese humanitarian staff working in extreme conditions to alleviate this suffering.

I’ll make three points:

First, the White Note is clear that obstruction of humanitarian access by the Sudanese Armed Forces and Rapid Support Forces is resulting in the starvation of the Sudanese people. Using starvation as a method of warfare is prohibited by international humanitarian law. 

The Sudanese authority’s decision to allow extremely limited humanitarian access from Chad is nowhere near enough to meet the soaring humanitarian needs, especially whilst crossline access remains completely blocked.

We call on the warring parties to urgently ensure and facilitate unimpeded access via all routes, both cross-border and crossline, including through the vital route at Adre.

Second, we need increased humanitarian funding.

The United Kingdom has provided over $54 million in humanitarian aid to the people of Sudan this financial year. And we are providing financial support to those fleeing to neighbouring countries.

We welcome the upcoming France, German and EU-hosted pledging event, and appeal to the international community to increase funding to avoid the horrific scenario of one million excess deaths in Sudan this year. 

But while funding is important, this man-made crisis ultimately requires a political solution.

So third, the fighting needs to stop. The world is witnessing the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of a conflict that should never have begun.  

The failure of the SAF and RSF to implement a Ramadan ceasefire and immediately facilitate unimpeded humanitarian access in line with Council resolution 2724, is unacceptable. We call on both to stop fighting immediately and return to negotiations.

Given the clear warning of impending famine, it is imperative that the Council remains siezed of this issue and that we hold ourselves, and the warring parties, accountable for delivering the recommendations in the White Note.

Published 20 March 2024

View original: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-risk-of-famine-in-sudan-is-of-extreme-concern-uk-statement-at-the-un-security-council

END

UNSC adopts Resolution 2724 (2024) calling for cessation of hostilities in Sudan during Ramadan

THE UN Security Council on Friday (Mar 8) adopted a key resolution on Sudan, calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities in the war torn country during the month of Ramadan, which begins on Sunday. There were 14 votes in favour, 0 against, one abstention (Russia).

In another action on Friday, with 13 votes in favour and two abstentions (China and Russia), the Security Council renewed the mandate of the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee Panel of Experts, which expires next Tuesday, for a further twelve months. Read more.

From UN News
Dated Friday, 8 March 2024 - here is a copy in full:

Security Council calls for immediate cessation of hostilities in Sudan

Photos: A wide view of the UN Security Council as members meet on the situation in the Sudan. 

UN Photo/Manuel Elías

 

The UN Security Council on Friday adopted a key resolution on Sudan, calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities in the wartorn country during the month of Ramadan, which begins on Sunday.

In resolution 2724 (2024), adopted with 14 votes in favour and one abstention (Russia), the Council also called on all parties to the conflict to seek a sustainable resolution to the conflict through dialogue.

The conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) erupted in April last year in and around the capital. In the eleven months since, the fighting has spread claiming thousands of lives, driven millions from their homes and plunged Sudan into a dire humanitarian crisis.

In the resolution, the Security Council expressed grave concern over the deteriorating humanitarian situation, including “crisis levels or worse” of acute food insecurity, particularly in the Darfur region, as well as ongoing reports of international humanitarian and human rights laws violations, including cases of sexual violence in conflict.

It urged all parties to the conflict “to ensure the removal of any obstructions and enable full, rapid, safe, and unhindered humanitarian access, including cross-border and crossline, and comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law, including to protect civilians and civilian objects, and their commitments under the Declaration of Commitment to Protect the Civilians of Sudan (‘Jeddah Declaration’).”

It also encouraged Ramtane Lamamra, the Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy, to use his good offices with the parties and Sudan’s neighbours, complementing and coordinating regional peace efforts.

Sudan Sanctions Panel of Experts

In another action on Friday, with 13 votes in favour and two abstentions (China and Russia), the Security Council renewed the mandate of the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee Panel of Experts, which expires next Tuesday, for a further twelve months.

The Panel was established on 29 March 2005 to assist the Committee in monitoring the implementation of sanctions measures imposed by the Council (arms embargo, travel ban and assets freeze) on several armed groups and individuals in Sudan.

View original: https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147432

________________________________

Related 

Sudan Watch - Friday, March 8, 2024

Sudan: UK has circulated a draft UN resolution calling for an immediate end of hostilities ahead of Ramadan

https://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/2024/03/sudan-uk-has-circulated-draft-un.html

 ___ 

Sudan Watch - Friday, March 8, 2024, 19:30 GMT 

Sudan: UNSC Vote on a Draft Resolution (Preamble) 

https://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/2024/03/sudan-unsc-vote-on-draft-resolution.html

 ___ 

Sudan Watch - Friday, March 8, 2024, 19:51 GMT 

Sudan Sanctions: Vote on Draft Resolution (Preamble) 

https://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/2024/03/sudan-unsc-vote-on-draft-resolution.html

 ___ 

 END

Sudan Sanctions: Vote on Draft Resolution (Preamble)

"The final report of the Panel of Experts assisting the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee, which was published on 15 January, provided an extensive account of the ongoing conflict, including its dynamics and regional impact, the financing of the warring parties and their recruitment patterns, the humanitarian impact and violations of international humanitarian law (IHL), and the proliferation of weapons and violations of the arms embargo. (For more information, see the Sudan brief in our February 2024 Monthly Forecast.)" Read more.

From UN Security Council
What's In Blue 
Dated Friday, 8 March 2024, 19:51 GMT - here is a copy in full:

Sudan Sanctions: Vote on a Draft Resolution

This afternoon (8 March), the Security Council is expected to vote on a draft resolution extending the mandate of the Panel of Experts assisting the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee for another year, until 12 March 2025. The vote on the draft resolution will take place after the vote on a draft resolution calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities in Sudan during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

Background

On 8 March 2023, the Security Council adopted resolution 2676, renewing the mandate of the Panel of Experts assisting the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee until 12 March 2024. The resolution introduced a sunset clause, whereby the Council decided to reaffirm and renew the measures of the Sudan sanctions regime until 12 September 2024, and to make a decision regarding their further renewal no later than that date. 

The resolution expressed the Council’s intention to review the regime’s measures by 12 February 2024, including through modification, suspension, or progressive lifting of these measures in light of progress achieved by Sudan’s government on benchmarks two and three outlined in the Secretary-General’s 31 July 2021 report, relating to progress on transitional security arrangements in Darfur and on the national action plan for the protection of civilians, respectively. 

It also requested the Secretary-General to conduct an assessment of progress achieved on the key benchmarks established in the resolution by 1 December 2023 and asked the Sudanese government to report to the committee on progress achieved on these benchmarks by the same date.

In a 24 November 2023 letter to the Council, the Secretary-General noted that the country’s political and security situation had changed significantly since the issuance of the initial report establishing the benchmarks. The outbreak of violence on 15 April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces and the ensuing deterioration of security throughout the country, particularly in Darfur, had halted the implementation of the benchmarks and the UN’s ability to assess progress made on them, according to the letter.

The final report of the Panel of Experts assisting the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee, which was published on 15 January, provided an extensive account of the ongoing conflict, including its dynamics and regional impact, the financing of the warring parties and their recruitment patterns, the humanitarian impact and violations of international humanitarian law (IHL), and the proliferation of weapons and violations of the arms embargo. (For more information, see the Sudan brief in our February 2024 Monthly Forecast.)

Negotiations on the Draft Resolution

The negotiations were apparently difficult, leading to protracted discussions on the draft resolution that lasted over a month. The US, the penholder on Sudan sanctions, circulated an initial draft of the resolution to Council members on 9 February, followed by the first round of negotiations on 13 February. The penholder circulated a revised draft text on 22 February and convened the second round of negotiations on 26 February. 

After receiving written comments from some members, the US shared a second revised draft of the resolution on Monday (4 March), placing it under silence procedure until Tuesday (5 March). The members of the “A3 plus one” grouping (Algeria, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, and Guyana) broke silence, after which several other delegations submitted comments. Following bilateral consultations with some members, the US placed the draft text in blue without a further silence procedure yesterday (7 March).

The draft resolution in blue extends the mandate of the Panel of Experts until 12 March 2025 and requests the panel to provide the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee with an interim report on its activities no later than 12 August and a final report by 13 January 2025 with its findings and recommendations. It expresses the Council’s intention to review the panel’s mandate and take appropriate action regarding a further extension by 12 February 2025. Regarding the benchmarks established by resolution 2676, the draft text in blue expresses the Council’s intention to further review these measures by 12 September.

The draft text in blue contains new language, which was proposed by Switzerland, encouraging all parties and all member states, as well as international, regional, and subregional organisations, to ensure continued cooperation with the Panel of Experts assisting the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee, and the safety of its members. This year’s resolution also takes note of the panel’s reporting on the complex financing schemes established by armed groups active in Darfur and requests the panel to further investigate all relevant funding sources—including local, national, and international—of these armed groups.

It seems that one of the most difficult aspects of the negotiations pertained to the duration of the mandate of the Panel of Experts. The initial draft text circulated by the penholder renewed the mandate of the Panel of Experts for one year. It appears that many members—including the P3 (France, the UK, and the US) and other like-minded states—strongly supported a 12-month mandate extension. On the other hand, China, Russia, and the “A3 plus one” members supported a six-month renewal. 

In calling for a short extension, these members apparently intended to align the mandate of the Panel of Experts with the mandate cycle of the Sudan sanctions measures, as introduced by resolution 2676. 

Giving the panel a six-month mandate would mean that the Council would consider the panel’s future and the sanctions at the same time, whereas a 12-month renewal of the panel (until March 2025) presupposes that the sanctions on Sudan would last beyond the sunset clause introduced by resolution 2676. 

It seems that these members aligned themselves with Sudan’s national position in calling for a six-month mandate renewal. Notwithstanding their opposition, the draft resolution in blue extends the mandate of the Panel of Experts for one year.

The other major area of disagreement related to the appointment of an additional expert to the Panel of Experts assisting the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee. The penholder, in its initial draft text, proposed language requesting the Secretary-General, in consultation with the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee, to appoint one additional expert to the panel in order to strengthen its reporting on compliance with the arms embargo. 

Members supportive of the penholder’s proposal noted that such an expert would be a useful addition to the panel given the flow of arms into Darfur, which represents a violation of the arms embargo. On the other hand, several members—including China, Russia, and the “A3 plus one”—objected to this proposal, maintaining that the current panel already includes one arms expert and that there is neither a consensus among the members on this proposal nor has the panel formally requested the appointment of an additional member. In an apparent compromise, the US removed the reference to the appointment of an additional expert at a later stage of the negotiations.

At the request of “A3 plus one” members, the draft resolution in blue includes an operative paragraph requesting the panel to assess in its reports, among other things: progress towards the promotion of peace and stability in Darfur and violations of IHL or violations or abuses of human rights, including those that involve attacks on the civilian population, sexual- and gender-based violence, and violations and abuses against children. The paragraph also asks the panel to provide the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee with information on the individuals and entities that meet the listing criteria outlined in resolution 1591 of 29 March 2005.

It appears that Switzerland proposed new language in the operative section requesting the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict to share relevant information with the committee, and inviting the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to do the same. However, owing to opposition from other Council members—including, China, Russia, and the “A3 plus one”—the proposed language was not included in the draft resolution in blue.

It seems that one of the other major issues during the negotiations pertained to language characterising the situation in Sudan. While several members supported the addition of language in the draft resolution reflecting recent developments in the country, some members—such as China, Russia, and the “A3 plus one”—opposed adding such language, noting that the draft text should only encompass aspects relating to the sanctions regime. The penholder made several amendments in the draft text’s preambular section, apparently to address these members’ concerns. Among other things, the draft text in blue:

• calls on all member states to refrain from external interference which seeks to foment conflict and instability, and instead to support efforts for durable peace;
• reiterates that those who violate the arms embargo may be designated for targeted measures;
• expresses alarm at the ongoing conflict and deteriorating humanitarian situation in Darfur and recognises that the situation in Darfur is strongly affected by the ongoing nationwide conflict;
• strongly condemns the attacks against civilians and widespread cases of sexual and gender-based violence in conflict; and
• stresses the need for all parties to the conflict to cease IHL violations and abuses and violations of international human rights law in Darfur and to adhere to their obligations under these laws.

Tags: Insights on Africa, Sanctions, Sudan

View original: https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2024/03/sudan-sanctions-vote-on-a-draft-resolution.php

END