South Sudan on brink of civil war, UN's Haysom warns

“The time for action is now because the alternative is too terrible to contemplate” -Nicholas Haysom, UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative and Head of the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS)

Read more in report from UN News

By Vibhu Mishra

Dated Monday, 24 March 2025 - full copy:

South Sudan on the brink of civil war, top UN official warns

© WFP/Peter Louis Displaced people in Renk County, Upper Nile State, South Sudan. (file)

South Sudan is teetering on the brink of a return to full-scale civil war as violence escalates and political tensions deepen, the head of the UN Mission in the country (UNMISS) warned on Monday.

Briefing journalists at UN Headquarters in New York via videolink from Juba, Nicholas Haysom described indiscriminate attacks on civilians, mass displacement and rising ethnic tensions.

He urged all parties to pull back from the brink and commit to peace before the country plunges into another devastating conflict.

“A conflict would erase all the hard-won gains made since the 2018 peace deal was signed. It would devastate not only South Sudan but the entire region, which simply cannot afford another war,” he warned.

Fragile peace at risk

South Sudan gained independence from Sudan in 2011, but the world’s youngest nation has been plagued by conflict and instability ever since.

A civil war erupted in 2013 between forces loyal to President Salva Kiir and those aligned with his former deputy, Riek Machar. The war – marked by ethnic violence, mass atrocities and widespread humanitarian crisis – lasted until a fragile peace deal was signed in 2018.

Though the 2018 Revitalized Peace Agreement brought a degree of stability, delays in its implementation and continued political rivalries have kept tensions simmering.

Mounting violence

The latest wave of violence erupted on 4 March when the so-called White Army – a youth militia – overran South Sudanese army barracks in Nasir, Upper Nile province.

In response, Government forces launched retaliatory aerial bombardments on civilian areas, using barrel bombs that allegedly contained highly flammable accelerants.

“These indiscriminate attacks on civilians are causing significant casualties and horrific injuries, especially burns, including to women and children,” Mr. Haysom said, adding that at least 63,000 people have fled the area.

Reports indicate that both the White Army and national forces are mobilising for further confrontations, with allegations of child recruitment into armed groups.

The deployment of foreign forces at the request of the Government has further heightened tensions, evoking painful memories of the country’s previous civil wars.

Rising ethnic tensions

Political tensions are also escalating, Mr. Haysom continued.

Senior officials affiliated with the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement in Opposition (SPLM-IO) – the main rival militia – have been removed, replaced, detained, or forced into hiding.

There is also an increasing use of misinformation, disinformation and hate speech, which is fuelling ethnic divisions and fear, making reconciliation even more difficult.

“Given this grim situation, we are left with no other conclusion, but to assess that South Sudan is teetering on the edge of a relapse into civil war,” the senior UN official warned.

Diplomatic efforts stalled

Mr. Haysom further reported that UNMISS has engaged in intensive diplomatic efforts alongside regional and international partners, including the African Union (AU), the regional development bloc, IGAD, and the Reconstituted Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission.

However, a scheduled high-level visit by IGAD foreign ministers to Juba, aimed at mediating between the parties, was abruptly postponed by the South Sudanese government without explanation.

“This is a disappointing development at a time when diplomatic outreach is more important than ever,” he said.

Recommit to peace

Mr. Haysom urged South Sudan’s leaders to immediately recommit to the 2018 peace deal, respect the ceasefire, release detained officials and resolve disputes through dialogue rather than military confrontation.

He also called for President Kiir and First Vice President Machar to meet and publicly reaffirm their joint commitment to peace.

“The time for action is now because the alternative is too terrible to contemplate.”

WATCH VIDEO: Nicholas Haysom, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for South Sudan speaks to the press via videolink.

View original: Here

End

Sudan: Furious row at UN as Russia blocks resolution to protect civilians. SAF chief praises Russia UN veto

IN a move strongly condemned by the UK and US, Russia has vetoed a draft UK-backed UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Sudan. See video of voting and meeting on a draft resolution to protect civilians in Sudan: 14 voted in favour, 1 voted against (Russia), 0 abstentions. Sudan's army chief Gen. Burhan said the army would not negotiate or agree to a ceasefire without a "full retreat" by the RSF. More in three reports below.

___________________________

From BBC News online
By Damian Zane & Will Ross
Dated Mon 18 Nov 2024; Updated Tue 19 Nov 2024 - full copy:

Furious row at UN as Russia blocks Sudan ceasefire move

IMAGE SOURCE, REUTERS. 

Image caption, More than 11 million people have fled the fighting

In a move strongly condemned by the UK and US, Russia has vetoed a draft UK-backed UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Sudan.

British Foreign Secretary David Lammy called the veto a "disgrace". But Russia accused the UK of meddling in Sudanese affairs without involving Sudan itself.

Sudan's 19-month civil war is believed to have led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people. More than 11 million have been forced from their homes.

Aid workers say the conflict has created the world's worst humanitarian crisis, with many thousands at risk of famine.

Sudanese activists have been highly critical of the UN for being slow to respond to the conflict.

It began in April last year after the army and a powerful paramilitary group, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), began a vicious struggle for power.

The military is in control of the government.

Monday's draft resolution, proposed by the UK and Sierra Leone, called on both sides to immediately halt hostilities and start talks aimed at agreeing a national ceasefire.

It also called on the army and RSF to respect previous agreements to protect civilians, but specifically mentioned RSF attacks in the western region of Darfur and elsewhere in the country.

Sudan's representative at the UN said that clauses that it wanted in the text were not included.

Aside from Russia, all the other 14 Security Council member states voted in favour of the draft, but the veto meant the resolution did not pass.

"This Russian veto is a disgrace and it shows to the world yet again Russia’s true colours," Lammy told the meeting in New York.

"I ask the Russian representative in all conscience sitting there on his phone. How many more Sudanese have to be killed? How many more women have to be raped? How many more children have to go without food before Russia will act?"

US ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield was equally outspoken, accusing Russia of obstructing moves "to address the catastrophic situation in Sudan, and playing both sides – both sides of the conflict to advance its own political objectives, at the expense of Sudanese lives".

Russia was once seen as backing the RSF in the conflict, but appears to have switched sides.

Russia's representative at the UN, Dmitry Polyanskiy, said that Sudanese sovereignty was being ignored, adding that the UK-backed resolution was "an attempt to give themselves an opportunity to meddle" in what was happening in Sudan.

"Shame on you, the UK!", he posted on X later, external. "For trying to push through a resolution that pours gasoline into [the] Sudan crisis leaving muddy waters for Western countries, that they love so much in former colonies, to push for their agenda."

Sudan analyst Alex de Waal described this as an "absolutely extraordinary argument to make in the face of the humanitarian catastrophe - the total state collapse of Sudan and the fact that the government is only able to govern a very small corner of the country".

In an interview with the BBC World Service's Newsday programme he added that it was a "very bad day for Africa" as previously the continent's diplomats through the Africa Union (AU) had managed to bridge the divides in the Security Council between Russia, the US and China when it came to Sudan.

Speaking after the Security Council's discussions had finished, Sudan’s ambassador to the UN, Al-Harith Idriss al-Harith Mohamed, said that certain "prerequisites" were not in the draft.

He said that Sudan had wanted a clause condemning the United Arab Emirate's backing of the RSF, something which the UAE has consistently denied.

He also wanted the RSF to be classified as "terrorists... because it wages a war of extermination against civilians".

Both the army and the RSF have been accused of human rights violations that could amount to war crimes.

Additional reporting by the BBC's Nada Tawfik in New York

More about the Sudan conflict from the BBC:

Rape me, not my daughter' - women tell BBC of sexual violence in Sudan
WATCH: Inside a hospital on the front line of Sudan’s hunger crisis
A simple guide to the Sudan war

WATCH: 'They ransacked my home and left my town in ruins'
Women raped in war-hit Sudan die by suicide, activists say
'Our future is over': Forced to flee by a year of war
Starvation in war-hit Sudan 'almost everywhere' - WHO
Hundreds die from cholera as war rages in Sudan

View original: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c33elmnzj0po

_________________________________

Related reports

Sudan Watch - Mon 18 Nov 2024

Sudan: Vote on a Draft Resolution to Protect Civilians

WATCH: Full meeting. 14 voted in favour, 1 against (Russia), 0 abstentions

https://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/2024/11/sudan-vote-on-draft-resolution-to.html

_______

AFP - Mon 18 Nov 2024

Sudan army chief rejects 'interference' after Russia UN veto

On Tuesday, Burhan said the army would not negotiate or agree to a ceasefire without a "full retreat" by the RSF. "The end of this war lies in the complete elimination of the rebels," he said, adding that only then could civilian life resume, aid flow to all Sudanese and only and political matters be addressed. ... Last month, UN experts accused both sides of using "starvation tactics" against 26 million civilians, as aid groups warned of a "historic" hunger crisis forcing families to eat leaves and insects.

https://www.jacarandafm.com/news/news/sudan-army-chief-rejects-interference-russia-un-veto/

End 

Sudan: Vote on a Draft Resolution to Protect Civilians. VIDEO: 14 in favour, 1 against (Russia), 0 abstentions

TODAY (18 November), the UN Security Council is "expected to vote on a draft resolution aimed at advancing measures to protect civilians in Sudan. It demands that the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) honour and fully implement their commitments in the “Declaration of Commitment to Protect the Civilians of Sudan”, which was signed by both sides in Jeddah on 11 May 2023. The draft text was co-authored by the UK (the penholder on the Sudan file) and Sierra Leone.

Some Council members, including Russia, have argued that the Sudanese government remains responsible for protecting civilians and that the Council should not impede its ability to do so. In line with this position, during the negotiations Russia contended that any possible steps on the ground, including humanitarian assistance and measures to advance the protection of civilians, must be preliminarily discussed and agreed upon with the Sudanese government." Read more.

From Security Council Report 

What's In Blue 

Dated Sunday 17 Nov 2024 - full copy:

Sudan: Vote on a Draft Resolution

Tomorrow morning (18 November), the Security Council is expected to vote on a draft resolution aimed at advancing measures to protect civilians in Sudan. It demands that the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) honour and fully implement their commitments in the “Declaration of Commitment to Protect the Civilians of Sudan”, which was signed by both sides in Jeddah on 11 May 2023. The draft text was co-authored by the UK (the penholder on the Sudan file) and Sierra Leone.

(For background and more information on the situation in Sudan, see the brief on Sudan in our November 2024 Monthly Forecast and 27 October and 11 November What’s in Blue stories.)

It appears that the negotiations were contentious, but the co-penholders were keen to finalise deliberations on the text expeditiously, given the pressing situation on the ground. The UK apparently invited the “A3 plus” members (Algeria, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, and Guyana) to be co-authors on the draft resolution. However, the “A3 plus” members were unable to reach a unified position on taking this on as a group. 

This led to only Sierra Leone choosing to co-pen the resolution. After preliminary discussions with the Council’s permanent members, the co-penholders circulated the initial draft of the resolution to all Council members on 8 November. Following an expert-level discussion (which was held at Russia’s request), three revised drafts, and two silence breaks, the penholder placed a fourth revised draft in blue without a further silence procedure on 15 November, to be voted on tomorrow morning.

The draft resolution in blue condemns the continued assault by the RSF, a paramilitary group, in El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur state, and demands that the RSF immediately halt all its attacks against civilians in Darfur, Al Jazirah, and Sennar states and elsewhere in Sudan. It also calls on the parties to the conflict to immediately cease hostilities and engage in dialogue in good faith to agree to steps to de-escalate the conflict with the aim of urgently agreeing to a national ceasefire.

During the negotiations, Russia suggested strengthening the language by highlighting specific actions by the RSF, such as bombings and shelling, and wanted to broaden the scope of the term “attacks” from targeting civilians to encompassing “any hostile actions”. Russia’s suggestions were not incorporated, but the co-penholders sought to address this issue by adding the term “all” when referring to the RSF’s attacks against civilians in the draft resolution in blue. It seems that France suggested that the resolution should call on both parties to the conflict to halt their offensives and asked to include Khartoum in the listed regions where attacks are occurring. It also argued that calling on both sides to agree to a ceasefire would be inconsistent with singling out one party to halt hostilities. This suggestion was not incorporated in the draft resolution in blue, however.

Several delegations, including Switzerland and the US, also emphasised the importance of addressing both parties in the context of protecting civilians and upholding commitments in line with international humanitarian law (IHL). It seems that some members—including Japan, the Republic of Korea (ROK), and Switzerland—supported language specifying IHL violations and other atrocities as one of the listing criteria under the 1591 Sudan sanctions regime. However, given strong objections from some members, such as Russia, this language was not incorporated in the draft resolution in blue.

Some Council members, including Russia, have argued that the Sudanese government remains responsible for protecting civilians and that the Council should not impede its ability to do so. In line with this position, during the negotiations Russia contended that any possible steps on the ground, including humanitarian assistance and measures to advance the protection of civilians, must be preliminarily discussed and agreed upon with the Sudanese government.

It seems that one of the difficult aspects of the negotiations related to language that the co-penholders had proposed pertaining to the monitoring and verification of a potential ceasefire agreement between the warring parties. The initial draft text encouraged the Secretary-General to step up planning to support a ceasefire agreement, including through monitoring and verification, and to utilise a range of regional mechanisms, including stabilisation and peacebuilding. The text also encouraged the Secretary-General to engage on this issue with international stakeholders, especially the African Union (AU). This language apparently went through some revision, including amending it to encourage cooperation with the AU on “regional mechanisms to help sustain peace, including delivery of stabilization and peacebuilding”.

While several Council members supported this proposal, underlining the imperative of preparing for the eventuality of a ceasefire agreement, others—including Algeria, China, and Russia—expressed reservations. China and Russia suggested deleting this language, apparently arguing that it is premature to discuss monitoring and verification mechanisms in the absence of a ceasefire agreement, as this could undermine the Council’s authority and credibility. These members were also apparently concerned that this language might pave the way for the deployment of forces on the ground. During the comments period, at least one Council member apparently suggested including the term “peacekeeping” in the range of mechanisms; this suggestion was not incorporated in the draft text, however.

As a compromise, it appears that Algeria and China suggested deleting the language on regional mechanisms. China also highlighted the need to obtain the consent of the parties concerned before the UN or other partners take action. To address these issues, the co-penholders amended the text, deleting the reference to regional mechanisms, while retaining the language encouraging the Secretary-General to step up planning for support to sustain any ceasefire agreement, including through monitoring and verification and to engage with the AU. Language was also added to the draft text in blue requesting the Secretary-General to engage with the parties to the conflict in this regard.

It appears that members also diverged on whether to include language from the Secretary-General’s 21 October report, which presented recommendations for the protection of civilians in Sudan, pursuant to resolution 2736 of 13 June. The report acknowledged that “at present, the conditions do not exist for the successful deployment of a UN force to protect civilians” in Sudan. Some members—including Algeria, China, Mozambique, and Russia—apparently advocated for including this language verbatim in the preambular paragraphs. Other members—including the US—rejected this proposal. The US apparently argued that the text should send a strong message to the parties about fulfilling their commitments, rather than reflecting on the conditions for a force, particularly when the resolution does not address the deployment of such a force. The draft resolution in blue incorporates compromise language in the preambular paragraphs, taking note of the conclusions contained in the Secretary-General’s report and his assessment of the conditions on the ground.

A recurring topic of discussion in Sudan-related resolutions has been the terminology used to refer to the central authorities. Some members, such as France and the ROK, supported the term “Sudanese authorities”, whereas others, including China and Russia, preferred using the term “government” or “Sudanese Transitional Sovereign Council (STC)”. (The STC was established in 2019 as the governing body following the ouster of former President Omar al-Bashir. The body is headed by SAF leader General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan.)

In the draft resolution in blue, the co-penholders removed the term “authorities” and retained references to the STC. At the same time, the draft resolution in blue also contains several references to “parties to the conflict”, in the context of humanitarian assistance, cessation of hostilities, adherence to IHL, avoiding attacks on civilian objects, and preventing incidents of conflict-related sexual violence. (For background on Council dynamics on the matter, see the brief on Sudan in our October 2024 Monthly Forecast.)

The draft resolution in blue requests the Secretary-General, following consultations with the STC and other parties to the conflict, as well as the AU, to develop a proposal for a compliance mechanism to facilitate implementation of the Jeddah Declaration commitments. It calls on the parties to the conflict to engage fully in this effort.

Council members also had diverging views about proposed reporting requirements. The initial draft text suggested two reporting provisions: the first requested an update from the Secretary-General within 60 days of adoption of the draft resolution, and the second requested him to provide a written report ahead of the regular 120-day briefing on Sudan, outlining practical options to support mediation efforts, including on the implementation of the Jeddah Declaration and the compliance mechanism referred to in the draft resolution.

While several members apparently supported the reporting requirements, Algeria, China, and Russia opposed them. These members apparently advocated for incorporating additional elements of reporting within the regular 120-day briefing on the situation in Sudan, foregoing the 60-day update and thereby avoiding multiplication of reporting requirements. China also apparently argued that requesting the Secretary-General to prepare a compliance mechanism and submit a report assessing its effectiveness simultaneously is untenable, as potential disagreements on the details of that proposal by concerned parties could undermine or delay the report.

In an apparent compromise, the draft resolution in blue omits the proposed 60-day reporting requirement but requests the Secretary-General to provide a written “update”, instead of a “report”, ahead of the next 120-day Sudan briefing, prescribing practical steps to support mediation efforts, including local-level cessation of hostilities and de-escalation measures, implementation of the Jeddah Declaration, and the development of the compliance mechanism.

Another topic of discussion related to language addressing accountability for violations and abuses of human rights law and IHL violations. Several Council members—including France, Malta, Slovenia, Switzerland, and the US—supported broader accountability measures that extend beyond domestic mechanisms. Russia, however, preferred language focusing on domestic measures by the STC. Switzerland apparently proposed language referencing cooperation with regional and international courts and tribunals in accordance with respective obligations, while recalling resolution 1593 of 31 March 2005, which referred the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court (ICC); however, this suggestion was not incorporated in the draft resolution in blue. The draft resolution in blue urges concrete steps to ensure perpetrators are held accountable, including through adequate, transparent, independent, and credible accountability mechanisms, “including” domestic mechanisms.

View original: 

https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2024/11/103323.php

Video of full meeting:

Sudan and South Sudan - Security Council, 9786th meeting

Result of voting: 14 in favour, 1 against (Russia), 0 abstentions

See live broadcast courtesy of UN Media 18 Nov 2024 2:30PM GMT UK

http://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1u/k1ujdmywhg

End