Showing posts with label Declaration of Commitment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Declaration of Commitment. Show all posts

Sunday, July 28, 2024

Sudan: UN Security Council members will convene for closed consultations on 29 July 2024 at request of UK

THE Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General for Sudan Ramtane Lamamra convened delegations from the warring parties—the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF)—in Geneva between 11 and 19 July to hold discussions in “proximity format”, supported by a UN integrated technical team. He aimed to discuss issues relating to measures to ensure the distribution of humanitarian assistance and options for the protection of civilians across Sudan. Lamamra is expected to provide an update to UN Security Council members tomorrow (July 29) on the ongoing efforts aimed at resolving the Sudanese crisis. Read more in a report by What's In Blue copied in full here below. 

_________________________

Related reports

______

From What's In Blue* at securitycouncilreport.org
Dated Sunday, 28 July 2024. Full copy:

Sudan: Closed Consultations


Tomorrow morning (29 July), Security Council members will convene for closed consultations on Sudan, at the request of the UK (the penholder on the file). The anticipated briefers are Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General for Sudan Ramtane Lamamra and OCHA’s Director of the Financing and Partnerships Division Lisa Doughten. Council members may consider issuing press elements following tomorrow’s meeting.


Lamamra is expected to provide an update on the ongoing efforts aimed at resolving the Sudanese crisis. The Personal Envoy convened delegations from the warring parties—the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF)—in Geneva between 11 and 19 July to hold discussions in “proximity format”, supported by a UN integrated technical team. He aimed to discuss issues relating to measures to ensure the distribution of humanitarian assistance and options for the protection of civilians across Sudan. In a press release issued at the end of the discussions, Lamamra said that his team held around 20 sessions with the parties’ delegations, including technical and plenary meetings, in the context of their respective mandates. He noted that, during these engagements, the delegations expressed their positions on key issues of concern, thereby deepening mutual understanding. Lamamra described the discussions as an “encouraging initial step in a longer and complex process” and welcomed the commitments announced by “one of the two parties” to enhance humanitarian assistance and the protection of civilians.


At the end of proximity talks, the RSF reportedly sent a letter to the UN Secretary-General, outlining commitments it has made, including to facilitate humanitarian aid deliveries in coordination with the RSF-affiliated Sudanese Agency for Relief and Humanitarian Operations (SARHO), to strengthen civilian protection measures, and to facilitate the safe passage of individuals and supplies. Media reports quoted Salwa Adam Benya, Sudan’s Humanitarian Aid Commissioner and the head of the SAF delegation, as saying in a statement that the proximity talks offered a “promising foundation” for addressing the humanitarian crisis in the country and expressed Sudan’s commitment to cooperate with the UN “within existing national humanitarian policies”. Regarding the protection of civilians issue, however, she stressed the importance of implementing the “Declaration of Commitment to Protect the Civilians of Sudan”, signed by the warring parties on 11 May 2023.


Tomorrow, Lamamra is also expected to brief members on the second consultative meeting on enhancing coordination among the various peace initiatives on Sudan, hosted by Djibouti on 24 July. Several regional and international interlocutors attended the meeting, including Lamamra, the African Union (AU), the European Union (EU), the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), and the League of Arab States (LAS), as well as representatives from Bahrain, Egypt, Mauritania, the US, and Saudi Arabia. The first consultative meeting was convened by the LAS in Cairo on 12 June. (For background and more information, see our 17 June What’s in Blue story.)


The Special Envoy is also likely to expand on the details of the Mediators Planning Retreat on Sudan hosted by Djibouti on 25 and 26 July, which was initially proposed by Lamamra. The meeting brought together representatives from 32 regional and international stakeholders, including the Security Council’s permanent members (P5) and its African members (Algeria, Mozambique, and Sierra Leone), Sudan’s neighbouring countries, several Gulf countries, as well as the AU, the EU, IGAD, the LAS, and the UN. A press release issued following the meeting, among other matters, stressed the importance of integrating lessons learned to inform decision-making processes and strengthening coordination and adapting strategies to respond to dynamic realities on the ground, based on:

  • support for all current and future efforts to sustain high-level peace engagements;
  • a commitment to cooperate on initiatives aimed at restoring peace and stability in the country and the region; and
  • shared and differentiated responsibilities of existing multilateral coordination mechanisms and the recognition of their continued role and comparative advantages.

At tomorrow’s meeting, Lamamra and some members might also refer to the recent US statement inviting the Sudanese warring parties to participate in ceasefire talks to begin on 14 August in Switzerland, co-hosted by Saudi Arabia. The statement notes that the talks will include the AU, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the UN as observers. The talks aim to reach an agreement on a nationwide cessation of violence and to develop a robust monitoring and verification mechanism to ensure implementation of any agreement. The US-Saudi facilitated talks in Jeddah were indefinitely suspended after two rounds of discussions, the last of which was held in November 2023 with the participation of a joint representative of the AU and IGAD, due to the failure of the warring parties to implement their commitments. (For background, see the Sudan brief in our June 2023 Monthly Forecast and 15 November 2023 What’s in Blue story.)


Council members might also reiterate some of the points contained in their 12 July press statement, including welcoming Lamamra’s convening of the Geneva proximity talks. Some members might be interested in hearing the Personal Envoy’s assessment of the Sudanese parties’ positions and the prospects for de-escalation and further dialogue. They may also wish to learn more details about Lamamra’s engagements with key regional and international interlocutors as part of the recent mediation talks and his efforts to coordinate the different peace initiatives, as well as have a frank exchange on the way forward. Some members may also be interested in hearing his assessment of the parties’ commitments and the potential for them to be translated into concrete actions on the ground.


Doughten is expected to provide an update on the humanitarian situation in the country in light of evolving security developments. According to a 4 July OCHA flash update, the escalation of fighting in south-western Sennar state in late June has displaced more than 136,000 people, many of whom might be experiencing secondary or tertiary displacement. In a 19 July press briefing, Deputy Spokesperson for the Secretary-General Farhan Haq said that fighting in Sennar has severely affected the operations of the World Food Programme (WFP) across the region, including in White Nile, Blue Nile, Kassala, and Gedaref states. He reported that the hostilities have cut off key supply routes for food and fuel into Sennar. In addition, Haq noted that the route from Port Sudan to the city of Kosti through Sennar has been blocked, cutting off vital aid to hundreds of thousands of people, including many at risk of famine in the Kordofans and Darfur.


Doughten and several members are also expected to reiterate concerns about the dire food insecurity situation in the country. According to the latest Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) report on Sudan, released on 27 June, 25.6 million people across Sudan are expected to face acute levels of food insecurity—described by the IPC as crisis level conditions or worse (IPC Phase 3 or above)—between June and September. Of this total, 755,000 people are expected to face catastrophic conditions (IPC Phase 5) in ten states, including Greater Darfur, South and North Kordofan, Blue Nile, Al Jazirah, and Khartoum. During this period, 14 areas in nine states are expected to face a risk of famine, according to the report.


Doughten is also likely to stress the importance of ensuring full and rapid humanitarian access through all modalities—including cross-line (across conflict lines within Sudan) and cross-border (across Sudan’s borders with some of the neighbouring countries), particularly in light of the disruptions caused by heavy rains and floods in some areas. A 23 July OCHA press release said that the Tine border crossing at the Chad-Sudan border—used by UN agencies and partners to conduct humanitarian operations—as well as many other routes in the southern part of Sudan remain inaccessible to due to flooding.


Tags: Insights on Africa, Sudan (Darfur)


View original: https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2024/07/sudan-closed-consultations-3.php


*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".


END 

Monday, June 24, 2024

Biggest hunger crisis is unfolding in Sudan: How the US and its Gulf partners are enabling mass starvation

A SUPERB article by Sudan Africa expert Alex de Waal entitled 'Sudan’s Manmade Famine - How the United States and Its Gulf Partners Are Enabling Mass Starvation' 17 June 2024 is copied in full here. Excerpts:

"The biggest hunger crisis in the world is unfolding in Sudan, and it is manmade. As of now, more than half of Sudan's 45 million people urgently need humanitarian assistance. 

The time to act is running out. Iran and Russia are already complicating the geopolitics of the war, and the unfolding famine will generate even greater chaos. But for now, there is still a chance to avert the worst outcome. 

With pressure from Washington, Saudi Arabia and the UAE could take the lead on getting food aid where it needs to go. If they do not, MBS and MBZ may forever be associated with the starvation of an entire generation of Sudanese children.

Encouragingly, the growing resolve for prosecuting the starvation of civilians as a war crime suggests that international officials and world leaders may finally be prepared to hold perpetrators to account. 

In his June 11 announcement, Khan, the ICC chief prosecutor, said that he was gathering evidence of “repeated, expanding, and continuous” attacks against the civilian population in Darfur. 

Although he did not specifically mention starvation crimes, he is well aware of who is committing them and how. 

The wheels of justice turn slowly, but it is time that the men who inflict Sudan’s hunger crises are put on notice. If the ICC moves, the world should line up in support." Read the full story below from Foreign Affairs.

Cartoon: By Omar Dafalla / Radio Dabanga

Source: Hospital and camp hit in lethal North Darfur fighting

09 June 2024, El Fasher, North Darfur, Sudan

______________________________

From Foreign Affairs 
By ALEX DE WAAL
Dated Monday, 17 June 2024. Here is a full copy:


Sudan’s Manmade Famine

How the United States and Its Gulf Partners Are Enabling Mass Starvation

A Sudanese Armed Forces soldier near Khartoum, Sudan, April 2024 
El Tayeb Siddig / Reuters

The biggest hunger crisis in the world is unfolding in Sudan, and it is manmade. As of now, more than half of the country’s 45 million people urgently need humanitarian assistance. In May, the United Nations warned that 18 million Sudanese are “acutely hungry” including 3.6 million children who are “acutely malnourished.” The western region of Darfur, where the threat is greatest, is nearly cut off from humanitarian aid. According to one projection, as much as five percent of Sudan’s population could die of starvation by the end of the year.


This dire situation is not the result of a bad harvest or climate-induced food scarcity. It is the direct consequence of actions by both sides of Sudan’s terrible civil war. Since April 2023, the Sudanese Armed Forces, headed by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, have been locked in a devastating conflict with the Rapid Support Forces, a heavily armed paramilitary group led by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagolo, known as Hemedti. As the two former allies struggle for supremacy, both have deliberately used starvation tactics to advance their war aims. The RSF fighters operate like human locusts, stripping cities and countryside bare of all movable resources. Heirs of the infamous Janjaweed militia—the ethnic Arab fighters who inflicted massacre and starvation in Darfur between 2003 and 2005, leaving over 150,000 civilians dead—they use this plunder to sustain their war machine. The SAF, which is the dominant power in the United Nations-recognized government of Sudan, has blocked humanitarian aid to the vast areas of the country under RSF control.


In May, for the first time, Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court said he was investigating alleged starvation crimes by a party to an armed conflict. The ICC prosecutor requested international arrest warrants against top Israeli officials for the crime of “starvation of civilians as a method of warfare” in the Gaza Strip, citing substantial evidence of the deprivation of food, fuel, and water; threats to aid workers; and the drastic restriction of the flow of humanitarian aid in Israel’s eight-month campaign there. If the court approves the warrants, it could create an important precedent for Sudan, where even greater numbers are being subjected to these same tactics—and where ICC jurisdiction still runs, pursuant to a UN Security Council resolution in 2005. On June 11, Khan announced that he was stepping up an urgent investigation of war crimes in Sudan.


So far, however, international aid officials show no appetite for calling out the men who have been systematically starving Sudan’s children. Some may argue that external players need to avoid finger pointing, because it is the same generals who need to be persuaded to allow aid in. This is misguided. Neither side is likely to relent on its own: starvation is cheap and effective, and without strong international pressure, the leaders expect to get away with it. In fact, the keys to opening the country to aid likely lie in the hands of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the two biggest regional powers vying for influence in the Horn of Africa. 


It is urgent, then, for the United States and its Western allies not only to call out Sudan’s terrifying hunger crisis for what it is—an intentional aim of the warring parties—but also to push the Gulf powers that have clout to force the two sides to end the tactics that are driving it. It may be too late to stop the descent into famine, but swift action to enforce aid distribution could at least avert the most catastrophic outcomes.


HUNGER GAMES


The war in Sudan began in April 2023, when Hemedti turned on Burhan, his erstwhile partner in Sudan’s then-ruling military junta. Eighteen months earlier, the two military bosses had thrown out Sudan’s civilian government and taken joint control of the government, but the alliance had broken down and Hemedti, with his RSF, attempted to seize power. The result was a vicious armed struggle that quickly ignited an RSF campaign of ethnic cleansing in Darfur and that continues today. At present, the RSF controls much of the country west of the Nile and the SAF territories to the east; Khartoum remains a battleground. The RSF is notorious for massacre, looting, and rape; the SAF for aerial bombardment of civilian areas. RSF forces are currently closing in on the last SAF garrison in Darfur, in the city of El Fasher, threatening catastrophe. In the second week of June, they attacked and closed the last remaining hospital there.


That this war would create a food crisis should have been foreseeable. Even before the fighting broke out, international aid organizations were predicting that one-third of Sudan’s population would need humanitarian assistance in 2023. There were still several million people displaced from the war in Darfur 20 years ago, and many others were suffering because of a deepening economic crisis provoked by the secession of oil-rich South Sudan in 2011. Now, with war engulfing the entire country, each of the pillars of the national food economy has fallen or is about to fall.


Last year’s harvest on big commercial farms was meager, reduced by lack of loans, fuel, and fertilizer. On top of this, in November, the RSF overran the breadbasket region of El Gezira, south of the capital, ransacking farms, food mills, and the region’s agricultural university. 


Smallholder farmers have been driven from their homes, their animals stolen, their markets now deserted. Most livestock herds are now owned by merchant-soldier cartels—either stolen or bought from desperate herders at fire-sale prices—which monopolize the lucrative export trade. Shipments of wheat from Ukraine that used to feed Sudan’s cities have also ground to a halt because the government cannot pay. And the urban economy has collapsed, driving at least a million middle-class Sudanese to take refuge abroad.


Deliveries of food aid that normally sustain the country’s displaced population, who were living in camps that have become shanty cities around Darfuri towns, have also disappeared. In a few weeks, the onset of the rainy season will add further challenges. In previous years, the World Food Program could stockpile supplies in hard-to-reach areas. But this year, when roads to hard-hit rural areas become slow or even impassable, there will be no reserves to draw on. El-Geneina in Darfur is farther from a seaport than any other African city, and even in peaceful times it can take weeks for trucks to reach it. Now, it could be completely cut off.


Both militaries have embraced starvation as a weapon of war. In the last few months alone, the RSF has driven as many as a million Darfuris from their homes, many of whom are taking refuge either in the besieged city of El Fasher or the Jebel Marra mountains, which are controlled by an independent rebel group, the Sudan Liberation Army. There are no resources to sustain these refugees. Already, Hemedti’s forces have taken control of El Fasher’s water reservoir, threatening to cut off its water supply, and ransacked its last remaining hospital. Meanwhile, the SAF is playing a more duplicitous game. It has made sure that the food crisis in the areas of eastern Sudan it controls is less severe: these regions are close to Port Sudan, the country’s hub for imports, and the SAF wants these people fed. Yet it is willing to let those in RSF-controlled areas go hungry and even to block international efforts to address the crisis.


Take one of the standard international measures of famine, known as Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, known as the IPC. Serving as a kind of humanitarian high court, the IPC’s famine review committee is due to assess the Sudanese situation soon. But Sudan’s IPC working group is controlled by the UN-recognized government—and the SAF has a vested interest in avoiding a formal declaration of famine in Darfur because that would increase pressure to permit the flow of aid to RSF-controlled areas. The IPC’s recent figures appear to indicate that 750,000 people are in a “catastrophic” food situation. But most independent humanitarian experts believe the situation is considerably worse—that there is likely already famine in several areas.


Even in the opening weeks of the war, the U.S. Agency for International Development had warned of a looming crisis in Sudan’s camps for displaced people: in the colored maps the agency uses as an early warning system for famine, it shifted the camps’ designation from yellow, meaning “stressed,” to red, meaning “emergency.” In fact, in one of these camps—Zamzam, near El Fasher—local humanitarian workers now report that children are dying daily from hunger and infection. Overall, 90 percent of the most at-risk people are in Darfur and other RSF-controlled areas. Comparing Sudan’s national food stocks with the nutritional needs of the population, the Clingendael Institute in The Hague warned last month that as much as five percent of the population—2.5 million people—could perish before the end of the year.


THE CHEAPEST WEAPON


One of the cruelest ironies of Sudan’s food emergency is that the suffering of the country’s children seems to benefit both warring parties. In the west, Hemedti rules a hungry land—but his commanders are prospering, and his fighters are fed. Those who are starving are the Masalit, Fur, and Zaghawa ethnic groups that the RSF has targeted for ethnic cleansing—or on whose lands Hemedti’s fighters have taken everything that can be stolen or eaten. Such is the scale of destruction of farms, flour mills, markets, and hospitals that it has poisoned the RSF’s reputation among much of the population. Now, the RSF is prepared to ransom food aid itself, demanding high fees from merchants and aid agencies, in dollars, for every truck it allows through. That puts aid givers in a quandary: How much should they subsidize the perpetrators of starvation in order to feed their victims?


The Sudanese army, meanwhile, believes that by forcing starvation in RSF areas it can destroy the group’s base. Deprived of resources, the theory goes, the nomadic fighters who form Hemedti’s core forces will become restive and turn against him. Thus, the SAF has used its authority as the internationally recognized government to prohibit the UN from transporting aid shipments both from the east—from the zones it controls across the battle lines to Darfur—and from the west, across the Chadian border directly into RSF-held territory. The only exception it has allowed is a single corridor to El Fasher, but that has become inoperable because of the intense RSF offensive. A full-scale battle for El Fasher would likely mean mass civilian casualties and starvation.

Displaced women and children near El Fasher, Sudan, January 2024 

Mohamed Zakaria / MSF / Reuters


Veteran aid workers recognize these strategies from Sudan’s previous wars. In the 1980s and 1990s, Khartoum tried to starve out southern Sudan, and then enticed desperate factions of the rebels to turn on their comrades-in-arms with offers of cash and license to loot. Their aim was to gain control of depopulated oil-rich regions in the south, and their campaigns ultimately killed at least a million people. Even today, the generals who led those efforts regret that international humanitarian aid prevented them from taking that war of starvation to its logical conclusion. Instead, as they see it, deliveries of food relief became a Trojan horse for secession: aid kept the rebellion alive, aid workers became sympathizers with the rebel cause, and the result was an independent South Sudan in 2011.


High-ranking members of the SAF are not going to repeat the error now, when the stakes are even higher. Back then, the southern rebels were far away from Khartoum. Now, the capital is on the frontlines of conflict: Hemedti’s forces almost overran the city last year and are still dug in there. Undefeated, the RSF is surely planning a new offensive.


ARABIAN INDIFFERENCE


Despite pervasive signs of crisis, international efforts to limit the famine have made little headway. Within weeks of the start of the war last year, the United States and Saudi Arabia convened cease-fire talks between commanders from the SAF and RSF in Jeddah. The meeting did not stop the fighting, but the two sides did sign a Declaration of Commitment to Protect the Civilians of Sudan—solemnly promising the safe delivery of humanitarian aid, restoration of essential services, and protection of civilians in the ongoing conflict. Since then, however, both sides have ignored the declaration, and other mediation initiatives have been no more successful. In February, the UN made an emergency appeal for $2.7 billion for Sudan, but it has raised a paltry 15 percent of that goal.


There is a more important reason why the Sudan talks have continually failed to get off the ground. Until now, the two Gulf leaders that have the power to jointly bring Burhan and Hemedti to the table have failed to seriously engage with the crisis. These are Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS, and the United Arab Emirates’ President Mohammed bin Zayed, known as MBZ. The Saudis hosted the talks—but MBS did not want the UAE to participate. The UAE does not want the Saudis to influence a deal—or get the credit for it.


Riyadh and Abu Dhabi have clout to jointly force an end to the starvation tactics.


There’s a tangled history here. Nine years ago, when the two Gulf kingdoms launched their war against the Houthis in Yemen, they enlisted the SAF to fight in their anti-Houthi coalition; Burhan was the leader of that SAF contingent. But at the same time, Hemedti provided RSF fighters under private contracts to both the Saudis and the Emiratis. And Hemedti’s family business, al-Junaid, became an important supplier of gold to the UAE. Today, there are indications that the UAE is arming and funding the RSF—charges that Abu Dhabi has unconvincingly denied. And Saudi Arabia, with its links to Burhan, has permitted Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey to support the SAF, including with weapons, and has blocked other peace initiatives. This kind of meddling on both sides means that any progress on a cease-fire will require joint action by Riyadh and Abu Dhabi.


With no end to the war in sight, other external actors have added fuel to the fire. Late last year Iran sent drones to SAF as part of an effort to revive its links with Sudan’s Islamists, who support the SAF. In May, Russia took steps toward a deal with the SAF for a naval facility in Port Sudan—and with its Wagner paramilitary group still closely linked to the RSF, Russia now has stakes in both warring camps. At the end of May, when U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken called Burhan to press him to attend renewed peace talks in Jeddah, Burhan swiftly declined. Instead, he sent his deputy, Malik Agar, for meetings in Russia to finalize a set of cooperation agreements—the central deal being Russian arms in return for the Red Sea base. The Jeddah talks that were supposed to produce a comprehensive peace are clearly dead.


For MBS and MBZ, Sudan is a small dial in their astrolabe. As the United States plays a lesser role in regional security, the two Gulf powers have tried both cooperation and competition in Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Libya, and Somalia as well as Sudan. The geopolitical stakes surrounding the Red Sea are high: it is the sea-lane linking Europe and Asia, and planned railroads from the Mediterranean to the Gulf will be a central link in an envisioned India‒Middle East‒Europe economic corridor. Israel’s war in Gaza has shaken up the region and required the Gulf kingdoms to walk a tightrope between Israel and the United States on one side, and Iran and its clients and proxies on the other. With all this demanding Emirati and Saudi attention, the war and famine in Sudan have been left to fester.


WHAT THE WORLD MUST DO


Sudanese generals have fought wars of starvation for decades, including in Darfur. When I testified as an expert witness at the first case of an alleged Janjaweed militiaman tried for war crimes at the International Criminal Court two years ago, my testimony emphasized this tactic as a crucial background factor. In the present war, the belligerents are using the strategy in their struggle for the entire country, putting even greater numbers at risk. This looming tragedy is all the more cruel given that many lives could be saved simply by enforcing the delivery of aid to those in most need.


Encouragingly, the growing resolve for prosecuting the starvation of civilians as a war crime suggests that international officials and world leaders may finally be prepared to hold perpetrators to account. In his June 11 announcement, Khan, the ICC chief prosecutor, said that he was gathering evidence of “repeated, expanding, and continuous” attacks against the civilian population in Darfur. Although he did not specifically mention starvation crimes, he is well aware of who is committing them and how. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but it is time that the men who inflict Sudan’s hunger crises are put on notice. If the ICC moves, the world should line up in support.

An abandoned army tank near Khartoum, Sudan, April 2024 

El Tayeb Siddig / Reuters


Even if the ICC decides to issue formal arrest warrants, however, it may well be too late to prevent tens of thousands of children in Sudan and neighboring Kordofan from dying of hunger. More immediate solutions are urgently needed. During the 1980s famine in Ethiopia, Bob Geldof, the Irish singer who organized Live Aid, appealed to a global public to “feed the world.” At the time, Ethiopia’s communist government was waging a war of starvation against rebels in Eritrea and Tigray. Pressed to follow U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s maxim that a starving child knows no politics, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev ultimately instructed Ethiopia to permit discreet U.S-organized aid deliveries across the battle lines.


Today, Mohammed bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed have an opportunity to exert similar leverage. The two men can choose to save lives, stabilize their countries’ strategic perimeter, and prevent what could become significant reputational damage for both countries. An agreement between the two Gulf countries would do only so much; peace will require Sudanese follow-through. But any kind of pact between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi would at least open the door to real negotiations, starting with urgent famine relief.


The time to act is running out. Iran and Russia are already complicating the geopolitics of the war, and the unfolding famine will generate even greater chaos. But for now, there is still a chance to avert the worst outcome. With pressure from Washington, Saudi Arabia and the UAE could take the lead on getting food aid where it needs to go. If they do not, MBS and MBZ may forever be associated with the starvation of an entire generation of Sudanese children.


ALEX DE WAAL is Executive Director of the World Peace Foundation.


Original: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/sudan/sudans-manmade-famine


END

Friday, March 08, 2024

Sudan: UNSC Vote on a Draft Resolution (Preamble)

"It seems that on 5 March, the Sudanese government sent a letter to the Security Council, conveying its decision to facilitate the entry and delivery of humanitarian aid through several routes, including from Chad through the Tina border crossing; from South Sudan through the Renk border crossing; and through humanitarian flights accessing airports in the cities of Al Fasher, Kadugli, and Al Obeid. The draft resolution in blue includes language welcoming the Sudanese government’s announcement as a positive step." Read more.


From UN Security Council
What's In Blue 
Dated Friday, 8 March 2024, 19:25 GMT - here is a copy in full:

Sudan: Vote on a Draft Resolution

This afternoon (8 March), the Security Council is expected to vote on a draft resolution calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities in Sudan during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which starts on 10 March. The draft text was proposed by the UK, the penholder on Sudan. Following the vote on this draft resolution, the Council will vote on a draft resolution extending the mandate of the Panel of Experts assisting the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee.


The UK circulated a one-page zero draft to Council members on Monday (4 March), inviting comments on the text until the next day (5 March). The penholder subsequently circulated a revised draft text on Wednesday (6 March) and put it under silence procedure until yesterday (7 March). Russia broke silence, after which some members submitted additional comments. Russia apparently expressed reservations about the need for a Council resolution and proposed a draft presidential statement as an alternative. The penholder subsequently amended the draft resolution, taking into account additional comments and incorporating some elements from Russia’s proposed presidential statement, and put the revised draft text directly into blue yesterday evening.


The draft resolution in blue calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities during the month of Ramadan and for all warring parties to seek a sustainable resolution to the conflict through dialogue. It also calls on all parties to ensure the removal of any obstructions to the delivery of aid and to enable full, rapid, safe, and unhindered humanitarian access, including cross-border and cross-line, and to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law and the “Declaration of Commitment to Protect the Civilians of Sudan”, which was signed by the warring parties in Jeddah on 11 May 2023 with the facilitation of Saudi Arabia and the US.


Over the last 11 months, Sudan has been grappling with the devastating political, security, and humanitarian consequences of fighting that erupted on 15 April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), headed by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, Sudan’s military leader and chairperson of the Transitional Sovereignty Council, and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group led by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (known as Hemeti). 


As at 16 February, more than 14,600 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 (NGO) that collects conflict-related data. 


OCHA’s 23 February Humanitarian Update noted that approximately 8.1 million people have been displaced since the start of the conflict, of whom 1.8 million have fled to neighbouring countries, including the Central African Republic (CAR), Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, Libya, and South Sudan. 


In addition, according to the World Food Programme, nearly 18 million people are facing acute food insecurity in Sudan, including almost five million at emergency hunger levels. (For background and more information, see the Sudan brief in our March 2024 Monthly Forecast and our 7 March What’s in Blue story.)


The fighting has continued unabated despite several calls for a ceasefire from regional stakeholders and the broader international community. In his remarks during a Security Council meeting on the situation in Sudan held yesterday, Secretary-General António Guterres cautioned that the Sudanese conflict “could ignite regional instability of dramatic proportions, from the Sahel to the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea”. 


He added that there have been renewed offensives in several states, including Khartoum and Al Jazirah, and that the hostilities could expand further east. Guterres expressed alarm about calls for arming civilians and popular mobilisation activities in various states and took note of the involvement of other armed groups, primarily in Darfur and South Kordofan states. All these developments “are pouring fuel on the fire for an even more serious fragmentation of the country, a deepening of intra- and inter-communal tensions, and more ethnic violence”, Guterres said.


In light of the upcoming occasion of Ramadan, Guterres called on the warring parties to observe a cessation of hostilities, a call which most Council members supported in their statements at yesterday’s meeting. Algeria, speaking on behalf of the members of the “A3 plus one” grouping (Algeria, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, and Guyana), called on the warring parties to declare an immediate ceasefire, to put aside their differences, and to use the opportunity of Ramadan to exercise restraint for ensuring a durable peace in Sudan.


Leaders of several regional and intergovernmental organisations have also called on the Sudanese warring parties to observe a ceasefire during Ramadan. In a 6 March statement, League of Arab States (LAS) Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul Gheit urged all the parties to pursue efforts towards peace and dialogue.


He expressed the LAS’ commitment to support efforts to restore peace and stability in Sudan. In a communiqué released earlier today, African Union (AU) Commission Chairperson Moussa Faki Mahamat called on the warring parties to observe a ceasefire across Sudan during Ramadan, saying that this could help facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid to civilians in need.


In his statement during yesterday’s Council meeting, Sudan’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Al-Harith Idriss al-Harith Mohamed, conveyed al-Burhan’s message commending Guterres’ appeal for a cessation of hostilities during Ramadan. However, while expressing scepticism about the implementation of a cessation of hostilities in light of continuing attacks by the RSF, he said that “[a]ll those who would like to see that appeal transformed into action are welcome if they would like to present a mechanism for implementation”.


While Council members share concerns about the devastating effects of the ongoing conflict in Sudan, they have diverging views on the tools that the Council should use to address the situation. 


Throughout the negotiations, some members, including China and Russia, apparently pushed back against the need for a Council resolution and instead suggested adopting a presidential statement or a press statement, products which require consensus among Council members. It seems that these members argued for the need to have Council consensus on this subject and to respect the views of the concerned country. 


Commenting on the UK’s proposed draft resolution, China said in its remarks at yesterday’s Council meeting that “the Council’s actions should be conducive to diplomacy and avoid exacerbating tensions”. Despite these objections, the UK decided to continue negotiating the resolution and to put it to a vote today.


The draft resolution in blue encourages Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General for Sudan Ramtane Lamamra “to use his good offices with the parties and the neighbouring States, complementing and coordinating regional peace efforts”. Lamamra assumed his role in November 2023 and has since been conducting diplomatic efforts, including through engagement with both warring parties and relevant stakeholders. 


Following yesterday’s open session on Sudan, Lamamra briefed Council members in closed consultations on his efforts towards resolving the crisis. (For more information, see our 6 March What’s in Blue story.)


It seems that on 5 March, the Sudanese government sent a letter to the Security Council, conveying its decision to facilitate the entry and delivery of humanitarian aid through several routes, including from Chad through the Tina border crossing; from South Sudan through the Renk border crossing; and through humanitarian flights accessing airports in the cities of Al Fasher, Kadugli, and Al Obeid. The draft resolution in blue includes language welcoming the Sudanese government’s announcement as a positive step.


The penholder made some additions and amendments to the preambular section of the draft resolution to accommodate comments from some Council members. Among other things, the draft resolution in blue, in its preambular paragraphs:

  • expresses grave concern over the spreading violence and the deteriorating humanitarian situation, including crisis levels or worse of acute food insecurity, particularly in Darfur;
  • takes note of the need for unhindered cross-border and cross-line humanitarian assistance into Darfur and encourages the parties to the conflict to continue working in close partnership with OCHA and international NGOs to ensure the delivery of life-saving humanitarian assistance;
  • expresses concern at ongoing reports of violations of international humanitarian law and violations and abuses of human rights law, including cases of sexual violence in conflict;
  • urges continuation and strengthened coordination of regional and international efforts to facilitate an end to the conflict and to restore a lasting inclusive civilian-led democratic transition; and
  • welcomes the appointment of an AU High-Level Panel for Sudan and the AU’s commitment to working with the people of Sudan to end the fighting and to put in place a process towards achieving a lasting and inclusive peace, democracy, and justice in Sudan.

Tags: Insights on Africa, Sudan


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


END