SUDAN WATCH: Juba peace agreement

Showing posts with label Juba peace agreement. Show all posts

Monday, April 29, 2024

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

Sunday, April 21, 2024

VIDEO & TRANSCRIPT: Situation in Sudan ‘probably the most disastrous in the world’ says ex-PM Hamdok

NOTE from Sudan Watch Editor: I have created a transcript of this video. It is copied in full below. The video can be viewed here.

Video interview from France 24 GuardianTV

Presented on Tete a Tete by Marc Perelman [MP]
Dated Sunday, 21 April 2024, 1:48pm

Situation in Sudan ‘probably the most disastrous in the world’, says former PM Hamdok

FRANCE 24 spoke to Abdalla Hamdok, who served as Sudan’s prime minister twice after the fall of Omar Al-Bashir in 2019. As the war in his country entered its second year, the former premier described the situation as “extremely catastrophic, probably the most serious, disastrous situation in the world today”. Yet he expressed hope that the war “will come to an end”, noting “some progress” in regional and national efforts towards a political solution.

MP- Hello and welcome here on France 24. Our guest today is Abdullah Hamdok. He is the head of Sudan's Tagaddum. It’s a coordination of civic democratic forces. He was prime minister after the fall of the regime of Omar al-Bashir in 2019. He was pushed out by two military leaders General Al-Burhan and General Hemeti, who since then have been fighting a war, a civil war, and it’s been one year now.

MP- Thank you very much for being our guest today, Mr. Hamdok.

AH- Thank you very much for having me. It’s always a pleasure to meet France 24

MP- How would you describe the situation in Sudan exactly one year into this war?

AH- What is happening in Sudan today is extremely catastrophic. Probably the most serious disastrous situation in the world today. We're facing a situation whereby more than 2 million refugees, close to 8 million internally displaced people, but more than that, about 25 million are subjected to famine and starvation.

MP- That's half the population.

AH- Absolutely. Because of this disastrous war, senseless war.

MP- The death toll is often put around 13,000 to 15,000. Is this the real death toll in Sudan?

AH- Absolutely not. I think this is grossly underestimated. The death toll could be multiples of that. I would like to think we might never be able to know the exact number of people who lost their life in this war.

MP- How would you describe what is happening? Is it a civil war? Is it a war where war crimes, crimes against humanity, even genoicde are being committed? What words would you use?

AH- This is, it is indeed a civil war, but I think this is not the first war in the history of Sudan. Our first was started in 1955, just a year before independence of Sudan, 1956. And there are so many other wars. The war in the South last for so many decades. The genocide war in Darfur, the war in the Nuba Mountains, the Blue Nile, the East and all that. But this current war is different from the previous wars. In the past, the wars were in the periphery, in the regions. This time, the war started in the center and engulfed the whole country. So in that sense, it is an all-out war in the whole country.

MP- Is it a war between two men and two ambitions? Is this what it's all about?

AH- I think this is again another misconception of the Sudanese war. Portraying it as a fight between two generals, this is far from that. It is a war that has its root causes in history, in issues of marginalisation, which whether it's ethnic, regional, religious and all that. It's a war created essentially by the historical model of development, issues of underdevelopment, and many of this. So I think in the beginning of the war even the international community has perceived this war as a fight between generals which is totally missing the point. But I think with the concerted effort by civilians, by many actors this conceptualization is changing now and everybody is beginning to understand it this war is much deeper than that which hence requires different instrument and different engagement and approaches to address it.

MP- Well, how do you address it? Do you see any light at the end of this tunnel you just described?

AH- It's a disaster situation today but I'm an eternal optimist. I don't think there is a war that can last forever. It will come to an end.

MP- How?

AH- Our desire and our hope that it will stop yesterday, today before tomorrow, we're working on that. As you put it in your introduction, I had this Tagaddum Group. We had a meeting early this month in Addis Ababa. We came up with about what we call political vision as a contribution to address this war, which we had a vision which has four components. If I can briefly just mention them. Number one, we agreed on what we could call Declaration of Principle which addressing fundamental issues of the unity of the country, one army, issues of justice and transitional justice, calling for democratic rule, federalism, addressing issues of building state institutions and all that. But also a political process, which has so many components. And then we addressed also the issue of the negotiation venue and all that.

MP- Right, but as we speak, there have been attempts by regional organisations, by the African Union, by Saudi Arabia, the US, what’s called a Jeddah process but nothing’s working. The war is raging on. Why?

AH- Let me start by appreciating all this effort by the regional organisations, community and the international community.

PH- But they’re not working.

MP- They are not, we know they are not because it is a complex issue. But I think we are seeing some progress in this. If you remember, when the war started, we had the Jeddah process, which was coordinated, led by the United States and Saudi Arabia. It made some progress, but after a while, it got stalled. But also the African Union got involved in this. The neighbouring countries, there was the neighbouring country initiative put forward by Egypt and IGAD also intervened, a number of other regional countries. I think we are seeing gradually some sort of convergence. The Manama initiative or encounter which happened probably two months ago, we think it’s a step in the right direction bringing more actors into the process. Now we are hearing more effort is being made to expand this a little bit by involving other actors. And that’s the only assuring way. Certainly, we do not want to see proliferation of initiatives and forum, and we want to avoid what we can call forum shopping. So we wanted a coordinated process that is coordinated in one centre. Of course, modern mediation would have built into into it multiple maybe approaches, but we don’t want parallel. We want it to be coordinated by one centre.

MP- Right, and who should be the center?

AH- I think currently the revive, enhance Jeddah that will take on board all the other initiatives will be the right way to go.

MP- Right, the problem is bringing both generals to the same table. You had a meeting with General Hemeti in Addis Ababa in early January. You said this was a building block and you were hoping that General Al Burhan would also meet with you. That hasn’t happened. Why has he refused to meet with you? Because he thinks that you’re siding with General Hemeti maybe?

AH- There is a lot of, maybe what you can call it, accusation in that direction. But end of last year in December we wrote to both generals, to General Burhan and Genera Hemeti asking them to meet. General Hemeti responded. We met him in Addis. We agreed and issued Addis Declaration which is essentially having all these ingredients of going back to a civilian rule, declaration of principle, protection of civilian and all that. General Burhan responded saying that in principle he would not have a problem in meeting. But this has yet to materialise. In our meeting in Addis Ababa early this month we again confirmed and affirmed our desire to meet him. And we will continue pursuing that because we think this is the only assured way and it is in the interest of our country because there is no military solution to this.

MP- Does this mean that General Hemeti is more committed to a peaceful solution than General Burhan who seems not really very interested in this?

AH- Well, we take them with their pronouncements. General Hemeti, we met with him. He agreed with us that we need to go through a political process. We are yet to hear the same sentiments echoed by Burhan.

MP- Right. In early April, the public prosecutor filed criminal charges against you and a dozen of other members of, let’s call it the anti-war coalition, for quote unquote inciting war against the state. This carries the death penalty. What is your reaction to those very serious accusations and what does it mean?

AH- Well, I leave the judgement to the largest population of Sudan and the region and the international community. But it is quite a funny thing. We are a civilian group. We do not carry arm inciting violence and all this is just fictitious. They have accused myself and more than 40 of our colleagues of inciting violence against the state which is totally fabricated. And I don’t think it is helping. We would like to see ourselves as Sudanese engaging at a much higher level of seriousness in addressing the crisis of our country.

MP- Is this a response of a general, Al Burhan maybe? Because one can assume the public prosecutor did this maybe on his behalf.

AH- I don’t believe the prosecutor just woke up and did this.

MP- So you think this is a negative response to Al Burhan?

AH- Absolutely, I mean it has to be decided from somewhere in the circles, yeah.

MP- Abdalla Hamdok, it’s me who wants to thank you very much for appearing on the France24 channel and thank you all for watching this interview.

See video here: https://tv.guardian.ng/news/world-news/situation-in-sudan-probably-the-most-disastrous-in-the-world-says-former-pm-hamdok/

____________________________

Related

Sudan Tribune - April 20, 2024

Sudanese political figures discuss path to peace at Geneva workshop

Photo: Smoke rises from Sudan’s capital as conflict grips Khartoum on May 19, 2023 (AFP photo)

It’s important to note that representatives of the former regime and the warring parties were excluded from the Geneva meeting. All other Sudanese political forces were invited regardless of their stance on the conflict.

This workshop echoes a similar agreement reached at a Paris meeting organized by France on April 15th. The Paris seminar included only civilian actors, while the Geneva meeting, in addition, involved the armed movements that signed the Juba peace agreement.

Read full story: https://sudantribune.com/article284685/

END

Friday, November 17, 2023

Sudan: Darfur rebels JEM & SLM join SAF against RSF

Report from BBC News

By James Copnall & Danai Nesta Kupemba

Dated Friday, 17 November 2023 - here is a copy in full:

Sudan civil war: Darfur's Jem rebels join army fight against RSF

IMAGE SOURCE, AFP Image caption,

The Sudanese army has lost control of key bases in the last few weeks

Two rebel groups from Sudan's Darfur region say they will fight alongside the army in the country's civil war.

This comes after the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) made major gains in Darfur, where it has been accused of ethnic cleansing.

Rebel leader Gibril Ibrahim told BBC Newsday they "want to defend their civilians" from the RSF, which he says has been burying people alive.

He said the decision to join forces with the army was not an easy one.

The leader of the Justice and Equality Movement (Jem) said it had taken seven months to come to an agreement.

The relationship between Jem and the Sudanese army is fraught. Mr Ibrahim's brother was killed by the army, who was previously the group's leader.

Jem and the Sudanese Liberation Movement (SLM) took up arms in Darfur in 2003, accusing the government of marginalising the region's black African communities.

The government then mobilised Arab militias against them, leading to what has been described as the 21st Century's first genocide.

These militias have since transformed into the RSF, which has been fighting the army for control of the country since April.

The RSF has taken several key towns in Darfur in recent weeks, including the country's second biggest city, Nyala.

Last week, there were reports they had massacred hundreds of people in the West Darfur capital of El Geneina.

The RSF has denied responsibility for the killings, saying they were part of a "tribal conflict".

A joint statement from Jem and the SLM read: "We have announced ending any neutrality and joining the military operations at all frontlines without hesitation."

Jem and the SLM are not as strong as they used to be, but their entry into the Sudanese civil war is significant.

Both Darfuri rebel leaders signed a peace deal in 2020, and have since been closer to the Sudanese military than would once have seemed possible.

It is possible JEM and SLM will see their ranks swell with new recruits - increasing their importance on the Sudanese political scene.

In joining the fray now - after months of professed neutrality - they seek to defend their support base in Darfur, in particular the Zaghawa ethnic group both men come from.

They will also have concluded that an RSF victory would be disastrous for them, and Darfur.

Mr Ibrahim expressed concern at the RSF's advances, saying he feared Sudan would end up divided.

There are fears it could declare its own government in the impoverished war-torn western region.

The international dimension is significant too.

The Zaghawa are present in Chad as well as Sudan, and dominate Chadian politics. Mr Ibrahim and others have accused Chad of supporting the RSF.

He will be hoping that he can use his connections - including with Chad's leader Gen Mahamat Deby - to cut any ties between Chad and the RSF.