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 

UNSC: Briefing on “The Values of Human Fraternity”

NOTE, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) holds UNSC presidency this month. A high-level briefing held by the UNSC June 14th focuses on human fraternity. Hopefully nice and friendly, joining hands in friendship for peace.

Report at What's In Blue
Dated Wednesday 14 June 2023 - full copy:

Briefing on “The Values of Human Fraternity” and Vote on a Draft Resolution on Tolerance and International Peace and Security

This morning (14 June), as one of the signature events of its Council presidency, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) will convene a high-level briefing on “The Values of Human Fraternity in Promoting and Sustaining Peace” under the “Maintenance of international peace and security” agenda item. 

UAE Minister of State Noura bint Mohammed Al Kaabi will chair the meeting. The expected briefers are Secretary-General António Guterres; Sheikh Ahmed Muhammed Ahmed Aṭ-Ṭayyeb, the Grand Imam of al-Azhar; Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, Secretary for Relations with States and International Organisations of the Holy See; and a civil society representative.

In the afternoon, members are expected to vote on a draft resolution on tolerance and international peace and security co-authored by the UAE and the UK. This is a parallel—although related—initiative to this morning’s high-level briefing on human fraternity.

High-level Briefing

During the 1 June press conference on the Security Council’s programme of work for the month, Ambassador Lana Zaki Nusseibeh (UAE) said that the Security Council “has not always consistently addressed hate speech, racism and other forms of extremism as threat multipliers that drive the outbreak, escalation and recurrence of conflict”, adding that it was a key priority for the UAE to “push for a more consistent and effective approach”.

According to the concept note prepared by the UAE ahead of today’s meeting, the briefing intends to highlight the “impact of intolerance, hate speech and incitement to hatred, racism and other manifestations of extremism in exacerbating threats across the peace continuum”. The concept note says that one of the objectives of the meeting is “to raise awareness of the pivotal role that the values of human fraternity can play in promoting and sustaining peace and preventing intolerance and extremism” and to strengthen measures by the UN, member states, and other actors to address the “drivers of intolerance and extremism”.

The concept note poses several questions to help guide the discussion at today’s meeting, including:

• What gaps exist in the current UN peace operations and peacebuilding mechanisms to address conflict exacerbated by hate speech, intolerance, racism, and other manifestations of extremism?
• What measures and approaches can the international community, including the Security Council, take to address intolerance and hate speech and promote reconciliation and peacebuilding in conflict-affected societies?
• How can we strengthen the role of religious and community leaders, including women leaders, to promote tolerance and coexistence and prevent the abuse of religion?

At today’s meeting, some members may welcome the theme of the high-level briefing and say that it can make a useful contribution to Council discussions. Other members may take a more circumspect approach and underscore the importance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Members may highlight a range of factors that can strengthen societies’ resilience and capacity to build sustainable peace—such as education and the full, equal, and meaningful participation of women—and highlight exclusion and inequality as root causes of conflict. Some participants may share examples of interreligious and intercultural dialogues and of mediation and reconciliation processes led by religious and community leaders.

Draft Resolution

The initiative for a Security Council resolution on tolerance and international peace and security is consistent with previous efforts by the UAE and the UK on similar issues at the UN. For instance, the UAE—together with Bahrain, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia—led an initiative for a General Assembly resolution proclaiming 4 February as the International Day of Human Fraternity, which was adopted by consensus on 21 December 2020 (A/RES/75/200). 

In March 2021, the UK organised an Arria-formula meeting titled “Religion, Belief and Conflict: the protection of members of religious and belief groups in conflict and religious actors in conflict resolution”. 

It seems that the UK had also circulated a draft resolution on the issues covered in the Arria-formula meeting to the five permanent members of the Council. However, the initiative was apparently shelved following opposition from at least one permanent member.

On 16 May, the UAE and the UK circulated the first draft of a resolution on tolerance and international peace and security and then presented it to Council members at an informal meeting on 18 May. After holding a first round of negotiations on 22 May, the co-penholders circulated a revised draft of the resolution on 25 May. Following a second round of negotiations on 30 May, a second revised draft was circulated on 2 June and put under silence until 5 June. 

Silence was broken by France and Switzerland and, separately, by the US. After silence was broken, Malta expressed support for the issues raised by France, Switzerland, and the US. Other members—including Brazil, China, Japan, Ecuador, and Russia—later sent comments. Following the silence break, the co-penholders engaged bilaterally with members over several days with the aim of resolving a number of outstanding issues. On 12 June, a third revised draft was circulated and put under silence until 11 am yesterday (13 June). However, France and Switzerland again broke silence. After additional consultations, a further draft was put in blue yesterday evening and a vote was scheduled for this afternoon.

The draft resolution in blue recognises that “hate speech, racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, related forms of intolerance, gender discrimination, and acts of extremism can contribute to driving the outbreak, escalation and recurrence of conflict” and urges states and international and regional organisations “to publicly condemn violence, hate speech and extremism motivated by discrimination including on the grounds of race, ethnicity, gender, religion or language, in a manner consistent with applicable international law, including the right to freedom of expression”. It also underlines “the potential contributions of ethnic, religious and confessional communities and religious leaders” to the prevention and resolution of conflicts as well as to reconciliation and peacebuilding, among other issues.

The negotiations on the draft resolution were difficult. A fundamental issue for some Council members was to adequately balance language addressing the use of hate speech in the draft text with language protecting human rights, in particular freedom of expression. It seems that at least one member expressed concern that proposed language on hate speech fell below the standard set in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. While some language on human rights was added in response to these concerns—including, in the third revised draft, a reference to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—it seems that when France and Switzerland broke silence yesterday they argued that the balance presented in the third draft was still unsatisfactory.

A specific concern for several members—including Brazil, France, Malta, Switzerland, and the US—was the use in the draft resolution of the term “extremism” without it being preceded by the qualifier “violent”. These members stressed that the unqualified use of the term “extremism” was too broad, and expressed concern about endorsing language that could be used restrictively, including to target freedom of expression. In the days preceding the vote, some civil society organisations, too, warned against the use of the term “extremism” not qualified by “violent” in the draft resolution.

It seems that the co-penholders maintained that a key objective of the resolution was to address extremism before it reaches the point of being violent, including through the promotion of tolerance and peaceful coexistence as preventive measures. During the negotiations, they added language contextualising references to “extremism” by, for instance, referring to “extremism driving the outbreak, escalation and recurrence of conflict”. After France and Switzerland broke silence on 13 June, a direct reference to “the right to freedom of expression” was added to a paragraph urging states, regional and international organisations “to publicly condemn violence, hate speech and extremism” in a manner consistent with international law. References to “violent extremism”, however, were not included in the draft text in blue. At the time of writing, it was unclear if the changes made on this issue will be sufficient to address the concerns raised by France and Switzerland.

A key goal for some Council members during the negotiations was to widen the overall scope of the draft resolution from focusing mainly on intolerance and discrimination on religious grounds to also include other grounds of discrimination. Arguing for a more inclusive approach to tolerance, members such as Ecuador, France, Switzerland, and Malta asked for stronger language on human rights, gender, and women, peace and security (WPS) to be included in the draft. It seems that China and Russia opposed this language, and that, after silence was broken on 5 June, Russia asked for all text on WPS and human rights to be removed from the draft. Such language was, nevertheless, gradually strengthened in the course of the negotiations.

While some members apparently supported the use of the term “fraternity” in the resolution, others opposed it, citing, among other issues, the gendered and non-inclusive root of the term and the lack of clarity around the term’s meaning. An additional concern was that references to “human fraternity” in the draft resolution could be interpreted as endorsing the content of the 4 February 2019 document on “Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together” signed by Pope Francis and Grand Imam of al-Azhar Aṭ-Ṭayyeb; particularly its condemnation of abortion. To address these concerns, the co-penholders deleted a reference to the 4 February 2019 meeting and removed all language on “human fraternity” except for text taking note of the International Day of Human Fraternity proclaimed by the 21 December 2020 General Assembly resolution.

Another friction point was a reporting requirement proposed by the co-penholders. The first draft text requested the Secretary-General to submit an annual report to the Council on the resolution’s implementation. It appears that introducing a regular reporting requirement was an important issue for the co-penholders, who argued that regularly receiving information on issues such as hate speech, extremism, and intolerance could help the Council better to tackle these issues and, ultimately, prevent conflict. 

However, at different points in the negotiations, several members expressed reservations about the proposed annual report. While some members’ concerns were related to the possible budgetary implications of the reporting requirement, it appears that other members altogether challenged the need for a periodic report on the implementation of the resolution.

In an apparent compromise, the draft resolution in blue requests the Secretary-General to provide, by 14 June 2024, an oral briefing to the Council on “the implementation of this resolution in the context of situations throughout the peace continuum which are on the agenda of the Council” during a public meeting under the “Maintenance of international peace and security” agenda item. The draft text in blue also requests that the Secretary-General swiftly inform the Council “about threats to international peace and security in this regard”.

Tags: Insights on Peacebuilding, Peacebuilding

Original: https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2023/06/briefing-on-the-values-of-human-fraternity-and-vote-on-a-draft-resolution-on-tolerance-and-international-peace-and-security.php

[Ends]