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

US invites SAF & RSF to ceasefire talks co-hosted by Saudi Arabia and Switzerland - US Blinken Statement

INBOX: The United States Invites the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces to Ceasefire Talks Co-hosted by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Switzerland
statement from Antony Blinken pic.twitter.com/ga9G4ZUgTM

— Rob Crilly (@robcrilly) July 23, 2024

View original: https://x.com/robcrilly/status/1815797713847325167 

_______________________________

Related

I think this high-level engagement of the United States to end the war in Sudan could work.
The direct involvement of US Secretary of State Antonio Blinken in the talks between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) will be a decisive tool in the…

— 𝑻𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒈 𝑨𝒃𝒖𝒔𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒉 (@TarigAbusalih) July 23, 2024

View original: https://x.com/TarigAbusalih/status/1815766253123805483 

END

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

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

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

Speech

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

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

From: Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office and James Kariuki

Published 20 March 2024

Location: United Nations, New York

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

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

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

I’ll make three points:

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

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

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

Second, we need increased humanitarian funding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published 20 March 2024

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

END

UNSC: 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]

Sudan: ICRC’s first international shipment of humanitarian aid arrives in Port Sudan

News and photos released from

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

Sunday 30 April 2023 - (SW Ed: yellow highlighting is mine) - full copy:

Sudan: ICRC’s first international shipment of humanitarian aid arrives in Port Sudan 

Geneva (ICRC) - Life-saving medical material departed from Amman, Jordan to Port Sudan today as part of emergency operations by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) following the outbreak of conflict in Sudan.

The 8 tonnes of humanitarian cargo includes surgical material to support Sudanese hospitals and volunteers from the Sudan Red Crescent Society (SRCS) who are providing medical care to people wounded in the fighting.

“Health-care workers in Sudan have been doing the impossible, caring for the wounded without water, electricity, and basic medical supplies,” said Patrick Youssef, ICRC’s regional director for Africa. “The logistics needed to bring in supplies amid an active conflict are extremely difficult, and we’re relieved to get this medical material into the country.”

The medical shipment includes anaesthetics, dressings, sutures and other surgical material that can treat thousands of people who may have been wounded by weapons. With hostilities still ongoing, ICRC teams will need guarantees of safe passage from the parties to the conflict to deliver this material to medical facilities in locations with active fighting, such as Khartoum.

 

Since commercial flights in Sudan were discontinued and civilian airspace became inaccessible, the ICRC has been working to overcome logistical and security challenges to help civilians in need who are trapped in the fighting. Delivering medical supplies to hospitals and helping them restore water and power lines remains its urgent priority.

The ICRC is grateful for the support of the authorities in Jordan -- where the ICRC has a major logistics hub -- who rapidly made an aircraft available to deliver this medical cargo. We also appreciate the cooperation shown by the civilian Sudanese authorities in charge of facilitating the arrival of aircraft with humanitarian goods and personnel on board.

The ICRC is sending a second airplane carrying additional ICRC medical supplies and emergency personnel.

The ICRC reminds the parties to the conflict to respect their obligations under international humanitarian law and to facilitate the work of medical and humanitarian personnel, treat detainees humanely and take all feasible precautions to avoid loss of life among civilians and damage to civilian objects and infrastructure.  

Note to editors: 

The ICRC has been present in Sudan since 1978 helping people affected by the conflict in Darfur, Blue Nile and South Kordofan. The ICRC’s work today, independently or in cooperation the Sudanese Red Crescent Society, includes supporting hospitals and health facilities with equipment and supplies, working with local water authorities on improving people’s access to clean water and supporting the authorities in providing rehabilitation services for people with disabilities.

                                              

Media contacts:
Alyona Synenko, ICRC Nairobi,
+254 716 897 265, asynenko@icrc.org

Crystal Wells, ICRC Geneva,
+41 77 963 75 74, cwells@icrc.org

Jessica Moussan ICRC Dubai,

+971 504 254 091, jmoussan@icrc.org 

Fatima Sator, ICRC Geneva,
+41 79 848 49 08, fsator@icrc.org

Imene Trabelsi, ICRC Beirut,
+961 3 13 83 53, itrabelsi@icrc.org

Alaa Nayel, ICRC Kuwait,
+965 966 73614, anayel@icrc.org

Matthew Morris, ICRC London,
+44 7753 809471 mmorris@icrc.org 

Galina Balzamova, ICRC Moscow,
+7 093 545 3534, gbalzamova@icrc.org

Frédéric Joli, ICRC Paris,
+33 6 20 49 46 30, fjoli@icrc.org

Yuriy Shafarenko, ICRC New York,
+1 917 631 1913, yshafarenko@icrc.org

Elizabeth Shaw, ICRC Washington DC,
+1 202 361 1566, egormanshaw@icrc.org

View original: https://www.icrc.org/en/document/sudan-first-international-shipment-humanitarian-aid-arrives-port-sudan

View Arabic version here: https://www.icrcnewsroom.org/story/ar/2052/sudan-icrc-s-first-international-shipment-of-humanitarian-aid-arrives-in-port-sudan

السودان: وصول أول شحنة مساعدات إنسانية دولية للّجنة الدولية إلى بورتسودان

[Ends]

French rescue 100+ from Sudan and helped Greece evacuate some of its citizens, including 2 wounded

Report from International Business Times.com

By Agence France-Presse News (AFP)

Sunday 23 April 2023 a 4:30 PM EDT

French Rescue More Than 100 From Sudan

Those evacuated so far include people from Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Ethiopia and Morocco, said one official AFP

More than 100 people have been evacuated from Sudan on the first French flight out of the war-hit country after a "complicated" rescue operation, French officials said on Sunday.

According to a Djibouti airport source, 106 people landed in Djibouti by late afternoon, while a French official said another flight was on the way.

"A plane has landed and another is in the air", each plane allowing the evacuation of "a hundred people", the French military said.

The first rescue flight to Djibouti carried citizens from Britain, France, Germany, and Switzerland as well as African nations such as Ethiopia and Morocco, an official from the foreign ministry said on condition of anonymity.

And the foreign ministry in Athens said France had helped it evacuated some of its citizens, including two wounded.

"They're tired, tense, but very relieved to have arrived safe and sound," he said.

The evacuees had to cross the frontline of fighting around the capital Khartoum to board the planes, with the French embassy helping negotiate a ceasefire with the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) that is battling the army.

"I must stress the complicated nature of this operation," the official said.

Some 150 troops were deployed including "elements of protection, others of reconnaissance, logistical support and medical personnel", in a "volatile situation", where the two sides "continue to wage war, even during the truces", the French general staff said.

Reconnaissance operations were carried out to "secure" the routes taken by the civilians to get to an airport in the Khartoum region, said this source.

Asked about unconfirmed reports that a French national had been injured on Sunday when the rescue convoy was fired upon, a defence ministry official declined to comment.

"With the operation ongoing, we do not want to comment on this type of rumour," an official from the defence ministry said, speaking during the same briefing with reporters.

They gave details of the long planning process and negotiations leading up to Sunday's operations.

Locating French and other foreign nationals has been difficult because of the lack of phone network coverage and electricity.

An evacuation mission by road was considered, but then discarded due to security concerns as well as the difficulties in supplying it with food and fuel.

Once the airborne option was chosen, President Emmanuel Macron called his Ethiopian counterpart to request permission for the flights to use Ethiopian air space on their way to Djibouti.

"We had difficulties with some countries which had closed their air space," the foreign ministry official said.

A doctor was on board the French plane to assist evacuees, many of whom were "understandably psychologically affected" by their ordeal in Khartoum where food and fuel are in short supply, the official added.

Other French rescue flights are expected on Monday morning.

© Copyright AFP 2023. All rights reserved.

View original: 

https://www.ibtimes.com/french-rescue-more-100-sudan-3688382

[Ends]