Showing posts with label UN Panel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UN Panel. Show all posts

Sunday, March 17, 2024

Ali Karti, SG of Sudan’s Islamic Movement, widely seen as a mastermind of Sudan's war, has now announced a truce with RSF will never be accepted

NOTE from Sudan Watch Editor: Dame Rosalind Marsden in the following analysis 'Sudan's forgotten war: A new diplomatic push is needed' says there needs to be a concerted diplomatic push at the highest level: "the aim must be to change the calculations of the generals and counter the influence of hard-line Islamists from the Bashir-era who are blocking negotiations. This requires pressing for a coordinated mediation process to prevent warring parties’ forum-shopping between mediation initiatives; targeting the financial flows and military supplies fuelling the war; and supporting efforts to unify those Sudanese working for the goal of democratic transition."


It is difficult to see why Dame Rosalind is recommending "a coordinated mediation process" as even she says "Ali Karti, the Secretary-General of Sudan’s Islamic Movement, who is widely seen as a mastermind of the war, has now announced that a truce with the RSF will never be accepted." 

Many Sudanese civilians online are saying they don't want Sudan to be led by Gen. Burhan and his Islamist regime nor by Hemeti and his terrorist militia. I've not seen a solution. Maybe the people could join hands in peace.

Note, in her analysis Dame Rosalind rightly publicises the Emergency Response Rooms, aka ERRs, by saying: "Donors will also have to step up to address the spiralling food crisis, by reducing the UN funding gap and supporting grassroots first responders in the Emergency Response Rooms.' 
______________________________

From Chatham House
EXPERT COMMENT
By Dame Rosalind Marsden
Associate Fellow, Africa Programme 
Email Rosalind  Twitter

Dated Thursday, 14 March 2024 - here is a copy in full:

Sudan’s forgotten war: A new diplomatic push is needed

After nearly a year of devastating conflict, there is little sign of a ceasefire. Concerted high-level international pressure is needed to change the calculations of the generals and support a democratic transition.

Image — People rally in Wad Madani, Sudan, in December 2023. 

(Photo by AFP via Getty Images)

On 8 March, the UN Security Council adopted a UK-drafted resolution calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities in Sudan during the month of Ramadan, a sustainable resolution to the conflict through dialogue, compliance with international humanitarian law and unhindered humanitarian access.


Eleven months into the war, this is the first time that the Council has been able to agree on a resolution. The mandate of the UN Panel of Experts that monitors the sanctions regime in Darfur was also renewed by the Council. Does this signify hope that efforts to end the war might gather momentum? Or is Sudan likely to face a protracted conflict?


The war between the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) led by General Abdel Fatah Al Burhan and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) led by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (known as ‘Hemedti’) is a competition for power and resources between rival factions of the regular armed forces.


But it is also rooted in Sudan’s long history of internal conflict, marginalization of the peripheries and lack of accountability for atrocity crimes. Both the SAF’s officer corps and the RSF are creations of former President Omer al-Bashir’s regime. 


Each has shown disregard for the lives of Sudanese civilians by waging war in densely populated urban areas. The scale of destruction is unprecedented in Sudan’s modern history.


With the world’s attention focused on Gaza and Ukraine, the war receives woefully little high-level political, parliamentary or international media attention, raising serious questions about double standards in dealing with global crises, particularly conflicts in Africa.


A humanitarian catastrophe


Sudan is suffering from a humanitarian disaster, with a looming famine and the world’s biggest displacement crisis: 8 million people are newly displaced inside or outside the country, in addition to over 3 million displaced by previous conflicts.


The head of the World Food Programme has warned that the war risks creating the world’s largest hunger crisis. Yet the UN’s Humanitarian Response Plan for Sudan is only 4 per cent funded.


The conflict has the potential to destabilize already fragile neighbouring countries, create large new migration flows to Europe, and attract extremist groups.


Meanwhile, regional actors are fighting a proxy war in the country, giving military, financial and political support to the warring parties. 


The involvement of Russia and Iran has given the war a geopolitical dimension linked to Putin’s war in Ukraine – partly funded with Sudanese gold – and competition for influence on the Red Sea coast.


Food as a weapon of war


Both RSF and SAF forces have used hunger as a weapon of war. The RSF has looted humanitarian warehouses and besieged cities. 


The SAF-controlled Humanitarian Aid Commission has systematically withheld authorization for crossline movement of life-saving aid to RSF-controlled areas.


One limited outcome from recent international pressure has been the partial reversal of the SAF’s ban on cross-border humanitarian access from Chad into Darfur. The de facto SAF authorities in Port Sudan have agreed to open limited border crossings from Chad and South Sudan. However, MSF International have criticized this as a partial solution at best.


The UN will need to monitor implementation to ensure neutrality in the distribution of aid, while intensifying pressure for unhindered cross-border and crossline humanitarian access.


Donors will also have to step up to address the spiralling food crisis, by reducing the UN funding gap and supporting grassroots first responders in the Emergency Response Rooms.


Growing pressure for a cessation of hostilities


The fact that the UN Secretary-General, the UN Security Council, the African Union, and the League of Arab States joined forces to call for a Ramadan truce, represents a significant increase in pressure on the warring parties.


Nevertheless, Ramadan has started with further fierce fighting. It is unclear how the Security Council expected a truce to take effect without prior diplomatic engagement to agree an implementation and monitoring mechanism. 


Command and control is fragmented on both sides and the warring parties have failed to abide by previous temporary truces negotiated through the Saudi/US-sponsored Jeddah Platform.


Moreover, Sudan’s security state has no history of respecting the month of Ramadan: the current war began during the holy month on 15 April 2023, and peaceful protestors were brutally dispersed in Khartoum on 3 June 2019.


Burhan cautiously commended the Secretary-General’s proposal for a Ramadan truce, but the Islamist-controlled Ministry of Foreign Affairs and SAF’s General Yasir al Atta poured cold water on the idea by announcing a list of preconditions amounting to surrender by the RSF.


8 million


Number of newly displaced people as a result of the war in Sudan.


This response follows a familiar pattern: any indication by Burhan of readiness to negotiate is immediately negated by Islamist elements of the Bashir regime, who hope to return to power on the back of an SAF victory. 


Ali Karti, the Secretary-General of Sudan’s Islamic Movement, who is widely seen as a mastermind of the war, has now announced that a truce with the RSF will never be accepted.


Both sides still seem determined to gain the upper hand militarily. The SAF, hitherto on the back foot, has launched an offensive to regain lost territory in Omdurman and Gezira state, supported by Iranian drones, Islamist militias, the Special Operations Forces of the Bashir-era Intelligence Service, former Darfuri rebels and armed civilians. 


The RSF, whose human rights violations have alienated much of the population, welcomed the UN’s call for a truce, but are also engaged in recruitment, particularly among Arab tribes in Darfur.


The longer the war continues, the greater the risk that it will evolve into a full-scale ethnicized civil war, and that the country will be engulfed by famine.


A concerted diplomatic push


Concerted diplomacy at the highest level is therefore urgently needed. The aim must be to change the calculations of the generals and counter the influence of hard-line Islamists from the Bashir-era who are blocking negotiations.


This requires pressing for a coordinated mediation process to prevent warring parties’ forum-shopping between mediation initiatives; targeting the financial flows and military supplies fuelling the war; and supporting efforts to unify those Sudanese working for the goal of democratic transition.


Civilians are the main victims of the war and should be involved in each stage of any peace process. They, not the generals, should shape Sudan’s post-war transition. Those responsible for atrocities must be held accountable.  


There has been some recent evolution in regional dynamics. Egypt and the UAE, who have been backing opposite sides, co-facilitated RSF/SAF talks in Manama in January, alongside the US, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.


There are also signs of a stronger international commitment to active diplomatic engagement. The AU has created a High-Level Panel on Sudan, while the US has appointed a dedicated Special Envoy. The Personal Envoy of the UN Secretary-General has been empowered by the Security Council to complement and coordinate regional peace efforts.


But a strong push is now needed to silence the guns and push the warring parties to resume talks under the Jeddah Platform, preferably in an expanded format. More visible, high-level political commitment is badly needed, if the conflict in Sudan is not to remain a forgotten war.


This article was produced with support from the Cross-Border Conflict Evidence, Policy and Trends (XCEPT) research programme, funded by UK International Development. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies.

___


Postscript from Sudan Watch Editor:

Dame Rosalind Marsden was the EU Special Representative for Sudan from September 2010 until October 2013. Before joining the EU, she had a long career in the British diplomatic service, including postings as Consul-General in Basra, British Ambassador to Sudan and British Ambassador to Afghanistan. 


She has also served as Head of the United Nations Department and Director (Asia-Pacific) in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London. 


Earlier in her career she served twice in the British Embassy in Tokyo and spent two years on secondment to the private sector, working in the corporate finance department of an investment bank. 


She received her BA in Modern History from Somerville College, Oxford and her D.Phil from St Antony’s College, Oxford.


View original: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/03/sudans-forgotten-war-new-diplomatic-push-needed

___


Related 


Chatham House - 18 December 2023 

How a transnational approach can better manage the conflict in Sudan

Approaching conflict as a national issue sidelines a complex web of transnational influences and threatens prospects for sustainable peace.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/12/how-transnational-approach-can-better-manage-conflict-sudan

___


UN News - 3 February 2024

Youth-led ‘emergency rooms’ shine rays of hope in war-torn Sudan

© ERR Emergency response rooms are finding innovative approaches to providing rapid assistance to millions facing war in Sudan. 

END

Friday, March 08, 2024

UNSC adopts Resolution 2724 (2024) calling for cessation of hostilities in Sudan during Ramadan

THE UN Security Council on Friday (Mar 8) adopted a key resolution on Sudan, calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities in the war torn country during the month of Ramadan, which begins on Sunday. There were 14 votes in favour, 0 against, one abstention (Russia).

In another action on Friday, with 13 votes in favour and two abstentions (China and Russia), the Security Council renewed the mandate of the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee Panel of Experts, which expires next Tuesday, for a further twelve months. Read more.

From UN News
Dated Friday, 8 March 2024 - here is a copy in full:

Security Council calls for immediate cessation of hostilities in Sudan
Photos: A wide view of the UN Security Council as members meet on the situation in the Sudan. 
UN Photo/Manuel Elías
 
The UN Security Council on Friday adopted a key resolution on Sudan, calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities in the wartorn country during the month of Ramadan, which begins on Sunday.

In resolution 2724 (2024), adopted with 14 votes in favour and one abstention (Russia), the Council also called on all parties to the conflict to seek a sustainable resolution to the conflict through dialogue.


The conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) erupted in April last year in and around the capital. In the eleven months since, the fighting has spread claiming thousands of lives, driven millions from their homes and plunged Sudan into a dire humanitarian crisis.


In the resolution, the Security Council expressed grave concern over the deteriorating humanitarian situation, including “crisis levels or worse” of acute food insecurity, particularly in the Darfur region, as well as ongoing reports of international humanitarian and human rights laws violations, including cases of sexual violence in conflict.


It urged all parties to the conflict “to ensure the removal of any obstructions and enable full, rapid, safe, and unhindered humanitarian access, including cross-border and crossline, and comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law, including to protect civilians and civilian objects, and their commitments under the Declaration of Commitment to Protect the Civilians of Sudan (‘Jeddah Declaration’).”


It also encouraged Ramtane Lamamra, the Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy, to use his good offices with the parties and Sudan’s neighbours, complementing and coordinating regional peace efforts.


Sudan Sanctions Panel of Experts


In another action on Friday, with 13 votes in favour and two abstentions (China and Russia), the Security Council renewed the mandate of the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee Panel of Experts, which expires next Tuesday, for a further twelve months.


The Panel was established on 29 March 2005 to assist the Committee in monitoring the implementation of sanctions measures imposed by the Council (arms embargo, travel ban and assets freeze) on several armed groups and individuals in Sudan.


View original: https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147432

________________________________

Related 

Sudan Watch - Friday, March 8, 2024

Sudan: UK has circulated a draft UN resolution calling for an immediate end of hostilities ahead of Ramadan

https://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/2024/03/sudan-uk-has-circulated-draft-un.html

 ___ 


Sudan Watch - Friday, March 8, 2024, 19:30 GMT 
Sudan: UNSC Vote on a Draft Resolution (Preamble) 
https://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/2024/03/sudan-unsc-vote-on-draft-resolution.html
 ___ 

Sudan Watch - Friday, March 8, 2024, 19:51 GMT 
Sudan Sanctions: Vote on Draft Resolution (Preamble) 
https://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/2024/03/sudan-unsc-vote-on-draft-resolution.html
 ___ 

 END

Sudan Sanctions: Vote on Draft Resolution (Preamble)

"The final report of the Panel of Experts assisting the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee, which was published on 15 January, provided an extensive account of the ongoing conflict, including its dynamics and regional impact, the financing of the warring parties and their recruitment patterns, the humanitarian impact and violations of international humanitarian law (IHL), and the proliferation of weapons and violations of the arms embargo. (For more information, see the Sudan brief in our February 2024 Monthly Forecast.)" Read more.


From UN Security Council
What's In Blue 
Dated Friday, 8 March 2024, 19:51 GMT - here is a copy in full:

Sudan Sanctions: Vote on a Draft Resolution

This afternoon (8 March), the Security Council is expected to vote on a draft resolution extending the mandate of the Panel of Experts assisting the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee for another year, until 12 March 2025. The vote on the draft resolution will take place after the vote on a draft resolution calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities in Sudan during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.


Background


On 8 March 2023, the Security Council adopted resolution 2676, renewing the mandate of the Panel of Experts assisting the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee until 12 March 2024. The resolution introduced a sunset clause, whereby the Council decided to reaffirm and renew the measures of the Sudan sanctions regime until 12 September 2024, and to make a decision regarding their further renewal no later than that date. 


The resolution expressed the Council’s intention to review the regime’s measures by 12 February 2024, including through modification, suspension, or progressive lifting of these measures in light of progress achieved by Sudan’s government on benchmarks two and three outlined in the Secretary-General’s 31 July 2021 report, relating to progress on transitional security arrangements in Darfur and on the national action plan for the protection of civilians, respectively. 


It also requested the Secretary-General to conduct an assessment of progress achieved on the key benchmarks established in the resolution by 1 December 2023 and asked the Sudanese government to report to the committee on progress achieved on these benchmarks by the same date.


In a 24 November 2023 letter to the Council, the Secretary-General noted that the country’s political and security situation had changed significantly since the issuance of the initial report establishing the benchmarks. The outbreak of violence on 15 April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces and the ensuing deterioration of security throughout the country, particularly in Darfur, had halted the implementation of the benchmarks and the UN’s ability to assess progress made on them, according to the letter.


The final report of the Panel of Experts assisting the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee, which was published on 15 January, provided an extensive account of the ongoing conflict, including its dynamics and regional impact, the financing of the warring parties and their recruitment patterns, the humanitarian impact and violations of international humanitarian law (IHL), and the proliferation of weapons and violations of the arms embargo. (For more information, see the Sudan brief in our February 2024 Monthly Forecast.)


Negotiations on the Draft Resolution


The negotiations were apparently difficult, leading to protracted discussions on the draft resolution that lasted over a month. The US, the penholder on Sudan sanctions, circulated an initial draft of the resolution to Council members on 9 February, followed by the first round of negotiations on 13 February. The penholder circulated a revised draft text on 22 February and convened the second round of negotiations on 26 February. 


After receiving written comments from some members, the US shared a second revised draft of the resolution on Monday (4 March), placing it under silence procedure until Tuesday (5 March). The members of the “A3 plus one” grouping (Algeria, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, and Guyana) broke silence, after which several other delegations submitted comments. Following bilateral consultations with some members, the US placed the draft text in blue without a further silence procedure yesterday (7 March).


The draft resolution in blue extends the mandate of the Panel of Experts until 12 March 2025 and requests the panel to provide the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee with an interim report on its activities no later than 12 August and a final report by 13 January 2025 with its findings and recommendations. It expresses the Council’s intention to review the panel’s mandate and take appropriate action regarding a further extension by 12 February 2025. Regarding the benchmarks established by resolution 2676, the draft text in blue expresses the Council’s intention to further review these measures by 12 September.


The draft text in blue contains new language, which was proposed by Switzerland, encouraging all parties and all member states, as well as international, regional, and subregional organisations, to ensure continued cooperation with the Panel of Experts assisting the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee, and the safety of its members. This year’s resolution also takes note of the panel’s reporting on the complex financing schemes established by armed groups active in Darfur and requests the panel to further investigate all relevant funding sources—including local, national, and international—of these armed groups.


It seems that one of the most difficult aspects of the negotiations pertained to the duration of the mandate of the Panel of Experts. The initial draft text circulated by the penholder renewed the mandate of the Panel of Experts for one year. It appears that many members—including the P3 (France, the UK, and the US) and other like-minded states—strongly supported a 12-month mandate extension. On the other hand, China, Russia, and the “A3 plus one” members supported a six-month renewal. 


In calling for a short extension, these members apparently intended to align the mandate of the Panel of Experts with the mandate cycle of the Sudan sanctions measures, as introduced by resolution 2676. 


Giving the panel a six-month mandate would mean that the Council would consider the panel’s future and the sanctions at the same time, whereas a 12-month renewal of the panel (until March 2025) presupposes that the sanctions on Sudan would last beyond the sunset clause introduced by resolution 2676. 


It seems that these members aligned themselves with Sudan’s national position in calling for a six-month mandate renewal. Notwithstanding their opposition, the draft resolution in blue extends the mandate of the Panel of Experts for one year.


The other major area of disagreement related to the appointment of an additional expert to the Panel of Experts assisting the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee. The penholder, in its initial draft text, proposed language requesting the Secretary-General, in consultation with the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee, to appoint one additional expert to the panel in order to strengthen its reporting on compliance with the arms embargo. 


Members supportive of the penholder’s proposal noted that such an expert would be a useful addition to the panel given the flow of arms into Darfur, which represents a violation of the arms embargo. On the other hand, several members—including China, Russia, and the “A3 plus one”—objected to this proposal, maintaining that the current panel already includes one arms expert and that there is neither a consensus among the members on this proposal nor has the panel formally requested the appointment of an additional member. In an apparent compromise, the US removed the reference to the appointment of an additional expert at a later stage of the negotiations.


At the request of “A3 plus one” members, the draft resolution in blue includes an operative paragraph requesting the panel to assess in its reports, among other things: progress towards the promotion of peace and stability in Darfur and violations of IHL or violations or abuses of human rights, including those that involve attacks on the civilian population, sexual- and gender-based violence, and violations and abuses against children. The paragraph also asks the panel to provide the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee with information on the individuals and entities that meet the listing criteria outlined in resolution 1591 of 29 March 2005.


It appears that Switzerland proposed new language in the operative section requesting the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict to share relevant information with the committee, and inviting the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to do the same. However, owing to opposition from other Council members—including, China, Russia, and the “A3 plus one”—the proposed language was not included in the draft resolution in blue.


It seems that one of the other major issues during the negotiations pertained to language characterising the situation in Sudan. While several members supported the addition of language in the draft resolution reflecting recent developments in the country, some members—such as China, Russia, and the “A3 plus one”—opposed adding such language, noting that the draft text should only encompass aspects relating to the sanctions regime. The penholder made several amendments in the draft text’s preambular section, apparently to address these members’ concerns. Among other things, the draft text in blue:

  • calls on all member states to refrain from external interference which seeks to foment conflict and instability, and instead to support efforts for durable peace;
  • reiterates that those who violate the arms embargo may be designated for targeted measures;
  • expresses alarm at the ongoing conflict and deteriorating humanitarian situation in Darfur and recognises that the situation in Darfur is strongly affected by the ongoing nationwide conflict;
  • strongly condemns the attacks against civilians and widespread cases of sexual and gender-based violence in conflict; and
  • stresses the need for all parties to the conflict to cease IHL violations and abuses and violations of international human rights law in Darfur and to adhere to their obligations under these laws.

Tags: Insights on Africa, Sanctions, Sudan


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


END