Sudan: Vote on a Draft Resolution Extending the Sanctions Regime*
Tomorrow morning (11 September), the Security Council is expected to vote on a draft resolution renewing the 1591 Sudan sanctions regime—including targeted sanctions (assets freezes and travel bans) and an arms embargo—until 12 September 2025.
The short draft resolution in blue is a technical rollover extending for one year the Sudan sanctions measures, which were last renewed by resolution 2676 of 8 March 2023. (The term “technical rollover” is commonly used by diplomats to describe a concise resolution extending a peace operation’s mandate without altering its core mandate or tasks. It traditionally denotes an extension for a shorter period than is customary, but members increasingly use the term to describe routine mandate extensions where the content is barely changed.) The draft text in blue recalls the provisions of resolution 2725 of 8 March, which renewed the mandate of the Panel of Experts (POE) assisting the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee until 12 March 2025.
The negotiations appear to have been relatively smooth. The US, the penholder on Sudan sanctions, proposed a draft text based on resolution 2676, deleting provisions that had become outdated or had been addressed in subsequent Council resolutions, including resolution 2725. It seems that although Council members generally agreed with the penholder’s approach to pursue a technical rollover of the sanctions regime, there were some disagreements over certain elements of the resolution.
The US circulated an initial draft of the text to all Council members on 30 August after having first discussed it with the other permanent members. The first round of negotiations was held on 3 September. After receiving written comments from several members, the US shared a revised draft text on 5 September and placed it under silence until 9 am the next day (6 September). The silence procedure was extended until 1 pm and thereafter until 4 pm, at the request of the “A3 plus one” members (Algeria, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, and Guyana). These members and China, however, broke silence, with additional comments then coming from Russia. The US subsequently engaged bilaterally with some members before placing an amended draft under silence until 10 am yesterday (9 September). That draft passed silence and was put in blue later that day.
The initial draft proposed by the penholder apparently included language, similar to resolution 2676, expressing the Council’s intention to review the Sudan sanctions measures, in light of progress by the Sudanese authorities on benchmarks on transitional security arrangements in Darfur and on the national action plan for the protection of civilians, outlined in the Secretary-General’s 31 July 2021 report. It further requested the Secretary-General, in consultation with the POE, to conduct an assessment of progress achieved on these benchmarks by 1 December.
However, the language on benchmarks was removed from subsequent revised drafts in response to concerns raised by the “A3 plus one” members (supported by China, Russia, and Switzerland). These members apparently argued that these benchmarks were outdated, given the outbreak of conflict in April 2023. They also apparently referred to the Secretary-General’s 24 November 2023 letter, which said that the political and security landscape in Sudan had changed significantly and that the conflict had halted the implementation of the benchmarks and the UN’s ability to assess progress made on them. Some of these Council members had expressed similar views during the negotiations on resolution 2725.
At the request of the “A3 plus one” members, the draft text in blue includes language in the preambular paragraphs taking note of the Secretary-General’s 24 November 2023 letter and a letter from the “Government of Sudan” dated 30 November 2023 to the Sudan sanctions committee. The 30 November 2023 letter stated that a thorough evaluation of the benchmarks’ implementation remained unattainable. (For more information, see our 8 March What’s in Blue story.)
The idea of expanding the geographical scope of the sanctions measures beyond Darfur to other parts of the country was also raised during the negotiations. Fighting has engulfed several parts of the country since the hostilities erupted in April 2023, with reports alluding that numerous external actors are supplying the warring parties with weapons. In its 5 September report, and in light of such security challenges, the International Fact-Finding Mission for Sudan, established by the Human Rights Council in October 2023, recommended expanding the existing arms embargo in Darfur throughout Sudan “to stem the supply of weapons, ammunition, and other logistical or financial support to the warring parties and prevent further escalation”.
During the negotiations, France apparently proposed language expressing the Council’s intention to consider the relevance of extending sanctions measures to other regions of Sudan. Although some members seem to have been willing to discuss this proposal, “A3 plus one” members, China, and Russia strongly objected to it. In this regard, during the Council’s 18 June meeting on Sudan, Russia said that “any new restrictions imposed by the Council, including the possible expansion of the sanctions regime beyond Darfur, will not help to bring peace any closer to the region”. The draft in blue maintains the status quo: the sanctions regime will remain solely on Darfur. (For more information, see the brief on Sudan in our September 2024 Monthly Forecast and 17 June What’s in Blue story.)
Members wrangled over some of the provisions in the preambular paragraphs. A major area of disagreement was the reference to the central authorities in Sudan. In the initial draft, the penholder apparently amended the term “Government of Sudan”, as reflected in resolution 2676, to “Sudanese authorities”. Some Council members strongly supported the penholder’s approach, noting that it remains in line with recent resolutions on Sudan, including resolution 2724 of 8 March (calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities in Sudan during Ramadan) and resolution 2736 of 13 June (demanding that the Rapid Support Forces halt the siege of El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur state). However, the “A3 plus one”, China and Russia opposed the amendment. This issue was also apparently discussed during the negotiations on resolution 2736. In a joint explanation of vote on behalf of the “A3 plus one” members, following the adoption of that resolution, Sierra Leone stressed that references to the Sudanese authorities in the resolution refer “only and solely” to the Sudanese government. Russia considers Sudan’s Transitional Sovereign Council, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, head of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), as Sudan’s highest legitimate authority. However, some members during the negotiations, argued that the SAF has lost territorial control over parts of the country and that the term “authorities” encompasses the offshoots of the government body. (For background, see the brief on Sudan in our June 2024 Monthly Forecast and 13 June What’s in Blue story.) As a compromise, “A3 plus one” members and China apparently proposed merging two preambular paragraphs, thereby deleting one of the two references to the term “Sudanese authorities”, contained in the first revised draft.
The draft resolution in blue reaffirms the importance of all parties to the conflict in ensuring the protection of civilians and promoting accountability for human rights violations and abuses and violations of international humanitarian law (IHL). In comparison, the initial draft reaffirmed the primary responsibility of the Sudanese authorities to protect civilians in its territory, and in a separate paragraph, stressed the need for the Sudanese authorities to ensure accountability for human rights violations and abuses and violations of IHL. The draft text in blue also contains language underscoring that the renewed measures that respond to the situation in Darfur are not targeted towards the “Sudanese authorities”.
The draft resolution in blue also contains language recognising the need to safeguard due process and to ensure fair and clear procedures for de-listing individuals and entities and welcoming the adoption of resolution 2744 of 19 July, which enhanced the mandate and procedures of the focal point for de-listing. This language was proposed by Switzerland and supported by several other members. It is based on agreed language from resolution 2745 of 30 July, which lifted the arms embargo on the Central African Republic.
________________________________________________________________________
*Post-script: On 11 September, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2750, renewing the 1591 Sudan sanctions regime—including targeted sanctions (assets freezes and travel bans) and an arms embargo—until 12 September 2025.
