Sudan
Expected Council Action
In November, the Security Council will hold a ministerial-level briefing on Sudan. The UK’s Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Africa Lord Collins of Highbury is expected to chair the meeting. Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs Rosemary DiCarlo, an official from the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), and a civil society representative are the anticipated briefers.
Key Recent Developments
Hostilities continued unabated in Sudan as the warring parties engage in a protracted war of attrition. Fighting intensified across multiple front lines as the rainy season subsided. On 26 September, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) launched an offensive in Khartoum and the surrounding areas in a bid to besiege areas under the control of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), making significant advances in the ensuing days. In addition, the SAF-aligned Darfur Joint Forces (a coalition of armed movements from Darfur) engaged in fighting with the RSF on several front lines in North and West Darfur states. In the past few weeks, the SAF had reportedly been able to make strategic advances in Sennar and Al Jazira states. (For background and more information, see the brief on Sudan in our October 2024 Monthly Forecast and 27 October What’s in Blue story.)
Media reports indicate that, on 24 October, the RSF launched a retaliatory attack on villages in East Al Jazira, following the defection to the SAF of Abu Aqla Kikal, a prominent RSF commander. While UNICEF said that the attack killed about 124 people, others suggest that the death toll could be much higher. In a 26 October statement, UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan Clementine Nkweta-Salami said that she was “shocked and deeply appalled” by reports of human rights violations in Al Jazira. The statement said that the RSF reportedly shot at civilians indiscriminately, perpetrated acts of sexual violence against women and girls, committed widespread looting of markets and homes and burned down farms. Consequently, approximately 47,000 people have fled their homes to several areas within the state, while others have been displaced to Gedaref and Kassala states.
On 18 October, the Secretary-General submitted his report (S/2024/759) pursuant to resolution 2736 of 13 June, which requested him to make recommendations for the protection of civilians in Sudan. The report outlined the recommendations under three broad headings: intensifying diplomacy towards ending the fighting, changing the behaviour of the warring parties, and supporting broader protection measures. It highlighted an urgent need for a renewed diplomatic push, including through the “personal involvement” of some heads of state, to ensure that the warring parties uphold their legal obligations. It called on the warring parties and relevant stakeholders to pursue scalable, locally negotiated ceasefires and other measures to reduce violence, protect civilians, and prevent the spread of conflict. It strongly recommended that the warring parties establish a robust and transparent compliance mechanism, as a critical step to ensure implementation of the “Declaration of Commitment to Protect the Civilians of Sudan”, which was signed by both sides in Jeddah on 11 May 2023. The report called for an immediate cessation of the direct or indirect flow of weapons and ammunition into Sudan, which continue to fuel the conflict. Highlighting the need to monitor violations of international humanitarian law and human rights abuses, the report underlined the importance of supporting and cooperating with regional and international independent investigation bodies.
Efforts to resolve the ongoing conflict continued; however, without any significant breakthrough. On 25 September, France, Germany, the US, and the European Union organised a ministerial-level meeting in New York. In a press release issued following the meeting, the participants called on the warring parties to commit to localised humanitarian pauses and ensure immediate humanitarian access to El Fasher, Sennar, and Khartoum. They expressed readiness to support a cessation of hostilities monitoring mechanism and to take appropriate measures to ensure the protection of civilians. They noted that the international community needs to explore options to support implementation of such measures and the durability of any future local or nationwide cessation of hostilities. They called on all foreign actors to refrain from providing military support to the warring parties.
On 3 October, AU Peace and Security Council (AUPSC) members undertook a field mission to Port Sudan to engage with senior officials from the Sudanese authorities and other key stakeholders. In a communiqué adopted following a 9 October meeting, AUPSC members requested the AU Commission (the organisation’s secretariat) to reopen the AU liaison office in Port Sudan in order to facilitate the AU’s engagement with stakeholders in Sudan at all levels and to provide technical support to Sudan. (Sudan’s membership to the AU was suspended in the wake of the 2021 military coup d’état.)
The humanitarian crisis continues to deepen in Sudan. The war has displaced approximately 11.3 million people, 3 million of whom have sought refuge in Sudan’s neighbouring countries—Central African Republic, Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, Libya, South Sudan, and Uganda—making it one of the world’s largest displacement crises. Around 25.6 million people are facing acute levels of food insecurity, with famine conditions confirmed in the Zamzam camp for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in El Fasher and 13 other areas in nine states identified at risk of famine. The outbreak of multiple diseases and the collapse of the healthcare system have exacerbated the humanitarian situation. According to OCHA’s 1 October update, approximately 3.4 million children under five years of age are at high risk of epidemic diseases. As at 15 October, more than 24,000 cholera cases, including about 700 related deaths, had been reported since mid-July.
Human Rights-Related Developments
In a 3 October press statement, the Designated expert on Sudan of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Radhouane Nouicer, called on the warring sides to take immediate measures to ensure the protection of civilians in the greater Khartoum area. He warned that the ongoing hostilities in greater Khartoum “could result in a large number of civilian casualties among people trapped next to strategic locations, serious human rights violations and massive displacement”. Nouicer also expressed alarm at reports of the summary execution of dozens of young men, reportedly from the Halfaya neighbourhood in Khartoum-North (Bahri), allegedly by the SAF and the Al-Baraa Bin Malik Brigade, which has previously indicated support to the SAF.
On 9 October, the Human Rights Council adopted a resolution on the human rights situation and humanitarian crisis in Sudan (A/HRC/RES/57/2). Among other things, the resolution expressed grave concern about reported acts of sexual and gender-based violence, the indiscriminate use of force against civilians by both parties to the conflict, the illegal recruitment and use of children in armed conflict, and sexual violence against children, primarily by the RSF. It underlined the critical need to ensure accountability to address the root causes of the armed conflict and prevent further instability in the country. The resolution was adopted by a vote of 23 in favour, 12 against, and 12 abstentions. Among Security Council members, France, Japan, and the US voted in favour, Algeria abstained, and China voted against.
Key Issues and Options
The overarching issue for the Security Council is how to halt the ongoing fighting and support efforts to achieve a sustainable ceasefire across Sudan. The levels of intercommunal violence and insecurity throughout the country are a related concern. In light of the continuing violence, the lack of implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions, and the failure of mediation initiatives to achieve meaningful breakthroughs, Council members face several questions, including:
- how to bring the Sudanese warring parties to a meaningful dialogue;
- how to protect civilians and enforce compliance with international humanitarian law;
- how to ensure accountability for past and ongoing crimes; and
- how to mitigate the regional spillover effect of the conflict.
The Council members could consider a resolution that:
- strongly condemns the ongoing violence across the country and indiscriminate attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure;
- demands an immediate and permanent cessation of hostilities;
- reiterates the Council’s demand to the RSF to halt the siege of El Fasher;
- expresses deep concern about the dire humanitarian situation and urges the parties to the conflict to allow and facilitate the rapid, safe, unhindered and sustained passage of humanitarian relief for civilians in need;
- demands that all parties to the conflict ensure the protection of civilians, including by full implementation of the 11 May 2023 Jeddah declaration; and
- welcomes the Secretary-General’s recommendations for the protection of civilians and expresses support for locally negotiated ceasefires and humanitarian pauses as well as for establishing a monitoring and verification mechanism in case of a ceasefire.
Council members may also wish to convene a private meeting with the actors that have influence over Sudan’s warring parties to discuss the search for a mediated solution to the crisis and evaluate the implementation of the Secretary-General’s recommendations on the protection of civilians.
An additional key issue for the Security Council is the humanitarian crisis and how to foster the continuous and unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid while also securing the safety and security of UN officials and other humanitarian actors. The fact that aid at scale is not reaching people in need is a further concern for Council members. Periodic briefings by OCHA have helped keep the Council informed about the humanitarian situation on the ground.
Council Dynamics
One of the points of contention in the recent negotiations, including on resolution 2750 of 11 September, has been how to reference the central authorities in Sudan. Countries such as China, Russia, and the members of the “A3 plus one” grouping (Algeria, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, and Guyana) were supportive of maintaining the term “Sudanese government”. Russia considers Sudan’s Transitional Sovereign Council, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, head of the SAF, as Sudan’s highest legitimate authority. Some members, however, argued that the SAF has lost territorial control over parts of the country and underlined the need to use a broader term to encompass offshoots of the government body. (For background, see our 10 September What’s in Blue story.)
During negotiations on a draft press statement proposed by the UK in October, members seem to have agreed to the term “Sudanese Transitional Sovereign Council”. However, disagreements persisted on other issues, including humanitarian access. Russia apparently requested the removal of the phrase “administrative or other impediments” with regard to humanitarian access, arguing that it suggests that Port Sudan authorities are creating artificial barriers for aid delivery and distribution. Some members, such as France, however, contended that several obstacles remain to the delivery of aid and suggested language encouraging cooperation “to overcome persisting difficulties”. Continuing disagreements among members resulted in the penholder to withdrawing the draft text after four revised drafts.
Russia has argued that any cooperation and coordination on humanitarian assistance should be carried out via channels agreed with the central authorities as the sole entity responsible for aid distribution and relief assistance. In a similar vein, Russia maintains the position that Sudanese government forces remain responsible for protecting civilians. (For background, see our 13 June What’s in Blue story.)
Amidst mounting protection concerns, however, several human rights organisations and Sudanese civil society actors have advocated robust measures, including the deployment of protection forces in Sudan. Some Council members are apparently exploring options for the possible deployment of an African Union (AU)-led mission and considering how the mission could be supported in the context of resolution 2719 of 21 December 2023 on the financing of AU-led peace support operations (AUPSOs). The Secretary-General’s 18 October report acknowledges these calls but notes that “at present, the conditions do not exist for the successful deployment of a UN force to protect civilians” in Sudan.
Speaking at the 28 October Council meeting on Sudan, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield (US) supported action from the Council regarding options for the protection of civilians. In this regard, she underlined that “the international community should, in close collaboration with African partners, begin considering options to establish a compliance and monitoring mission, one that could strengthen the protection of civilians and support the implementation and durability of any future local or nationwide cessation of hostilities. At the same meeting, Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia (Russia) stressed that the Council needs to take a balanced approach, taking into account the current developments in the country and the complexity of the historical context in Sudan.
| Security Council Resolutions | |
| 11 September 2024S/RES/2750 | This resolution renewed the 1591 Sudan sanctions regime—including targeted sanctions (assets freezes and travel bans) and an arms embargo—until 12 September 2025. |
| 13 June 2024S/RES/2736 | The resolution demanded that the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) halt the siege of El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur state, and further called for an immediate halt to the fighting and for de-escalation in and around El Fasher. |
| 8 March 2024S/RES/2724 | This resolution called for an immediate cessation of hostilities in Sudan during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and for all warring parties to seek a sustainable resolution to the conflict through dialogue. It was adopted with 14 votes in favour and one abstention (Russia). |
