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.
___________________________________________________________
Post-script: On 8 March, the Security Council adopted resolution 2725, renewing the mandate of the Panel of Experts assisting the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee for another year, until 12 March 2025. The resolution expresses the Council’s intention to review the panel’s mandate and take appropriate action regarding a further extension by 12 February 2025. It was adopted with 13 votes in favour and two abstentions (China and Russia).
Several Council members made statements following the vote. In its explanation of vote, the US said that “[r]enewal of the mandate for 12 months affords the panel the opportunity to make up the time it lost during the previous mandate due to the brutal conflict plaguing the country”. It urged the Sudanese authorities and all relevant parties to allow the panel to conduct research and interviews in the country over the next 12 months. As part of its explanation of vote, Russia expressed concern that some of the provisions of the resolution could be interpreted as an attempt to expand the panel’s mandate beyond Darfur. Commenting on the length of the mandate, Russia said: “we consider it unreasonable to extend the mandate of the panel beyond the time frame of the sanctions regime itself”, which is due to expire on 12 September. It further raised concerns that a 12-month mandate extension “pre-empt[s] the process and impose[s] a view on the members of the Council and Sudan that the sanctions regime should be extended”.
