UN Interim Security Force for Abyei: Vote on Mandate Renewal Resolution*
Tomorrow (14 November), the Security Council is expected to vote on a draft resolution renewing the mandate of the UN Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) for another year, until 15 November 2025. (Abyei is the disputed area along the Sudan-South Sudan border.) The draft text also extends the mission’s support for the Joint Border Verification and Monitoring Mechanism (JBVMM), established in 2011 to conduct monitoring and verification activities along the Sudan/South Sudan border until 15 November 2025.
The US, the penholder on Abyei, circulated an initial draft of the text on 29 October and convened one round of negotiations on 6 November. After receiving comments, the US circulated a revised draft on Monday (11 November) and placed it under silence procedure until mid-day yesterday (12 November). China, Russia, and the “A3 plus” members (Algeria, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, and Guyana) broke silence, after which several members submitted additional comments. The penholder made further revisions to the draft resolution and put it directly in blue later today (13 November).
The draft text in blue marks the first substantive update of UNISFA’s mandate since 2021. Over the past two years, Council members had renewed the mission’s mandate with minimal changes to the text. This year, however, the US sought to update the mandate renewal text to reflect recent political and security developments in the region, such as the outbreak of war in Sudan on 15 April 2023 and two extensions of the political transition period in South Sudan. The US apparently also took into consideration the significant changes that occurred within the mission, such as its troop reconfiguration and the shift in 2022 from a six-month to a one-year mandate cycle. To promote effectiveness and alignment with the current security context, the US proposed a strategic review of the mission. (For background and more information, see the briefs on Sudan, South Sudan, and Sudan/South Sudan in our November 2024 Monthly Forecast.)
The draft resolution in blue requests the Secretary-General to submit, by 15 August 2025, a strategic review of UNISFA in accordance with best practices and to include gender expertise. It stresses that the review is to be conducted based on broad consultations with the Sudanese and South Sudanese authorities and other relevant partners, including UN agencies, troop- and police- contributing countries, regional organisations, civil society, independent experts, and local organisations, including women and youth-led organisations. The draft text in blue requests that the review undertake an assessment of UNISFA’s “reconfiguration, military and police posture, force deployments, and strategy that integrates military, police, and civilian efforts”. It further asks for detailed recommendations regarding UNISFA’s posture, the mission’s effectiveness and efficiency—including that of equipment supply and personnel rotations—and options for gradually adapting its civilian, police, and military components.
It appears that Council members agreed with the idea of requesting a strategic review of the mission’s mandate. Positions diverged on other issues, however, including the terminology used for referencing the central authorities in Sudan and South Sudan, language concerning certain thematic areas such as women, peace and security (WPS) and climate change, and the link between the conflict in Sudan and the situation in Abyei.
In the initial draft, the penholder apparently amended the term “Governments of Sudan and South Sudan”—which was used in resolution 2708 of 14 November 2023, which last renewed UNISFA’s mandate—to “Sudanese and South Sudanese authorities” and modified the language accordingly throughout the text. This issue has also been contentious in negotiations on other Council products, including on resolution 2750 of 11 September, which renewed the 1591 Sudan sanctions regime. While some Council members, such as France and the UK, supported the penholder’s approach, the “A3 plus”, China, and Russia opposed the amendment. As a compromise, the penholder amended the language in the draft resolution in blue, using the term “Sudan and South Sudan” in parts of the mandate pertaining to mediation, confidence-building measures, cooperation, and dialogue. However, when referring to tasks such as the protection of civilians and issuance of visas the draft text retains the reference to “authorities”. It appears that members that preferred the term “authorities” aimed to include sub-national authorities and actors, recognising their importance in the implementation of relevant provisions, such as ensuring safety, security, and freedom of movement of UN personnel. (For background and more information, see our 10 September What’s in Blue story.)
In the first revised draft, the penholder apparently incorporated language, suggested by Malta, which provided for UNISFA’s protection of civilians mandate to include supporting protection for women and children from all forms of sexual and gender-based violence and other violations and abuses. The text also called on the mission to continue to cooperate with relevant entities for monitoring and reporting of violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. China apparently expressed reservations about this language, arguing that it went beyond the scope of resolution 1990 of 27 June 2011, which established UNISFA. In light of the concerns raised by China, this language was omitted from the draft text in blue.
It appears that, in the initial draft text, the penholder proposed language on the need to address the adverse impact of the Sudan conflict, including through the removal of bureaucratic administrative restrictions on the supply of equipment and personnel to UNISFA. China suggested amendments to the language, which were supported by France and have been incorporated in the draft text in blue. The resolution in blue encourages the UN to minimise the adverse impact of the Sudan conflict on the supply of equipment and personnel to UNISFA and calls on “Sudan and South Sudan” to support and cooperate with the UN in this regard, including through the removal of related bureaucratic and administrative restrictions. The penholder apparently also proposed language calling for the removal of any taxes and fees, which hamper UNISFA’s operations and the delivery of humanitarian assistance across in and out of the Abyei. The language on taxes and fees was deleted at Russia’s request, however. (For background, see our 13 August What’s in Blue story.)
It appears that several members proposed and supported language relating to WPS, climate change, and children and armed conflict, among other issues. China, however, expressed reservations about such proposals, citing UNISFA’s limited resources and capacity to address these additional areas. It seems that Malta suggested language specifying that violence, including sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), are among the threats that the mission should address in its patrolling. Similarly, Slovenia proposed text emphasising that the mission’s patrolling should be informed by the needs of women and girls. This appears to have been prompted by concerns about heightened inter-communal violence in Abyei and calls to address specific needs and risks faced by women and girls. Malta apparently also proposed language asking the mission to prioritise the implementation of all WPS-related Council resolutions, including resolution 1325 of 31 October 2000, including through engagement with local women’s networks and civil society organisations. The penholder incorporated these suggestions in the draft resolution in blue.
The draft text in blue also includes language, which was suggested by Slovenia and modified by the penholder, calling on the mission to “continue to consider”, instead of to “monitor and report” on, the environmental impacts of the mission’s operations when fulfilling its mandated tasks.
The draft resolution in blue makes some modifications to UNISFA’s existing reporting requirements. For instance, text was added asking the Secretary-General to make the reporting gender-responsive and specifying that human rights monitoring should include SGBV, as well as other violations and abuses committed against women and children. Both these additions were apparently suggested by Malta.
It appears that the “A3 plus” members and Russia, supported by China, opposed language introduced by the penholder in the preambular section condemning the ongoing violence in Sudan, including violations of international humanitarian law by the warring parties. In addition, these members opposed language calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities in Sudan and calling on the warring parties to return to negotiations to work towards a civilian-led transition. It seems that some of these members felt that it is not appropriate to address this issue in a resolution on UNISFA. These members also opposed a new paragraph proposed by the penholder expressing concern that the ongoing fighting in Sudan combined with the adverse impact of the rainy season have disrupted the supply of essential equipment, fuel, and other logistical support needed for UNISFA, including the mission’s contingents. To address these members’ concerns, the penholder omitted some language, including this paragraph. In an apparent compromise, the draft resolution in blue retains the language condemning the violence in Sudan, while also incorporating text suggested by the “A3 plus”, which expresses grave concern that the ongoing conflict in Sudan, combined with the adverse impact of the rainy season, is exacerbating the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Abyei and causing further delays on engagement between Sudan and South Sudan to resolve the area’s political status.
__________________________________________________________
**Post-script: On 14 November, the Security Council adopted resolution 2760, renewing the mandate of the UN Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) for another year, until 15 November 2025. The resolution also extended for one year the mission’s support for the Joint Border Verification and Monitoring Mechanism (JBVMM). The resolution was adopted with 14 votes in favour and one abstention (Russia), marking the first abstention on a UNISFA resolution since the mission’s establishment in 2011.
In its explanation of vote, Russia expressed regret that the penholder included elements in the resolution that Russia characterised as “hardly related” to Abyei’s immediate situation. It accused the penholder of excessively focusing on Sudan’s internal conflict, deeming this approach counterproductive. Russia voiced its disagreement with what it described as an “overexaggeration” of focus on thematic issues such as climate, gender, and children. It also objected to language calling on the Sudan and South Sudan authorities to issue visas to UNISFA’s police personnel, stressing that issuance of visas is a sovereign decision. Russia also expressed its opposition to the use of the term “authorities” in referencing the central authorities in Sudan and South Sudan instead of “governments”, arguing that this undermines the legitimacy of the leadership of these countries.
