What's In Blue

Posted Wed 15 Jan 2025
  • Print
  • Share

Houthi Red Sea Attacks: Vote on a Draft Resolution*

This afternoon (15 January), the Security Council is expected to hold a meeting under the “Maintenance of international peace and security” agenda item to vote on a draft resolution extending the monthly reporting requirement for the Secretary-General on attacks by the Houthi rebel group in Yemen on merchant and commercial vessels in the Red Sea. The draft resolution in blue extends the reporting obligation—which was established by resolution 2722 of 10 January 2024 and last renewed through resolution 2739 of 27 June 2024—for another six months, until 15 July. Greece and the US, the co-penholders on the Red Sea crisis, authored the text.

Background

In January 2024, the US and then-Council member Japan initiated resolution 2722 in response to repeated attacks carried out by the Houthis on commercial vessels in the Red Sea since mid-November 2023. The rebel group has threatened to continue these attacks until Israel ends its military campaign in Gaza that followed the 7 October 2023 Hamas-led attacks. Since December 2023, member states participating in the US-led Operation Prosperity Guardian, including the UK, have been routinely carrying out retaliatory strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen. The European Union (EU) has also established Operation Aspides (EUNAVFOR Aspides), a defensive operation headquartered in Greece that protects and accompanies vessels in the Red Sea, but does not carry out strikes on land. The Houthis nevertheless continue to threaten maritime traffic in the Red Sea. (For background and more information, see the brief on Yemen in our January 2025 Monthly Forecast and 14 January What’s in Blue story.)

Algeria, China, and Russia abstained on both resolution 2722 and resolution 2739. (Then- Council member Mozambique also abstained on resolution 2722, which received 11 votes in favour.) These members expressed concern about language contained in resolution 2722 about states’ right to defend their merchant and naval vessels from attack and the apparent endorsement that this provides for Operation Prosperity Guardian. They also sought the inclusion of an explicit reference to the link between the Red Sea crisis and the conflict in Gaza, which is not included in resolutions 2722 and 2739. In an apparent compromise, the resolutions emphasise the need to address the root causes of the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, including conflicts contributing to regional tensions. During the negotiations on resolution 2722, the US sought an explicit reference to Iran’s role in supplying weapons to the Houthis, which was unacceptable to Russia. (For more information, see our 10 January 2024 and 26 June 2024 What’s in Blue stories.)

Negotiations on the Draft Resolution

This year, Greece, which has a keen interest in maritime security, succeeded Japan as co-penholder on the Red Sea crisis. Maritime security is also a priority for the Council’s other new elected members (Denmark, Pakistan, Panama, and Somalia). Vessels owned or operated by companies from Denmark, Greece, and Panama have been attacked by the Houthis in the Red Sea, Pakistan has been involved in maritime security operations in the Western Indian Ocean, while Somalia has had experience addressing the issue of piracy off its coast for some years.

The co-penholders circulated an initial draft of the resolution on 8 January and convened one round of negotiations on the following day (9 January). Greece and the US circulated a first revised draft on 10 January, placing it under silence procedure until Monday (13 January). Algeria, China, and Russia broke silence over several issues, including the lack of explicit reference to Gaza. The co-penholders then placed a second revised draft under silence until mid-day yesterday (14 January), which China broke over language relating to maritime security. After bilateral engagement with China, the penholders placed an amended draft in blue yesterday evening.

The draft resolution in blue contains a straightforward six-month renewal of the reporting requirement for the Secretary-General on Houthi attacks in the Red Sea. While Council members agreed on extending the reporting requirement, some new language introduced by the penholders required discussion.

Prior to the negotiations, during a 30 December 2024 Council meeting focusing on the intensification of direct conflict between the Houthis and Israel, the US said that the reporting requirement “should also include information about the origin of ballistic missiles and advanced drones being used in the increasingly sophisticated attacks”. The penholders did not alter the reporting requirement in the draft text. They included, however, new language in the initial draft referencing the origins of advanced weaponry utilised in the assaults in an operative paragraph on the root causes of the Houthi attacks. This language was understood by Council members as an implicit reference to Iran.

The proposed language was apparently supported by several Council members, such as Slovenia, the Republic of Korea (ROK), and the UK. It seems that other members—including Algeria, China, Pakistan, and Russia—opposed this proposal, maintaining that the reference to advanced weaponry is too vague. These members also apparently argued that if the various root causes of the crisis are to be cited, then a reference to Gaza should be added. It seems that Russia also suggested listing the stalled intra-Yemeni peace process as a root cause, a suggestion which was opposed by the UK. None of these proposals were included in the first revised draft. Instead, the language was amended to emphasise the need to address the root causes and enablers of the Houthi attacks, including the provision of anti-ship ballistic missiles by malign actors. This language was still unacceptable to several members.

Algeria broke silence on the first revised draft because it lacked a reference to Gaza. China and Russia also broke silence, expressing concerns that their edits on these and other issues were not taken on board. After breaking silence, Russia apparently requested the addition of language that would have described airstrikes conducted by some members states on Yemen as violations of the UN Charter. In an apparent compromise, the draft resolution in blue does not mention advanced weaponry in the paragraph addressing the root causes of the Houthi attacks. Instead, the reference was moved to an existing operative paragraph addressing member states’ obligations to implement the arms embargo on the Houthis imposed by resolution 2216 of 14 April 2015.

Language concerning maritime security proposed by the co-penholders also required discussion. The penholders introduced two new preambular paragraphs referencing the impact of threats to the freedom of navigation, to global supply chains, and to the provision of humanitarian aid in Yemen. These paragraphs also emphasised the importance of maritime security, freedom of navigation, stability of supply chains, and safety of seafarers. Slovenia apparently suggested adding a reference to the impact of maritime attacks on the environment. It seems that this proposal was supported by many other members, including Denmark, Sierra Leone, and Somalia. However, China and Russia apparently called for the deletion of this language, which is not included in the draft resolution in blue.

It seems that China’s silence break on the second revised draft was prompted by its opposition to the language on the freedom of navigation. Language on maritime security has often been a sensitive issue for China during negotiations on Council products due to its interests in the South China Sea. Member states such as the US have sent fleets to the South China Sea, citing the need to assert the freedom of navigation. In an apparent compromise, the draft resolution in blue does not mention threats to the freedom of navigation, supply chains, provision of humanitarian aid, and the environment. Instead, it recalls the importance of maritime security and recognises that the maintenance of maritime security in the Red Sea is essential for the stability of global supply chains and economic development.

At the request of Sierra Leone, the draft resolution in blue also incorporates language on the effects of Houthi attacks on oil terminals in areas controlled by the government of Yemen. Similar language was also included in resolution 2722. It seems that the Yemeni government and Saudi Arabia have routinely approached Council members about the inclusion of such language in negotiations on Council products relating to Yemen.

_________________________________________________________________

**Post-script: On 15 January, the Security Council adopted resolution 2768, extending the monthly reporting requirement for the Secretary-General on attacks by the Houthi rebel group in Yemen on merchant and commercial vessels in the Red Sea until 15 July 2025. The resolution was adopted with 12 votes in favour and three abstentions (Algeria, China, and Russia). In their explanations of vote, Algeria, China, and Russia indicated that their votes were consistent with their abstentions on resolutions 2722 and 2739, and that they reflect their concerns over the resolution’s implementation by some member states not being consistent with international law and the respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries. They further emphasised the need to refer to the war in Gaza as a root cause for the spillover of the current tensions in the Red Sea.

Sign up for What's In Blue emails

Subscribe to receive SCR publications