South Sudan Sanctions: Vote on a Draft Resolution*
Tomorrow morning (30 May), the Security Council is expected to vote on a draft resolution to renew sanctions on South Sudan—including targeted sanctions (assets freezes and travel bans) and an arms embargo—until 31 May 2026 and the mandate of the Panel of Experts of the 2206 South Sudan Sanctions Committee until 1 July 2026.
The US, the penholder on South Sudan, circulated an initial draft of the text to all Council members on 20 May after discussing the draft with the other permanent members. The only round of negotiations involving all Council members was held on 22 May. The US shared a revised draft text on Tuesday (27 May) and placed it under silence until 3 pm the same day. The silence was eventually extended until 1 pm yesterday (28 May). However, China, Russia and the Council’s African members (Algeria, Sierra Leone, and Somalia, known as the “A3”) broke silence, while some members submitted further comments. The US subsequently placed a revised draft text in blue without a further silence procedure yesterday evening.
Background
On 14 March, the Panel of Experts assisting the 2206 South Sudan Sanctions Committee circulated its final report to committee members. Among other things, the report apparently noted that some of the weapons examined matched those documented in Sudan in 2023 and 2024, suggesting they may have been smuggled across South Sudan’s porous border with Sudan. The continued operation of helicopters by the South Sudan People’s Defence Forces (SSPDF) raises questions about how they have remained airworthy despite the restrictions imposed by the arms embargo. It also highlighted chronic underfunding of key ministries and stalled efforts to unify security forces and noted that South Sudanese President Salva Kiir Mayardit is perceived to have strengthened his control over the country’s key institutions.
In the monthly update (which is not a public document), dated 2 May, the panel observed that serious violence and ceasefire violations persisted in March and April, including attacks on the positions of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement in Opposition (SPLM-IO) and aerial bombardments of civilian areas. It also reported a substantial deployment of the Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF) in South Sudan, equipped with tanks and military vehicles, in violation of the arms embargo.
Draft Resolution
The US circulated the initial draft text without introducing any substantive changes to the sanctions regime. It seems that the penholder, along with several Council members, was in favour of renewing the sanctions regime, particularly in light of the fragile political and security situation in the country. However, in line with their traditional position, several other members (including China and Russia) apparently argued that sanctions imposed on the South Sudanese government have hindered its ability to build and consolidate its security institutions, secure its borders, and implement key provisions of the 2018 Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS). These members contended that sanctions should be lifted or adjusted to better support South Sudan’s ongoing peace- and state-building efforts. Some members such as China and Pakistan argued that the Council should give due consideration to the views of the regional countries and South Sudan, who have long opposed the arms embargo.
Similarly, Council members differed in their assessment of the political and security situation in South Sudan. For instance, China and Russia contended that the security challenges have been exaggerated and that the government remains in control of the situation on the ground. (For background and more information, see the brief on South Sudan in our May 2025 Monthly Forecast and 29 May 2024 What’s in Blue story.)
The initial draft proposed by the US introduced several references in the preambular paragraphs to incidents of violence, and the delay in implementing the revitalised agreement (including the holding of elections). Some members, including China, apparently felt that the draft was overly critical of the government and argued for a more measured approach to avoid placing undue pressure on host country authorities. Some members, including the “A3 plus” (the African members plus Guyana) members requested the deletion of language relating to electoral delays, maintaining that this was already addressed in resolution 2779 of 8 May, which renewed the mandate of the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) until 30 April 2026. Consequently, in the draft resolution in blue, the penholder amended the preambular language, replacing “disappointment” with “deep concern” regarding the rise in violence, and substituting the “failure to hold elections” with the “postponement of elections”.
It seems that some members, including the “A3 plus”, sought to highlight the country’s economic challenges and proposed removing language that called on South Sudan’s transitional government to “use its own resources” to ensure effective operation of the country’s institutions. Moreover, these members suggested referencing “armed groups” in relation to the destabilising accumulation and misuse of small arms and light weapons. However, these changes were not incorporated in the draft resolution in blue.
It appears that the penholder revised the language regarding the review of the arms embargo from resolution 2731 of 30 May 2024, which renewed the South Sudan sanctions regime. In this regard, the language in the draft text in blue was strengthened to indicate that progress on the implementation of the key benchmarks remains a pre-requisite for any modification or lifting of the arms embargo provisions. The draft text was also amended to underscore that violations of the arms embargo, particularly amid increasing political violence in South Sudan, risk fueling conflict and contributing to further instability.
During the only round of negotiations, the “A3 plus” members apparently reserved their position on key provisions of the draft resolution pertaining to the arms embargo, citing ongoing internal consultations. As the group was unable to reach a common position, the A3 members subsequently broke silence and submitted its proposals on the relevant sections pertaining to the arms embargo. The A3 proposed language indicating that the arms embargo shall not apply to the supply, sale or transfer of arms or related material to or for the use of the Necessary Unified Forces (NUF) in implementing the revitalised agreement. This proposal was apparently supported by China, Pakistan, and Russia, but did not garner support from other Council members. As a result, this proposal was not included in the draft resolution in blue.
The draft resolution in blue incorporates new language, suggested by A3 members, for member states to notify the 2206 South Sudan Sanctions Committee, within 30 days of the disposal of discovered items prohibited under the arms embargo, providing details of these items and the precise manner of their disposal.
The initial draft apparently modified language from resolution 2731 in relation to a request for the Secretariat to include “gender” expertise on the Panel of Experts, using instead “conflict-related sexual violence” expertise. Following concerns raised by some members, including the UK, this was subsequently changed to “Women, Peace and Security” expertise. At the request of Denmark, a reference to resolution 2467 of 23 April 2019 was incorporated in the draft text in blue, which recognised the need for a survivor-centred approach to preventing and responding to sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict situations. The penholder also removed language encouraging the panel to integrate gender as a cross-cutting issue across its investigations and reporting, despite concerns raised by some members.
Other additions and amendments were also made in preambular paragraphs at the request of some members, including the A3 members, such as welcoming the regional and continental solidarity in support of lasting peace and stability in South Sudan, and underscoring the need for collective action between the UN and regional authorities to address tensions in South Sudan. The draft text in blue also includes new language encouraging member states to provide support to the transitional government on disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) and stockpile management. Furthermore, it welcomes the adoption of resolution 2744 of 19 July 2024, which enhanced the mandate and procedure of the focal point for delisting.
_________________________________________________________
**Post-script: On 30 May, the Security Council adopted resolution 2781, renewing the South Sudan sanctions regime until 31 May 2026 and the mandate of the Panel of Experts of the 2206 South Sudan Sanctions Committee until 1 July 2026. The resolution was adopted with a vote of nine in favour and six abstentions (Algeria, China, Pakistan, Russia, Somalia and Sierra Leone).
