UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS): Vote on Mandate Renewal Resolution*
This afternoon (8 May), the Security Council is expected to vote on a draft resolution renewing the mandate of the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) until 30 April 2026.
While the draft resolution in blue retains UNMISS’ core mandated tasks, negotiations were apparently difficult with protracted discussions that lasted several weeks. The US, the penholder on South Sudan, circulated an initial draft text to Council members on 17 April ahead of the expiry of the mission’s mandate on 30 April. Significant disagreements between members led the penholder to propose a technical rollover resolution until 9 May to allow more time for negotiations, which the Council adopted unanimously as resolution 2778 on 30 April. Negotiations on a substantive renewal continued through three revised drafts and two rounds of silence breaks, after which the penholder put a fourth revised draft text in blue yesterday (7 May).
It appears that one of the key points of contention during the negotiations were changes introduced by the US to thematic language on women, peace and security (WPS), climate change, misinformation and disinformation, and human rights. In its initial draft, it seems that the US removed references to sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) or replaced this language with references to conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) or “violence against women and girls”. Similarly, references to “gender equality”, “gender-sensitive”, and “gender considerations” were deleted in certain parts of the text, although this language was retained in some instances, including references to the mission’s gender advisors. Language on misinformation and disinformation was also removed, while language on climate change was revised to “environmental change” or “natural disasters”. Additionally, references to international human rights law (IHRL) were replaced with “human rights”, and the qualifier “as applicable” was added to conflict parties’ obligations under international humanitarian law (IHL).
It seems that the European Council members—Denmark, France, Greece, Slovenia, and the UK—as well as likeminded members such as Panama and the Republic of Korea (ROK) strongly opposed these revisions and coordinated efforts to retain previously agreed thematic language. Some of these members argued that certain alternatives proposed by the US—such as “equality between women and men” instead of “gender equality”—were not equivalent and would erode the normative standard established by the Council’s resolutions on WPS, introducing an undesirable precedent for future negotiations. Some members raised similar concerns regarding the proposed revisions to the language on climate change. In certain instances, however, some members indicated a willingness to compromise, provided the modified language remained consistent with UNMISS’ priorities and did not obstruct the mission in fulfilling its mandate.
The “A3 plus” members (Algeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Guyana) also opposed the proposed revisions to the language on climate change as well as the deletion of references to misinformation and disinformation.
In response to these objections, the penholder reinstated in the draft resolution in blue the previously agreed language on climate change and IHRL, as well as most of the agreed language on gender. The draft resolution also includes a new reporting requirement, proposed by the UK, requesting the Secretary-General to include in his 90-day reporting on UNMISS an “analysis of the continued presence of alleged perpetrators of [CRSV] in positions of power in the [South Sudanese] transitional government and the measures undertaken to address these issues”. In an apparent compromise, the references to misinformation and disinformation were revised to “false and falsified information”.
Another point of contention concerned the extent to which the Council should exert political pressure on South Sudanese leadership. Some members, including China and Russia, argued that the initial draft resolution was unbalanced in its tone vis-à-vis the government and argued for a more measured approach to avoid placing undue pressure on host country authorities. China and the “A3 plus” members also called for the retention of language acknowledging steps taken by the government to implement the 2018 Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS), which the US had proposed to delete but subsequently re-instated. These members also proposed new language referencing the country’s economic challenges, including the disruption of oil production and exports, which the penholder did not include in the draft resolution in blue. Additionally, these members requested the deletion of previously agreed language expressing “grave concern at the imposition of taxes and illegal fees which hamper the delivery of humanitarian assistance across the country”, arguing that this issue had been resolved between the host country and the mission. The draft resolution in blue retains this language, however.
The draft text also includes new language concerning the transitional government’s demand that UNMISS vacate its Tomping base. The penholder’s initial draft contained preambular language expressing “deep dismay” at this decision and regretting the government’s “unwillingness to accept the costs of such a move on behalf of member states”. It also referenced this issue in two operative paragraphs, stressing the importance of UNMISS’ ability to use all its bases without restrictions. China, Pakistan, Russia, and the “A3 plus” members apparently expressed reservations about this language, noting that discussions on the base’s relocation are ongoing between the mission and the government and arguing that the draft text should encourage constructive engagement on this matter. Consequently, in the draft resolution in blue, the penholder softened the preambular language on the Tomping base and removed one of the references in the operative paragraphs. The other reference was retained, however, underscoring the base’s essential role in supporting the protection of civilians, the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and the security of international partners.
The “A3 plus” members, supported by China, Pakistan, and Russia, also requested the deletion of language introduced by the penholder that expressed serious concern about the delay in establishing the Hybrid Court for South Sudan—a transitional justice mechanism outlined in the R-ARCSS—arguing that the resolution should not single out one specific mechanism. Additionally, these members advocated for the reinstatement of previously agreed language on the Nile River corridor that emphasised its potential to support South Sudan’s economic and social development and recommended that UNMISS provide support to such efforts “as needed”. Both these requests were accommodated in the draft resolution in blue.
Another area of disagreement related to language on technical electoral assistance. This language had been incorporated into resolution 2729 of 29 April 2024, which renewed UNMISS’ mandate prior to South Sudan’s general elections, which at that time were scheduled for December 2024 but later postponed to December 2026. In its initial draft this year, the US revised this language to condition electoral support on “realistic planning assumptions” and “clear and certain timelines” and removed reference to UNMISS’ role in facilitating conditions for free and fair elections through technical and logistical support. However, the “A3 plus” opposed these changes and requested the retention of previously agreed language. As a compromise, the draft resolution in blue mandates the mission to provide technical electoral assistance and logistical support “if the transitional government shows continued progress in creating conditions conducive to free and fair elections conducted through a peaceful process”.
It appears that the “A3 plus” members also proposed new tasks to be incorporated into UNMISS’ mandate, such as enhancing support for the deployment of the Necessary Unified Forces (NUF) and assisting the transitional government in disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration (DDR) efforts. However, these proposals were not incorporated in the draft resolution in blue. It appears that the penholder preferred to avoid language that could entail additional financial implications for the mission.
________________________________________________________________
**Post-script: On 8 May, the Security Council adopted resolution 2779, renewing the mandate of the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) until 30 April 2026. The resolution was adopted with 12 votes in favour and three abstentions (China, Pakistan, and Russia).
In its statement ahead of the vote, the US said that the legitimacy of the South Sudanese government—established under the R-ARCSS—is at risk. The US cited the continued detention of South Sudanese Vice President and Sudan People’s Liberation Movement in Opposition (SPLM-O) leader Riek Machar and senior SPLM-IO officials; military operations targeting Nuer-majority areas; and President Salva Kiir’s “continued unilateral actions” as contributing factors. It noted that the government has “failed to take the steps required to peacefully conclude the transitional period and has shown no political will to implement the peace agreement”. Moreover, the US criticised the government for continuing to impose movement restrictions on UNMISS, thereby undermining the mission’s ability to fulfill its protection of civilians mandate, and for maintaining its “unacceptable” demand that UNMISS vacate its Tomping base.
Following the vote, several Council members delivered statements. In its explanation of vote, Sierra Leone—speaking on behalf of the “A3 plus one” members (Algeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Guyana)—noted two key concerns. One was the resolution’s omission of proposed language requesting that the Secretary-General provide updates in his regular reports to the Council on the “gradual relocation” of the Tomping base. Sierra Leone described the relocation as a “legitimate request” by the government that warrants appropriate consideration. The second concern regarded the inclusion of “several caveats” to UNMISS’ provision of electoral support. Nonetheless, the “A3 plus” members voted in favour of the resolution “with the view to advance UNMISS’ efforts to ensure peace and stability in South Sudan”.
In its statement, China argued that the resolution was “neither objective nor balanced”, criticising its use of “harsh language” that focused on the lack of progress in South Sudan’s political transition while overlooking the country’s economic challenges, including regional instability and the disruption of oil exports. China added that issues relating to elections, finance, and resource management are internal affairs of South Sudan and the international community should “refrain from imposing external solutions” on the country.
