Democratic Republic of the Congo: Vote on a Draft Resolution Renewing the Sanctions Regime
On Monday afternoon (30 June), the Security Council is expected to vote on a draft resolution renewing the 1533 Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) sanctions regime until 1 July 2026, and the mandate of the Group of Experts assisting the 1533 DRC Sanctions Committee until 1 August 2026.
Background
The Group of Experts assisting the 1533 DRC Sanctions Committee submitted its final report in early May. At the time of writing, the committee had yet to discuss the report, which apparently describes the situation in eastern DRC and its broader regional ramifications. It seems that the report details the territorial expansion by the Mouvement du 23 mars (M23) armed group in North Kivu and South Kivu provinces with support from the Rwandan Defence Force (RDF), which has resulted in the group’s control of strategic and mineral-rich areas. It also explains how the rebel group is consolidating its position in areas it controls by installing parallel administrations.
On the other hand, it seems that the report notes the Congolese government’s continued reliance on proxy forces, including the armed militias known as Wazalendo and the Forces démocratiques de libération du Rwanda (FDLR), an ethnic Hutu armed group active in eastern DRC that was implicated in the 1994 genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda. It apparently also mentions the intensified efforts by the Congolese government to recruit and train personnel for its Armed Defense Reserve, an initiative which aims to integrate armed groups into the Congolese armed forces (FARDC) to fight the M23 in eastern DRC.
It seems that the report contains serious allegations of human rights abuses committed by the M23 as well as by the FARDC and allied militias. It also apparently documents violations committed by other armed groups operating in Ituri province, such as the Coopérative pour le développement du Congo (CODECO).
Additionally, it appears that the report describes broader regional dynamics, including Uganda’s decision to unilaterally deploy additional forces in North Kivu and Ituri provinces without the Congolese government’s prior approval. Uganda has a defence cooperation agreement with the DRC, but the Group of Experts apparently maintains that these latest deployments occurred outside that framework. It seems that the report also mentions a massive buildup of Burundian troops, as well as Rwanda’s support to the M23 pushing towards areas bordering Burundi, which has escalated tensions between Rwanda and Burundi, according to the Group of Experts.
On 21 February, the Security Council adopted resolution 2773, which condemned the offensive by the M23 in North Kivu and South Kivu provinces and called on the group to immediately cease hostilities, withdraw from the areas it controls, and fully reverse the establishment of illegitimate parallel administrations. The resolution also called for the immediate withdrawal of the RDF from DRC territory, as well as the cessation of RDF support to the M23 and the support by DRC military forces to the FDLR. It further expressed the Council’s readiness to consider additional measures against those who contribute to the continuation of the conflict in eastern DRC, but without specifying what those measures are. In this regard, it seems that the P3 members (France, the UK, and the US) prepared a designation list, which they have yet to submit for consideration by the committee. The list appears to have been put on hold amid US involvement in mediation efforts between the DRC and Rwanda. (For more information on the mediation efforts, see our 27 June What’s in Blue story.)
Negotiations on the Draft Resolution
France, the penholder on DRC sanctions, shared an initial draft of the resolution with all Council members on 20 June and held a first round of negotiations on Tuesday (24 June). The penholder circulated a revised text incorporating inputs and comments by Council members on the following day (25 June) and placed it under silence procedure until Thursday morning (26 June). However, silence was broken by the “A3 Plus” grouping (Algeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Guyana), along with China and Russia. Subsequently, France made further revisions and placed the text under a second silence procedure until this morning (27 June). The silence procedure passed, and the penholder then placed the text in blue.
It seems that the negotiations on the draft resolution went smoothly, although a few issues arose. The A3 Plus grouping, China, and Russia were apparently in favour of a straightforward renewal of the sanctions regime and the mandate of the Group of Experts assisting the 1533 DRC Sanctions Committee. Aside from a few technical updates to resolution 2738 of 27 June 2024, which last renewed the DRC sanctions regime and the mandate of the Group of Experts, the initial draft proposed by the penholder introduced new language reflecting developments since January. These included the escalation of the conflict in eastern DRC, the adoption of resolution 2773, as well as language on the peace agreement between the DRC and Rwanda, which was signed this morning.
It seems that the A3 Plus grouping, as well as China and Russia, were uncomfortable with the new language introduced by the penholder, while other Council members were broadly supportive. Specifically, the A3 Plus apparently objected to the language on resolution 2773, while other Council members wanted to retain this text. It seems that the US had also sought a balanced reference to the DRC and Rwanda in the context of resolution 2773, in light of its mediation efforts between the two countries. In an apparent compromise, the draft resolution in blue underscores the need to fully implement resolution 2773, without going into specific details about the resolution’s provisions.
It appears that the reference to the peace agreement between the DRC and Rwanda had also faced opposition from the A3 Plus grouping, China, and Russia. These members apparently sought to avoid going into details, since Council members were not privy to the content of the draft peace agreement, which, at the time of the negotiations, was scheduled to be signed this morning. As a compromise, the penholder proposed more general language, which was incorporated into the draft resolution in blue and broadly welcomes recent progress towards “the conclusion of a sustainable and practical peace agreement between the DRC and Rwanda”.
During the negotiations, it seems that the US sought to include language expressing concern over illicit taxation by armed groups and condemning attacks on banks and other financial institutions—an apparent reference to the M23, which has allegedly attempted to revive the economy in areas under its control. The situation has been further complicated by the closure of banks in these areas and a reported shortage of currency. Russia apparently opposed some of the language proposed by the US, which was ultimately removed as part of a compromise. The final text placed in blue expresses concern over “the continued illegal exploitation, taxation and trade of natural resources and diversion through illicit channels, as well as disruption of cross-border trade”, which enable armed groups to operate, and condemns “the imposition of unlawful fees and taxes, as well as extortionate exchange rates, on the civilian population of the country as an usurpation of State authority”.
Some Council members apparently wanted to remove language on sexual and gender-based violence, but several other members—namely Denmark, Greece, the Republic of Korea (ROK), Slovenia, and the UK—advocated for retaining the text. The final draft resolution in blue preserves the reference, by expressing concern about the suffering that armed groups impose in eastern DRC, including from sexual and gender-based violence and other international humanitarian law violations, human rights violations and abuses. Additionally, the draft text in blue contains new language proposed by Slovenia, welcoming the adoption of resolution 2744 of 19 July 2024, which strengthened the mandate and procedures of the focal point for delisting.
