Dispatches from the Field: Security Council Members’ Joint Consultative Meeting with the African Union Peace and Security Council
On Friday (17 October), Security Council members held their 19th annual joint consultative meeting with members of the African Union Peace and Security Council (AUPSC) in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. During the day, they also met with Ethiopian Foreign Minister Gedion Timothewos Hessebon and exchanged views on regional and global peace and security issues, according to the Ethiopian Foreign Ministry. Security Council members returned to New York on Saturday (18 October).
Members of the respective Councils were unable to agree on an outcome document by the conclusion of the annual joint consultative meeting. Negotiations on the text are expected to continue this week.
Joint Consultative Meeting
During the annual joint consultative meeting, Security Council members and the AUPSC exchanged views on pressing peace and security issues in Africa, with a focus on three regional situations.
The members of the two Councils began their discussions with the issue of enhancing and supporting AU-led peace support operations (AUPSOs), with particular emphasis on the AU Support and Stabilization Mission in Somalia (AUSSOM). It seems that members of the AUPSC reiterated their call for the implementation of resolution 2719 of 21 December 2023 on the financing of AUPSOs to address the mission’s funding challenges. While several Security Council members apparently recognised the seriousness of the funding gap, they did not consider the resolution viable in this context due to US opposition. They therefore expressed support for exploring alternative solutions to address the mission’s financial needs.
The members of the two Councils then exchanged views on the situation in the Sahel and the Lake Chad Basin, expressing deep concern over the alarming rise in terrorist attacks across both regions. They apparently discussed the operationalisation of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) standby force, including the possibility of supporting it within the framework of resolution 2719. It seems that AUPSC members also voiced concern over Niger’s withdrawal from the Multinational Joint Task Force (MNJTF)—a regional security coalition mandated to combat Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) in the Lake Chad Basin. They warned that this decision could leave the MNJTF’s northern flank exposed, increasing the risk of arms proliferation and the unchecked movement of fighters into areas accessible to Boko Haram.
Among Council members, Greece apparently highlighted the issue of maritime security in the Gulf of Guinea, emphasising the need for international support for regional initiatives such as the Yaoundé Architecture—a strategy to prevent and prosecute illicit activities in the waters of the Gulf of Guinea, including through the establishment of a series of maritime centres. Other Council members drew attention to the nexus between climate, peace, and security in the Sahel and Lake Chad Basin, noting that these regions are among the most affected by climate change, which continues to exacerbate existing tensions.
The situation in the Horn of Africa, including Sudan and South Sudan, was another regional issue discussed by members of the two Councils. Regarding Sudan, they apparently expressed deep concern over the ongoing conflict and emphasised that there is no military solution to the crisis. In this context, members of the respective Councils called for a genuine and inclusive dialogue and reconciliation process as the only path towards a sustainable resolution of the situation.
Additionally, it seems that the members of the two Councils voiced alarm over the potential fragmentation of Sudan, warning that it threatens both the country’s future as well as peace and stability in the wider region. They also reiterated their concern over external interference in Sudan by both state and non-state actors. Some Council members apparently welcomed the 12 September joint statement by the “Quad” countries—comprising Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the US—maintaining that it injected renewed momentum into the peace talks. For their part, AUPSC members apparently proposed consolidating the various initiatives on Sudan into a single, coordinated process led by the AU and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD).
Regarding the situation in South Sudan, it seems that the members of the two Councils expressed concern over the deteriorating security conditions and the ongoing political crisis. AUPSC members briefed on their field mission to South Sudan in August, highlighting the frustrations they observed on the ground due to the stagnating situation, which is hindering continued support for the peace process by regional and international partners. Members of both Councils apparently emphasised the ongoing importance of fully implementing the 2018 Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS), describing it as the only viable path towards lasting peace, security, stability, and development in the country.
The final session of the joint consultative meeting focused on the situation in the Great Lakes region, particularly the conflict in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Members of both Councils apparently expressed deep concern over the ongoing insecurity in eastern DRC and acknowledged efforts to harmonise African-led initiatives aimed at addressing the crisis. Recalling the 27 June peace agreement signed by the DRC and Rwanda in Washington, D.C., they urged both countries to uphold their commitments under the agreement. They also noted Qatar’s ongoing mediation efforts between the Congolese government and the Mouvement du 23 Mars (M23) rebel group and called on all parties to continue negotiations towards a comprehensive peace agreement.
Joint Communiqué
It seems that the negotiations on the draft outcome document of the joint consultative meeting have been challenging. Security Council members received the draft communiqué on 14 October, a day after their arrival in Addis Ababa, which left them little time to form a position on the proposed text before starting negotiations with the AUPSC counterparts. Security Council experts apparently expressed frustration over not receiving the draft in advance, while AUPSC members countered that the revised agenda from New York for the joint consultative meeting and joint informal seminar had been shared with them only at a late stage.
Security Council experts initially negotiated among themselves the draft communiqué, which was relatively lengthy, comprising 58 paragraphs. It took several days to finalise their negotiations before engaging with their AUPSC counterparts. A number of contentious issues emerged during these discussions. One involved how to refer to the warring parties in Sudan—specifically the use of the term “paramilitary” to describe the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which some Council members opposed. Another point of disagreement concerned language related to support for AUPSOs and the implementation of resolution 2719. Some members apparently noted a perceived hardening of the US position—not only in opposing the application of resolution 2719 to AUSSOM, but also in resisting broader calls for sustainable, predictable, and adequate financing for AUPSOs.
Council members also had differing views on the inclusion of references to Rwanda in relation to the situation in eastern DRC. It seems that some members of the “A3 Plus” grouping (Algeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Guyana) opposed naming Rwanda, a position that was supported by AUPSC members, while other Council members preferred retaining the reference. The mention of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the draft text also required discussion, with the US opposing the reference, while other members advocated for its retention. Furthermore, there was apparent opposition to China’s proposal to include language marking the 30th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, adopted at the Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995, as well as the Global Leaders’ Meeting on Women held in Beijing on 13-14 October.
Once Council members finalised their work on the draft, some had to send the text to their capitals for instructions. Following this, they apparently took strong positions on certain contentious issues, complicating the negotiation process. As time ran out, several Council members expressed concern that adopting a communiqué by the end of the annual joint consultative meeting on Friday might not be feasible. This led to discussions about a possible alternative during the negotiations, resulting in the development of a shorter draft communiqué with more generic and consensual language. While several Council members were apparently open to this approach, the A3 Plus grouping preferred to continue negotiations with AUPSC counterparts to try to secure consensus on the original, more substantive draft. The latter position was apparently supported by the AUPSC Committee of Experts—which assists the PSC in elaborating its draft documents, including PSC decisions—leading to the abandonment of the proposal for a more concise, generic text.
Council members ultimately concluded their negotiations in the early hours of Friday. The A3 Plus grouping initially engaged with the AUPSC experts to persuade them to accept the revised version of the draft communiqué. However, the AUPSC experts preferred to review all the changes internally before continuing discussions with their Council counterparts late into the evening. It became clear that consensus could not be reached, prompting the experts to report back to their respective ambassadors. The ambassadors then decided that the two Councils’ experts would continue negotiating until 24 October to finalise their work on the draft. As a result, the joint annual consultations concluded this year without the adoption of a joint communiqué.
