UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS): Vote on Mandate Renewal Resolution*
This afternoon (30 April), the Security Council is expected to vote on a draft resolution renewing the mandate of the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) for one year, until 30 April 2027.
The negotiations on the draft text were apparently difficult. The US, the penholder on South Sudan, circulated an initial draft of the text to all Council members on 17 April after discussing the draft with the other P5 members (China, France, Russia, and the UK). The US convened the first and only round of in-person negotiations involving all Council members on 21 April and invited comments. The penholder then shared a revised draft text on 24 April for a second round of comments. It circulated a second revised draft of the resolution on 28 April, placing it under silence procedure until yesterday morning (29 April). Silence was broken by China, Colombia, Russia, the A3 members (the Democratic Republic of the Congo [DRC], Liberia, and Somalia), and the four European Union (EU4) members of the Council (France, Denmark, Greece, and Latvia), with several others submitting comments. Following bilateral consultations with some members, the US put the draft text in blue without a further silence procedure yesterday evening to be voted on this afternoon. Today, the penholder made some additional revisions to the draft in blue, to address outstanding concerns by some Council members.*
This year’s mandate renewal negotiations appear to have been strongly influenced by the US’ position. In its remarks during the Council’s latest meeting on South Sudan, held on 17 April, the US emphasised that it would not support a mandate that preserves the status quo and called for a more focused and realistic approach, prioritising “[c]ivilian protection, humanitarian assistance, human rights reporting, zero tolerance for obstruction, transparent reporting, and meaningful accountability”. (For background, see the brief on South Sudan in our April 2026 Monthly Forecast.)
The US apparently sought to streamline the mission’s mandate in line with its stated priorities. Although some Council members acknowledged the US’ rationale, divergences emerged over key issues, including the overall strategic direction of UNMISS’ mandate; the mission’s role in supporting the peace process in South Sudan; proposed reductions in the mission’s capacity, resources, and tasks; and the omission of language on thematic areas such as women, peace and security (WPS), climate change, and children and armed conflict (CAAC). It appears that the EU4 members coordinated closely and submitted joint comments, strongly advocating for their positions on these issues.
It seems that the initial draft text proposed by the US said that UNMISS’ mandate is aimed at preventing a return to civil war and the escalation of violence in South Sudan. It further noted that the Council will continually assess and review its support for the mission based on progress, or lack thereof, in the protection of civilians (PoC), the facilitation of humanitarian access, and improvements in the political and security environment by the parties to the conflict.
Several Council members—including the EU4, China, and Russia— apparently objected to the lack of reference to the 2018 Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS), arguing that UNMISS’ mandate should remain primarily anchored in support for its implementation. In this context, several members stressed the importance of setting clear political objectives for the mission, with some noting that the revitalised agreement continues to serve as the central political framework for UNMISS. Some also noted the growing interlinkages among political tensions, security incidents, and humanitarian pressures.
Several of these members also expressed reservations regarding the language on the review of the Council’s support for UNMISS, particularly the provisions linking continued support for the mission to progress against stated objectives, as well as the lack of clarity on the framework for assessing these objectives, including the extent to which UNMISS’ future would be tied to cooperation from Juba. Some members noted that any review should ensure the mission is appropriately configured to realities on the ground and operational developments.
The draft resolution in blue was amended to address some of these concerns, including by clarifying that UNMISS’ mandate is intended to monitor implementation of the R-ARCSS. It further notes that the Council will continue to review and assess the situation in South Sudan, as well as the implementation of the mission’s mandate, in light of the objectives outlined above, including the parties’ commitments under the revitalised agreement.
While the draft resolution in blue retains the mission’s core mandate elements—which consist of four pillars (PoC, facilitating humanitarian assistance, supporting the peace process, and monitoring human rights violations)—it introduces substantive amendments to tasks across the four pillars, particularly with respect to support for the implementation of the R-ARCSS. The initial draft text omitted the whole section of this pillar, which was contained in resolution 2779 of 8 May 2025 that last renewed UNMISS’ mandate. Instead, the initial draft called for UNMISS to use “limited” good offices to support the peace process and the creation of conditions conducive to peace, as well as to prevent further escalation of political violence.
This prompted a majority of Council members to propose language reinstating their respective priority areas within this pillar, while underlining the critical importance of preserving the mission’s political role, advancing implementation of the revitalised agreement, and ensuring that the mission remains anchored to a political process. These members also called for the deletion of the qualifier “limited” in relation to the use of good offices, noting its ambiguity and arguing that it could unnecessarily constrain the scope and flexibility of UNMISS’ engagement with the parties. In the draft resolution in blue, the penholder changed “limited” to “targeted”. This formulation is apparently still unsatisfactory to several Council members.
The draft resolution in blue reflects several additions to this pillar based on suggestions from Council members. These include language calling on UNMISS to work with regionally led efforts, which was supported by many Council members. It also incorporates provisions, at the request of the EU4 and like-minded members, requesting UNMISS to monitor and report on progress in key areas such as security sector and legal reforms, the constitutional process, the holding of a census, and transitional justice mechanisms, as well as to facilitate dialogue among the parties and support coordination between the transitional government and relevant regional and international organisations.
One of the key components of the political pillar has been the provision of technical assistance and advice to the South Sudanese transitional government on elections and related processes. Several Council members—including the A3, the EU4, China, and Pakistan—called for the reinstatement of these tasks, arguing that elections represent the end goal of the peace process and should remain a significant task for UNMISS.
The A3 members apparently stressed the need to maintain the established approach to electoral support, noting that South Sudan continues to rely on UNMISS’ institutional memory and technical capacity to enable credible, peaceful, and inclusive polls. Additionally, some members, including France and Latvia, proposed retaining language referring to the initial phase of election preparations, which relates to creating conditions conducive to the conduct of elections. Nevertheless, this language was not incorporated in the draft resolution in blue, reflecting the US’ criticism that the South Sudanese leaders lack political will to advance the peace process, including organising elections. The penholder then amended the draft in blue to accommodate some of these requests, particularly from the A3 members, by adding to the amended text in blue a reference to UNMISS’ task of monitoring and reporting on the preparation for elections. It also added preambular language encouraging substantive progress towards the holding of credible and accountable elections.
Another major issue during the negotiations concerned the troop ceiling for UNMISS. The mission has recently completed the implementation of a contingency plan in response to the UN-wide financial crisis. The resulting reduced footprint, including cuts to both uniformed and civilian personnel as well as operational funding, has constrained UNMISS’ geographical reach and its early warning and rapid response capacities. It has also significantly limited human rights monitoring, community and political engagement, and support to humanitarian protection efforts. According to the Secretary-General’s 13 April report on the situation in South Sudan, out of the authorised 17,000 troops, the mission’s current troop strength stands at 8,989 military personnel. (For more information, see our 16 April What’s in Blue story.)
In the initial draft text, the US proposed reducing the troop ceiling to 7,000, which was opposed by many Council members. Although some members were apparently open to some reductions, the majority of members opposed a drastic cut, arguing that the proposed level was much too low given the size of the country and the mission’s PoC mandate. They noted that a reduced deployment would limit patrols and operational mobility and stressed that the troop ceiling should be aligned with the mandate assigned to the mission. In an apparent compromise, the draft resolution in blue authorises a troop ceiling of 12,500.
The US also proposed language requesting the Secretary-General to develop strategic planning scenarios for UNMISS that account for both its continued presence contingent on demonstrated progress, and phased drawdown options in the absence of such progress. This proposal was opposed by a majority of Council members. Some of them argued that there is no clear definition of the criteria for assessing “demonstrated progress” and that introducing drawdown scenarios would run counter to the mission’s objective of protecting civilians. They also cautioned against linking UNMISS’ presence to such conditions.
Instead, the draft resolution in blue includes language proposed by Denmark and supported by the other EU4 members, which requests the Secretary-General to conduct a Military and Police capability study to assess, inter alia, the adequacy of the mission’s current force levels, composition and posture, as well as command and control arrangements, and to submit the findings to the Council within 120 days of the resolution’s adoption.
Another important issue concerned changes introduced by the penholder, in line with the current US administration’s priorities, regarding thematic language on WPS, climate change, CAAC, misinformation and disinformation, and human rights. This issue was also prominent during the negotiations on resolution 2779. (For more information, see our 8 May 2025 What’s in Blue story.)
The US apparently sought alternative phrasing for references to misinformation and disinformation as well as to climate change, which some members, including the EU4, requested to reinstate. The penholder apparently did not accommodate these requests, only maintaining alternative formulations in the draft in blue to “environmental change, flooding and drought” as well as to “dissemination of false and falsified information”. Similarly, in the initial draft text, the US removed references to sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), “gender equality”, “gender-sensitive”, and “gender considerations”, as well as to Women Protection Advisers, Child Protection Advisers, and Gender Advisers.
The EU4 and like-minded members, including Colombia, Panama, and the UK, strongly advocated for the retention of several of these elements, including references to SGBV, climate change, adviser capacities, as well as language on human rights and international humanitarian law (IHL). This led the penholder to reinstate in the draft resolution in blue several references, including to IHL without the qualifier “as applicable”; to the continued deployment and effective use of Women Protection Advisers, Child Protection Advisers, and Gender Advisers; and to the full, equal and meaningful participation of women, as well as on meaningful engagement of youth and civil society.
___________________________________________________________
*Post-script (30 April, 2:00 pm): After the story’s publication, changes were made to the draft text in blue in order to address outstanding concerns by some Council members. The story was amended to reflect these changes.
**Post-script (30 April, 4:00 pm): On 30 April, the Security Council adopted resolution 2820, renewing the mandate of the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) for another year, until 30 April 2027. The text received 13 votes in favour and two abstentions (China and Russia).
