Security Council to Hold a Session on Sudan, Thursday

New York, Sudanhorizon
Mohamed Osman Adam
The UN Security Council (UNSC) will hold a session on Sudan on Thursday to listen to a briefing on the development of humanitarian, health and security conditions in the country.
This session could be an opportunity to monitor the general outlines of the policies of the new US Administration under President Donald Trump on Sudan, as the United States is considered the penholder on the sanctions imposed on Sudan, Darfur region in particular.
This session comes at the request of both Denmark and the United Kingdom, the penholders on the file of humanitarian and security developments in Sudan, as the meeting will focus on addressing the protection of civilians and the negative impact on the humanitarian situation as a result of the ongoing war in the country.
According to a report published by the UNSC website, devoted to the session on the Sudan, the meeting will focus on the reports about the implications for healthcare and reports of conflict-related sexual violence, especially against women and children.
The report said an official from a UN specialised agency and a civil society representative may brief the session. The meeting will also feature a briefing on the work of the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee. At the time of writing, the chair of the committee had not yet been appointed, as Council members continue to negotiate this year’s allocation of subsidiary bodies. Denmark, in its capacity as March’s Council President, will deliver the briefing.
The report pointed out that the key and main choices before the council member would be related to sanctions to build trust and develop a common understanding on how to most effectively manage the Sudan sanctions regime. Council members may wish to have a substantive discussion in an informal meeting about the sanctions measures, including, but not limited to, the geographic scope of the sanctions which are currently limited to Darfur, the designation criteria, and potential adjustments to the sanctions measures.
An overarching issue for the Council remains how to support efforts to achieve a sustainable ceasefire across Sudan. As hostilities persist, mediation efforts have consistently failed to achieve any meaningful breakthroughs.
The report of the UNSC website said that to address the ongoing crisis, the Council could consider adopting a product that strongly condemns the ongoing violence across the country and indiscriminate attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure, demands an immediate and permanent cessation of hostilities, reiterates the Council’s demand that the RSF halt its siege of El Fashir.
The council is also expected to expresses its deep concern about the dire humanitarian situation and urges the parties to the conflict to ensure rapid, safe, unhindered and sustained humanitarian access for the delivery of life-saving assistance for civilians in need.
The final statement of the session is also expected to demands that all parties to the conflict ensure the protection of civilians, including by fully implementing the 11 May 2023 Jeddah declaration; and that the council builds on the Secretary-General’s recommendations for the protection of civilians, contained in his 21 October 2024 report, and expresses support for establishing a monitoring and verification mechanism in case of a ceasefire and to ensure compliance with the Jeddah declaration.
It is to be noted that a number of council members have emphasised the need for a ceasefire, unfettered humanitarian access, respect for international humanitarian law, and the importance of protecting civilians in the conflict.
In the 26 February Council meeting, many members expressed concern about the RSF’s political declaration calling for a parallel government in Sudan. Algeria, speaking on behalf of the A3 Plus (Algeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Guyana) said this declaration was detrimental to peace, calling it a “dangerous step that fuels further fragmentation” of Sudan.
In addition, some members, such as Algeria (on behalf of the A3 plus) and Russia, welcomed the roadmap announced by the Sudan government during the meeting.
The website has pointed out that although some members, such as the US and UK, are highly critical of both the SAF and the RSF for violating international law in the conflict, members such as China and Russia tend to be more sympathetic to the Burhan-led government, underscoring its sovereign authority and its efforts to protect civilians and coordinate the delivery of humanitarian aid.
The website report has pointed out that the Sudanese government has criticized Kenya for hosting an RSF militia meeting on 18 February and the subsequent signing ceremony on 22 February. Critics have suggested that the Kenyan government’s decision to provide a venue for the RSF may have been influenced by a $1.5 billion loan agreement that it is expected to receive from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which has reportedly provided military support to the RSF during the conflict.
It pinpointed that Council members have differing views on the use of sanctions in Sudan. This was reflected during the negotiations on resolution 2772 of 17 February. Similar to 2024, the most contentious part of the negotiations was the duration of the mandate. The A3 plus—together with China, Russia, and Pakistan—supported a request by Sudan to extend the Panel’s mandate for six months, in order to align its mandate with the renewal of the 1591 Sudan sanctions regime, which occurs in September. While the mandate was ultimately renewed for one year, the resolution was not unanimously adopted, as China and Russia both abstained.
The US is the penholder on Sudan sanctions, while the UK is the penholder on Sudan more broadly.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=4636