Sudan and the UN Security Council: Seven Sessions in Six Months — What Lies Beneath?

By Maryam Abashar – Sudanhorizon
Let’s look beyond the total number of sessions the UN Security Council held on Sudan throughout 2024. We note a striking development: since the beginning of 2025, the Council has devoted at least seven sessions to Sudan, averaging more than one session per month. Notably, two sessions in May alone were dedicated to Sudanese issues, raising questions about the true motives of the “penholder”—the United Kingdom—on the Sudan file.
The latest session, held just this past Friday, was divided into an open and a closed segment, focusing mainly on humanitarian developments in Sudan.
This most recent meeting is part of a lengthy sequence of open and closed sessions the Council has convened since war erupted in Sudan—particularly intense this year—without tangible results to pressure the rebel Rapid Support Forces (RSF) or their regional backers to cease hostilities or stop military and logistical support.
Power Without Outcome
Experts in UN affairs argue that the Council’s failure to take decisive action—such as labeling the RSF a terrorist group or penalising its violations of Council resolutions—stems from the significant influence wielded by the militia’s regional sponsor, whose extensive ties with permanent Security Council members, especially the UK, France, and the US, block any consensus.
Familiar Faces and Familiar Messages
In nearly every session over the past six months, the humanitarian dimension has been the dominant narrative. Regular speakers include:
Martha Ama Akyaa Pobee, Assistant Secretary-General for Africa,
Tom Fletcher, Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator,
Ramadan Lamamra, the UN Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy to Sudan.
The Council also frequently hears from “civil society representatives”—often Western-funded activists. When the topic veers into health-related issues, speakers include the WHO Director-General or representatives from Médecins Sans Frontières.
Sudan’s Response: Firm and Consistent
Unless the session is closed—which has only happened once—Sudan’s Permanent Mission in New York is always notified in advance and allowed to submit a written response. Ambassador Al-Harith Idriss has become such a fixture that some diplomats jokingly refer to him as the Council’s “16th member.”
At each session, Sudan tables clear demands, including:
Condemnation of RSF actions and designation as a terrorist organisation,
Sanctions on RSF leadership,
Condemnation of the UAE for its involvement in systematic violations and alleged genocide in Sudan,
And compensation for the damage inflicted on Sudan and its citizens.
The “Penholder” and Its Agenda
A senior diplomatic source told Sudanhorizon that most Security Council sessions on Sudan are convened at the instigation of the UK, which holds the so-called “penholder” role on Sudan. In this capacity, it drafts all resolutions and initiatives concerning Sudan—something the source believes Khartoum must reconsider.
A Track Record of Failure
According to the source, Britain has consistently failed—even before the war—to advance its preferred agenda. This ineffectiveness dates back to the days of Volker Perthes’s mission, which the Sudanese government ultimately expelled. “The only thing they’ve succeeded in,” he said, “was extending the mandate of the Panel of Experts on Darfur—despite efforts to dissolve it.”
Why Sanctions Haven’t Stuck
When it comes to imposing sanctions or coercive measures on the RSF, the source attributed the lack of progress to effective coordination between Sudan, Russia and China, who have resisted efforts to impose punitive measures on the RSF alone.
The Western bloc, he said, insists on treating the two sides of the conflict as equal belligerents—pressing for negotiations rather than clear condemnation of the RSF’s actions.
What Is the UK’s Endgame?
Diplomatic sources monitoring the Council from New York expressed concerns to Sudanhorizon that Britain, France, and the US might be preparing for some form of “humanitarian intervention” in Sudan. This could include the establishment of “neutral zones” within Sudanese territory—outside the state’s control—to receive humanitarian aid administered by the United Nations.
The idea has reportedly been floated before and may form part of a long-term strategy to reshape the humanitarian and political map of Sudan under international oversight.
In the end, while Sudan remains under regular scrutiny by the Security Council, many in Khartoum and beyond are asking: is this scrutiny meant to bring peace—or to reshape the country’s sovereignty by stealth?

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=6283