Sudanhorizon: Details on Today’s Expected UNSC Vote to Extend the Darfur Sanctions Regime

New York – Sudanhorizon

The UN Security Council (UNSC)is expected to vote today (Friday) on a draft resolution extending the Sudan sanctions regime (established under Resolution 1591)—which includes targeted sanctions such as asset freezes, travel bans, and arms embargoes—for one month, until October 9, 2026. The United States, as the “penholder” responsible for the Sudan sanctions file, drafted the new text.

The draft resolution in its final form—known as the “blue text”—serves as a “technical rollover” of the Sudan sanctions measures, which were last renewed under Resolution 2791 on September 12, 2025. (Diplomats typically use the term “technical rollover” to describe a brief resolution that extends the mandate of a peacekeeping operation without altering its core mandate or tasks, usually for a shorter-than-usual period.)

In a report published today (Friday), the UN Security Council’s website noted that the “blue text” also expresses the Council’s intention to review the mandate of the Panel of Experts assisting the Sudan Sanctions Committee (established under Resolution 1591) and to take appropriate action regarding a further mandate extension no later than October 9.

Today’s adoption of the resolution follows weeks of negotiations—described by the website as long and arduous—regarding a previous draft resolution that had aimed to expand the scope of the arms embargo. Divergent views emerged among Council members during the negotiations regarding the efficacy of the current sanctions regime and the extent and manner of its modification to reflect changing realities on the ground; this led to the postponement of the vote from September 10 to Friday, September 11, 2026.

The United States had circulated an initial draft to all Council members on August 13, following prior discussions on the text with the other permanent members. This was followed by the submission of three revised drafts, two rounds of negotiations, and two instances where the “silence procedure” was broken. Ultimately, fundamental disagreements among members prompted the penholder—the state responsible for the file—to propose a technical extension to allow more time for negotiations. The United States circulated the technical extension draft on Thursday (September 9) and placed it under the “silence procedure” until 1:00 p.m. that same day; the deadline was subsequently extended to 3:00 p.m. The draft successfully cleared the “silence procedure” and was subsequently issued in its final form (the “blue text”) in preparation for the vote today, Friday.

The UN Security Council website noted that, amidst reports of various external actors supplying weapons to the warring parties and the spread of violence across the country, several member states and civil society organizations have called for expanding the geographic scope of the sanctions regime beyond Darfur to encompass the entire country. However, the Council’s African member states (the group known as the “A3”), alongside China, Pakistan, and Russia, opposed expanding the geographic scope of sanctions measures beyond Darfur. These states show greater understanding of the Sudanese government’s position, emphasizing its sovereign authority and its efforts to protect civilians and coordinate the delivery of humanitarian aid.

In contrast, some Council members—particularly the three Western permanent members (France, the United Kingdom, and the United States)—hold the view that both the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) bear responsibility for the ongoing atrocities in Sudan, and that neither is fit to govern the country.

According to the website, a number of Council members appeared to support the US proposal and discussed its substantive provisions. However, the proposal failed to garner support from certain members, including the three African group members (A3)—the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, and Somalia—as well as China, Pakistan, and Russia. These members reportedly reaffirmed their preference for a straightforward renewal of the sanctions regime for another year, without expanding its scope beyond the Darfur region.

Furthermore, disagreements appear to have emerged among the three African group members (A3) regarding the principle and manner of addressing the text’s substantive provisions. Concerns were also raised regarding other key elements of the US draft resolution that went beyond the geographic scope of the sanctions; for instance, members such as China and Russia reportedly felt there was an excessive focus on the use of remotely piloted aircraft (UAVs) and unmanned aerial systems (UAS) in the conflict and their impact on civilians.
The United States incorporated several proposals submitted by various members—including Denmark, France, Latvia, Panama, and the United Kingdom—into subsequent revised drafts. For instance, the criteria for listing under targeted sanctions—previously focused on acts obstructing the peace process or threatening stability in Darfur—were expanded to encompass acts threatening the stability of Sudan more broadly. The revised criteria also included, among other things, violations of international humanitarian law in Sudan involving the targeting of civilians, as well as kidnappings for ransom that generate revenue or provide support to armed groups; obstructing the delivery, access, or distribution of humanitarian aid; or attacking humanitarian or medical personnel, facilities, supplies, or means of transport. Additional proposals in the revised drafts called for extending the arms embargo to cover armed mercenary elements—regardless of whether they operate from the territory of Member States—and demanded that Member States cease any direct or indirect support (logistical, financial, or military) to warring parties that enables the conflict to continue; this included taking measures to prevent the launch and operation of remotely piloted aircraft and unmanned aerial systems from their territories.

Furthermore, the Panel of Experts (PoE) was requested to submit a thematic report to the Sanctions Committee established pursuant to Resolution 1591 regarding conflict-related sexual violence in Sudan, including information relevant to any potential designation the Committee might decide upon. Throughout the negotiations, China and Russia appeared to maintain their preference for a straightforward renewal of the sanctions regime, offering no input on the text’s substantive provisions.
However, upon the breaking of the silence procedure regarding the third revised draft—which had been subject to the silence procedure until September 8—the three African members of the Council (A3) and Pakistan submitted substantive comments on several proposed provisions. For instance, the three African states sought to replace the terms “warring parties” and “all parties” operating in Sudan with the phrase “all non-state armed actors,” including the Rapid Support Forces. They also proposed wording to clarify that the measures contained in the draft resolution do not target Sudanese authorities. Pakistan appears to have supported the proposals of the three African states, while maintaining its position that the scope of the sanctions regime should be limited to Darfur and that the Council’s focus should be on the effective implementation of the existing regime

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=17904