The Security Council Takes Stock in 2025 and Reviews the Most Important Issues of the Year

Sudanhorizon – Mohamed Othman Adam
The Security Council Report, what is in Blue, official website for summaries of the activities of the UN Security Council, presented a general overview of UNSC activities in the past year and projections for the current year. The summary states that in 2025, divisions within the Security Council continued to limit its ability to address some of the most pressing security crises facing the world. The Council also witnessed shifts in its dynamics as the positions of the new US administration became clearer.

The review indicated that in the same year, key resolutions were adopted concerning Gaza and Haiti, although their implementation still faces significant challenges. The Council also adopted a resolution on Ukraine that had little impact on the deteriorating situation in that country, and it faced similar difficulty in making progress on other intractable crises, such as those in Sudan and Myanmar.

A number of unexpected crises—from the conflicts between Cambodia and Thailand, and India and Pakistan, to the coup in Guinea-Bissau and the tensions between the United States and Venezuela—received considerable attention. However, Syria was one of the issues on which the Council demonstrated remarkable unity in 2025, and the country now has an opportunity to build a better future after years of civil war.

In 2026, the Security Council will have to address several critical issues, including the future of peacekeeping operations, the implementation of resolutions on Gaza and Haiti, and the impact of the UN’s liquidity crisis on its work. The Council will also need to make a crucial recommendation to the General Assembly on who will lead the United Nations as the next Secretary-General. These issues, and others closely related to international peace and security, point to a year full of challenges and opportunities.

Deep divisions within the Council:

The adoption of 44 resolutions in 2025 marks the fifth consecutive year of decline in the number of resolutions adopted, compared to 46 in 2024, 50 in 2023, 54 in 2022, and 57 in 2021. This is also the lowest number since 1991 (42 resolutions). Furthermore, only 61.4% of the resolutions adopted in 2025 were unanimously adopted by all 15 members of the Council. This is lower than the 65.2% adopted unanimously in 2024 and represents a low level of consensus in the post-Cold War era, including the previous decade. For example, between 2014 and 2023, the Council adopted 83.9% of its resolutions (494 out of 589) unanimously.

In 2025, the Council adopted eight presidential statements, one more than in 2024 (seven statements) and two more than in 2023 (six statements). These presidential statements, which require the unanimous approval of all fifteen Council members, focused on the following issues in 2025: political developments in Lebanon and the cessation of hostilities between Israel and Lebanon; counter-terrorism, particularly in Africa; the 2025 review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture; violence against civilians in Latakia and Tartus, Syria; conflict prevention and the peaceful settlement of disputes; violence against civilians in As-Suwayda, Syria; the importance of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations; and the 30th anniversary of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Despite the slight increase in the number of presidential statements over the past two years, the eight adopted in 2025 remain very few compared to the average number of annual presidential statements in recent decades. For example, in the decade from 2011 to 2020, the Council adopted 220 presidential statements, an average of 22 per year. The six statements adopted in 2023 were the fewest since the Council began using its current document for presidential statements in 1994.

Council members issued 34 press statements in 2025. Unlike resolutions and presidential statements, press statements are not official Security Council documents. However, they reflect the collective will of Council members and, like presidential statements, require unanimity for adoption. The number of press statements has declined significantly in recent years.

The decline in the number of outcomes—resolutions, presidential statements, and press statements—reflects the difficulty the Council has faced in reaching consensus. For example, the Council’s output has been limited in some of the most violent conflicts, and its voice has been significantly affected by complex dynamics. Only one resolution on the war in Ukraine was adopted in 2025: Resolution 2774, adopted on February 24, a short text calling for a swift end to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Similarly, only one formal resolution was adopted on the war in Gaza, Resolution 2803, adopted on November 17, which endorsed the “Comprehensive Plan to End the Conflict in Gaza.”

This resolution was adopted by a vote of no confidence: the five European members of the Council—Denmark, France, Greece, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom—abstained from voting on Resolution 2774, while China and Russia abstained from voting on Resolution 2803.

Sudan:

While the Council members agreed on six press statements on Sudan in 2025, which is noteworthy, the Council was unable to adopt any formal resolution in response to the deteriorating security and humanitarian situation in Darfur and other parts of the country during 2025. The only formal outcome on Sudan in 2025 was the renewal of the Panel of Experts of the 1591 Sanctions Committee.

Likewise, efforts over several months in 2025 to issue a resolution or presidential statement on the civil war in Myanmar were stalled, largely due to opposition from China. Russia; and the Council members were only able to issue one press statement in response to this dispute during the year.

Veto power:

In addition to using the veto power, the United States vetoed two resolutions on the Gaza war, and two more vetoes were used in 2025: both against amendments to draft resolutions on the war in Ukraine. This represents a decrease compared to eight vetoes on seven draft resolutions in 2024, the highest number of vetoes and rejected draft resolutions in any year since 1986.

The vetoes in 2025 reveal interesting trends in the Security Council’s dynamics. The United States vetoed both draft resolutions on Gaza, which is not surprising, but both were written by the ten elected members of the Security Council. This reflects a growing sense of identity among the ten members, who in recent years have demonstrated a willingness to cooperate in an attempt to break the deadlock on contentious issues. In this context, although their collective efforts to draft two resolutions on Gaza in June and September were unsuccessful, they represented a continuation of a working methodology developed in 2024, when the ten permanent members of the Council drafted Resolution 2728, which called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza during the holy month of Ramadan. Despite the United States’ veto, both draft resolutions received the support of the other fourteen members of the Council.

In February, Russia vetoed two amendments to Resolution 2774, drafted by the United States, which called for a swift end to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The European members—Denmark, France, Greece, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom—collectively known as the “Five Europeans,” expressed their disappointment that the text did not include any reference to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The Role of the United States:
The new US administration has introduced fundamental changes to US policy toward the Security Council. On some thematic issues, the United States has adopted positions closer to those of China and Russia than to its traditional allies among the five permanent members of the Security Council, France and the United Kingdom. The United States has opposed the Council’s work on climate change, peace and security, and certain aspects of the Women, Peace and Security agenda, seeking (often successfully) to remove references to “climate change” and “gender” from negotiations on the Council’s outcomes. In many cases, the United States has also succeeded in pushing for the inclusion of the phrase “as appropriate” in references to international humanitarian law in the outcomes.

Where are peacekeeping operations headed?

The UN’s liquidity crisis has led to significant austerity measures that will affect much of the UN’s work in 2025, including peacekeeping operations mandated and overseen by the Council. A major contributing factor to the limited resources available for peacekeeping operations is the large arrears in assessed contributions.

Of particular note in this regard are the substantial arrears of three permanent members: the United States, China, and Russia, which are estimated to contribute 26.1584%, 23.7851%, and 2.4898%, respectively, of the UN peacekeeping budget. As of November 15, the United States owed $2.370 billion, China $697 million, and Russia $193 million. Emergency measures have begun to be implemented, including a 15% reduction in peacekeeping spending and the repatriation of 25% of military personnel, as announced by Secretary-General António Guterres in a letter to UN staff dated October 10.

Other substantive initiatives: Several other important substantive initiatives impacted the work of the Security Council in 2025. On July 22, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2788 on strengthening mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of disputes. The resolution reaffirms the Council’s commitment to the frequent use of the peaceful settlement instruments enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and requests the Secretary-General to report on their implementation by July 2026.

On November 26, the Security Council and the General Assembly adopted two essentially identical resolutions on the 2025 Peacebuilding Architecture Review. Resolution 2805, adopted unanimously by the Security Council, affirms that the latest peacebuilding framework aims to enhance the implementation and impact of UN peacebuilding activities on the ground. It also reaffirms the UN’s unwavering commitment to conflict prevention, peacebuilding, and peacekeeping, emphasizing that these efforts rely on the complementary contributions of development, human rights, and peace and security initiatives.

This year:

Several major crises will continue to confront the Council in 2026. The world is experiencing more conflict today than at any time since the end of the Second World War. This raises important questions about how a divided Council can muster the necessary political will to reduce violence and support political solutions in Myanmar, South Sudan, Sudan, Yemen, and West Africa, among other items on its agenda. Undoubtedly, unforeseen crises will also arise, as happened, for example, with India, Pakistan, Thailand, and Cambodia in 2025.

In 2026, a complex set of challenges will likely be linked to the implementation of Resolutions 2793 and 2803 on Haiti and Gaza, respectively. This is a matter of critical importance.

One of the issues to consider next year is the Security Council’s ability to effectively exercise its oversight role regarding the implementation of these resolutions.

In 2026, the Security Council’s role on Ukraine will depend on the achievement of a peace agreement. If such an agreement is reached, the Council could potentially play a role in monitoring its implementation. If no agreement is reached, the Council will likely remain constrained on this issue due to the interference of one of its permanent members—namely, Russia.

The Council members are likely to maintain their unity in 2026 on the need to support a political transition in Syria, where a mission from the Council will visit.

The country will be vacant in December. One of the issues the Council will continue to monitor closely is the risk of sectarian violence in the country, which was a major concern for it in 2025.

Another pressing issue facing the Council in 2026 is its involvement in peacekeeping operations, given the UN’s austerity crisis and the US administration’s critical view of UN peacekeeping. The recommendations of the Secretariat’s review of UN peacekeeping operations, expected to be completed early this year, may inform the Council members’ deliberations on the future of peacekeeping.

Another question for 2026 is how the Council will address the issue of nuclear non-proliferation in relation to the implementation of Resolution 2231, adopted on July 20, 2015, which endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear program.

The UN Secretary-General and Global Challenges:

Council members are also expected to devote considerable time and effort in 2026 to engaging with candidates and conducting informal consultations to select a new Secretary-General, particularly in the second half of the year. The Security Council’s recommendation to the General Assembly regarding the appointment of the next Secretary-General will be among the most important decisions it will make in 2026.

With the increasing challenges to international peace and security, the United Nations system, including the Security Council, is facing growing criticism, some justified, others less so. In this context, multilateral institutions must work with Member States to address the political, security, and economic crises that transcend borders and affect the most vulnerable. At this critical juncture, the world needs a more effective Security Council. This report from the Security Council aims to continue monitoring the efforts of Council members to meet the challenge of maintaining international peace and security in an increasingly turbulent world.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=10124