The United Kingdom, alongside Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, and a core group of nations, presented draft resolution L.26 to the UN Human Rights Council on 6 September. This action follows the UN Fact-Finding Mission’s report, which details a devastating picture of the human cost of Sudan’s conflict – communities shattered, millions displaced, and civilians trapped in a cycle of violence. The statement matters because the report documents drone warfare conducted by both the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese Armed Forces, extending the geographical reach of hostilities and contributing to attacks on hospitals, markets, and even a kindergarten, leaving civilians with nowhere safe to go. (Read the full statement.)
Background
The presentation of draft resolution L.26 is framed by the ongoing conflict in Sudan. Previous statements by the ministry, dated 7 September, highlighted the critical work of the UN Fact-Finding Mission. This mission’s report paints a devastating picture of the human cost of Sudan’s conflict: communities shattered, millions displaced, and civilians trapped in a cycle of violence. The report makes clear that this conflict is not sustained by the Rapid Support Forces and Sudanese Armed Forces alone. The Banjul Joint Declaration in May of this year is testimony to the collaboration and complementarity between the UN mechanism and the African Union, whose leadership remains crucial to ending the conflict. The statement does not address the financial flows enabling the conflict.
Analysis
The core group’s actions reflect a desire to hold accountable those perpetrating atrocities in Sudan. The call for accountability across the full chain of responsibility, via every avenue available, suggests a frustration with the lack of progress towards peace. The commendation of the International Criminal Court’s efforts underscores a recognition of the need for justice, alongside a push for full Sudanese cooperation. The inclusion of proposals made by Sudan themselves indicates a willingness to engage in dialogue, though the regret that these changes were not enough for the Sudanese authorities suggests a significant divergence in perspectives. This suggests a deep-seated disagreement about the nature of the conflict and the path to resolution.
Implications
The resolution’s passage, should it occur, carries implications for regional stability. The renewed mandate for the Fact-Finding Mission is intended to lay the groundwork for future accountability efforts. It also signals a continued, if somewhat strained, engagement by the UK within the international effort to address the crisis. The resolution’s focus on external actors – specifically, calling for a cessation of arming, financing, and sustaining the conflict – has potential implications for trade and security relationships within the region. The statement does not address the potential impact of the conflict on regional trade routes.
Outlook
Should the resolution be adopted, the UK’s position would be to continue to urge all members to stand with the people of Sudan and vote in favour of this resolution. If the Sudanese authorities continue to reject the resolution, the UK’s approach will likely remain focused on supporting the Fact-Finding Mission and exploring alternative avenues for accountability. If the visit yields no significant changes in the situation, the UK may consider further diplomatic pressure, alongside continued support for humanitarian organizations operating within Sudan.
