Russia Vetoes UN Ceasefire Resolution for Sudan Amidst International Condemnation

Russia exercised its veto power on a proposed UN Security Council resolution, supported by the UK, which sought a ceasefire in Sudan. This action drew strong condemnation from both the UK and the US. British Foreign Secretary David Lammy labeled the veto a “disgrace,” while Russia, in turn, accused the UK of interfering in Sudanese matters without the participation of Sudan. The civil war in Sudan, ongoing for 19 months, is estimated to have resulted in tens of thousands of fatalities. Additionally, over 11 million individuals have been displaced from their residences. According to aid organizations, the conflict has generated the most severe humanitarian crisis globally, leaving thousands facing the threat of famine. Sudanese activists have expressed significant criticism regarding the UN’s perceived slow response to the conflict. The conflict commenced in April last year, following the outbreak of a fierce power struggle between the army and the formidable paramilitary organization, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The military currently holds control of the government. The draft resolution presented on Monday by the UK and Sierra Leone urged both warring factions to immediately cease hostilities and initiate negotiations with the goal of establishing a national ceasefire. Furthermore, it implored the army and the RSF to uphold prior commitments to safeguard civilians, with particular reference to RSF assaults in the western Darfur region and other parts of the nation. Sudan’s representative at the UN stated that certain clauses desired by their nation were omitted from the text. While the remaining 14 Security Council member states voted in favor of the draft, Russia’s veto prevented the resolution from being adopted. Lammy addressed the meeting in New York, stating, “This Russian veto is a disgrace and it shows to the world yet again Russia’s true colours.” He further questioned, “I ask the Russian representative in all conscience sitting there on his phone. How many more Sudanese have to be killed? How many more women have to be raped? How many more children have to go without food before Russia will act?” US ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield also spoke out forcefully, alleging that Russia was impeding efforts “to address the catastrophic situation in Sudan, and playing both sides – both sides of the conflict to advance its own political objectives, at the expense of Sudanese lives”. Russia, previously perceived as supporting the RSF in the conflict, now seems to have altered its allegiance. Dmitry Polyanskiy, Russia’s representative at the UN, asserted that Sudanese sovereignty was being disregarded, and characterized the UK-backed resolution as “an attempt to give themselves an opportunity to meddle” in Sudan’s internal affairs. He subsequently posted on X, “Shame on you, the UK! For trying to push through a resolution that pours gasoline into [the] Sudan crisis leaving muddy waters for Western countries, that they love so much in former colonies, to push for their agenda.” Sudan analyst Alex de Waal characterized this argument as an “absolutely extraordinary argument to make in the face of the humanitarian catastrophe – the total state collapse of Sudan and the fact that the government is only able to govern a very small corner of the country”. During an interview with the BBC World Service’s Newsday programme, he further commented that it marked a “very bad day for Africa” because, in the past, the continent’s diplomats, acting through the Africa Union (AU), had successfully mediated divisions within the Security Council among Russia, the US, and China concerning Sudan. Following the conclusion of the Security Council’s deliberations, Sudan’s ambassador to the UN, Al-Harith Idriss al-Harith Mohamed, stated that the draft lacked certain “prerequisites.” He indicated that Sudan had sought the inclusion of a clause condemning the United Arab Emirate’s support for the RSF, an accusation that the UAE has consistently refuted. He also expressed a desire for the RSF to be designated as “terrorists… because it wages a war of extermination against civilians”. Both the army and the RSF face accusations of committing human rights violations that may constitute war crimes. Additional reporting was provided by Nada Tawfik of the BBC in New York. For further news from the African continent, visit BBCAfrica.com. Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa, or on Instagram at bbcafrica. Copyright 2024 BBC. All rights reserved. The BBC bears no responsibility for the content found on external sites. Information regarding our external linking policy is available.