By: Jordan Schneckloth and Artem Kizilov

Sunday’s afternoon session of Security Council B saw greater deliberation toward a solution on the Sudanese Crisis. A controversial humanitarian pipeline was proposed by the Representatives of the United States of America, Malta, the Republic of Korea, Slovenia, United Kingdom, Sierra Leone, Mozambique, France, Japan and Ecuador. This would provide a new system route for aid to be distributed to the people of Sudan through United Nations partnered Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). While the sentiment for vital aid remains strong among the members of the Security Council, their entrenched disagreements on the means through which aid should be distributed remain equally unshakeable. The Representatives of Algeria said to the body, “This is not a question of recognizing governments or paramilitary forces, it is not a political question, it is humanitarian law.” The Representatives of Algeria urged fellow delegations to pass the resolution to provide the necessary aid for the people of Sudan as soon as possible. The primary dilemma facing this resolution is the disagreement over how aid should be distributed, necessitating this analysis of the “humanitarian pipeline” resolution’s arguments.

Representative Madison Roberts of Switzerland remains staunchly opposed to the humanitarian pipeline resolution, she said,“It would only go to stall the flow of aid further if we stack one bureaucracy on top of another bureaucracy.” The apparent lack of African Union involvement during deliberations, she posits, only perpetuates the disconnected nature of this resolution. Without hearing from the African Union, the Security Council cannot possibly know how best to aid the Sudanese people. While Representative Roberts continues to advocate for the logical secession of hostilities, with aid then to follow, the Security Council continues to focus on the ends rather than the means.

The Representative of the Russian Federation concurs with their counterparts from Switzerland, and argues the humanitarian pipeline resolution doesn’t recognize the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) as an actor capable of facilitating the flow of aid. As a result, Representative Noah Schaefbauer of the Russian Federation remains adamant in his opposition to the use of official corridors as the medium through which to facilitate aid. He said, “We as the Russian Federation believe the plan to disperse aid should involve the RSF.” Not only would the aforementioned official corridors only prolong the process to approve the flow of aid, but the Russian Federation’s veto power ensures that no resolution without collaboration with the RSF is guaranteed to fail. This paradox of states seeking to achieve the same goals by different means is what creates bureaucratic gridlock. 

The Chinese delegation, although not expressing complete disapproval, expressed concerns with the distribution of the aid. Representative Miguel Cambray of China chose to provide a comment to the International Press Delegation saying, “We are in favor of giving aid to the people of Sudan. What we aren’t in favor of is generating aid through NGOs. Let Sudan keep the money through the official government to effectively help its people.” 

After being presented with disagreements on this plan, the Security Council is going back to finish drafting of the resolution modifying the proposed plan to address the concerns that were brought up with the resolution.