By: Jordan Schneckloth

In Sunday’s morning session of Security Council B, deliberations began to determine the means through which the people of Sudan could begin to recover from their crisis. Representatives from the United States, the United Kingdom, the Russian Federation, Switzerland and Sierra Leone played vital roles in determining a plurality of plausible implementation solutions for humanitarian aid. With three of the five permanent members of the Security Council loudly divided on this issue, compromise is the only path toward resolution. The Security Council as a whole agrees that humanitarian aid is necessary to help prevent any further suffering or loss of life in Sudan, however, no decision has yet reached a consensus as to allow the flow of the aforementioned aid.

The dilemma at hand thus lies in finding a practical balance between the opposed philosophies at play during these deliberations. A proposed resolution by the United Kingdom aimed at facilitating aid through Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) was quickly met with pushback. Representative Noah Schaefbauer of the Russian Federation halted this resolution to explain it they said, “I think it’s entirely paternalistic, and any resolution not including the acting government of South Sudan is not one the Russian Federation can support,” referring to how vital international aid is being used to induce specific outcomes by limiting choices or restricting certain behaviors.

On the flipside, however, the Russian Federation’s poetic “African Solutions for African Problems” resolution has received pushback for its lack of concreteness when considering the proposal doesn’t guarantee what some consider the ethical distribution of aid. The question of who controls the flow of aid is a nonstarter for both veto wielding states, so the Security Council’s progress on the matter is seemingly deadlocked. Deliberations slowly devolved with Representatives of China also pushing for the use of NGOs, Slovenia arguing for greater monetary aid and the Republic of Korea in favor of United Nations peacekeepers. The Security Council needed more information to break the stalemate.

What followed was the Representatives of Sudan, South Sudan and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) joining the Security Council’s inquiry, the Representatives obfuscating to preserve their political narrative and entrenching their already hardened positions. The RSF minimized humanitarian concerns, their representative said, “Again, this is a war… a communication blackout is necessary to protect our soldiers,” all of which Sudan met with scripted talking points and dismissal for being dramatic and misled. The United Nations Security Council’s permanent members latched onto Sudan and South Sudan’s partisan rhetoric, proving how the philosophical differences between opposing yet equally powerful actors are enough to bring the international system to a halt.

While the Security Council stalls, all Sudanese people are threatened.