By: Reporter Artem Kizilov

During the Sunday morning session of Security Council B, the Representatives of the United States along with Malta, South Korea and Slovenia began drafting a resolution on allocating aid to the conflicts that are going on in Sudan and South Sudan. In the discussion on this matter, both Sudan and South Sudan were invited as Parties to the Dispute to the consultative session to comment on the developments that are going on with the conflict in both States. One question that was brought up in the consultative session: if the aid was to be sent to Sudan and South Sudan, how would this aid then be distributed to the affected regions in those Member States? Two solutions were proposed, either sending the aid through the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) or sending the aid directly to the Member States, who would then be responsible for distributing it to the affected regions. 

A proposed resolution, UNSC-B, sparked a debate in the Security Council, Member States divided. Proponents of sending aid directly to Sudan say that they have concerns with Sudan’s previously recorded human rights violations and believe that the aid should be going directly to Sudan and South Sudan, as Sudan may attempt to sabotage it. Opponents of this proposed resolution say that sending the aid through NGOs would violate Sudan’s sovereignty and South Sudan’s sovereignty, and believe that the aid should be going directly to the governments for them to effectively distribute the aid.

When concerns were brought up during the Security Council to Sudan and South Sudan, Sudan affirmed their commitment to supporting the United Nations humanitarian mission and assured all the members that the aid provided would not be sabotaged by the rebel Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary group currently in control of half of Sudan. However, many Member States continued to question them. Representatives from the United Kingdom, Izabella Jahjah and Josiah Zaragoza also raised an important concern regarding other paramilitary organizations present in Sudan, such as the Wagner militia. 

After a prolonged consultative session in the Security Council, Member States moved to a suspension of the meeting where they began drafting a resolution to allocate aid to affected regions in South Sudan and Sudan. The Russian Federation, after expressing their concerns for the proposed resolution, specifically concerned over cooperation with the RSF, agreed not to veto it if Sudan would not oppose this. When asked by the Russian Federation for a comment regarding their concerns expressed during the Security Council session, the Representatives Sydney Lang and Noah Schaefbauer of the Russian Federation declined to comment. Representatives Melanie Uribe and Miguel Cambray of China, as well, did not comment on their opinion and responded that they would prefer not to provide any details on this topic, but affirmed their support for allocating aid. Representative Jason Malina of the United States commented that they suspect that the Russian Federation and China may be working together on an alternative resolution. 

But there were other  Member States who did choose to comment. Representative Maggie Funston of Sierra Leone, when asked about this resolution, echoed the sentiment shared by The Russian Federation during the Security Council session saying, “African problems require African solutions,” further clarifying that it is necessary that the resolution is not written only from a Eurocentric perspective and should also include an African perspective.