Security Council
5015th Meeting (AM)
SECURITY COUNCIL DEMANDS SUDAN DISARM MILITIAS IN DARFUR,
ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1556 (2004) BY VOTE OF 13–0–2
Requests Report in 30 Days on Progress,
With Intention to Take Further Action in Event of Non-Compliance
The Security Council today, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, demanded that the Government of the Sudan disarm the Janjaweed militias, apprehend and bring to justice its leaders and their associates who had incited and carried out violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, as well as other atrocities in the country’s Darfur region.
Adopting resolution 1556 (2004) by 13 votes in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (China, Pakistan), the Council further requested the Secretary-General to report in 30 days, and monthly thereafter, on the Government’s progress or otherwise on that matter and expressed its intention to consider further actions, including measures under Article 41 of the United Nations Charter, in the event of non-compliance.
[According to Article 41, the Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, including complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.]
It called on the Government to fulfil immediately all the commitments made in the joint communiqué issued by itself and the Secretary-General on 3 July 2004, particularly by facilitating international relief for the humanitarian disaster by means of a moratorium on all restrictions that might hinder the provision of assistance and access to the affected populations. The Government would also advance the independent investigation, in cooperation with the United Nations, of human rights violations and international humanitarian law; establish credible security conditions for the protection of the civilian population and humanitarian actors; and resume political talks with dissident groups from Darfur, specifically the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Sudan Liberation Army (SLM/A).
The Council decided that all States would take the necessary measures to prevent the sale or supply to all non-governmental entities and individuals, including the Janjaweed, operating in North, South and West Darfur by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft and related materials of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment and spare parts, whether or not originating in their territories.
However, the Council decided, those measures would not apply to supplies and related technical training and assistance to monitoring, verification or peace support operations; supplies of non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian and human rights monitoring or protective use; and protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, for the personal use of United Nations personnel, human rights monitors, media representatives, as well as development workers and associated personnel.
Endorsing the deployment of international monitors, under the leadership of the African Union, to Darfur, the Council urged the international community to support those efforts. It welcomed the progress made in deploying monitors, and stressed the need for the Government of Sudan and all involved parties to facilitate their work in accordance with the N’Djamena Ceasefire Agreement of 8 April 2004, and with the Addis Ababa agreement of 28 May 2004 on the modalities of establishing an observer mission to monitor the ceasefire.
The Council urged Member States to reinforce the international monitoring team by providing personnel and other assistance, including financing, supplies, transport, vehicles, command support, communications and headquarters support. It welcomed the contributions already made by the European Union and the United States to support the African Union-led operation.
Urging the parties to the N’Djamena Ceasefire Agreement to conclude a political agreement without delay, the Council noted with regret the failure of senior rebel leaders to participate in the 15 July talks in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, describing it as unhelpful to the process. It called for renewed talks under the leadership of the African Union and its chief mediator, Hamid Algabid, to reach a political solution to the tensions in Darfur. In addition, the Council strongly urged rebel groups to respect the ceasefire, end the violence immediately and act in a positive and constructive manner to end the conflict.
Reiterating its support for the Naivasha Agreement signed by the Government of the Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, the Council looked forwards to its effective implementation and a peaceful, unified Sudan working in harmony with all other States for development.
Statements were made by the representatives of China, United States, United Kingdom, Algeria (also on behalf of Angola and Benin), Russian Federation, Germany, Spain, Brazil, France, Pakistan, Chile, Philippines and Romania.
In response to the text’s adoption, the representative of the Sudan said that as of yesterday, 4,812 police officers had been deployed in Darfur and 200 members of the Janjaweed militias had been arrested. Some of them had been sentenced to death. The Government had dispatched a high-level delegation to negotiate without preconditions, but the talks had collapsed, because the rebels had insisted on preconditions. When the Government had signed the joint communiqué, it had not thought that it would be used to punish the Sudan, regardless of whether it had implemented its commitments. The Government was fully aware that some activists in the United States administration had worked to foster the rebellion.
He said that the consultations on the resolution had shown a division in the Council between those members that wished to allow adequate time for the African Union’s efforts and those insisting on adopting the resolution irrespective of the decision taken by African leaders. To the latter group, the resolution had become an end in itself. It had been determined in the United States Congress, before it had been discussed in the Council. That Congress had decided that genocide and ethnic cleansing were taking place in Darfur, contrary to the judgement of the African Union Summit.
The meeting convened at 11:13 a.m. and adjourned at 12:40 p.m.
Background
The Security Council met this morning to consider the situation in the Darfur, Sudan, region.
On 12 May, in presidential statement S/PRST/2004/18, the Council expressed its deep concern at the continuing reports of large-scale violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Darfur, including indiscriminate attacks on civilians, sexual violence, forced displacement and acts of violence, especially those with an ethnic dimension, and demanded that those responsible be held accountable.
The Council, while welcoming the ceasefire agreement of 8 April, emphasized the urgent need for all parties to observe it and to take immediate steps to end the violence. It called on the Government of the Sudan to respect its commitments to ensure that the Janjaweed militias were neutralized and disarmed. (See Press Release SC/8104 of 25 May.)
On 11 June, the Council adopted resolution 1547 (2004) by which the Council welcomed Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s proposal to establish, for an initial period of three months and under the authority of a Special Representative, an advance team in the Sudan to prepare for a future United Nations peace-support operation following the signing of a comprehensive peace agreement.
Unanimously adopting resolution 1547 (2004), the Council declared its readiness to consider establishing such an operation to aid implementation of a peace agreement, and requested the Secretary-General to submit to the Council recommendations for the size, structure, and mandate of that operation, as soon as possible after the signing of the agreement.
In addition, the Council called on the parties to use their influence to bring an immediate halt to the fighting in the Darfur region, in the Upper Nile and elsewhere. It urged the parties to the Ndjamena Ceasefire Agreement of 8 April to conclude a political agreement without delay, welcomed African Union efforts to that end, and called on the international community to be prepared for constant engagement, including extensive funding, in support of peace in the Sudan.
Statement before Vote
ZHANG YISHAN (China) said that the humanitarian situation in the Sudan called for speedy relief followed by political negotiations for a comprehensive agreement at the earliest stage, while respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country. China welcomed the joint communiqué by the Government of the Sudan and the Secretary-General and hoped that the Sudan would honour its commitment to disarm the Janjaweed militia.
Expressing supported for the African Union’s leadership role, including its deployment of monitors and protection force, he stressed that the Government of the Sudan bore the primary responsibility to resolve the situation in Darfur. While the draft resolution had been amended, it still included references to measures that were not helpful and which could further complicate the situation. China would abstain in the voting.
Action
The Council then adopted resolution 1556 (2004) by a vote of 13 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (China, Pakistan).
Statements after Vote
Speaking after the vote, JOHN DANFORTH (United States), the resolution’s main sponsor, said that for years, a number of nations in Africa, Europe and North America had worked hard to encourage a peace process in the Sudan. They had hoped for a country that would be a model of ethnic reconciliation. They had anticipated helping the Sudan build its infrastructure, allowing it to develop its resources and agricultural potential.
“The last thing we wanted to do was lay the groundwork for sanctions, but the Government of Sudan has left us no choice”, he said. It had done the unthinkable: fostered an armed attack on its own civilian population. It had created a humanitarian disaster. “So the resolution just adopted is our necessary response if we are to help save the people of Darfur.” The actions of the Sudanese Government and its Janjaweed proxies had led to 30,000 deaths since February 2003. They had caused more than 1 million people to flee their homes, some 200,000 having crossed the border into Chad. Perhaps 300,000 more people faced death by hunger and disease in the next six months.
“Even if the violence stopped today”, he said, “it would take 15 months before new crops could be raised and harvested.” The responsibility for this disaster lay squarely on the Sudanese Government. To suppress a rebel uprising begun in early 2003, the Government began a “campaign of terror” against innocent civilians. Government aircraft bombed villages and, exploiting an ancient rivalry between Arab African herdsmen and groups of largely black African farmers, armed the Janjaweed militia and unleashed them against black civilians.
He said that the Janjaweed followed the government aircraft, burning villages, destroying crops, murdering men and raping women. Indeed, rape had been a principle tactic of the Janjaweed. He added that the Sudanese Government’s tactics in Darfur had not been an isolated incident: in the late 1990s, it had also armed militias and encouraged them to attack civilians. “Some say that we should give the Government of Sudan some time before we pass this resolution”, he said. “The United States does not agree.”
Noting that it had been nearly four weeks since that Government had signed a joint communiqué with the Secretary-General on its commitment to take specific actions to address the situation in Darfur, he said it had kept none of those promises. He particularly noted the Sudanese Government’s failure to ensure that no militias were present in camps for internally displaced persons (IDPs); its failure to immediately disarm the Janjaweed; and its failure to rebuild the confidence of the people of Darfur.
Indeed, in the 27 days that had passed since the communiqué had been signed, if the World Heath Organization’s estimates were correct, some 11,000 people had died. And more were dying as the Government stonewalled the international community. “It is time to start the clock ticking on the Government of Sudan”, he said. The resolution called on the Government to do all in its power to facilitate humanitarian relief, and it endorsed the deployment of international monitors and a protection force, among other things.
He said that many people concerned about Darfur would say that the text did not go far enough, particularly that it did not refer to the atrocities in the region as genocide. Perhaps they were right, but it was important not to get bogged down over words, he said. It was essential that the Council act quickly and decisively and with unity. “We need to fix this humanitarian problem now.” The current resolution did explicitly condemn the acts of violence “with an ethnic dimension” in Darfur and anticipated sanctions against the Government if the regular monthly cycle of reporting revealed a lack of compliance.The point was to relieve the suffering of Darfur, not to punish the Sudan. The choice was now up to the Sudanese Government to take dramatic action to resolve the situation because the Council’s attention would not be fleeting. The text ensured that the situation in Darfur would be back before the Council -- and the world -- next month and the month after that, for as long as it took to ensure that the people of Darfur would live in peace.
EMYR JONES PARRY (United Kingdom) said that with large numbers of people facing starvation and oppression, the crisis in Darfur was dire. For months, the United Nations family, the African Union and others had been mobilizing resources and attention to avert the humanitarian and security catastrophe that had been emerging. The resolution just adopted was a further step forward. It built on some positive actions that had taken place, but underscored the need of the Sudanese Government to implement all the commitments it had made to the Secretary-General on 3 July, including the most basic obligation any government had to its own people -- to protect them. So far, the Sudanese Government had failed to do that.
But the rebels also bore their share of responsibility for the present crisis, he continued, noting that the resolution also demanded that they also meet their obligations, and without pre-condition, to engage in peace talks and to move to resolve the conflict. The resolution also supported the positive involvement of the African Union on the ground and emphasized the need for the international community to provide humanitarian assistance.
He stressed that there had been progress elsewhere in the Sudan, and the United Kingdom looked forward to the successful completion of the Naivasha process. The current resolution signalled a willingness to support that agreement, and, as necessary, deploy a peace support operation. But a solution in Darfur was a necessary condition for that support. The international community wanted to work with the Sudanese Government; that would be much more preferable to compulsion and sanctions, he added.
But the message to the Government and the rebels must be clear and firm: if commitments and obligations were not met, if peace talks were not entered into constructively and in good faith, and if the intimidation and atrocities did not end, then the Council, when it reviewed progress next month, would be considering measures as provided for in Article 41 of the Charter. The adoption of the text underlined the Council’s commitment to ensure that governments fulfil that most basic of obligations, the duty to protect their own citizens, he reiterated.
BDALLAH BAALI (Algeria), speaking also on behalf of the Council’s other African members -- Angola and Benin -- expressed satisfaction that the resolution on the situation in Darfur had been adopted, following weeks of “arduous and delicate” negotiations. Algeria, Angola and Benin had supported the resolution because they believed that the international community could not remain passive and indifferent to the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Darfur or to the horrendous crimes being committed against the civilian populations.
Moreover, as Africans, the Council members believed that whenever there was a conflict in Africa they, more than anyone else, had a special duty and responsibility towards their sisters and brothers who were suffering. That was why the African Union had acted so promptly and so decisively, he added. And while his delegation fully understood the need for the wider Council to assume its obligations under the Charter, there was nevertheless a need to make sure that its actions supported and complimented the efforts of the African Union, which had taken the lead “with courage and determination” in addressing the situation in Darfur.
To that end, he was satisfied that the resolution contained strong and unequivocal support for and endorsement of the African Union’s leadership role and the various dimensions of its engagement in Darfur, including humanitarian, military and political, with the deployment of monitors and a protection force. He added that the resolution also supported the possibility of the African Union creating a full-fledged peacekeeping operation and it’s sponsoring of talks between the Sudanese Government and rebel groups.
He said the Council’s African members were particularly satisfied that the resolution had requested the Secretary-General to assist the African Union with planning and assessment for its mission in Darfur, and that it had requested Member States to provide assistance as needed for the African Union’s monitoring operations and to contribute generously to the relevant United Nations appeals to help mitigate the humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur. They were also satisfied that the Council had chosen to keep the Sudanese Government engaged with a monthly review process following up the 3 July joint communiqué.
By the time of the next review, they hoped the situation on the ground would be greatly improved and humanitarian assistance would be reaching all internally displaced persons. They further hoped that significant progress would be made in the political peace process and in establishing credible security conditions for civilians and humanitarian actors, and in disarming the Janjaweed militias and bringing their leaders to justice. To that end, he emphasized that it was then and only then that the Council could consider whether or not it would envisage other measures.
ANDREI DENISOV (Russian Federation) said the humanitarian and political situation in Darfur remained complex. Large-scale violations of human rights were continuing. Units of Janjaweed and other groups were attacking the civilian population, killing and plundering. The situation of internally displaced persons in Darfur itself and of Sudanese refugees in neighbouring Chad was dire. “That violence must be terminated”, he said.
In Khartoum, there was awareness of the need to redress the situation, he continued. Now, there was also a need for increasing humanitarian assistance and ensuring security for the population and humanitarian personnel. Primary responsibility for that rested in Khartoum, but was also shared by the armed opposition. He underlined the important role of the African Union’s efforts in the region, efforts that deserved the vigorous support of the United Nations. Everything should be done to find a political solution. The Council could not remain passive. He hoped the Council was sending a clear signal to the Government of the Sudan and the rebels regarding the need to implement quickly the commitments made, including disarming armed groups.
GUNTER PLEUGER (Germany), noting that the Council’s signal to Khartoum was unambiguous, said the Government of the Sudan had been given the chance to demonstrate clearly that it was making progress in disarming the Janjaweed militia and would bring the perpetrators of atrocities to justice. It was hoped that the Government would take more forceful action to abide by the benchmarks laid out in the 3 July joint communiqué. The Government of the Sudan was responsible for the safety and security of all 1.5 million people who were at risk in Darfur and for ensuring that they received humanitarian assistance. The African Union’s role was an important development, and Germany wished to maintain and develop a close relationship with that organization.
He said that a variety of mechanisms had a role in monitoring the human rights situation, some of which were already in place and others that were not. Germany had recently called for the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry into the abuses in Darfur. While the Council had been deliberating, the killing and suffering in the province had continued. The Government of the Sudan must carry out its sacred obligation to protect its citizens. The goal was to stop the suffering and killing of innocent civilians, and Germany expected the Government, as well as the rebels, to fulfill their obligations.
IÑIGO DE PALACIO (Spain) said the gravity of the situation in Darfur called for a clear and urgent response by the Council. The adopted text fulfilled those requirements. The resolution, in a balanced manner, placed before the Sudan Government its responsibilities derived from its commitments expressed in the joint communiqué. The Council must ensure that the Government comply with its commitments. He stressed that the measures mentioned in the resolution were also directed at the Janjaweed and the rebels. The resolution highlighted the leadership role of the African Union in the region, thereby stressing the regional approach.
The Council must continue to support the African Union in its efforts. It was a valuable opportunity to strengthen their cooperation for maintenance of peace and security. He expressed concern about violations of human rights and humanitarian law in Darfur. Those acts must not remain unpunished, he said, and the Council must ensure that those responsible were brought to justice.
RONALDO MOTA SARDENBERG (Brazil) said the resolution spoke of decisions to be taken in due time to promote peace and security and alleviate the suffering of the people in Darfur. The decisions would address all factors of a complex crisis. The first response must be an increase of humanitarian support. The decisions should further stimulate the parties to fully comply with their commitments.
He said security was a major issue. The fulfilment of the provisions of the ceasefire agreement signed in N'Djamena was an absolute need, as was the need to rein in the Janjaweed and other outlaw groups. There would be no impunity and the guilty would be brought to justice. The resolution highlighted condemnation of all acts of violence by the parties and emphasized the responsibility of the Government of the Sudan. It also underlined the crucial role of the African Union. He regretted, however, that the resolution did not add vigour by acting under Chapter VII, which, in his opinion, it had not done. The reference to Article 41 was a compromise.
JEAN-MARC DE LA SABLIERE (France) said that, while the resolution exerted strong pressure on the Government of the Sudan, its only concern was the plight of suffering civilians in Darfur and the Government’s responsibility to protect them. The international community could not remain on the sidelines.
He said the Government of the Sudan had made commitments to the Secretary-General regarding humanitarian assistance, as well as security concerns, particularly the disarming of the Janjaweed militia and the arrest of its leaders and their associates. It was also essential that the rebel groups respect the ceasefire and engage in unconditional peace negotiations. A humanitarian disaster was possible, although the worst had been avoided due to the outstanding work done by non-governmental organizations. France was grateful that the African Union had supported the pivotal resolution.
MASOOD KHALID (Pakistan) said the people and Government of Pakistan were as concerned as other members of the international community. All those suffering in Darfur were part of the Islamic umma. The joint communiqué of 3 July clearly delineated the commitments and obligations of the Government, whose cooperation was critical for the joint objective of saving human life in Darfur. The Council must encourage that cooperation, rather than complicate it.
He said his country had consistently counselled a calibrated approach to the situation in Darfur. While Pakistan appreciated the amendments made to the resolution, the final text lacked the necessary balance. It was regrettable that compromise had not been possible and Pakistan could, therefore, not support the text. It was hoped that the Council would not need to take further measures. Pakistan looked forward to the Secretary-General’s report in 30 days.
ARMIN E. ANDEREYA (Chile) said the international community had addressed persistent appeals to the Government of the Sudan to apply law and order in the Darfur region and bring to justice those responsible for crimes committed there. His country had co-sponsored the resolution out of the conviction that it was not possible to continue to hope for action by Sudanese authorities while violations of human rights continued. He hoped the Government of the Sudan would follow up with compliance within the timetable set and would restore order and consequently peace in the region.
LAURO L. BAJA (Philippines) said he had voted for the resolution in response to the humanitarian crisis. Whether what happened in Darfur was genocide or ethnic cleansing should not be a question. The fact was that people were dying, and that there was destruction and plundering and that the international community must stop the catastrophe. If a State was unable or unwilling to stop violations of human rights, the international community had the responsibility to help the State do so, until it had the will or the capacity. He had voted for the resolution in that context. He hoped that after 30 days there would be no reason to implement Article 41 of the Charter, because the Sudan by then would have complied with its commitments.
Council President MIHNEA MOTOC (Romania), speaking in his national capacity, said the action taken this morning bound together different nations and organizations in an effective response to the situation in Darfur, the first humanitarian crisis of the new century. It engaged the Government of the Sudan in ensuring that it lived up to its commitments. Romania hoped that the Council would constantly review the situation on the ground and called upon all parties concerned to live up to their responsibilities.
Noting that his country’s Foreign Minister would be in Khartoum and Darfur tomorrow, he said the situation was not an abstract matter for Romania, which cared for the Sudan and its people and was putting together a package of humanitarian assistance. The thematic debate that Romania had proposed on 20 July regarding cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations addressed issues that surpassed the realm of theory.
ELFATIH MOHAMED AHMED ERWA (Sudan) said he was overwhelmed with sadness at the Council’s hasty adoption of the resolution at a time when the Government of the Sudan was racing against time to implement its agreement with the United Nations. The military rebellion in Darfur, which had started in February last year, had occurred at a strange time that raised many questions since, the Government had been on the verge of achieving an end to the Naivasha negotiations and ending Africa’s longest-running civil war. The rebellion had destroyed peaceful coexistence in Darfur, precipitating a humanitarian crisis.
Emphasizing that peace was indivisible, he said the Government had sought to deal with the rebellion through serious dialogue with the international community and had engaged in a constructive effort in good faith with the United Nations, as well as bilaterally with members of the international community. All those efforts were included in the joint communiqué, which outlined a plan of action to solve the crisis. The Government had entered into obligations covering humanitarian, security and political issues. It had implemented all obligations regarding the issuance of visas for humanitarian workers. Its second obligation, relating to human rights, aimed at ending impunity and bringing to justice the perpetrators of atrocities, as well as allowing women to file lawsuits against those who had raped them. The Government had received complaints and established an independent investigation commission into human rights violations. Observers from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights were presently in the Sudan.
He said, as of yesterday, 4,812 police officers were deployed in Darfur and 200 member of the Janjaweed had been arrested, with some of them having received the death sentence.
As the joint communiqué had demanded that the Government resume political negotiations, the Government had dispatched a high-level delegation to negotiate, without preconditions. The talks had, however, collapsed before they started, because the rebels had insisted on certain preconditions.
He said when his Government had signed the joint communiqué in good faith, it had not occurred to it that the joint communiqué would be utilized to punish the Government, whether or not it had implemented its commitments. Would the Sudan have been safe from the Council even if there was no crisis in Darfur? Was the crisis a Trojan Horse? The Government was fully aware that some activists in the United States administration had worked to foster the rebellion. It had sound recordings of talks between rebel leaders and United States officials.
The resolution had been determined by the United States Congress, before it had been discussed in the Council, he said. That Congress had decided that there was genocide and ethnic cleansing, contrary to what had been judged by the Summit of the African Union.
While the resolution claimed to support efforts of the African Union, it hijacked the issue of Darfur from the African Union, he said. The nuances of the situation on the ground had not been taken into account. At a time when the African Union was seeking a solution to the problem, the Council had acted in haste to undermine the position of his Government. That revealed flagrant ignorance of the facts on the ground.
Despite all that, his Government would comply with the provisions of the resolution, would continue its efforts to mitigate the suffering in Darfur and restore stability, and would double its efforts to ensure a peaceful settlement of the problem, he said.
