Juba, South Sudan
The United Nations Security Council is poised to renew the sanctions regime and arms embargo on South Sudan for another year. The vote comes amid growing international concern that the world’s youngest nation is sliding deeper into political and military instability, despite years of peace agreements and active diplomatic engagement.
The draft resolution, authored and circulated to Security Council members by the United States, is largely considered a “technical rollover.” This means that rather than introducing major new or harsher provisions, it simply extends the existing targeted sanctions—including travel bans, asset freezes, and the arms embargo—until May 2027. While the text employs routine diplomatic language, it carries a stark message: key global powers firmly believe that South Sudan remains far from achieving the critical security and political reforms necessary to justify lifting these restrictions.
This renewal process comes at an incredibly tense moment for South Sudan, where armed clashes involving major signatories to the 2018 Revitalized Peace Agreement have intensified across several regions. This surge in violence has raised serious fears of a wider collapse of the fragile peace process.
A final report compiled by the UN Panel of Experts assisting the Security Council’s sanctions committee reportedly paints a grim picture of the domestic security situation. Although the report has not yet been made public, diplomats familiar with its findings state that armed confrontations between government forces, opposition groups, and allied militias continue to ravage multiple parts of the country.
Furthermore, the report alleges that military operations carried out by the South Sudan People’s Defence Forces (SSPDF) have received direct support from the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF), including the use of helicopters and surveillance aircraft in bombardments targeting opposition-held areas.
According to diplomats briefed on the document, the expert panel also concluded that government offensives made extensive use of armored personnel carriers that were previously acquired in direct violation of the UN arms embargo. The experts also assessed that additional small arms were procured earlier this year to bolster ongoing military operations. These allegations are highly likely to reinforce arguments by Western powers that lifting the embargo at this juncture would only worsen insecurity in an already volatile nation.
However, the debate surrounding these sanctions has long exposed deep structural divisions within the Security Council. China and Russia have consistently opposed the sanctions regime, arguing that it actively weakens South Sudan’s capacity to build professional national security institutions and consolidate legitimate state authority after years of devastating civil war.
African members of the Council have also repeatedly questioned whether these punitive measures are helping or harming the peace process. When the Council last renewed the sanctions regime in May 2025, six members abstained from the vote, including China, Russia, Somalia, Algeria, and Sierra Leone. Yet, during negotiations earlier this month, neither China nor Russia pushed aggressively to lift or substantially alter the measures, clearing a path for this year’s extension.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres also noted in a recent assessment that South Sudan is currently navigating its “most difficult period” since the signing of the 2018 peace agreement. The country has made entirely insufficient progress on key benchmarks, including security sector reforms, the formation of a unified national army, disarmament programs, proper management of weapons stockpiles, and addressing conflict-related sexual violence.
