UN Security Council meeting venue in New York, USA. |fFile photo.

The United Nations has extended for one year the sanctions regime imposed on South Sudan, including assets freeze, travel bans, and an arms embargo, citing ongoing human rights violations but a government representative objected to this.

In its resolution number 2-6-8-3, the Security Council strongly condemned past and, allegedly, ongoing violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by all parties, including armed groups and national security forces.

It further condemned the targeting of civil society, including journalists, human rights defenders, and humanitarian personnel, emphasizing that the unity government bears the primary responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

The Council decided to renew until 31 May 2024 the measures on arms imposed in 2018, which direct all Member States to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale, or transfer of arms to the territory of South Sudan.

It also decided that the notification requirements set out in 2022 shall no longer apply to the supply, sale or transfer of non-lethal military equipment, solely in support of the implementation of the terms of the peace agreement and related technical assistance or training on such equipment.

The UN Security Council also renewed until 31 May 2024, the travel and financial measures imposed by resolution 2-2-0-6 in 2015, according to which all Member States shall take measures to freeze the financial assets of designated individuals and prevent their entry into or transit through their territories.

Ten countries voted in favor of the resolution.

They are Albania, Brazil, Ecuador, France, Japan, Malta, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Meanwhile, China, Gabon, Ghana, Mozambique, and the Russian Federation abstained from voting.

Commenting on the matter, the representative of South Sudan objected to the resolution, saying it is “brazen interference in domestic affairs”, ill-intended, counterproductive, and has an adverse humanitarian effect on the citizens that its proponents claim to protect.