House of Lords
Palestine Statehood (Recognition) Bill [HL]
Friday 13th September 2024
(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Palestine Statehood (Recognition) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Palestine Statehood (Recognition) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
Sudan
(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House takes note of the situation in Sudan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to have an in-depth debate about the crisis in Sudan, one of the most pressing humanitarian emergencies of our time. It is clear from their presence here today that noble Lords share my concerns over the gravity of the situation. The world is not paying enough attention, and we must keep it in the spotlight in order to galvanise further international action and support.
This brutal conflict, primarily between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces, has had devastating consequences for civilians. What began as a power struggle between military factions has escalated into a protracted war and a humanitarian catastrophe. This conflict is not merely a continuation of the country’s troubled history; it is a profound crisis with implications for the entire region. The immediate cause can be traced back to the breakdown of a fragile power-sharing agreement between the military and civilian leaders. The failure of that agreement plunged the country into chaos, undoing much of the progress made since the revolution.
The scale of this crisis is staggering. Sudan is facing a manmade famine and one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. More than 10 million people have been forced to leave their homes, and recent widespread flooding has pushed the country to the brink, devastating an extremely fragile ecosystem. The UN estimates that more than 24 million people—about half the Sudanese population—need humanitarian assistance, sadly a figure that continues to grow as the conflict drags on.
But the impact is not limited to the displaced population. The conflict has severely disrupted agricultural production and supply chains, leading to soaring food prices and widespread hunger. More than 9 million people face emergency or famine levels of food insecurity. The destruction of healthcare facilities and the shortage of medical supplies have left the population vulnerable to disease outbreaks, with little or no access to treatment.
My right honourable friend the Minister for Development visited South Sudan recently. It was one of her first visits since being appointed, and her first Africa visit. There, she met people who had fled Sudan only to arrive in a country facing its own humanitarian emergency. She witnessed the most appalling scenes of suffering and devastation. The stories she heard of families torn apart, children on the brink of starvation and communities destroyed by violence demonstrate the terrible human cost of this conflict.
In response to this crisis, the UK has significantly increased its humanitarian support to Sudan. This year we have almost doubled UK official development assistance for Sudan to £97 million, the majority of which is vital humanitarian assistance. This is funding critical services including nutritious food, safe drinking water, medical care and shelter, offering a lifeline to millions of Sudanese in desperate circumstances. The UK has also been proactive in supporting refugees who have fled to neighbouring countries. In August we announced an additional £15 million in funding to address the devasting impact of this regional crisis across Sudan, South Sudan and Chad.
The UK humanitarian response is complemented by extensive diplomatic engagement. In my first month I spoke with Ramtane Lamamra, the UN Secretary-General’s personal envoy for Sudan, and former Sudanese PM Abdalla Hamdok. The message was clear: Sudan must move towards a peaceful and prosperous future, and the UK is committed to using all diplomatic levers to support this. A co-ordinated international response is critical to resolving the conflict. To this end, the United Kingdom welcomes the creation of the Aligned for Advancing Lifesaving and Peace in Sudan—ALPS—Group in Geneva and its efforts to strengthen humanitarian access, protect civilians and de-escalate immediately in Sudan. The United Kingdom stands ready to support all these efforts.
During my visit last month to New York for the United Nations Security Council, I discussed efforts to secure peace in Sudan, in particular with the Ugandan Foreign Minister and the US Permanent Representative to the UN. The United Kingdom continues to use its role as penholder on Sudan in the UN Security Council to call on all states to refrain from actions that will prolong the conflict. We will continue to call on those who have influence on the warring parties to use it to bring them to the negotiating table.
Of course, peace cannot just be imposed from the outside; it must be built from within. That is why we are working with civil society groups, including women’s organisations, to ensure that any political settlement reflects the aspirations of the Sudanese people. In addition to direct assistance, the United Kingdom has mobilised international support for Sudan, bringing attention to the crisis at the highest levels, including at the United Nations. When famine was declared in Sudan at the end of August, we immediately called a UN Security Council session to call on the warring parties to stop blocking humanitarian assistance. As our intervention noted during that session, more than 100 Sudanese civilians are dying from starvation every day. An announcement on the UK special representative for Sudan is imminent.
I stress that we are clear that this is an entirely manmade famine, and this appalling loss of life will continue until the warring factions put the Sudanese people before power. Put quite simply, using starvation as a weapon of war is a war crime. We condemn in the strongest terms the targeting of humanitarian workers and the destruction of their facilities. We welcome the decision to reopen the Adre crossing for humanitarian assistance at long last. We call on the Sudanese Armed Forces to remove the restrictions on convoys entering Sudan and urge the Rapid Support Forces to facilitate access across lines of conflict. We are continuing to push for humanitarian corridors to be stabilised, for civilians to be protected and for international humanitarian law to be fully implemented.
The UK has also sanctioned individuals and entities fuelling the conflict, including key figures linked to both the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces. These sanctions are not merely symbolic; they are a clear message that those responsible for the violence will be held accountable. External arms supplies are perpetuating this violence, and the United Kingdom has made clear that they must stop if we are to have any hope of achieving peace.
Turning to peacebuilding, the United Kingdom supports the establishment of a civilian-led Government in Sudan. This country’s future must not include those who have led it into turmoil. Our support extends to the Taqaddum coalition, where we are providing technical and diplomatic assistance to promote inclusive dialogue among all Sudanese stakeholders.
The international community must not turn a blind eye to human rights abuses in Sudan. The United Kingdom condemns in the strongest possible terms the atrocities being committed, particularly in Darfur, where mass killings and systematic rape are reported. Some attacks by the RSF and its allied militia appear to have been ethnically motivated, and these bear all the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing. Meanwhile, the SAF have launched indiscriminate air strikes in heavily populated areas, with no regard for civilian casualties. These atrocities have drawn comparisons to the darkest chapters in Sudan’s history, and we must act to prevent history repeating itself.
These crimes cannot go unpunished, and we are working closely with the International Criminal Court and the UN Human Rights Council to hold the perpetrators accountable and ensure that justice is served. This includes leading efforts in the HRC last year to establish the independent and international fact-finding mission for Sudan. We are also funding initiatives such as the Sudan Witness project through the Centre for Information Resilience. Such initiatives are crucial in documenting abuses, providing evidence for prosecutions and ensuring that victims are heard.
To conclude, it will require a concerted international effort to end this crisis, and the United Kingdom’s efforts to do so will continue as long as they are needed. We will continue working with our partners to provide humanitarian assistance, bring the warring parties to the negotiating table and hold those responsible for atrocities to account. Sudanese people deserve the dividends of peace. Sudan can and must move towards a peaceful and prosperous future—and, with sustained international support, I believe it will. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has set out very clearly the challenges that are faced by every single person in Sudan. Indeed, the conflict has persisted for over a year and has escalated into one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.
I welcome the statement the Minister made just a moment ago that there will shortly be an announcement about the appointment of a UK special envoy to Sudan. The All-Party Group for Sudan and South Sudan, of which I am one of the vice-chairs, has long called for that, and I congratulate the Government on doing it.
Yesterday, I had the privilege of opening a short debate about the impact of the conflict on children in Sudan. Today, I will pick up on some of the themes that the Minister has rightly mentioned with regard to the challenges of securing peace in the short and long term, and the need for humanitarian support. As the Foreign Secretary said on 2 August:
“Aid must be allowed to reach those in need. Starvation must not be used as a method of warfare”.
As the UK is the penholder on Sudan at the UN in New York and Geneva, can the Minister give us a little more detail today about the steps being taken by the UK to prevent further casualties and secure a ceasefire? He has given us some information, but I think we can go further just to find out what future debates are going to be called for at the UNSC and in Geneva at the Human Rights Council.
In opening, the Minister welcomed the agreement reached by the ALPS Group talks in Switzerland last month that the Adre border crossing would be open to humanitarian aid convoys. I understand that the RSF sent a delegation but the Sudanese Government did not, despite invitations and indeed extensive international pressure. One of the official reasons given by the Sudanese Government was their strong opposition to the fact that the UAE was going to be included in the talks, because they believe the reports that the UAE is providing military support to the RSF. Can the Minister say whether the UK Government believe that the UAE’s support is indeed being given to the RSF?
The talks went ahead, with representation from the United States special envoy for Sudan, Tom Perriello, who made it clear that the agreements reached went beyond the opening of the Adre border, although that is of course vital, and mentioned the fact that the RSF gave commitments to implement a code of conduct among its own fighters. I hope the Minister will forgive my cynicism about the likelihood of that actually happening, given the widespread reports of the atrocities caused by the RSF, to which the noble Lord referred; sometimes we find the RSF posting videos of the killings and the rapes online, celebrating what they have just been doing in graphic detail. Of course, there is an extremely difficult barrier to achieving any success in peace, short and long term, and that is the battle between the two people who want to control the country.
It was extremely disappointing that, in December last year, the United Nations Security Council was put in an impossible position by the Sudanese Government’s formal request to terminate the mandate of UNITAMS —the UN Integrated Transition Assistance Mission in Sudan. In the light of that, can the Minister say today what steps the Government are taking as penholder on Sudan to support the development of options for the deployment of a civilian protection mission in Sudan, in co-ordination with the African Union, the UN and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development? I know there have been discussions about this possibility. Sudanese people desperately need a respite from the warfare between those two leaders and the battle-hardened people behind them. As we know, the conflict has created this manmade humanitarian disaster.
In yesterday’s debate in Grand Committee and today, the Minister rightly referred to the increase in ODA payments—an uplift in contributions—to try to ease some of the humanitarian crisis there. I am, however, a little bit confused, because there has been a bit of a tangle about some of the announcements made over the summer and today. I do not see any problem with that; I think the Government are simply trying to make a series of announcements and that it is a case of where the money is and what it is going to do. I would be grateful if the Minister might untangle that, and if he is not in a position to do that today, I would of course be happy with a letter to me, which could be put in the Library.
For example, the Government announced on 22 August that they will provide
“£86 million in vital life-saving support for vulnerable people in South Sudan, Sudan and Chad to … Save lives … Tackle food shortages … Prevent gender-based violence … Assist displaced communities to adapt to the impact of flooding”.
Those are all vital and all huge efforts. How much of that is actually going to Sudan, considering that other countries are mentioned in that? In addition, does that £86 million include within it the £2 million in support for the 150,000 Sudanese refugees who are in eastern Libya? That extra uplift was announced by Minister Dodds on 12 July; is it part of it or in addition to it; where are we going on that? How does all that fit in with the Minister’s statement yesterday in Grand Committee about what the uplift was? I will not quote from it today—other noble Lords can look at it—but it does not quite fit in with what he was saying today and earlier announcements made this summer.
Last week, I attended the online launch of the report Beyond the Numbers: Hunger and Conflict in Sudan, published by the Norwegian Refugee Council, Mercy Corps and the Danish Refugee Council. The report is based on the testimonies from people in regions which include Darfur, Kordofan and Khartoum. It reveals the direct and indirect ways in which the conflict and widespread violations of international humanitarian law have led to suffering and starvation on a vast scale. Will Carter of the NRC made the point at the launch that not enough has been done by the international community to tap into local forms of resilience and the support from the private sector. Does the Minister agree with his view?
The report concludes with a series of significant recommendations, I shall just pick out two and ask the Minister whether the Government support them and will take action on them. First,
“the UN Security Council, the UN leadership and member states should engage in proactive diplomacy that highlights the connection between conflict and hunger, as per Resolution 2417 and the G7 Famine Prevention Compact”.
Secondly, providers of ODA should
“Support Farmers in Boosting Food Production … as the key to addressing urgent food needs and stabilising the food insecurity crisis”.
After all, the FCDO sets the strategic direction for much of the UK’s approach to agricultural development. What are the Government’s plans to take action on this when it is safe to do so?
The conflict in Sudan has received just a fraction of the media attention given to Gaza and Ukraine, yet it threatens to be deadlier than either conflict, and, as the noble Lord said, it risks undermining security in the whole region.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, because she always brings such authority to a debate.
I too thank the Minister for initiating this important debate and congratulate him on his comprehensive and powerful speech. It is very welcome that we are having this debate today; a debate in government time is long overdue. As the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, this sometimes feels like the forgotten war, yet it is so far from forgotten for the millions of displaced, sick and starving of Sudan. It is stark to see quite how little coverage of the war there is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, compared to the coverage of what is happening in the Middle East or Ukraine.
I worked on a project in Sudan from 2022 to 2023— I refer noble Lords to my register of interests. Indeed, my last visit to Khartoum was in April 2023 with my noble friend Lord Purvis, just one week before this awful civil war started. By the time we left Khartoum, the roads were all closed, the pro-democracy campaigners were facing the Sudanese Armed Forces on the streets, and the air was thick with tear gas. Then, just one week later, on 15 April, the full-blown civil war started.
It is the most cynical of wars. It is not a war about ideals or ideology but about personal wealth, power, influence and access to natural resources—and all at the terrible expense of ordinary people, especially women and children, who now face starvation on a catastrophic scale. It is estimated that 37% of the population faces severe food insecurity. It is a war that, in many ways, has become a proxy war for current geopolitical tensions. During my visits to Khartoum, the Wagner Group was clearly visible in the streets of the capital, and at that time it was supporting the RSF. However, there is evidence that Russia is now cynically switching sides in its bid to maintain access to the Red Sea.
Both sides in this war—the RSF and the SAF—are accused of international war crimes. There are truly appalling reports of soldiers using rape as a weapon. Even before the fighting broke out, the UN estimated that 3 million women and girls in Sudan were at risk of gender-based violence. It is rightly described as
“one of the worst humanitarian nightmares in recent history”
by UN officials.
Yet after President Bashir was removed in 2019, there were genuine hopes that the transition to a civilian-led Government based on human rights and the rule of law might be possible. Certainly, in September 2022, during my first visit to Sudan, I was struck by the optimism and hope when talking to my Sudanese colleagues. At home in my flat, I have a copy of Hussein Merghani’s wonderful watercolour from 2019, which shows hundreds of people, including women and children from Atbara, travelling by train to join the sit-in at the military headquarters in Khartoum in April 2019. The painting is optimistic and shows the strength of public support at that time, across the country, after the revolution in 2019, for a different future for Sudan. It was an all too fleeting time of optimism.
One of the people I got to know while working in Khartoum was Samia El Hashmi. Samia is an eminent Sudanese lawyer and women’s rights activist who was working with the Sudanese Bar Association. After the revolution, Samia helped to draft a new constitution for Sudan which enshrined human rights and the rule of law. In many ways, Samia for me embodies the many wonderful and highly educated people I met in Sudan—people who just want to live a normal life in the country that they love but who had to flee for their lives when the fighting started in April last year.
The history of relations between Sudan and Britain is long and complex, but this shared history creates a special bond between our nations. We should not forget that the University of Durham’s Sudan archive preserves much of the history of Sudan. With this shared history comes responsibility. After the December revolution, the UK rightly played an important role with the quartet in supporting the democratic transition and promoting civilian government, political security and stability, economic reform and human rights. This is a process which should be continued and revived whenever—as we all hope—this conflict can be brought to an end.
I do not have an instant solution for how we can bring about peace to Sudan. I am sure many noble Lords speaking in the debate today are much better qualified and placed than me to make suggestions in that regard. But as my friend Samia has said to me, Britain can and must continue to play a trusted role, and do all in our power to work with others to bring about an end to this most bloody of conflicts.
In his concluding remarks, I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about the Government’s position on increasing the arms embargo to cover the whole of the country. I welcome what he said in his opening statement: that the Government will do all they can to ensure that those guilty of the most appalling war crimes—particularly against women and children—will face justice through the International Criminal Court.
Wars can too easily become about just statistics, but for me, this is personal. It is about the Sudanese people I had the opportunity to get to know and work with during my visits to Sudan. They desperately want the international community to give them some hope that the conflict can be stopped and that they can return to their country and start to rebuild once again from the rubble.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I join the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Anelay, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for the way in which he introduced today’s important debate. He has a long-standing commitment to the people of Africa, and he will bring humanity and expertise to the many challenges that he will face as Minister for Africa—the most urgent of which is the catastrophic war in Sudan.
On Wednesday, the Minister attended part of a two-hour briefing which I chaired on behalf of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sudan and South Sudan. I pay tribute to the outgoing chair, Vicky Ford, and the incoming chair, of whom I have great expectations; Rachael Maskell, the MP for York, is a wonderful Member of Parliament, and I know that she will follow well in the footsteps of Vicky Ford. During that meeting, we heard harrowing contributions from Geraldine O’Callaghan of the World Food Programme, Sibongani Kayola of Mercy Corps, Will Carter of the Norwegian Refugee Council and the Sudanese women’s shuttle diplomacy initiative.
Along with the mass displacement of what is now approaching 11 million internally displaced people—adding to the 120 million people worldwide who are displaced—we learned that
“famine is no longer a threat. It is a reality”.
We heard that people are dying of hunger; that skeletal children are some of the nine out of 10 who are suffering from some form of malnutrition, with 14 million children in need of humanitarian support; that 16 humanitarian aid workers have been killed in Sudan this year; and that ever-present dangers have compromised the delivery of aid to starving people. We heard that food is being used as a weapon of war.
A Sudanese lady doctor told us that 95% of hospitals and clinics are closed; that disease, including cholera and dengue, is raging; and that 19 million children are out of school and education, and, inevitably, are likely to be used in human trafficking and other forms of exploitation, or as child soldiers. We heard that those responsible for atrocity crimes have acted with utter disregard for the suffering that they are inflicting on their own people, and that impunity and the failure to bring to account those responsible for the genocide of 2004 have sown the seeds for a war which, because of other competing global priorities, fails to make the media’s small print, let alone the headlines.
We often say that black lives matter. If that is so, why has the world been so silent about the suffering in Sudan? We glibly say, “Never again”, and then, in a total failure of international statecraft, we watch it happen all over again. There is no greater indication of the failure of international justice and accountability than Sudan.
I joined the all-party parliamentary group over 20 years ago, after travelling to Sudan during the second Sudanese civil war, which raged from 1983 to 2005, and in which 2 million people died of killing, famine or disease and 4 million people were displaced. It ultimately led to the death of the country itself and to partition. In October 2004, I went to Darfur. The Independent newspaper carried my report under the words:
“If this isn’t genocide, then what on earth is?”
As many as 300,000 people perished, and 2 million people were displaced. Atrocity crimes included the Government-backed Janjaweed’s systematic rape of women and the burning and looting of villages—90% of which were razed to the ground—all driven by an ideological hatred of difference. The International Criminal Court said it was genocide. Omar al-Bashir and some of the others involved in those crimes have still not been brought to justice.
Reports of new outrages in early 2023 led to the all-party group asking me to chair a new inquiry. Our report, Genocide All Over Again in Darfur?, described the consequences of daring to think you can neglect the issue of justice. We concluded that, whatever happens when the violence in Sudan ends, there will be no lasting and credible peace without justice.
On 18 July 2023, I tabled a Private Notice Question asking the Government,
“following the discovery of mass graves and an increase in crimes targeting non-Arab ethnic groups in Darfur, what assessment they have made of the risk of genocide in that region”.
I quoted the current prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan KC, who had told the United Nations Security Council the previous week that we were
“in peril of allowing history to repeat itself”.
He said that Darfur was
“not on the precipice of a human catastrophe but in the very midst of one. It is occurring”.
At the time, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked the then Government
“what we are doing to put pressure on Sudan so that people cannot act with impunity in the future”.—[Official Report, 18/7/23; cols. 2206-07.]
To find the answer to that crucial question, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to convene a round table to examine with Members of your Lordships’ House ways for us to honour our duties under the 1948 UN convention on the crime of genocide, which lays upon us, as a signatory, the duty to predict, prevent, protect and punish. We do none of those things.
What will be done about the horrendous evidence not just from the past but in this week’s fact-finding mission report given to the United Nations Human Rights Council? I was appalled to read, yet again, about the same things that I have myself seen. The report detailed instances of rape and sexual violence occurring now, with the rape of girls as young as eight and of women as old as 75. I repeat: girls as young as eight years of age. The fact-finding mission attributed these crimes to
“men wearing RSF uniforms … who victims referred to as Janjaweed”.
It said that international crimes are being committed by the SAF and the RSF, including
“murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture; and committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment”.
Crimes against humanity intersect with the persecution and forcible displacement of people on grounds of ethnicity and gender. Karim Khan says that the current situation in Sudan is within the purview of the ICC’s mandate. He has been collecting and analysing the evidence. Can the Minister tell us how the UK’s war crimes unit is working with him and other like-minded nations?
We should not foolishly imagine that what happens in a faraway place stays there. In the foreword to our report, I said:
“More refugees will be coming our way if we do not act now and address the situation”.
The failure to tackle root causes both fails the displaced and plays into the hands of those who wickedly whip up fear and hatred of refugees. Undoubtedly, the immediate priority must be humanitarian aid. The situation is too urgent to wait for permission from the men with guns to enter Sudan. Does the Minister agree? In the Security Council—this was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay—the United Kingdom should call for an international intervention force under UN or African Union auspices, and initiate a Chapter VII mandate to do so. Can the Minister tell us whether that is our intention?
Building on something said by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, I say that we must do far more to support Abdalla Hamdok and those Sudanese people who are committed to the popular democratic calls for peace, justice and freedom. In our all-party group’s report, we talked about a “tantalising” glimpse of hope but, if hope is to be sustained, it needs more than a glimpse —it must be a long-term commitment.
Sudan deserves much better than the SAF and the RSF. Since independence in 1989, the SAF has been an army only ever deployed against its own people. Wars end when one side clearly wins, when one side surrenders or when one side becomes exhausted, none of which seems to be about to happen. Both have weapons, money and, sometimes, opaque external support driven by jihadist ideology, as was referred to by the noble Baroness. What is our strategy for dealing with this?
At the end of today’s debate, I would like to give the Minister a book of pictures drawn by children in Darfur, which was put together by Waging Peace. I hope that it will always be a reminder to him to keep them ever in his thoughts and actions.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, it is always a daunting honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the previous speakers. Like them, I have some considerable experience of Sudan, having been there a number of times and had dealings not just at the political level but on the ground, among very real and ordinary communities. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for securing this debate.
Behind the statistics, there are human beings and stories; 25 million people going hungry could be just a number until you look individuals in the eye. Dig a little deeper and the whole situation in Sudan is much more complicated than simply two generals having a scrap. What we can say with confidence is this: military violence, including the bombing of children, women and ordinary civilians, is appalling. It is often indiscriminate, especially when unleashed by the RSF in what increasingly looks like deliberate and intentional genocide in parts of Sudan. A humanitarian catastrophe has exploded in plain sight of the world and its Governments, with food shortages; the closing down of access for humanitarian aid from neighbouring countries; famine; malnutrition; and a generation of children who are being starved, made homeless and given no medical care or education.
As the director of the World Food Programme told us at the APPG, as was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton:
“Avoidable famine is no longer a threat—it is a reality now”.
Future harvests are now in serious doubt. What will the consequences of that be? Do not be surprised if masses of Sudanese seek refuge through irregular immigration in this and other countries if the UK seeks to address the current crisis without addressing the consequent implications for a destabilised region: the wider corruption of civil society in Sudan and neighbouring countries; challenges in establishing future legitimate government with civil society engagement in a now-destroyed nation; and, one day, the challenge of reconstruction.
It is evident that elements associated with the RSF are seeking to kill Sudanese history, culture and identity in order to replace it with a different narrative, although there is not time to explain what I am referring to here. There are no simple or simply achievable solutions. We cannot urge action in this place to salve our consciences if our messaging, however well intentioned and humane, does not change anything on the ground for those both with and without power.
Against government advice but with deep respect to the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad—he has been completely supportive and honourable in my engagement with Sudan; I note that the consul from the Sudanese embassy is present in the Chamber for this morning’s debate—I visited Port Sudan in June with a colleague, the Bishop of Bradford. The diocese of Leeds has nearly half a century of strong relationships with the Episcopal Church in Sudan. Like the Church of England here, the Church in Sudan exists not for its own sake but for the sake of the people of Sudan. Despite massive threat and displacement, the bishops and clergy have largely stayed in situ. The Archbishop of Sudan, Ezekiel Kondo, saw everything in Khartoum destroyed by the RSF and escaped only with his life and the clothes he stood up in. Now based in Port Sudan, he runs the province from a small desk in the corner of his bedroom in a tiny, basic rented house.
While in Port Sudan, the Bishop of Bradford and I visited a camp for displaced people. Around 2,000 people live in a derelict school. Because they were internally displaced and are therefore not refugees, they receive no support for health, education or food—just a few tents from UNICEF. The night after we visited, a delegation came to see us and told us that at least one woman had been raped by soldiers in the early hours after we had left. We met a pastor, now also living in exile from Khartoum. His home was attacked by the RSF, and all he had had been destroyed. He was beaten a number of times before being asked, “How do you want to die?” He was rescued by a Muslim neighbour who hid him until he could escape and get to Port Sudan, mostly on foot.
We had time there with the director of central intelligence, who said that there was no restriction on what I could report of our conversation in my diocese or in this House. His narrative is one with which I am very familiar: the conflict is not a conflict of equals. The SAF and the Government are seeking to secure the future of Sudan. The RSF are rebels who seek their own gain, deploy violent mercenaries from other countries and kill indiscriminately, with a clear suggestion that they will settle for the possible division of the country. It was put to me that, when people need sanctuary, they do not flee to the open arms of the RSF or their controlled areas but to places controlled by the SAF. That is just a fact.
The case put by the current Sudanese Government is clear. The international community—especially the UK, as pen holder of the UN, along with our deep connections with Sudan over decades—must work to stop the flow of arms and money to the RSF, particularly from the United Arab Emirates. However, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Russia and others are also involved in this tragedy. Someone is profiting from the arms flow, and it is not the starving, suffering people of Sudan. Governments must apply pressure via sanctions and co-ordinated action—by a reinvigorated troika, for example—to cut off the flow. Surely the priority of a ceasefire, urged by many involved parties, is only possible once that arms flow has been stopped.
When a ceasefire becomes possible, who is going to lead the mediation? Many countries that wish to are directly involved on one side or the other. Calling for a ceasefire sounds noble until we dig into the pragmatics of how to make it happen. Also, if a ceasefire simply freezes the divisions that are there now on the ground and both sides keep the territory they control at that point, where do we go from there?
We cannot simply wait for the conflict to end or be ended. The international community must press hard now for protected access points to be opened across the country in order that millions of lives can be saved and a viable future for the children of Sudan can be opened up. Children must be prioritised if the seeds of the next several generations of violence, power struggles and poverty are not to be watered so freely in the blood-soaked violence of now.
The UK Government and partners must leverage all their resources and political power to cut off the arms flow and create the conditions where any credible ceasefire might create the space for negotiation. Failure to address this catastrophe now will only lead to increasingly uncontrollable consequences elsewhere, with further destabilisation of an already fragile region. For example, oil gelling in the pipelines will diminish South Sudan’s economy and add to economic and humanitarian challenges. Mass irregular migration will be a consequence, and so on. So I agree with the call for all diplomatic means, as the Minister said. It is essential that the new special envoy must physically get into Sudan. I have to say that Port Sudan, when I was there, was safer than London. We need a physical, visible presence, even if it is only on a regular visit. Other ambassadors and envoys are doing this.
The Church of England’s love for our sisters and brothers in Sudan will not diminish. We will continue not only to pray but to act, caring for the Sudanese expat community here and those in Sudan whom we can reach. We might justify the UK government advice again and visit the people we love. For us in the Christian Church, faith is incarnational: fleshed, physical and material. I urge the Minister in his response to give assurances that Sudan will gain in focus and not be left on the “too complicated” pile. I hope that the Minister will be willing to meet with me and others to pursue this further engagement.
Baroness Amos (Lab)
My Lords, this is my first opportunity to publicly congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his ministerial role. I know well from my own experience the impact that British development and foreign policy can have on countries on the African continent. That is why I am so pleased to participate in today’s debate. It is a privilege to be with so many noble Lords with expertise, knowledge and love of Sudan.
I echo the Minister’s remarks about the importance of shining a spotlight on what is happening in that country. In preparing for today’s debate, I realised that for over 20 years I have been working on issues in Sudan, either as a Minister, at the UN or as a member of a number of organisations in which I have declared my interest in the register. I have visited Sudan, and indeed South Sudan, on many occasions. While at the United Nations, I was cleared, even while the then President al-Bashir was sanctioned, to have meetings with him to seek ways to facilitate humanitarian access. I also visited refugee and displacement camps in Darfur. The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, spoke very powerfully about the situation there at that time. I also visited UN and AU peacekeeping missions in the country.
The situation in Sudan is a major political and humanitarian crisis. It is the world’s largest internal displacement crisis. My noble friend the Minister talked about the 10 million figure. There are 2 million refugees, 150,000 people are dead in the current phase of the conflict and 26 million people out of the population of 47 million are facing crisis levels of acute food insecurity. We have already heard about the impact of famine in some areas.
The only answer is to find a political solution. The humanitarian situation we can make better—we can put a plaster on the things that are happening—but the long-term solution has got to be to find a political solution. The violence has to stop. While diplomatic engagement has continued, the talks to date have yielded little by way of a ceasefire. Although there has been some opening-up of humanitarian access, there is still a long way to go; my noble friend the Minister referenced some of that. There are clearly no quick solutions. Forcing the parties to the table has clearly failed so far. I see no tangible benefits yet in terms of stopping the fighting. Tensions remain high in North Darfur’s Al-Fashir region, amid reports that the RSF is mobilising its forces to intensify hostilities. There has been severe flooding across the country that has exacerbated the humanitarian situation, a surge in disease outbreaks, including cholera, a health system that has totally collapsed and the looting of many of whatever supplies there are.
There have been almost unthinkable levels of harm being meted out to civilians, including sexual violence on an extreme scale and ethnic-based targeting of civilians. I 100% agree with my noble friend the Minister about the importance of accountability. We have to ensure that records are kept because, even if people are not held accountable now, they can be held accountable in the future.
However, these are outward manifestations of the issues impacting Sudan, which are deep and structural. The political transition headed by Prime Minister Hamdok was on track. It was then sidetracked and now hangs in the balance. The military leadership is fractured and whether or not they have “legitimacy”—a word which I hesitate to use—they think they do or are perceived to, they do not represent the civilian leadership or the people of Sudan. The situation seems to be at an impasse.
In these situations, the United Nations and its member states acting together can often have a significant impact. They can show leadership and, through that, broker an outcome.
So much of what is happening in Sudan contains familiar ingredients, such as long-term conflict with no apparent end. I saw it time and again when I was at the UN, and I know that Ministers in many UN member states share the view that a number of things are particular to these kinds of conflicts: a history of authoritarian military leadership; a tussle for power among the military and other armed factions; international interference, with powerful countries taking sides; and no attention at all paid to the people on the ground.
Conflict-induced humanitarian crisis is intensified by poverty, natural disaster, and food insecurity, which I have already mentioned, leading to famine. These situations require patience, but also attention to detail and creativity. As countries and member states of the United Nations, we need to have the courage to use the tools available to us as an international community. We can continue with what we are doing now or take what is often perceived as a risk with that creativity.
I support the elements that my noble friend the Minister laid out in terms of the work currently going on, including establishing a framework for talks that are inclusive and co-ordinated. They have to happen, but they must be inclusive, bringing women, young people and other stakeholders together—perhaps informed by track 2. There will be groups that want to be spoilers, but it is best to engage rather than exclude.
All armed actors have to guarantee humanitarian access. It is currently fragmented: some groups are demanding money for access and some agreed routes are not open at all. I ask my noble friend the Minister: what more can be done to ensure that signed agreements are adhered to, and can any sanctions be applied to those that have signed but are not participating? There must be accountability for crimes committed, adherence to the rule of law and the rules of combat and engagement, and protection of civilians. That is almost impossible in some situations, but we have to start somewhere. Sponsors of armed groups must cease providing weapons and should be held to account.
The Security Council, collectively, needs to be much more actively engaged—not just debating but coming up with other actions. In the past, the UN has assumed a responsibility to protect. We saw it in Libya, when it lost some of its resonance because of the way in which it was prosecuted. I feel very strongly that that can be used now, in this situation. My noble friend the Minister talked about using all diplomatic efforts. Will the UK, working with partners on the Security Council, push for the use of the responsibility to protect? If we have not done it so far, why not?
I also associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on Chapter VII. I think this is important to do. Sudan is in danger of becoming a failed state. Every life matters; let us not let the people down.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, the Minister, for tabling this important debate. As I stand to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, I speak perhaps both for her and me, as we feel very much part—as I joked with my noble friend Lord Hunt—of a spiritual sandwich, following soon after the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds and awaiting the contribution from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. That shows the rich diversity, insight and experience of your Lordships’ House on this vital issue.
I seek your Lordships’ indulgence, for a moment or two, in extending for the first time in the Chamber my sincere congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, on his appointment as Minister for Africa. He has served this House incredibly well. I should know; in the last seven years, I often spent more time with him than with my family, in exchanges and debates at the Dispatch Box.
I share with noble Lords the importance of relationships within your Lordships’ House. There was one occasion that I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, remembers all too well. I take your Lordships back to May 2019 and the case of Asia Bibi—a young lady escaping religious persecution. She was being persecuted simply for being a Christian. Many weeks—indeed, months—had gone into negotiations, with sensitive diplomacy across many countries. At a delicate point in the negotiations, I remember speaking repeatedly to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, over the weekend. As I came in on the Monday, I was alerted by my excellent private office that there was the risk of an Urgent Question being tabled by the other side by the then Leader of the Opposition.
My instant reaction was to immediately call the noble Lord, Lord Collins. I said to him, “Ray, I have an issue and I need to take you into my confidence”. I provided insight and context about what needed to happen. He did not waste a moment. He did what was needed and the Urgent Question was averted. I thank him for that; it is just one example of the many occasions that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and I worked together, as we regularly do with noble Lords across the House, in ensuring that wisdom, experience, insights—and, at times, wit—are fully taken into account as we look to provide real, practical solutions to the problems that face the world.
I therefore welcome this debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for his support, advice and insights, and for the enduring friendship that we have developed over the last seven years. I look forward to continuing that both within the Chamber and beyond.
We have already heard some incredible contributions in this debate on Sudan. Sudan is a country blessed by God. When I visited Sudan back in 2017 and again in 2019, there was great hope. Khartoum is where the White Nile and the Blue Nile meet, and I remember the importance of communities and civil society, which I will come on to in a moment or two, but also the importance of bringing communities together, religious communities as well. I therefore welcome the contributions from the Spiritual Benches.
When I visited Darfur, in my capacity as the Prime Minister’s Special Representative on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict, I saw abhorrent practices at first hand. As we have heard from other noble Lords, young girls were being not just victimised but raped repeatedly and with impunity. So we must have accountability as we move forward and we need religious communities to be part of that conversation. I remember resolving the issue of Sunday no longer being given as a holiday for the Christian community. It was resolved not just by diplomacy by nations or by engaging with the then authorities; it came from bringing religious communities together.
We know all too well the humanitarian and economic challenges that Sudan faces. Many noble Lords have articulated them and I will not repeat them. I align myself with much of what has already been said by noble Lords, but the humanitarian situation is stark. Sudan has failed, and the responsibility is not just on Sudan; it is a collective responsibility, as the Minister articulated in his excellent opening.
Children and babies are caught up in this conflict. They face a stark choice: leave your country and travel to another country where you may or may not be looked after, or face the wrath of two generals, Burhan and Hemedti, who believe—absolutely ideologically—that they will end this war by killing each other and whoever sides with the other. That will not be the resolution to this conflict, or indeed others.
The economic challenges and religious and communal tensions must be addressed. We must look to all our regional partners and allies to find a collective solution to the challenges Sudan faces. Therefore, as we look towards what I hope will be real, practical pathways to peace, can the Minister tell us what the latest updates are on the various initiatives—as I myself knew about during my time at the Foreign Office—whether through the African Union, the Arab League or IGAD? I would welcome an update. We know the important role that regional partners can play and the influences they bring. The Minister has already given valuable updates on the engagement he has conducted, but what engagement have we had with key partners such as Egypt, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates?
In all these areas and all this diplomacy, at times we need to be inclusive, but we also need to be constructive. In my experience, however, at times we must be discreet, because that unlocks the potential solution.
The role of the United Nations is important, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, and the Minister. Can he update us, as the penholder, on what more can be done beyond the Human Rights Council fact-finding mission and whether we can convene a meeting based on some of the recommendations from that report?
What of the important role of the United States? Was Sudan on the agenda in the recent discussions the Foreign Secretary had with Secretary of State Blinken, and in the discussions that are rightly taking place on resolving conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine? As has been said repeatedly, let us also not forget Sudan.
Inclusivity of approach is important. We have heard about the importance of civil society. I share with the Minister a plea that was hard in the making, as my noble friend Baroness Anelay knows all too well: we need women mediators at the table—not at the end or in another room; we need women mediators at the start. Whether we are dealing with issues of accountability around conflict-related sexual violence, or using and leveraging our experience, we have the structures in place within the UN and we have women who bring valuable experience. We must leverage that in resolving these issues. Conflicts are resolved, and peace agreements last longer, when women are involved at the start.
Accountability cannot be forgotten in all this. The ICC’s role is key. What engagement have we had with the ICC on setting up the mechanisms now to ensure that the solutions can be provided tomorrow?
The Minister informed us that the Government are looking at appointing special representatives. I look forward to their continuing the important work we started on preventing sexual violence in conflict, but let me mention one practical example. We saw mobile courts work well with partners such as Transparency International to bring justice locally and ensure that perpetrators are held to account. That practical measure is working in the DRC, and I hope it can be deployed in Sudan.
We need inclusive responses, transparent ways of working and discreet diplomacy when required. This is not an issue just for Sudan or the region; it has global implications for migration, the movement of people, accountability and the rules-based order system. I ask the Minister to continuously update your Lordships’ House on our efforts to ensure that this human catastrophe can be brought to an end.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
I too am grateful to the Minister for arranging this debate, in which we are hearing extraordinary expertise—with some exceptions. In particular, there are former Ministers for Africa. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who has had an extraordinarily distinguished career, and I look forward to hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. The speech given by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was truly remarkable.
It is noticeable in what we have heard so far that the history of Sudan has been very present to us. I echo the words we have heard more than once: that this is not simply a conflict between two major power groups seeking power in Sudan. It is based in the fragility of a society that has seen war more than it has seen peace since Sudan became independent—both in what is now South Sudan and in Sudan itself.
Sudan is already a human catastrophe on an extraordinary scale. It is using vast quantities of humanitarian aid and, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, that leads only to the most temporary of solutions. In Sudan and elsewhere, crisis follows crisis, and countries like our own are caught between the equally atrocious options of sticking plasters or ignoring the crises. We often have warnings. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Leeds spoke about his visit in June to Khartoum and the extraordinary Archbishop Ezekiel Kondo, with whom I spoke about a month before the war broke out. He said, “We sit in Khartoum with two armed groups looking at each other over the sights of their guns, and imminently, there is going to be trouble”. It was not a surprise.
In that context, I want to acknowledge and welcome the cross-party support, the very hard work of the FCDO, and the Minister’s clear speech. I start with one word of caution. The Minister rightly said that we must return to proper, democratic civilian rule, but as we have seen elsewhere, peace with an authoritarian Government is better than no peace at all. I hope that that is not so much of a red line that we will not work to establish the ceasefire and stability that will enable civilians to take over.
We cannot, and do not, abandon victims of war to famine. However, beyond the cause of humanitarian aid, there lie deeper questions for this debate. How can we anticipate such disasters, and what means are there to prevent them or cure them once they happen, whether in Sudan or elsewhere? I think especially of the DRC. How do we wage peace—be those to whom Jesus refers in the Beatitudes as blessed, and known as children of God?
The security and defence review, led by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, presents an important and welcome opportunity to build a new pillar in the way we structure our defence and security operations. It was a pillar notably absent from the two integrated reviews, an issue I will come back to in a moment. A peacebuilding option, well developed and acting in areas of fragility, would extend our influence, protect our interests and, as has been said several times, guard against fresh waves of migration. I already hear anecdotally from within the diocese of Canterbury that I serve, and its south coast, that those meeting people landing in boats find that a very high proportion are coming from Sudan.
The problem in Sudan is historically driven. It goes right back to the 1950s and to the settlement made by the Government of that time, which Churchill described as Munich on the Nile. The horrors of a long civil war have led to the division of the country once and its incapacity to avoid further divisions as we go forward. Therefore, I want to suggest to the Minister that we need to invest longer term in broader reconciliation resources, specifically designed with partners to find peaceful solutions.
In other words, the strategic defence review should be full spectrum, preparing this nation not only to wage war but to wage peace as well. I fear that may not be the case, but even if it does not happen in the SDR, I hope very much that the Government, in particular the FCDO, will look very carefully at putting such mechanisms in place—not least, in our current times in this country, for reasons of economy. Stopping conflict before it happens via peaceful political solutions should be central to any root and branch redesign of security and defence.
Our influence in sub-Saharan Africa remains enormous. Our expertise is very considerable, both in civil society among the Churches, where, for example, the Anglican Communion has its largest percentage of members, and through government and the long experience we have of understanding issues there. The work of peacebuilding not only saves lives but saves vast amounts of taxpayers’ money for defence, for migration control and from humanitarian aid. It can be used expertly in contexts where our military would, rightly, never operate in force, yet where strategic foreign policy must work, such as in the context of securing critical minerals for the global transition to renewable energies from countries such as the DRC. Reducing the need for emergency funding, reducing destruction and reducing the dangers of vastly increased immigration are in our interests.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, made a very powerful point when she spoke of seeing Wagner in Khartoum. We are engaged in supporting Ukraine and, as a global power, we must look globally in the offshoots of that conflict, which we are seeking to diminish. The recent creation of the FCDO’s negotiations and peace process support team is an attempt at this, but it is, frankly, underfunded, understaffed and held within a limited FCDO remit. Thus, as my last comment, I suggest that we should see the creation of a joint reconciliation unit, staffed by intelligence, conflict analysts and military, civilian and trade specialists, complemented by experienced international negotiators and underpinned by relations with NGOs and faith groups, for most of these conflicts are in areas of high levels of belief. It should report to the National Security Council, because it is a matter of security. Crises happen, and they will go on, but we can do far better to be more effective and secure our own interests in the long term.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, I add my message of gratitude and appreciation for this debate, because the situation in Sudan needs to be taken note of and needs a response. I have visited Sudan many times. I have worked as a nurse in remote areas in Sudan. Currently, my small not-for-profit charity, the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust—HART—is working with local partners to provide aid and advocacy for people in their areas. At present we are mostly involved with people living in the Abyei area and in Blue Nile, but I will focus on Blue Nile state, Abyei and the Nuba mountains in South Kordofan.
These areas are situated along the volatile border with South Sudan, and their populations have endured more than five decades of violence and insecurity. Food stocks are declining rapidly due to humanitarian blockades, inconsistent rainfall, swarms of locusts and other hazards. Thousands of people are classified as living in the highest level of catastrophic hunger. Host communities do not have the resources to cope with the daily influx of refugees. As one local aid worker from Blue Nile told me recently in an urgent request for assistance: “The situation here is dire. The magnitude of human suffering is rising by the day. We cannot access basics like food and water. Everyone predicts famine”.
The crisis continues to worsen in Blue Nile and the Nuba mountains, yet the two areas remain tragically off the radar screen when it comes to international engagement. The people’s plight is ignored by the world’s media. As with so many forgotten corners of Sudan, foreign powers and big aid agencies are unable or unwilling to help. The UN-led humanitarian response plan for Sudan is only 31% funded.
Abyei is another region in Sudan where we in HART have been working for many years with local partners. Its very significant oil resources make it a prime target for the rulers in Khartoum to use unrest and violence to claim and to take over the area. A local person in the Nuba mountains told me personally: “They try to drive us out and kill us. But aid enables us to stay here and to keep our land for tomorrow”. According to an article in the Economist,
“the world has responded to Sudan’s war with neglect and fatalism, showing how disorder is becoming normalised”.
HART is doing what it can to provide assistance to the most vulnerable groups. We work with indigenous local partners, who work around the clock to serve the needs of their communities. Their responses to conflict have saved thousands of lives, yet much more clearly needs to be done, as we have heard in this debate so far. There is an urgent need for scaled-up support and unfettered humanitarian access. In places such as Blue Nile and the Nuba mountains, it must not be left to underresourced local communities, alongside small charities such as HART, to tackle this crisis on their own.
One of HART’s priorities is to fund education for young people. We always ask people, “What are your priorities?”, and they say to us, “Please, we’re desperate for education. It’s essential for our young people and for the future of our country”. I therefore urge the Minister to disburse all the £89 million pledged by the UK at the Sudan conference in April and to scale up funding for forgotten communities, including financial assistance for indigenous aid networks, which operate behind closed borders and, despite threats to their safety, courageously respond to the people’s needs with far greater insight and far better access than UN agencies or international organisations.
According to reports, at least 19,000 people have been killed and 33,000 injured across the country since the conflict broke out in April 2023—and that is generally believed to be a significant underestimate. More than 10 million people, half of whom are children, have fled their homes, and more than 2 million people have crossed into neighbouring countries. The scale of killings and displacement is overwhelming.
It is not too late for the UK to prevent further catastrophe. Steps can and must be taken to halt the course of the conflict. International actors who exploit the crisis to their advantage, and who fuel the violence with financial and military support to the warring parties, must be held to account. I therefore join other calls for His Majesty’s Government to use every diplomatic tool to increase pressure on the UAE, Iran and others who reportedly carry out such dealings with impunity.
It is innocent civilians who bear the brunt of this conflict. This is especially true in places away from the spotlight where we are working with local people, such as Blue Nile and the Nuba mountains. They have already suffered decades of identity-based atrocity crimes, famine and armed conflict. Scaling up our response without delays would send a powerful message that they are not forgotten. I hope very much that one outcome of this debate will be a reassurance from His Majesty’s Government that such a message will be forthcoming.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chief executive of United Against Malnutrition and Hunger and a trustee of the Royal African Society. I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, with her great knowledge and experience of Sudan. I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Collins, on his appointment as Minister for Africa. It was a pleasure to work with him in opposition and I welcome the renewed focus and vigour that he is bringing to addressing this crisis in Sudan. I very much welcome his powerful opening statement.
A few years ago, I had the opportunity to visit Khartoum and to meet with many brave people who were standing against military tyranny, and campaigning for peace and a return to civilian rule. Tragically, hopes that such an outcome might be achievable were ultimately betrayed by the self-interest and greed of the leaders of the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces. The result, as we have heard from the Minister and other speakers, including my colleague my noble friend Lady Suttie, who has such knowledge of the area, is catastrophe. Tens of thousands of people, perhaps well over 100,000, are already dead. Over 10 million people have been displaced from their homes, with 2 million of them externally displaced, causing tensions and instability in surrounding countries and driving migration further afield.
It is facile to pretend that there are simple solutions to a crisis of this scale and complexity. None the less, there is much more that the world can and should be doing to address the situation in Sudan and, as the penholder on Sudan in the Security Council, the UK obviously has particular responsibilities in this regard. I strongly agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, said in her powerful speech about how, ultimately, the political track is the most important, because we have to have a political agreement and resolution if we are to bring a sustainable end to the suffering, but I want to focus on three areas of practical action in my remarks today. The first is humanitarian access, the second the funding of the humanitarian need and the third the accountabilities of the parties to the conflict.
Humanitarian agencies tell us that hunger has become the primary cause of suffering for the people of Sudan. The World Food Programme estimates that over 8 million people, as we have heard, face emergency levels of food insecurity and that 755,000 people in 10 Sudanese states are facing starvation and death. Access to provide humanitarian relief to people in the greatest need is severely constrained by the warring parties. Aid deliveries are hampered by lengthy clearance and bureaucratic hurdles imposed by the Sudanese Armed Forces and, in RSF areas, by violence, threats to the security of convoys and attempts to elicit bribes. The World Food Programme told the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Sudan and South Sudan—the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to its excellent briefing—that 45 separate negotiations are required to get aid from the Adre border crossing point into Darfur. Meanwhile, the trucks that left Port Sudan three weeks ago for Zamzam refugee camp, where famine has been declared, have still not got there.
The situation, of course, is highly complex, but there are things that the UK and the international community could do to improve the supply of aid into these regions. First, international organisations argue that we should specifically delink negotiations for humanitarian access from ceasefire talks, so that if such talks fail, as they currently tragically are, a track to humanitarian access can continue separately. Secondly, we need to be willing to take greater risks and be innovative with our approach to aid if we are to reach the people in the most desperate need. That means being more open to supplying aid through local NGOs on the ground, which have the best chance of reaching the hardest areas. Innovative approaches to get food where it is needed are also required, which the UK could champion.
In addition to direct funding to supply food, emergency therapeutic supplements and medicines, the international community needs to use cash transfers and market mechanisms where they are the most effective means to reach people. Markets continue to function in Sudan and cash transfers can be the most effective methods of providing vulnerable people with the means to access food and other necessities. However, if such transfers are not to drive inflationary spirals, investment is required on both the supply side and on the demand side. Market operators need access to liquidity to meet increased demand, but they also need the assurance the cash transfer model can provide that demand for increased supply will be sustained.
The second area that I want to focus on is funding. The UN appeal for Sudan is only a third funded and the regional refugee response just 8.5% funded. The failure of the international community to come anywhere close to meeting these funding needs is short- sighted in the extreme. The shortfall in the Sudan appeal points to a likely spiralling of the hunger crisis within Sudan, greater displacement of people internally and externally, and further pressures on surrounding countries. Likewise, the almost complete failure to fund the regional refugee response is morally unacceptable, placing as it does huge burdens on neighbouring countries least able to bear them. It is also catastrophically short-sighted, as a failure to address the refugee crisis regionally is only likely to see migrant movements towards our borders and those of our partners. While the UK contribution is welcome, much more is needed to meet the scale of the refugee crisis.
According to data from the Economist magazine, 60% of the refugees in the camps around Calais are already from Sudan. Meanwhile, the UK expends huge amounts of aid funds intended to be used overseas to meet in-country refugee costs. Sudan demonstrates the counterproductive folly of this approach and I hope that the new Government will change it. I hope that, in his response, the Minister can reassure us that the UK will use its role as penholder to urgently convene donor countries to step up to the plate on both the Sudan appeal and the refugee response appeal, and to explain to them the catastrophic consequences of failing to do so.
Lastly on funding, while commitments are welcome, it is disbursement of those commitments that make the difference. Can the Minister look at how the £97 million pledged by the UK Government can be disbursed as rapidly as possible, utilising the approaches proposed by the humanitarian agencies, while being prepared to raise our risk tolerance for humanitarian funding?
On the accountability of warring parties, particularly what seems to be the deliberate use of hunger as a strategy in this conflict, can the Minister tell us what progress there has been towards the UK’s ratification of the amendment of Article 8 of the Rome statute to include starvation as a war crime in the context of conflicts not of an international character, as organisations such as Action Against Hunger have repeatedly urged? Can he also tell us what efforts have been made to reiterate the responsibilities of warring parties to comply with Resolution 2417?
No one who listened to the testimony given to the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Sudan and South Sudan on Wednesday could come away anything other than horrified by the suffering of the Sudanese people that they bore witness to, or by the silence and indifference of the world to that suffering. The leader of the delegation from the Sudanese women’s shuttle diplomacy initiative powerfully conveyed to us the sense of abandonment that the Sudanese people feel: “We have the right also to live as humans, but we are forgotten”, she said. We must ensure that the people are not forgotten, but we must do much more than that. We must use our role as penholder at the Security Council to galvanise international action to resolve this conflict and end the terrible suffering of the Sudanese people. I welcome the Minister’s obvious commitment to this end.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Lab)
My Lords, I too am grateful that my noble friend the Minister is leading us in this debate. His determination, knowledge and dedication are clearly well known and respected across your Lordships’ House and, certainly, in a 40-year friendship, by me.
I know something of this region of Africa, but my focus was constantly being driven either to the north to Egypt and Libya, or to the south to the new country of South Sudan. There was much to worry about as South Sudan was created about the transit of oil; the nomadic people, for whom the new borders were a significant issue; and how these fragile countries would survive in a new situation. I spoke at the ceremony that saw the South Sudanese flag raised for the first time and the recognition that a new country had been born, and I looked at this vast area, with two countries grappling with the fundamental issues of providing food, water and opportunity for their people.
It is a general point that I and many other noble Lords know well that the international community invests insufficiently in places of fragility. We do not scan the horizon for potential problems, partly because we are drowning in current ones. Crises and challenges do not come in neat packages one after the other; they arrive jumbled up on top of each other. But when we fail to look ahead and invest, the consequences are obvious.
As noble Lords know, around 150,000 people have been killed, 250 villages and towns have been burned, and much of Khartoum has been flattened. Millions of people have been forced to flee; about 8 million are within Sudan, and over 2 million are in neighbouring countries. Some have managed to get further. Estimates suggest that about 60% of those waiting to try to get across the channel to the UK are from Sudan.
On the ground, those analysing what is happening tell me that this current phase of the war is nearing an end, but that is no cause for any sense of relief. The next phase will be increased fragmentation, and it is clear that Sudan is fragmenting rapidly. That means that, in turn, centres of violence are multiplying. It is now becoming a myth to believe that we could simply bring the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces to the table to find a solution; neither is able to demonstrate any real chain of command. The RSF may be effective at seizing territory, but it struggles to maintain control and consolidate its gains. Internal divisions are growing in both parties, and it does not appear that the parties, militias or foreign interests are much engaged with the plight of the Sudanese people.
As commentators and others have pointed out, there is a familiar ring to this. They ask whether we are risking a new version of Libya—a country that I saw disintegrate into violence and chaos. This was an outcome many of us feared would happen without the planning needed, and against our best efforts. But Sudan is significantly more complicated than Libya. In 1923, a Foreign Office note said bluntly, “Who controls Sudan controls the Red Sea”. Concerns about the implications of a failing state or the pursuit of interests have internationalised Sudan.
Egypt has fears about the future of the Nile and the 1959 agreement it has with Sudan—the two being the biggest users of Nile water, of course. Those fears are growing. There are also unresolved issues with a number of countries wanting a greater—and, they would argue, fairer—share of water, and especially with Ethiopia over the building of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, which makes for uneasy relations. Egypt has supported the Sudanese Armed Forces, but as the RSF now controls two of the dams on the Nile, it also has to deal with the RSF, even though its sympathies lie with the SAF.
Egypt is also reliant on the United Arab Emirates as a major investor in its economy. As we know, the UAE has a major interest in who controls the fertile lands of the crescent between the White Nile and the Blue Nile—an important source of food. We are seeing the whole region of the Horn of Africa becoming divided into spheres of influence and the Red Sea at risk, compounding what the Houthis are currently doing in their attacks against shipping. As a colleague working at the highest levels in the region pointed out to me, it is complicated and fluid, and the risks of misunderstanding and miscalculation are high.
However, as many noble Lords have said, the humanitarian catastrophe that we are facing is almost unimaginable and certainly bigger than Ethiopia’s crisis of 1984. If assistance does not get to the people, they will move. So far, international efforts have not succeeded. The latest efforts in Geneva were modest in scope and impact, with some of the key parties not there. We need to focus on humanitarian issues, open channels of supply and communication, and, arguably, draw in the neighbours of Ethiopia, Eritrea, South Sudan, Egypt, Chad and Libya. The UN, as my noble friend Lady Amos said, must co-ordinate these efforts and needs to take this role really seriously, working locally with whoever is legitimate in each area.
At the US-led initiative in Geneva, those attending announced, as noble Lords have said, the Aligned for Advancing Lifesaving and Peace in Sudan—ALPS—Group and managed to secure agreement to open some aid routes. Bringing all those international actors together—Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt—is a positive outcome of Geneva. The establishment of ALPS shows that it is possible to secure their buy-in and mutual co-ordination on important topics such as humanitarian aid. But we need a pragmatic negotiating strategy that requires those who claim responsibility for an area to deliver services to that area: responsibility in action, with localised agreements that can build momentum.
In doing that, we need to take care to protect critical infrastructure, perhaps with third-party forces. Airports, dams, hospitals, key roads and water purification are essential if we are to prevent the spiral further down. We need to move quickly, by talking and negotiating in local areas, even if a more substantial ceasefire is not possible. Above all, it needs leadership, or this situation will aggravate what is already a fragmentation of global efforts. I believe that my noble friend the Minister and any envoy he appoints have a significant role to play. There is a need for less diplomatic theatre and more real politics behind the scenes. We know which countries have interests and which countries fear the consequences of chaos. It is a good place to start.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, who brings great expertise to these proceedings. Indeed, the number and experience of all noble Lords assembled here for this debate, on a Friday on the eve of recess, are perhaps an indicator that, in this place at least, Sudan is not a forgotten war. I am grateful to the Minister for giving us the opportunity to demonstrate as much.
We have heard many moving speeches today about the terrible situation in Sudan and the plight of its people, with 50% of the population in need of humanitarian assistance and 8.5 million people at emergency levels of food insecurity. Nearly three-quarters of the country’s health facilities are out of service and 19 million children are out of school, 7.4 million of them without access to safe water. Simple human feeling ought to provide sufficient motivation to do all that we can to alleviate that suffering, and to bring an end to the conflict, which, of course, is a necessary precondition if such alleviation is to be really effective.
I want to go beyond that. Picking up some of the strands that have already emerged this morning, I want to set out some of the harder-headed—some might even think cold-blooded—reasons of national self-interest why the people of the UK ought to be greatly concerned about what might seem to many of them to be a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.
First, Sudan is degenerating into a large, chaotic and ungoverned space. We have learned to our cost the consequences of letting such areas develop and fester, and we have learned how extraordinarily difficult they are to tackle once they do develop. They become breeding-grounds for extremist groups whose malign influence spreads far beyond their own borders and can all too easily affect, both directly and indirectly, the security of this country.
A failed Sudan could provide an ideal environment for criminal and terrorist networks. It is already a route for arms smuggling, and it could become a major exporter of violence. The instability that creates such conditions could well spread to neighbouring states. Ethiopia, Eritrea and the states of the Sahel are already fragile polities, and such stability as they do enjoy, limited though it may be, could be significantly undermined by the knock-on effects of the Sudan conflict.
All this poses serious risks to the UK. Al-Qaeda and Islamic State are on the lookout for just the kind of opportunities that Sudan now provides. There are reports that the Houthis have been in discussions about co-operation with al-Shabaab, and there is scope for a widening and deepening of jihadist movements in the region. This should alarm us all.
Secondly, as we have heard, there is the potential impact on the security of the Red Sea routes. The Houthis have already demonstrated how easily commercial traffic through that area can be disrupted, and they forced us, in concert with others, to respond militarily. The conflict in Sudan could make these recent challenges look like small beer. An article in a recent edition of the Economist quotes a senior member of the Sudanese Armed Forces as saying:
“If Sudan collapses, the Horn of Africa collapses. It will be a great economic hindrance for Europe and America … Navigation will be impossible”.
The source of this quote may not be a disinterested observer, but the view expressed has been supported by others. If it is accurate, the consequences for this country would be so severe that some kind of response, probably military, would be inevitable. Even if the risk is only moderately likely, surely it would be better for us if we could pre-empt such a situation before it has a chance to develop. Surely the promotion of stability in the Horn of Africa is an important strategic objective for the UK. If so, the conflict in Sudan becomes a matter of strategic importance too.
Thirdly, there is the question of refugees. A fifth of the population has been made homeless, and they face the prospect of a deadly famine that could kill millions. At the moment, staying put looks like a death sentence, and the surrounding countries are probably not that appealing to them either. Europe would seem a much better bet and, as we have heard, some reports suggest that already 60% of the refugees in the camps around Calais are Sudanese. Can the Minister comment on that? Even if the exact figure is in question, we have heard from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury that there is other evidence of growing numbers of Sudanese migrants. So the people-smuggling routes are likely to see—indeed, they are already seeing —a great upswell in business as a consequence of the war, and the traffic in human misery will increase yet further.
All this will put further pressure on European countries, including ours, that are currently struggling and failing to deal with illegal migration and its consequences. The rise in right-wing extremist parties will continue as a consequence, and the strains on our political and social fabrics will increase further. Surely such a prospect makes the war in Sudan a crucial issue for us, as well as for France, Germany and the other countries of the EU.
So, the demands of conscience and humanity apart, there are pressing reasons why the UK should view the war in Sudan as a strategic threat and should respond accordingly. But that response must, of course, be part of a wider and coherent international effort on both the aid and diplomatic fronts. Getting sufficient help to the population to stave off famine, and to dissuade them from putting themselves into the hands of the people smugglers, must be the immediate priority.
Beyond this, though, we need to help, encourage, develop and support the involvement of a group of international actors, including the United States and the EU, that will be sufficiently powerful to force an end to external support for, and involvement in, the war. Without such support and involvement, the internal factions would find it much more difficult to prolong the conflict.
Of course, the UAE is the principal, but not the only, culprit here. Russia is reportedly obtaining what is referred to as an “outpost” in Port Sudan in exchange for fuel and arms. Iran, too, is seeking a naval base on Sudan’s coast, which would certainly alarm Saudi Arabia and perhaps lead to the sort of proxy conflict that we have seen in Yemen. There are credible reports of Iranian and UAE drones being used in the conflict.
Dealing with such a complex set of issues will not be easy, but we cannot afford not to try. There are many other problems, from Ukraine to Gaza, that demand our urgent attention and that tend to distract us—but we cannot afford to be distracted. I indicated at the start of my speech that the conflict in Sudan is often referred to as the “forgotten war”. I am certainly not a fan of Leon Trotsky, but a slight adaptation of one of his maxims seems to me to be particularly apposite in this situation. So, in conclusion, I will plagiarise him just this once: you may not be interested in the war in Sudan, but the war in Sudan is interested in you.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I join colleagues in congratulating my noble friend Lord Collins on his appointment, on his speech and on his initiative in holding this debate. One thing that has struck me forcibly is the reservoir of expertise revealed by every speaker. It is, dare I say, rather humbling for someone with fairly limited experience of Sudan.
I recall that the Sudan civil service had a fine reputation. The background is that Sudan became independent in 1956 and, since that time, its history has been characterised by turbulence and violence. I was in Sudan in 1967 and met, at his home, Sadiq al-Mahdi, who was then considered to be the great potential for peacekeeping. Alas, it was not the case, and now, since April last year, a war has been led by two warlord generals and appears to wholly ignore the plight of the people. I shall not go over all the statistics—the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others have set them out, and perhaps there is no merit in repeating them. But the catastrophe is appalling.
I recall that, earlier in the debate, the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Suttie, mentioned that very little attention has been paid in the British press to the catastrophe in Sudan. I would argue to the contrary that, latterly, there has been a flurry of attention—I refer to articles in the Sunday Times, the Economist and the Financial Times, and let us not forget that, in the Library publication, there was a helpful summary of the problem in Sudan.
The Economist of 31 August had a leader and a special briefing headed: “Why Sudan’s catastrophic war is the world’s problem”. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, sermonised on that text. It said the catastrophic conflict
“could kill millions—and spread chaos across Africa and the Middle East”,
causing
“the world’s worst famine in 40 years”—
presumably referring to the crisis in Ethiopia in 1984, which received so much attention. We had special concerts and petitions. One is bound to ask: what is the difference between Ethiopia then and Sudan now? We understand from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, that there was a 40% shortfall in the fund for Sudan. Is it Gaza? Is it the other turbulence in the world? Is it aid fatigue? There is certainly a question about why there is such a difference.
We know that half the population is suffering from food insecurity. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, pointed out, we are talking about a highly fragile neighbourhood. To the west is the Sahel, with all the turbulence and Islamism of that area. To the east is the Horn of Africa, with all its turbulence. Just a mere glance at the map of Sudan will show the number of fragile countries which surround it, including, of course, Libya to the north, which leaks arms to Sudan. Libya has in effect now been divided. Some commentators suggest that the possible solution in Sudan is further fragmentation after the loss of South Sudan, just as happened in Ethiopia with the loss of Eritrea and now with Somaliland possibly leaving Somalia.
It is a highly volatile region. If we find all the awful statistics of the human catastrophe unconvincing, surely self-interest should prevail. I repeat what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said about refugees. Who can blame ordinary families in Sudan seeing the choice as being between staying put, possibly being killed or starved and fleeing to the north to escape that conflict? The point has been made that 60% of those in Calais waiting to come to the UK come from Sudan. There is also the danger to the Suez Canal, adding to what the Houthis are doing to that vital shipping lane, and that of an implosion within Sudan itself, with Sudan becoming even more a failed state—a failed state for terrorism in that region and a failed state for Islamism and all other evils.
The second recent article to which I referred was by Alex de Waal on 1 September in the Sunday Times. I know him as a first-rate scholar, but with all respect to him, his article was brilliant in analysis but lacking in any form of solution save for increased aid, on which we would all agree.
The final report to which I shall give some attention is from the Financial Times on Tuesday of this week. It stressed the danger of fragmentation, citing the precedent of Libya, the extent to which there is a struggle for resources among the so-called great powers, which adds to the many complications of Sudan, and the role of gold on both sides.
Of course, food aid is our immediate problem, but longer-term stability depends on peace. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister: what prospects are there? How can we map out a path to a solution, or is it all gloom at present, as the protagonists—or at least some of them—refuse to attend peace conferences? We know that, for them, it is a fight to the finish. One will win, one will lose; one will probably stay, one will go into exile. This is part of the problem: there appears to be no scope for compromise or for any intermediary. Does my noble friend see any potential intermediary on the horizon? There have been many attempts by the United Nations, by the African Union and by IGAD, but all have failed to broker a deal. Is there any prospect of curbing the arms supply? Sanctions have been mentioned. For example, if it be true that the Emiratis are supplying the RSF, we know that the US and others will not bring any pressure on them because they need their support for Gaza—it just adds to the many complexities of the situation.
What prospect is there of opening further parts of the border to supply aid? What more could we and the European Union do? We are the pen holder, and I believe that both sides, ourselves and the European Union, can seek to build up the strength of civil society. The most reverend Primate mentioned the role of the churches, which has always been important in Sudan. Surely there are signs of hope. Surely the world will now be ready to place Sudan further up the agenda of concern, and act.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as recorded in the register. It is always a pleasure to speak in this Chamber, not only because of the expertise but because of the clarity and compassion with which noble Lords speak.
I welcome this critical debate on a matter of urgent global concern: the unprecedented humanitarian disaster that is developing; the largest displacement crisis in the world; an education system in crisis, with 19 million children out of school; and an unprecedented situation of mass starvation, with more than 25 million people experiencing acute hunger.
In North Darfur, one of the country’s largest displacement camps, Zamzam, is now confirmed to be in a famine situation—a historic, terrible and shameful milestone. Those facing the worst of the country’s hunger crisis live in areas where violence has been the most intense. Fighting has disrupted harvests, and many families fleeing their homes and without income can simply not afford food. NGOs and local responders report children dying of malnutrition daily, families barely managing one meal a day, and people resorting to eating leaves and locusts.
The main driver of famine is the conflict and the complete disregard for international humanitarian law. Civilians are not only hungry; they are being starved, with the warring parties using food and aid as a weapon. Parties to the conflict have also systematically targeted essential healthcare, electricity, water, telecommunications and fuel infrastructure.
In Darfur, large-scale attacks on civilians based on ethnicity led to the mass killing of thousands and forced a mass exodus to Chad last year, echoing the mass atrocities of the early 2000s. Across the country, rape and other forms of sexual violence have been widely used as a weapon of war. According to Human Rights Watch, sexual violence has been a central part of the campaign of ethnic cleansing in El Geneina and has spread to Khartoum Bahri, with reports of rape, gang rape and forced marriages. Victims have also been subjected to conditions resembling sexual slavery.
In response to these shocking events, there has been a shocking apathy from the world, in stark contrast to the global action taken 20 years ago following the genocide in Darfur. Today, as millions of Sudanese again face starvation and displacement, I hope that we can revive that spirit of international solidarity.
With that in mind, I want to put five points to the Minister. First, the Sudanese people have shown admirable resilience, but they cannot carry on alone for ever. They are calling for decisive international action. Sudanese civil society is calling for the urgent establishment of a civilian protection force, particularly in Darfur, through the African Union and United Nations. Their appeal is that this force should include mobile units focused on high-risk areas, with specific emphasis on supporting women and girls. Can the Minister say whether the Government support the establishment of a dedicated force to protect civilians, monitor human rights abuses and facilitate the return of displaced people, and, if so, what diplomatic action has been taken to bring it about?
Secondly, a recent Amnesty International report revealed that weapons from China, Russia, Serbia, Turkey and the Gulf are flooding into Sudan, including Darfur, despite a UN arms embargo. While we all welcome the UN Security Council’s unanimous decision—how refreshing that was—to renew the arms embargo for another year, I must question whether an extension without effective enforcement is meaningful, and why the embargo does not cover the whole of Sudan. Does the Minister share these concerns, and is it the Government’s policy to support the broadening of the embargo?
Thirdly, local responders have played a crucial role from the outset, providing vital aid to trapped populations on the front lines of the conflict. Organised into neighbourhood-based mutual aid groups, they have established communal kitchens, collective shelters and distribution of medication and clinics, and organised evacuation for vulnerable groups. In Khartoum state for example, over 350 communal kitchens have been established, assisting 500,000 families with at least one meal a day. In Zamzam camp, local responders are one of the only lifelines, as armed groups continue to besiege the area and prevent aid from reaching people. The resilience of the local responders underscores the urgent need for increased support from the international community. I hope the Minister can tell the House what the UK is doing to support these locally led humanitarian efforts.
Fourthly, the treatment of women and children in Sudan reflects patterns seen in other global conflicts. I welcome the Government’s plan to host an event on conflict-related sexual violence in Sudan. I am heartened that the initiative co-founded by the noble Lord, Lord Hague, and Angelina Jolie has survived all the political upheavals since 2012, and that the new Government are committed to it is particularly encouraging. The noble Lord rightly asked last year, when he was on these Benches, what steps the Government were taking to support survivors of sexual violence in Sudan—and in particular, in his words,
“to support evidence gathering by specialists to make sure that the accountability that is so necessary is maintained”.—[Official Report, 26/4/23; col. 1260.]
Could he tell the House whether the Government are actively pursuing this accountability, and what action has been taken since July?
I know we are far from this moment. Any peace process must be truly inclusive, as others have pointed out, and women must not be an afterthought but at the centre of any negotiations. Sudanese women played a pivotal role in the 2019 protests that led to the overthrow of Omar al-Bashir and demonstrated their potential for driving meaningful change in the 2021 coup. Their voices must be heard in peace negotiations.
Gender-based violence is a global epidemic, affecting one in three women worldwide, and is exacerbated in conflict zones. This violence limits women’s participation in politics, education and the economy, ultimately stifling a nation’s future. Yet, in 2022, only 0.2% of global aid addressed gender-based violence. We need to not only discuss but act decisively on this issue. I welcome the Government’s commitment to appointing a Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. I also hope that the Foreign Secretary himself will personally support this initiative. The biggest impact that we have had in the years of PSVI was due to the fact that the then Foreign Secretary William Hague used almost every meeting with his counterparts to raise the issue, whenever and wherever it was relevant.
I have proposed and been campaigning for the establishment of a permanent international commission to investigate these crimes, hold perpetrators accountable and deliver justice for survivors, not because the UN Special Representative’s office is not willing to undertake this but because it is often restrained and frustrated by its own bureaucracy and the competing priorities of the member states. Such a commission could assist in gathering forensic evidence, preserving it and supporting various judicial mechanisms, including domestic courts and international tribunals. The Core International Crimes Evidence Database for Ukraine provides a useful model for a similar commission focused on conflict-related sexual violence. I hope that the Government will look at this proposal and see whether they can adopt a policy of allocating at least 2% of international aid specifically for addressing gender-based violence, focusing on both consequences and prevention, and I welcome any update that the Minister can give in this regard.
Sudan stands as a test case for increased accountability and funding for gender-based violence, giving greater support to locally led humanitarian efforts and the equal inclusion of women in peace negotiations—but it is also a test of our common humanity. I urge the Government to make their response to the crisis in Sudan an example of new levels of action and commitment on all these fronts.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his considered and thoughtful introduction to this debate and the very powerful briefing that he has provided to Members on the despair of the Sudanese people.
Since the outbreak of this war, the carnage is widespread throughout Sudan, a nation three times the size of France. Sudan’s capital, Khartoum, lies in rubble and much of other cities has been besieged and destroyed, so the numbers of dead and injured may not be as accurate as has been suggested.
Alongside a number of leading humanitarian agencies, we heard from the Sudanese women who were the shuttle diplomacy initiative leaders, who spoke in tears with emotional testimonies, traumatised by the catastrophic destruction of their nation. They urged us as members as well as the UK Government to work with regional parties, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, to bring about an immediate ceasefire agreement. They described the consequences of the atrocities continuing against civilians, particularly women and children, who are again bearing the brunt. Humanitarian organisations are calling for attention to the urgent plight of 14 million children facing hunger and famine. Sudan is said to have the largest child displacement crisis in the world, with 8 million people displaced, including children, lacking shelter, food, basic sanitation, healthcare and access to safe drinking water.
Overall, 25 million people—half the population, as has been said—are in need of immediate humanitarian assistance, with 19 million children missing out on school due to the conflict. Four million children under five are starving and another million are predicted to be suffering from life-threatening severe acute malnutrition, with disastrous consequences for children’s safety and well-being, with child protection risks, child labour, child marriages and human trafficking, to which the women leaders also referred.
We have led on preventing sexual violence in conflict with great expertise, and I am glad to hear that the Minister has said that we are assisting with the mechanism in place for recording information on violence against women, sexual abuse, child marriages and human trafficking—notwithstanding what has also been said, that the women must have their rightful place and a leading role in post conflict.
As has been said, Sudan’s crisis does not exist in isolation. Its Arab neighbours, particularly Egypt, with their shared borders, have a vested interest in the outcome of this conflict. In relation to its own stability and national security, the River Nile, which is vital to both countries, remains a critical issue of contention. Prolonged instability in Sudan could have serious implications for water security in Egypt and elsewhere. Added to the presence of enormous natural wealth and resources, it will have neighbouring nations clamouring for control.
Sudan is a precious nation with deep-rooted ties to the United Kingdom, and I have visited it on a number of occasions, including with the late Lord Sheikh, who was committed to advancing greater economic ties between Sudan and the UK.
For me, these two are very personal perspectives arising out of long-standing friendship with many Sudanese men and women. During our visits we witnessed at first hand the hopes of the nation rising out of war-torn Sudan, bestowed with the promise of wealth and economic prosperity. The people were ready, indeed, for negotiating peace and reconciliation. We visited the mountains of Sudan, where five Italian women experts were leading the restoration of ancient heritage, treasures and tombs, with the oldest pyramids, albeit small in size. We also visited the Darfur camps. It was then that we learned that Sudan is rich in natural resources, water, gold and minerals. As has been said, these may be the very reason for, or certainly a significant factor in, the current very prevalent conflict.
Apart from oil, Sudan is one of Africa’s largest gold producers and the country’s gold mines, particularly in Darfur, South Kordofan and the River Nile, will no doubt become a serious source of lucrative power-play in post-conflict negotiations. Sudan’s fertile land and water resources from the Nile makes it a major producer of crops and livestock and, besides gold, Sudan has significant deposits of chrome, copper, iron ore and marble. These minerals, though less exploited than oil and gold, will certainly embolden the usual players in the extractive industries waiting for post-war dividends, as well as otherwise friendly neighbours who are likely to push for influence and control over the critical River Nile and the future landscape of the region.
The Economist has rightly described the situation in Sudan as “a geopolitical time-bomb”, describing the possibility that it could unleash instability in Africa and beyond. This has also been powerfully concluded by the Minister and other distinguished noble Lords in this House. Given this context and the potential impact of a prolonged conflict in the region beyond Sudan’s immediate neighbours, is there an achievable path to peace? I understand that some work has been done through the Saudi Arabia and US-led Jeddah platform. What further dialogue, if any, is in progress with counterparts in Africa, the European Union and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation to seek an immediate ceasefire and secure access for humanitarian assistance?
We have witnessed a notorious bending of international norms and rules of conflict and wars. We are watching live ethnic cleansing and the merciless destruction of yet another nation and we must ensure that all those responsible for these atrocities are held to account and face criminal prosecution for their heinous crimes. The UK has a unique historical role in Sudan and, alongside the US, has retained an interest in Sudan’s political development and stability. Here, I sound a little alarm bell for the record, as I ask the Minister for an assurance that the Government will not succumb to any third-party pressures to divide Sudan further, and that Sudan will remain an independent nation with its resources kept intact for the benefit of its citizens. As we are assisting Ukraine, is it unthinkable to ask whether the UK and our allies are considering military intervention?
It seems so long ago that I watched the convergence of the blue and white waters of the Nile. It was a country full of hope for peace, prosperity and a stable, secure Sudan. When that happens, I hope that Sudan’s diaspora in the UK and elsewhere will be relied on and included in the development of a new Sudanese nation, as should the women and men of Sudan itself in the rebuilding and shaping of a free and just nation.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I join those thanking the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for securing this debate and pay tribute to his long and sustained personal interest in Africa.
I feel that we ought, as a country, to acknowledge some responsibility for the ongoing disaster in Sudan. For half a century, we were the colonial power. I was taught at university by a former governor of the Blue Nile province. He was a splendid man, but clearly we had failed to embed the structures of a stable society, because the disasters that followed our departure have been wholly home-grown. They did not and do not result from invasion, non-domestic terrorism or economic warfare; they are home-grown. Therefore, they are, to some extent, our fault. We really should not look away, because history means that we now host the largest diaspora community of Sudanese outside Africa. We should not look away because we are the lead at the UN on how to stir the world to live up to its responsibilities under Resolution 2417: how to stop the killing and the starving and how to find the 60% of the 2024 humanitarian aid pledge that has still not been funded? Rapid deployment of the full £89 million we pledged would set a very good example.
We must not look away despite all the difficulties of getting the Security Council into action. I doubt whether the Russians are proving very helpful. In Sudan, they now seem to be supporting both sides. For a long time, they supported the RSF. They have now, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, pointed out, done a deal with the SAF, securing a Red Sea military base at Port Sudan. Their interest is in chaos, distraction and disruption. Conversely, we need to demonstrate to the global South that we care as much about saving lives in Khartoum as in Kyiv.
I am grateful for the Minister’s account of what we are doing in New York, but I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, that the Security Council really must be more active. I have four suggestions for what could be done. The first is to secure a ceasefire. The August Geneva attempt by the Americans, Swiss and Swedes failed. Is it now our turn to try, perhaps with the French? Secondly, the arms embargo needs to be widened so that it covers all Sudan, and of course it must be properly enforced. Thirdly, I hope we are using our lead role in the Human Rights Council to get the fact-finding mission’s mandate renewed. Reported atrocities really need to be investigated. Fourthly, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, spoke about Chapter VII, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has proposed that there should be an international intervention force under UN or African Union auspices. Should we not at least be exploring that idea with our European and American friends? The Russians might resist, but why not put them on the spot?
Despite all that, I of course accept that by far the most urgent priority for British policy must be to seek to stop the Sudanese starving. We have heard the numbers—25 million, half the population, currently going hungry; 13 million children; 4 million under five; three-quarters of a million, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has just said, facing imminent starvation—so securing humanitarian access has to be the paramount task. Of course, operating in a war zone without a ceasefire has huge risks, but the world cannot wait. The work of trying to save these people cannot hang fire until a ceasefire is secured.
I am not sure that the scale of the disaster is fully understood in this country. The forced mass migration is now actually greater than what central and eastern Europe saw in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. What is going on is the largest child displacement anywhere in the world: 13 million people are fleeing their homes, chased out. Two million of them are seeking sanctuary abroad, three-quarters of a million in South Sudan, with nearly 3,000 joining them every day, 1,000 crossing into Chad every day and 1,000 managing to reach Libya every day. The problems for host countries make it a regional crisis, with regional assistance programmes needed. I am very glad that we announced in July that we would help Sudanese refugees in Libya, but £2 million is not a great deal.
To pick up on what the most reverend Primate said, I will consider how this should affect our immigration policies. I have three suggestions. There are currently 5,293 people from Sudan in the asylum backlog queue in this country; 2,129 of them arrived in small boats in the last year. Given that they are fleeing horrific ethnic cleansing, murder and starvation back home, it is not surprising that 99% of asylum cases—when eventually heard—result in the applicant’s claim being accepted and asylum being granted.
It is astonishing to me that the last Government wanted all small boat arrivals made inadmissible—automatically and in perpetuity—and wanted them all deported instantly. Apart from the illegality and immorality, that policy ignored the practical reality: because of the diaspora community here, the Sudanese who are granted asylum tend to settle in rather well once they are allowed to work. Given that, and the 99% acceptance rate, could we not fast-track the Sudanese in the queue?
Secondly, while 2,000 came in small boats, only 19 came in the official way via the official resettlement scheme we run with the help of UNHCR. Stopping death in the channel means providing safe and legal routes. Should we not tell UNHCR that we would take more? Back in 2019, the previous Government told it that we would take a global total—coming from anywhere and everywhere—of up to 5,000 a year. Last year we took 485 and, of them, only 19 were from Sudan. That does not quite match the scale of the crisis there, and I hope the new regime at the Home Office is having another look.
Thirdly and finally, perhaps the new regime could also look at the family reunion visa rules. About 600 family reunion visas are issued each year to the Sudanese. Given the size of the diaspora here and the horrors out there, one would expect rather higher numbers. Need the rules be applied quite so restrictively?
The big point, which all in this debate recognise, is that we in this country have responsibilities and must behave responsibly. We cannot say that Sudan is a far-off country of which we know nothing. We cannot wash our hands and look the other way; no one should, but this country certainly cannot.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a singular privilege to sit through so many passionate, far-sighted and informed speeches from across your Lordships’ House. The contributions have been informed, in the great majority of cases, by personal experience—none of which I have. I express my thanks to my noble friend the Minister for tabling the Motion and allowing us the opportunity to consider this appalling conflict. I congratulate him for all the very many reasons articulated by others in the context of this debate.
As others have said, to some extent, characterising what is going on in Sudan as a conflict in the singular is itself misleading. Since Sudan achieved independence in 1956, its population has lived through 35 coups, attempted coups or coup plots—more than any other country ever. As we have heard from many knowledgeable speakers, the civil war that currently blights the lives of the Sudanese has at once an ostensibly simple cause and, simultaneously, twisted and complex roots in Sudan’s tragic recent history. The immediate or proximate cause is the power vacuum left by the removal of Omar al-Bashir and the contending attempts of the SAF and the RSF to fill and exploit it. But behind that immediate contention lies the legacy of Bashir’s three decades in power: his use of the Janjaweed militia in the Darfur genocide, supervening ethnic and religious tensions and a willingness of external powers to treat Sudan as a proxy or test case for their own ambitions.
The current conflict is now in its second year. While events in Ukraine and Gaza have monopolised global attention, the UN has characterised Sudan as undergoing the world’s “largest hunger crisis”. Casualty estimates range from 15,000 to 150,000, and more than 10 million people have been displaced both internally and into unstable neighbouring areas, including Chad and Ethiopia. In each of these statistics, as we have heard from those with personal experience, is an individual story, and each individual tragedy deepens the intransigence of the opposing sides. Critically, the breakdown in political stability has been mirrored by a crisis in health and food security.
I sense that every Member of your Lordships’ House could spend far more than their allotted time enumerating the plight of women and children who, with grim inevitability, have borne a disproportionate burden in this conflict. But a few headline statistics do paint an indicative picture and, as others have done, I shall do that.
More than three-quarters of the health infrastructure in Sudan has been destroyed or is out of commission. This has not merely led to a resurgence in diseases such as malaria, cholera and measles but has heightened the population’s vulnerability to mpox. More than 17 million Sudanese children do not have access to clean drinking water, and now it appears that the same number do not have access to education. As the new Development Minister, my right honourable friend Anneliese Dodds, attested after her visit in the summer, Sudan is suffering from a manmade famine. In all, estimates suggest—this is horrifying—that up to 2.5 million people could die of starvation by the end of this year alone. This is the first global declaration of famine for more than seven years.
Despite global awareness of the scale of the suffering, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, pointed out, the UN appeal for Sudan is only 41% funded. The appeal for the regional refugee response is only 8.5% funded. In addition, the lack of safe and unimpeded humanitarian access is one of the biggest challenges facing humanitarian organisations in scaling up their assistance. My noble friend the Minister raised the restriction on aid convoys in his opening remarks. Drawing on a briefing we perhaps all received overnight from the World Food Programme, I ask the Minister what consideration the Government have given to its suggestion that decoupling ceasefire negotiations from negotiations about humanitarian access may help. If unimpeded access for aid continues to be contingent on progress on the peace track, it may be that we are inadvertently prolonging suffering on the ground.
In debates such as these it is common, as my noble friend the Minister did in opening, to call for a united international response in the hope that such unanimity of purpose might help to abate the tragedy. He is right in that, but much of the limited international political action that has been taken in relation to this conflict has served to fuel further violence and instability.
A report published in July by Amnesty International analysed the export path of the weapons with which this war is being waged. The UAE supplies bullets and drones to the RSF, and the UN has had reports it describes as credible suggesting that much of the RSF’s communications and political operations are run out of that country. Iran and Egypt arm the SAF. Russia has bizarrely supplied arms to both sides, and Wagner mercenaries have been seen on the ground. Turkey’s main weapons manufacturer supplies the SAF, while thousands of Turkish weapons, ostensibly for the civilian market, have found their way into Sudan. An article in the Economist, published about 10 days ago, describes the cumulative effect of these actions as to turn Sudan into “a murderous bazaar”. All this is despite a mandatory UN Security Council arms embargo on Sudan from 2004.
In our capacity as penholder on Sudan, what steps are the UK Government taking not just to enforce but to widen the existing embargo? In addition to the issues raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, can the Minister explain what discussions have taken place, both internally and with our allies, on sanctioning the individuals and companies who knowingly flout these restrictions? Accountability is essential, but anything we can do for prevention is even better.
Against this backdrop of suffering and crisis, what response have we seen from the leaders of the two factions? It has been the grotesque spectacle of the head of the SAF and the head of the paramilitary RSF travelling the world to garner political support and legitimacy, while their supporters commit war crimes at home, including targeted mass rape and indiscriminate slaughter. In addition to supplying aid to Sudan and highlighting this slowly unfolding tragedy, our most immediate aim—aside, of course, from mitigating the maximum of human suffering—should be to prevent another genocide, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, explained well and convincingly.
The RSF is also embarking on a programme of ethnic cleansing against non-Arab communities in West Darfur. More widely, war crimes are being committed with impunity by both sides, and it is only the relative equality of strength between them that has prevented genocide from taking place. Sadly, history tells us that appalling humanitarian crimes do not always act as an inhibiting example; in fact, they often serve further to embolden their perpetrators.
This Government have, in their short time in office, built on the commitments made by their predecessor, providing an additional £15 million in aid on top of the doubling of aid that we have already seen. The Foreign Secretary raised the issue of Sudan with other G7 Foreign Ministers in his first days in office. I have seen the support that, as penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council, this country has provided for the Jeddah talks and believe that we must continue to do all we can to bring pressure to bear on both sides to end the boycott of these negotiations.
I had intended to spend my last seconds to make an argument for a special envoy, but it appears that this has already been taken care of. What I will do is draw attention again to the right reverend Prelate’s suggestion that the strategic defence review headed by my noble friend Lord Robertson should engage on the issue of peacebuilding. My noble friend joined us, although he has since left. Both he and I are ambassadors of the Halo Trust, an organisation working on not just mine clearance but conflict prevention. Its current CEO, a former soldier, intends to expand it into the space that was suggested, and I have no doubt that my noble friend will be willing to examine that possibility.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to his new post and congratulate him on the effort that he has so far put into the Sudan agenda. He has gone to New York and has recently attended the APPG on Sudan and South Sudan—he has commitment. It is a pleasure, incidentally, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne; to see an emphasis on the whole defence aspect of this, from him and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, was very valuable.
I was fortunate enough to be appointed Minister for Africa exactly 14 years ago. The second country I visited was Sudan. I remember going there with a sense of considerable optimism. Khartoum is a city that always leaves an extraordinary impression. It is not a beautiful city, but it is a compelling one. I think that anyone who has seen dawn break on the banks of the Nile, to the background of prayers blowing from hundreds of mosques, will agree that it is an unforgettable experience. It is a great city, and it is a tragedy to see that half of it has now been reduced to rubble.
I want to take your Lordships back to why that 2010 optimism was created. It was mainly through relentless international pressure and work on Sudan. First, there was the comprehensive peace agreement, which led to the creation of South Sudan. Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, I had the privilege of going to the celebrations in South Sudan and visited Juba on a number of occasions, and I saw a young country emerging from years of disaster and civil war with great hope. Unfortunately, that hope has also now been diminished, partly because of the strife between the different tribes, the Nuer and the Dinka, and the inability of Salva Kiir and Riek Machar to work together. However, one reason why there was optimism and hope at that juncture was because of the intervention by the UN and the UNMIS force, which is still in place but which at that time had 14,000 personnel.
I also underline the really good work done by UNAMID, the joint AU-UN mission to Darfur. When it was first launched, it had 26,000 personnel and enabled the World Food Programme to launch what was at the time the largest-ever aid operation. In fact, at that time Sudan was host to, I think, one-third of the world’s peacekeepers. Incidentally, between 2004 and 2014, there were 25 UN Security Council resolutions on Sudan. It really was the centre of a lot of world attention and influence. We were indeed making progress and, in spite of al-Bashir’s ruthless military rule, we started to build good relations with the Sudanese Government, so much so that I remember working with the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, on trade delegations from the UK and the EU to both Sudans at that point.
However, since the outbreak of this truly ghastly civil war, all that optimism has been replaced by a degree of despair. That has been made worse because, as so many noble Lords have mentioned today, this is indeed the forgotten war. With so much attention on Ukraine and Gaza, and on what is happening in the Far East with China, Sudan has been neglected. One of the differences is that, 20 years ago, Sudan was not neglected.
The scale of the crisis is truly mind-blowing. I will not repeat the facts that a number of people have mentioned already, apart from one: half the population is facing food insecurity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, pointed out, we had the first declaration of famine globally for more than eight years. A very large number of people are dying. I just underline one point: unlike 20 years ago, this conflict-driven hunger stalks the entire country.
People have talked about displacement and the refugee crisis. I do not really want to add anything to that apart from to underline the point made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury that it is our problem as well. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out just a moment ago, 60% of the refugees assembling in the villages and areas around Calais indeed come from Sudan. It is our problem, and it is one that we have every obligation to address, and urgently.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, also mentioned young people, and how young children and women are particularly at risk. Is it not appalling that in 2024 there are hundreds of people dying every day and thousands every week from diseases such as cholera, dengue fever and malaria? All are completely avoidable with the right vaccines and immunisation. Although UNICEF is doing its best, more still must be done. When the Minister goes to New York at the end of this month, will he emphasise that point to UNICEF? The work it is doing is incredible but it is not enough.
We should look at some of the predictions of the scale of tragedy that could be before us if action is not taken. A very depressing report was done recently by the Dutch Clingendael Institute that put the figure of potential deaths in Sudan at 10 million over the next two years. We need action on multiple fronts and, in spite of all the other distractions, we absolutely need relentless pressure and consistent energy to try to find a way forward.
I just want to make a number of suggestions, many of which have been made already, but I will add a little to some of them. Obviously, we need full, consistent, safe and unimpeded humanitarian access—that goes without saying. The Tine crossing into North Darfur from Chad has been open for a while and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, pointed out, the Adre border crossing has now been opened, but only for a limited period. Why cannot that crossing be kept open on a permanent basis?
Neither side should impede aid, and there is overwhelming evidence that both al-Burhan and Hemedti have used starvation as a weapon of war. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, this is a war crime, and it should be investigated and those responsible held to account.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others have pointed out, we have seen rape used as a weapon of war and genocide taking place. There is overwhelming evidence that the RSF and its militia allies have committed genocidal slaughter of a Massalit tribe. This is ethnic cleansing in 2024, and it needs an urgent investigation. I ask the Minister whether our own war crimes unit can be given further powers of access and resources.
I will make one point, which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, touched on. Without a UN presence on the ground in Darfur, I do not see how humanitarian access will be guaranteed or a way forward will be found. It is a tragedy that UNAMID, having done so much over so many years, was wound down. I ask the Minister, when he goes to New York, to put re-empanelling UNAMID back on the agenda, as the noble Baroness suggested. It will require a massive leap of faith and substantial resources, but it is an absolute key priority to get that UN force back on the ground in Darfur.
We need to see the sanctioning of key individuals. I have never been a huge supporter of general sanctions but, as noble Lords who have experience of Zimbabwe know, targeted sanctions can have an impact. There are people out there who need to be turned into world pariahs by having targeted sanctions directed at them, so I ask the Minister also to look at that seriously.
Of course, we need more funding. I praise the incoming Government for making a real effort on this front, but more needs to be done. If one looks at the figures one sees that the UN Sudan appeal is only 41% funded.
My final point is that this tragedy is cascading into the regions around. It is going to cause untold issues around the Red Sea, in the Suez Canal and across the Sahel. The one area where we can add value is through our unique relationship with the UAE. Will the Minister confirm to the House that he will use that special relationship to make representations to the UAE to ensure that it stops this meddling and stops this proxy war? The Sudanese people deserve better, and we must make sure that they have a brighter future.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on tabling this debate and on his particularly good opening speech. I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Browne: it has been a privilege to sit in the Chamber and listen to some remarkable speeches from your Lordships, illustrating such a depth of experience, knowledge, understanding and passion about the situation in Sudan.
During the debate, we have heard detailed historical analysis, figures and information available from organisations such as the World Food Programme, the Mercy Corps, CAFOD, UNICEF, the Norwegian and Danish Refugee Councils, and others, about the numbers of people facing starvation and, critically, famine. We have also heard that these hunger crises of enormous proportions are absolutely human-made and that, far from being a by-product of the conflict, they are a categoric choice by the warring parties in their disregard for human rights and international law. Hunger and starvation are being used as a weapon of war, as many noble Lords have said.
Children are very much to the fore in this. Of the 25 million people in need of humanitarian assistance, over 13.5 million of them are children. Nearly 4 million children under five are malnourished; as the noble Lord said, 750,000 are suffering from severe, acute, life-threatening malnutrition; and nearly 2 million children under one need vital vaccinations.
These figures are, frankly, hard to comprehend but are an absolute call to action for us in the UK to ensure that, as penholder at the UN Security Council, we strain every sinew to rise to the challenges of mitigating the immediate impacts of the conflict. If a ceasefire in Sudan at a national level seems far off, there are still initiatives that need to be taken. Communities in Sudan seek flexible humanitarian assistance—cash, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, to enable them to buy basic necessities in the local markets, which are still functioning—and, of course, to support farmers to boost food production. The briefing we received at the APPG this week was titled If Bullets Miss, Hunger Won’t. That is a very stark title. Remarkably, though, the speakers from all of the organisations at the APPG agreed that all is not yet lost and that there is hope, although this will evaporate without absolutely determined mitigation and action from the international community.
I will add just a few words about education. According to UNICEF and the Sudanese Teachers’ Committee, and as we have heard from other noble Lords, 19 million children are out of school and missing education, which is of course their human right. They are also becoming vulnerable to child labour, child marriage and recruitment by armed groups. UNICEF is none the less providing what it can in terms of formal and non-formal education programmes and psychosocial support. This is vital work but, as in other respects and as the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, said, it is not enough. UNICEF, like all others, is calling for a ceasefire and steps towards a lasting peace, and, like other agencies and organisations, is deeply concerned that the 19 million children who are out of school, including 5 million who are displaced, have little or no access to education now and going forward. This loss of education will leave a post-conflict Sudan, when it comes, without the skills, capacity and resilience to rebuild.
I do not need to ask the Minister to reaffirm the UK’s commitment to keeping the war and humanitarian crisis in Sudan high on the UK’s agenda and the international agenda. He gave that commitment in his opening speech. However, I plan to press the case for urgent consideration of the asylum situation of Sudanese nationals in this country, and for safe and legal routes for the Sudanese people who wish to come here, as I have asked previously in this Chamber. I need not elaborate on that, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made all the points so eloquently. I simply endorse them.
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for introducing the debate on this urgent and important topic. To those who are tempted to dismiss the conflict in Sudan as a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing, I say that a glance at our history and at what the future holds clearly shows that Sudan is also our problem. The way Britain, nominally with Egypt, governed Sudan for six decades until 1956 directly sowed the seeds of the first civil war in Sudan. This still echoes in the conflict today.
According to the UN, since the civil war started in Sudan in 2023 more than 13,900 people have been killed, with 27,700 people injured and more than 13 million forced to flee their homes due to the widespread violence. More than half the population of Sudan faced crisis or worse conditions of food insecurity between June and September this year and famine is projected during the following season, between October 2024 and February 2025. People need access to safe shelter, healthcare services, food and water. The intensity of the conflict has been steadily rising, meaning more hunger, fatalities and people having to flee.
As many of your Lordships are aware—here I declare my interest—my focus is on those who are caught up in conflict through no fault of their own, particularly women who are widowed or abandoned. They are ostracised by the community and unable to care for themselves and their children. In poor countries and conflict zones, women, single mothers and widows are invariably at the bottom of the pile, destitute and vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Since conflicts involve high mortality among men, the number of families left exposed is much greater than usual. It is important that we see the suffering in Sudan not just as numbers but as people with particular needs; we need to tailor our intervention in ways that address their situation in the community, as well as the overall need for water, food, medicines and other essentials.
However, neither money nor the United Kingdom on its own can change the tragedy that afflicts Sudan. We are spending nearly a quarter of a billion pounds in this part of the world this year alone. During her visit to the region recently the Development Minister, Anneliese Dodds, rightly called on the warring parties to stop using starvation as a weapon of war. She also pointed out that most of those suffering are invisible. This brings us back to the individuals, many of them mothers and children, suffering in the shadows; they are invisible and without hope.
This factor is all too familiar to those who support marginalised widows around the world. In 2015, the World Widows Report recorded more than 700,000 widows in Sudan. It also noted the high level of child marriage in the country, with the age range for widowhood starting at 12. There is no doubt that the numbers involved have significantly grown since, particularly in the past 17 months. The most important lesson we learned from the report was not what we already knew—although it remains the only global, country-by-country compilation of data and research about widows—but how little we know, and how that hampers us in bringing about the changes that are desperately needed.
This was reinforced by Not Leaving Widows Behind, a study of 11 countries across Asia, Africa and South America by University of Cambridge researchers, commissioned by the Loomba Foundation, which we published last week. This concluded, first, that we cannot hope to achieve the United Nations global goals for sustainable development without addressing the plight of those who are most in need; and, secondly, that we cannot address their plight effectively without substantially increasing our research and data-gathering to understand what is going on.
This certainly applies to the continuing tragedy in Sudan. I applaud the Government’s approach of engaging with all parties to de-escalate the conflict through the Security Council, the G7 and directly supporting the aid agencies in their work. I am heartened by the importance attached by the Minister to understanding what is happening on the ground. My appeal to the Government is that we redouble our efforts to gain access through wider and much-needed research, to gather evidence so that we can deliver the right support where it is most needed and avert further catastrophe.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
As my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton has mentioned, it has been a privilege to sit through this debate and listen to, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, the combination of compassion and expertise. Unfortunately, I must apologise to the House; I have double-booked and will have to leave before the end. According to the rules, I should have scratched but I wanted to scratch in person so I could apologise to the House and, more importantly, to all the organisations that sent us detailed briefs. I am sure the Minister has received them too and I hope that he will address them.
As I am leaving, the Minister is under no obligation to answer any questions which I ask, but I very much hope that he will answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, about cash rather than food. This issue was raised by a number of organisations at the APPG meeting on Wednesday. It runs through all aid efforts. We must give agency to the people whom we are helping. To the extent that providing money rather than food is a key element of that, I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister can answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Oates.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, for tabling this debate and for his insightful remarks in opening it. I welcome the appointment of a UK special envoy on Sudan.
Based on various reports, the UN’s position is that the consent of the Sudanese Government is required for the delivery of humanitarian relief to Sudan, including to parts of Sudan not controlled by the Sudanese Armed Forces. The same position was taken in the Syrian context, where the UN and some humanitarian organisations said that the consent of the Assad regime was a legal prerequisite for humanitarian supplies. Together with other international legal experts and practitioners, including Judge Richard Goldstone, former judge Bruno Simma and former president of the ECHR Sir Nicolas Bratza, I was a signatory of a letter which explained why this position is not correct as a matter of law and that cross-border humanitarian aid into Syria in that case is lawful, even without the consent of the host Government.
There are of course policy or operational reasons that may require humanitarian agencies to co-ordinate with the authorities that are in effective control of a particular area and sometimes with the officially recognised Government, even if it is not in control of that area. However, the position that consent is legally required is fundamentally misconceived and has a very practical impact on the ground.
The Human Rights Watch briefing that we all received says that both parties—but particularly the SAF—are responsible for wilfully obstructing aid, including to areas controlled by the RSF. Professor de Waal, who was referred to earlier and with whom I had a very informative exchange before the debate, estimates that 90% of the hungriest people in Sudan are in areas controlled by the RSF. Of course, if SAF consent is required, all it needs to do to obstruct aid to those areas is to say no.
The Minister mentioned that the SAF is being urged to remove all restrictions on aid, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, said, more is needed. The SAF is under an obligation to facilitate humanitarian relief. If it does not comply with that obligation, sanctions should be imposed.
Britain, under different Governments—Labour to coalition to Conservative—supported the more controversial principle that it is permissible in some cases to use military force to alleviate humanitarian suffering. That was the legal basis on which we relied for the intervention in Kosovo in 1999. It would be inconsistent with that settled position that different Governments have taken if the view were now taken that the peaceful provision of humanitarian assistance always requires the consent of the host state.
Can the Minister please confirm that the position of the British Government remains that in the extreme circumstances of humanitarian suffering that we are seeing in Sudan, international law does not require the consent of the host Government to the peaceful provision of essential humanitarian assistance by the UN and other international humanitarian agencies? Can he also reassure the House that the Government will advocate this position robustly at the UN, including in two weeks from now, when General al-Burhan is expected in New York?
I too echo the various comments made on the significant shortfall that has arisen on the UN Sudan appeal. It should also be noted that the appeal is seeking only $2.7 billion for Sudan for 2024. That sum is grossly inadequate. By comparison, the appeal for the Occupied Palestinian Territories is $3.4 billion. Of course, it is a very dramatic situation in Gaza, too, but Sudan is a much bigger area with a bigger population. If one looks at the IPC map of that region, one sees that Sudan is surrounded by countries that are themselves in extreme food crisis or food emergency—so classified as 3 or 4 on the IPC scale. Unless a much larger operation is mounted—something similar to Operation Lifeline Sudan in the 1990s—the situation will get much worse and the predictions being made of millions of people losing their lives will, tragically, come to pass. Can the Minister please tell us whether the Government agree that a much bigger operation is needed, and inform us on what steps the Government propose to take to support the development of a large-scale civilian protection operation?
Finally, I refer to the role of the UAE in this conflict —a number of noble Lords have made similar points, including the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the noble Lords, Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Bellingham, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds.
The UN panel of experts reported in January 2024 that the RSF has managed to upgrade its weaponry to include drones and anti-aircraft weapons. Human Rights Watch has referred to various reports of deliveries by the UAE of weapons to the RSF via Chad. The panel found reports of UAE deliveries to the RSF to be credible. In the light of that, it is important for us to know what assessment the Government make of those very serious allegations against the UAE, which is obviously a partner of the UK. If the UAE is delivering weapons, in breach of an embargo, to the RSF, an organisation which is responsible for some of the gravest violations of IHL rules on the conduct of hostilities, this would be a very serious development and one which I imagine would have an impact on decisions on arms exports from the UK to the UAE. Will the Government update the House on their latest assessment of that situation, and of the role of the UAE in providing support to the RSF?
On a final note, I noticed that the portfolio of the Minister’s predecessor as Minister for Africa included north Africa and the Middle East. That allocation of responsibility made a lot of sense in the context of the Sudan crisis, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, brought into sharp relief. The Horn of Africa and Sudan are becoming geopolitically part of the wider Middle East. One solution would be for the Minister’s portfolio to be expanded. If that cannot be arranged, does he agree that it is crucial for the Middle East to be very much part of the diplomatic efforts on Sudan? There is simply no solution to this crisis that does not involve Abu Dhabi and Riyadh.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his appointment as Minister for Africa and look forward to continuing to work with him. I am pleased that we have decided to appoint a special envoy for Sudan. As the newspapers and periodicals have said, this is the worst catastrophe and civil war in the world at the moment, and it is going on and on. I am also pleased that in the early weeks of this Government the Development Minister was able to visit South Sudan to assess the position in Sudan for herself, and for the Government, and to give further funding.
On 27 August, we marked 500 days of unrelenting conflict in the grave and ongoing crisis in Sudan, as many noble Lords have said. This is not just any conflict. It is marked by the most egregious atrocity crimes—torture, ethnic cleansing, and the cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians, including men, women, and children. These crimes are being committed with shocking impunity. The perpetrators are so confident they will face no consequences that they have brazenly filmed their actions, recording the horrific abuses that they inflict on the Sudanese people. This is a crime in itself.
The warring factions—the Sudanese Armed Forces, SAF, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, RSF, led by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti—are well aware that they are fighting a largely forgotten war. They know that the world’s attention is focused elsewhere—on Gaza and Ukraine—and that is why today’s debate is so important. They see that political, parliamentary and international media coverage of the Sudan crisis is hardly anywhere. This creates a perfect environment for them to carry out their terror without fear of accountability. It also raises serious questions about the double standards with which the international community approaches global crises, especially those in Africa.
I must remind the House of the gravity of the situation we are discussing today. Sudan is a country that endured genocide just two decades ago, when 200,000 Darfuri people were systematically exterminated by the al-Bashir regime. The conflict we witness today is deeply rooted in Sudan’s long history of impunity for atrocity crimes committed against marginalised communities. Both the SAF and the RSF are products of the al-Bashir regime, which still has not handed him over to the International Criminal Court to face charges. We must be firmer with the court in terms of speed and the way these cases are being dealt with. This is something we must look at.
This renewed conflict has claimed more than 150,000 lives in less than two years and displaced 20% of the population—both within Sudan and across its borders. This means that 8 million people have been newly displaced inside or outside the country, in addition to the over 3 million already displaced by previous conflicts.
Sudan is currently enduring a humanitarian catastrophe in full view of the world. The UN has declared a famine, but it needs to do much more. The UN should have to be there. There is a famine in Zamzam refugee camp in Sudan’s north Darfur region, where a child dies every two hours—it may be more as the days go on. Some 14 more areas are teetering on the brink of famine, and half the population fears severe hunger. There are reports of people in eastern Darfur IDP camps surviving on leaves. Are we going to stand by and let this unfold?
As if the war were not enough, the Sudanese people are grappling with severe and frequent flooding, which has destroyed homes. What do you do when your home is destroyed and there is no one to help you? Where do you go? This is what is happening. There is flooding of displacement camps—people are just about surviving—further complicating the delivery of aid by destroying key infrastructure. Waterborne diseases such as cholera are on the rise. Yet Médecins Sans Frontières reports that at least 50% of the medical centres have been destroyed by shelling and artillery fire. This is a tragic irony of the worst kind.
As we often see in these cases, women are bearing a disproportionate share of the violence. Women and girls make up more than half the registered refugees in Sudan, with the proportion even higher in some host countries. Beyond the dangers of conflict and displacement, women and girls are subjected to appalling levels of sexual violence in conflict areas and both within and outside Sudan—on the move or in countries of asylum. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed alarm over the reports that Sudanese women and girls are being abducted, chained and held in
“inhuman, degrading slave-like conditions”
in areas controlled by the RSF in Darfur. Is this what we expect, in this day and age, in a war? This is what is happening, and we have to stand up and bring other people to the table to say, “This has to cease”.
I endorse what my noble friend Lady Helic said—I was going to say some of that but will not repeat it—and what my noble friend Lord Ahmad said about women at the peace table. I would like an undertaking from the Minister that we will ensure that local women, as well as others, are at the peace table and all tables in all parts of Sudan.
The OHCHR has said it is
“running out of words to describe the horror of what is happening in Sudan”.
The time for words is over—too many lives have already been lost, and peacekeepers and humanitarians are risking their lives every day to alleviate the suffering. The Government must take a decisive stance, force the warring partners to come to the negotiating table, agree on a lasting ceasefire and de-escalate tensions. Women absolutely must be there because, without women, you cannot get peace. They will ensure that investment in education and health is part of those negotiations.
This will be impossible without strong two-party mediation, and the UK can and should act as a leading voice in this situation. I therefore ask the Government what steps they are taking to convince both sides of the conflict, first, to allow access for humanitarian aid; secondly, to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law; and, thirdly, to ensure the protection of civilians, humanitarian workers and medical personnel.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, for introducing this debate. As emphasised by many, a strengthened civilian coalition is now essential in Sudan. In my remarks today, I will connect together three points: how Sudan’s new and growing civilian consensus can and must become much more effective; assistance to that endeavour from international diplomacy; and, along with other countries, the continuing and future roles of us and the United States, acting within the United Nations.
As has already been mentioned, the co-ordination body of civilian democratic forces, known as Taqaddum, was established in October 2023 and is the largest affiliation of Sudanese civil society. It urges an immediate end to the war, greater efforts to deal with the humanitarian crisis and better ways to protect displaced people, enabling their return home through a monitoring mission. The affiliation also stands for unequivocal democracy, without discrimination on grounds of religion, identity or culture.
However, while this year its aims have inspired fresh hope and purpose, so far its process has not sufficiently spread and developed. To achieve that, the civilian coalition should now broaden its base. It must engage much more with the grass roots of the regions, reaching out to women, youth and the various political and religious groups.
Equally, to dispel propaganda attacks against it by the SAF and RSF fighting factions, Taqaddum and its leader, Abdalla Hamdok, to whom the Minister referred in his opening remarks, ought to become ever more vociferous in rejecting the war and espousing neutrality. In order to communicate this and the other parts of their message, they have to make regular use of the media.
Correspondingly, and as evidenced by recent proposals of the African Union and Egypt, international diplomacy now recognises the potential of Sudan’s civilian coalition to outmanoeuvre the fighting groups and to guide the country towards peace and stability.
Does the Minister agree, therefore, that increasing international encouragement should be given to Taqaddum for dialogue between it and Governments of nations, so that concerns about the civilian governance of Sudan can be aired and addressed?
Does he also concur that international diplomacy ought now to assist civilian access to media? This would have the benefit of putting pressure on those aiding and abetting the war to switch their allegiance to Sudan’s humanitarian plight instead, as well as the advantage of more clearly publicising the inclusive and democratic agenda of Sudan’s civilian coalition.
My noble friend Lord Bellingham recommended targeted sanctions against SAF and RSF. Is the Minister in favour of selecting sanctions that can be properly enforced—for example, those which regional operators will co-operate in enforcing—in order to build up and sustain the credibility of all efforts, whether these be external or internal, to stop the war?
Working alongside other countries within the UN, as the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, and the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Kerr, have intimated, there are key opportunities and ways for our own country and the United States to become more proactive in promoting justice, democracy and human rights as Sudan’s civilian movement gains momentum. This could include the desirable expediences already advocated by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Since resuming diplomatic relations with Sudan in 2019, and in spite of some failed peace attempts, certainly the United States will remain a central player, as will the United Kingdom—not least taking into account our reputation and contribution to Sudan’s successful years when, during the first part of the 20th century, that country was a joint protectorate of Egypt and the United Kingdom.
Sudan’s future stability depends upon whether its present civilian coalition can notably strengthen and consolidate. All our countries must now make sure that this happens.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, yet again the western world allows itself to drift in ignorance and indifference as a vast human tragedy unfolds in Africa. There is intense interest and emotional absorption among the peoples of the West in Gaza and, to a lesser extent, in Ukraine. If such can be measured, the scale of human suffering in Sudan dwarfs even the monstrous suffering in Gaza, yet we mostly avert our gaze. It is therefore much to the credit of the Minister, my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury, that with his deep concern for suffering in Africa he has brought this debate to your Lordships’ House. It has been moving and comforting to learn in this debate the extent of the knowledge and committed concern in your Lordships’ House.
Why is the West so reluctant to engage with the tragedy of Sudan? Is there a psychological inhibition? Is it the coldness of the statistics that estimate, more or less, that there are 8 million internally displaced people in Sudan, that 2.3 million people have fled to neighbouring states, that 19 million children cannot go to school, that 25 million people are facing food insecurity, that 2.5 million people are critically malnourished and that 750,000 of those are on the brink of death from starvation? Is it impossible to enlarge our empathy to embrace horror on this scale and to understand what it means that both the Sudanese army, the SAF, and the Rapid Support Forces, the RSF, have adopted starvation and sexual violence in their military strategy, that the RSF is seeking to perpetrate genocide on the Masalit tribe in western Darfur, that living children have been piled up and shot, and that women have been mass raped?
Is it because we depend on the media to activate our faculty of empathy and the media find it difficult to report from that part of Africa? Is it because Sudan is a faraway country, about which we know little? The noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Loomba, alluded to that notorious verbal formulation. Is it because Sudan is just another country in Africa, cruelly tearing itself apart—and what else do we expect? Is it because, for millennia, Sudan has been a vast zone of conflict, with few and brief moments of remission? We should ask ourselves tough questions about the West’s public, journalistic, humanitarian and diplomatic neglect.
There is, for sure, a gulf of understanding between the characteristic mindset of the liberal westerner and that of the Islamic and military leadership in Sudan. To speak from my own experience, I visited Sudan in the mid-1990s under the auspices of the British Refugee Council, led at that time by my noble friend Lord Dubs. I travelled with the then MP Hugh Bayley, a friend of many of us. We saw the deeply distressing plight of the internally displaced people, and, indeed, their astonishing resilience and grace, not least in the case of the children.
The embassy secured a meeting for us with Hassan al-Turabi, consigliere to the dictator Omar al-Bashir. Turabi had studied at King’s College London and the Sorbonne. As secretary-general of the National Islamic Front, he was instrumental in establishing sharia in northern Sudan. He oversaw the creation of a police state enforced by militias. Human rights abuses in Sudan at that time included arbitrary detentions, torture, amputations and summary execution. In 1990-91, he had established, with its headquarters in Khartoum, the Popular Arab and Islamic Congress, a regional umbrella for Islamist militant organisations, and he facilitated training camps for militants from Somalia, Afghanistan, Bosnia and elsewhere. He publicly denounced the US as the “incarnation of evil”, and invited Osama bin Laden to move al-Qaeda’s base of operation to Sudan. I was surprised, therefore, to meet an elegant, courteous individual who spoke perfect English. Hugh and I found ourselves debating the obvious issues with an extremely intelligent man, whose view of the world was utterly alien and whose morality was repulsive. Our conversation was fascinating and entirely unproductive.
Be that as it may, whatever the difficulties of communication, and whatever the tut-tutting of those who say that dialogue gives legitimacy to men of violence, western diplomats and senior politicians must enter dialogue with leaders of all sides in the terrible conflict that is taking place. Dialogue must be not just with the belligerents but with the powers that are feeding the conflict: with Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia, which are backing the SAF, and with the United Arab Emirates, Russia and Chad, backing the RSF. Turkey and China are also sending weapons into Sudan. Russia is supplying arms to both sides—perhaps the ultimate expression of Putin’s cynicism. He is, of course, beyond moral reach.
The talks that began in mid-August in Geneva must not be abandoned. Perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, suggested, it is now for us to take the diplomatic lead. The SAF must be brought to the table and the RSF kept there. A high-level and sustained effort must be made to bring to an end the intolerable state of affairs whereby several countries are using the tragedy of Sudan as a proxy war to advance interests of their own. Effective pressure must be brought to bear on Sudan’s seven neighbouring countries, so that the situation ends whereby aid is still largely blocked from crossing into Sudan while arms flow copiously into the country. As UN experts have recently urged, the arms embargo must be expanded beyond western Darfur, and UN or African Union peacekeepers must be deployed immediately. The urgency is acute if Sudan is not to experience the worst famine since Ethiopia 40 years ago, yet I read that international donors have committed a thousand times as much aid to Ukraine as they have to Sudan.
If the countries of western Europe will not bestir themselves to help stabilise Sudan and work towards a sustainable long-term solution for reasons of decency, they should still do so out of self-interest. The potential impact on shipping in the Suez Canal carries obvious dangers in the near term; in the longer term, if anarchy persists in Sudan, the more likely it will be that its people will flee from their misery northwards, the stream becoming a torrent as the years pass and climate change intensifies the unendurability of their lot.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for telling the House how the Government see this conflict and what their policy is to alleviate it. I know that he himself will use his good offices unstintingly at the UN and with our allies to mitigate the suffering and advance peace and reconstruction.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for bringing this important debate. The horrendous suffering in Sudan is rooted in the inflated egos of two power-hungry warlords. Their rivalry, however, does not explain their ready access to sophisticated and expensive weapons or the scale of destruction and suffering in a brutal civil war that has cost more than 1 million lives, with millions more fleeing their homes.
We are all moved by TV pictures of devastation, of bewildered children searching for food and drinking contaminated water, and of skeletal children suffering serious malnutrition. We see heart-rending appeals to relieve suffering. But our donations are, at best, like the placing of sticking plasters over deeper and festering wounds—wounds caused by a spiralling global arms trade.
The suffering in Sudan and other parts of the world is fuelled by an almost unending supply of arms to the warring factions. Nearly all states neighbouring on Sudan collude in this callous trade in arms by acting as supply lines for the transfer of weapons to rival factions. Expensive and highly sophisticated weapons are pouring into Sudan from countries such as Russia, China, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. Worse, the supplying countries in their turn get arms from countries such as the United States, France, Germany and Spain. Only a few countries have the ability to manufacture the sophisticated weaponry used in modern-day warfare, and the United States is by far the largest supplier, with Saudi Arabia, with its appalling human rights record, the largest purchaser.
The veteran senator Mitch McConnell justified the selling of arms by the United States with disarming honesty. “We replace older weapons with newer weapons, bring jobs to many parts of the country, rebuild our infrastructure and fight our enemies without losing a single American life. It is all win-win.” We are repeatedly told that the world is becoming a more dangerous place. It is, but upgrading our weapons by selling lethal arms to despots around the world does not make it any safer. Today, the global trade in arms is selling the means of killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, and the destruction of homes and livelihoods has spiralled out of control. We claim that we have one of the strictest controls on arms sales but, in the world of today, there is no way of preventing arms sold to friendly countries ending up in the hands of less-friendly ones. Part of a Russian drone recently shot down in Ukraine was made in the UK.
In today’s smaller, interdependent world, we can no longer afford to play the 20th century game of dividing people into “mortal enemies” and “friends whose abuse of human rights we are ready to overlook”. As Sikh teachings remind us, in working for the betterment of society, we must look beyond factional interests to underlying ethical imperatives for a just society. We have recently lived through a pandemic with immense suffering. Poorer countries in the world today are suffering from a manmade pandemic resulting from an unscrupulous pursuit of economic and strategic gain, in which India, the land of Mahatma Gandhi, boasts of a 30-fold increase in the sale of arms in the last 12 months.
Today, we look back with disbelief at the horrors of the slave trade, when the wealthy grew richer by enslaving and destroying the lives of innocents in their pursuit of greed. If we want to stop future generations looking at us with similar loathing and disbelief, we must drastically curtail the merchandising of the means of killing. Does the Minister agree that, by selling arms in this way—by expanding the greed in selling arms—we are causing and helping conflict? Does he agree that we have an imperative to curb drastically the supply of arms throughout the world if we want a fairer and more peaceful world?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this has been an exceptionally well-informed debate, and I thank the Minister for securing it in government time and for opening it in such a powerful way. I commend him and his work. I also welcome very warmly the appointment announced during this debate of Richard Crowder as the head of the British mission and the special representative. I have met with him and I wish him well in his work. This gives me an opportunity to put on record my thanks to his predecessor, Giles Lever, for his dedication and service.
Many civilians recoil sometimes from the conflict in Sudan being termed a “civil war”. Perhaps it meets a dictionary definition, but the impression it gives is that it is some form of popular-backed conflict between civilian-backed forces. This is a conflict inflicted on the civilian population from two forces seeking advantage over the other, with external vested interests in the resources they will then seek to control. In 2024, they seem to define “resource” as including children forced to bear arms.
The severity of the crisis over the last year and a half is matched only by the wilful ignorance of the western media and political class in highlighting the need for the man-made humanitarian horror to end. I politely disagree with those who have said it is a forgotten war. It is not a forgotten war yet, but it is a wilfully ignored war now.
Although the Ukraine conflict retains a permanent heading on the Disasters Emergency Committee webpage, as it should, the Sudan conflict, which is bigger in its impact on civilians and with a humanitarian crisis on a much higher scale, warrants no mention at all—not on the front page or on any page. I hope the Minister might feel it justified to convene all those NGOs and charities as part of the Disasters Emergency Committee so that there is an appeal, for which the Government will offer matched support. My noble friend Lord Oates was absolutely right when he said that the UN appeal is only one-third funded. The Paris conference appeal earlier this year was only half matched, with the UK Government offering no extra support then. I welcome the modest extra support that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to and I look forward to clarification on that in the Minister’s winding. It is a strategic error that this funding is not being provided, not just a moral outrage.
The debate has had three distinct elements: the need for urgent humanitarian assistance, as my noble friend Lady Suttie indicated; the need for those with vested interests to move from profiteering from conflict to being part of peace; and the need for long-term civilian government. I will touch on all three as well. I need not repeat the litany of statistics of the crisis; although they merit repeating constantly to shame us all, noble Lords have done so powerfully throughout the debate.
The Minister referred to the recent ALPS initiative in Geneva. Will he respond positively to the calls by civilian groups that the UK not only supports the process externally but participates in it? This was a call from the women’s shuttle diplomacy group, referenced in this debate, whom I met personally on Tuesday afternoon.
We heard about the exodus of those fleeing the savage conflict. More support can now be given to many of those who have fled the country: it is not necessarily being impeded. At Chatham House earlier this week, I heard that the diaspora community, which has worked so hard and committed so much support to communities back home, is now struggling to do so. What can His Majesty’s Government do to expand flexible cash support, as my noble friend Lord Oates said, not just for those within Sudan but potentially for the diaspora community, which has means by which support can go back to those communities?
The unforgivable blockage of aid inside Sudan by both belligerent forces, which is leading to wilful starvation of young mothers and children, is being carried out with too much impunity. This is most acute in the deliberate attacks on schools by the RSF or civilian medical centres by the Sudanese Armed Forces, with medicine being taken away from lactating mothers and from children, as fighters seem to be given priority, as the SAF says. Will His Majesty’s Government provide extra support to emergency response rooms, communal kitchens, education shelters and youth response committees, as all these are being provided by the civilian population within Sudan, who need extra support now? The need will be greater in the weeks ahead.
This leads me to the second theme. The UK’s status as pen holder has been referred to. The question is not the merit of the UK being the pen holder but what we are writing with it. The last Security Council resolution was as long ago as June, which related to the tragedy of Al-Fashir. There needs to be a new Security Council resolution, and I hope the UK high-level delegation to UNGA will start to propose it. We need clearer statements of UN fact on breaches of international humanitarian law. We need the triggering of measures under Security Council Resolution 2417 on starvation as a war crime, which has been referred to in the debate. We need to designate no-fly areas for aircraft and military drones, many now supplied by Iran and near neighbours. As we have heard, civilians have been attacked with weaponry from China, Iran, Russia, Serbia and the UAE. The UK must now make the case for widening the arms embargo beyond Darfur.
After months of campaigning and repeated calls in this House, I was pleased that the previous Administration proscribed the Wagner Group. I fear that some operatives have been transferred into Russian state entities, which, as we heard, are now advising elements of both the SAF and the RSF, not just in the protection of their gold trading interests but in the provision of misinformation, disinformation and false narratives given against civilians. This also supports elements of the previous al-Bashir regime seeking to obfuscate their intentions and to seek legitimacy, including suggesting that civilians should settle for an autocratic and non-civilian Government. No.
A UK-sponsored UN Security Council resolution should outline clear corridors for supply of medical aid and food, ensure that there is no impunity for deliberately targeting food production and, crucially, start now to outline the basis upon which civilian government services will be restarted, including civilian commercial airspace, money transfers, basic business lending again, an infrastructure reconstruction authority, internal free passage, profiteering-free telecommunications, reducing the state capture of any ceasefire arrangements, and take action on preparing consideration of a UN Security Council resolution potentially including UN security for Khartoum airport. Before the war, Khartoum was home to 60% of the population. There is no future to a Sudan without a functioning civilian airport in Khartoum. We also see the so-called mercenaries from the Central African Republic, Chad and South Sudan, and action needs to be taken to reduce those.
Actions of such a nature are not just for a humanitarian response; I agree 100% with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that actions in these areas are in the UK’s strategic interest. Sudan’s Red Sea location is close to the Suez Canal, a major conduit of world trade, where we have already deployed military force against Houthi attacks. I am sure the House is aware that even previously in the conflict in Yemen, Sudan was the origin of the highest number of child soldiers deployed by both sets of the war in Yemen.
That General Hemedti recently visited South Africa, and General al-Burhan met Xi last week, shortly followed by visits to Chinese arms companies, is surely a warning for strategic interest. Prior to the war, 8% of Sudan’s economy was through gold exports, but precious little was able to be used for public services, which were already at unnecessarily low levels. The previous technocratic Ministers attempted to put the economy on a stable footing, with global support, but after the coup and especially after the war, the resources of Sudan have been used and exploited not for the Sudanese but for military and personal advantage.
I also believe that the UK can take action, as we heard in the debate, on the renewal of the mandate of the independent international fact-finding mission for the Sudan. Given the critical role played by the FFM, I hope the Minister will respond to that when he sums up. Furthermore, I believe that the UK must be a leading power, establishing the practical basis upon which any future agreement is not just a cessation of hostilities to divide territory but to engage civilian government. I am grateful for the UK support for Taqaddum—the Minister is aware of my interest and involvement over recent months. The Minister and others referred to the former civilian Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok. It is worth reminding the House that he is the only civilian Prime Minister in Sudan in 35 years, and that he is president of the civilian Taqaddum, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, indicated. I spoke to Abdalla Hamdok this morning before this debate—he is in Nairobi just before travelling to New York and Washington. He wanted me to relay a specific message to the House, that “the unity of Sudan can only be provided by civilians, for all regions and all ethnic groups” and “civilians are the backbone of a unified Sudan”. He also said of the crisis: “Do not entertain that there can be two edifices, there is no military solution to this”. I agree with him.
I wish to close on a personal note if the House will indulge me. I have visited the country on many occasions since 2018 and have come to admire greatly Sudanese friends during the recent horrors of war. Their bravery, persistence, tolerance and optimism are truly humbling. These traits belie how some may categorise the country —not in this debate but elsewhere. Some might put it in the “too difficult” box or into the “well, what can we expect?” category, or they will say, “Well, it’ll become like Somalia or a new Libya or Syria”. The women whom we have all met this week, or the young women in exile whom I have met over the past few months, reject this. They reject the war; they reject the human rape and rape of resources. They reject the military persecution of civilians; they reject those who seek legitimacy on the back of actively blocking aid and food to their own people, to the villages and the communities; they reject the cynicism of external forces that will seek actively to exclude civilians from running their own country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, indicated that it did not have to be this way, and it did not. I had the great privilege of being with my noble friend Lady Suttie in Sudan before the war, working with civilians on the framework agreement, facilitating dialogue. Before the war, I met General Burhan and General Hemedti separately—what has happened since is profoundly disturbing—to make the case at a last ditch that war was not inevitable. However, I could not reflect just on that. As we started our general election campaign in this country, I happened to be in Addis for the launch of the Taqaddum conference with them. As I watched the Sudanese—from all parts of society and all parts of the country, from women to young people, from the professions, from rural communities and urban areas—who had left the country under great security risk themselves to be at a civilian conference, many of them not sure that they would be allowed home, I could do no other than reflect that I had the privilege to be with them as we were embarked on a remarkable democratic process here at home, where we were engaged in the right to choose who governs us and to hold them to account, and where, if we change our minds about them, we can have a peaceful transition of power. That is what they want. I hope that the Minister will make it his mission that they will have what we take for granted.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow on from an excellent and powerful contribution from the noble Lord. This has been an extremely sobering debate, with some excellent contributions. I was struck by how many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, have visited the area—I made a note of the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Ahmad and Lord Bellingham, the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Ashton, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, and, I am sure, a number of others. I feel at a bit of a disadvantage speaking in this debate and not having visited Sudan, although I have been to many other African countries. Many noble Lords have witnessed the tragedy of that country, and their insight has been very moving and has greatly aided our insight during this debate.
As many noble Lords have said, this dreadful war has now been going on for almost two years—there have been other tragic things in Sudan in the past, but this particular war has been going on for two years. The conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary group, the Rapid Support Forces, has already seen the deaths of up to 150,000 people, and 10.2 million people have been displaced, as many noble Lords have said, both internally and to other unstable areas in neighbouring Chad, Ethiopia and South Sudan, where they are adding to the already overcrowded existing refugee camps.
Fighting has been widespread throughout the country—let us remember that this is a nation three times the size of France. Much of Khartoum has apparently been destroyed and many other cities have been severely damaged. In a country still grappling with the legacy of events in Darfur from two decades ago, this really is a tragedy. I thought that it was summarised well by the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, who said that both sides in the conflict are guilty of war crimes. The RSF is accused of atrocities against civilians, including killing, rape and pillage, while the SAF aircraft have reportedly bombed civilian targets and critical infrastructure. Even before the current conflict, Sudan was home to more than 1 million refugees, the second highest refugee population even in Africa. Now, alongside the impact of climate change on food security, the World Food Programme estimates that the civil war has left half of the country, some 25 million people, in need of humanitarian assistance, creating what has been described as the world’s largest hunger crisis.
Despite the growing urgency of the humanitarian situation, sadly, hopes for an imminent resolution to the war are reportedly slim, particularly given the fact that the SAF did not even bother to send any representatives to the recent ceasefire talks in Switzerland. Instead, there now seems to be a serious likelihood that the conflict will get worse, pushing millions more into famine and potentially seeing the violence expanding to neighbouring countries such as Chad and South Sudan, which would barely be able to cope with such things. Of course, as has been said by many noble Lords, this could result in a further large-scale exodus of refugees from the region.
There are numerous challenges facing the international community in trying to alleviate this situation—mainly the lack of safe, consistent and unimpeded humanitarian access, which has to be one of the biggest problems that organisations such as the World Food Programme face in scaling up their assistance. Until recently, the Tine crossing into North Darfur was the only authorised cross-border route from Chad. The World Food Programme has said that the arrival of the rainy season has massively slowed the transport of vital aid via that crossing. Convoys have been slowed by muddy, near-impassable roads and forced to reroute where bridges have been damaged or destroyed. On 15 August, the Transitional Sovereignty Council announced the reopening of the Adre border crossing from Chad for three months. We should welcome that; it will help in the supply of humanitarian aid. This crossing is the most effective and represents the shortest route to deliver humanitarian assistance into Sudan, particularly the benighted Darfur region, at the scale and speed required.
I am pleased to say that, since that crossing was reopened for humanitarian convoys, WFP trucks carrying more than 1,200 metric tonnes and enough food supplies for nearly 105,000 people—still only a small proportion of those who need help—have crossed into the Darfur region. The World Food Programme is working to get food for half a million people through the Adre crossing and into the hands of people across Darfur as soon as possible. Can the Minister update us on what assistance the UK is able to provide to that excellent work?
Sadly, both warring parties are hampering the delivery of aid. The SAF and the Government of Sudan have imposed lengthy clearance processes and bureaucratic hurdles, while there are many challenges in RSF-controlled areas, with security threats to aid convoys and attempts to elicit bribes or fees for granting access—appalling conduct. We can be proud that the UK, particularly under the previous Government—and, I am sure, under the current Government and the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who is doing a superb job—is one of several countries working to resolve the current crisis. We have issued several joint statements alongside the US and Norway and, as many noble Lords have pointed out, we are the penholder on Sudan in the Security Council. I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the current situation and what work is going on; I am particularly interested in hearing his response to the questions posed by my noble friend Lady Anelay on financial assistance.
I am sure that the current Government will continue to be a vocal advocate for accountability for perpetrators of atrocity crimes. As many noble Lords have pointed out, there have been reports of widespread sexual violence and child recruitment. Due to some excellent open-source reporting, we have some detail of who on the ground is responsible for these crimes. We continue to press both sides to honour fully the commitments made in the Jeddah declaration, including allowing unhindered and safe humanitarian access and complying with obligations under international law.
The UK has already imposed two rounds of sanctions on the SAF and three on those operating under the authority of the RSF. In April, we announced three further rounds of sanctions. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how the further work to extend those sanctions regimes is going. The UK is in good hands under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Collins; I know that he will do a superb job following on from my colleague and noble friend Lord Ahmad. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to some of the excellent points made in the debate today.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an excellent and well-informed debate, and it is an honour to close it. I have recommended to many of my colleagues in the other place to read this debate in Hansard, because I think it will inform future actions.
I have always held the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, in high regard, but my estimation of him has gone up since realising that it is much harder to answer questions than to ask them.
I say to the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords that there is no doubt that we are dealing with a fast-changing situation, as was illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I told him earlier than an announcement on the Special Envoy for Sudan was imminent, and his phone was operating quicker than mine. I am pleased that the announcement has been made and that Richard Crowder is our representative and Special Envoy for Sudan.
In these changed and changing circumstances, it is my responsibility—I met the Africa APPG this week and have also met the Sudan and South Sudan APPG—to continue the dialogue, and I will ensure that I report back to the House on developments. It is our hope that circumstances will change, because they are pretty dire at the moment. With that caveat, I hope to respond to all the points made and to satisfy noble Lords.
The most reverend Primate was absolutely right when he described the priority that we must place on peacebuilding and building a sustainable system. My noble friend Lord Robertson told me that he had responded to the most reverend Primate on the strategic defence review, and I know that my noble friend will ensure that those elements are considered—they are vital. I would go further. The previous Government’s integrated review laid down some clear groundwork for this. If we do not bring together the three Ds—defence, diplomacy and development—we will never find a solution. It is critical that we work across government to deliver on these issues.
I want to make the point that we often look at the continent of Africa through the eyes of these crises, but Africa is a continent of huge diversity and dynamism. Its young generation is full of aspiration, as I have seen in recent visits. We need to recognise that, by 2050, a quarter of the world’s population will be in Africa. It will be the biggest market. In every conversation that I have had with any African leader, I have said that our intention as a new Government is to develop partnership for economic growth. We will be using economic growth and trade as the tools to do the very things that the most reverend Primate mentioned. Human rights are not in isolation, neither are food and agriculture. Issues such as economic growth are vital to achieving that. When I attended the Africa Food Systems Forum last week, exactly those points were made. Those people are also looking at the huge opportunities for their own industry to feed their continent and build intra-Africa trade. That sort of relationship will be the biggest ingredient to ending future conflicts.
I did not want to start this debate simply on a note of pessimism, because there is optimism in this continent. The United Kingdom—this applied under the previous Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said— has been at the forefront of international efforts to bring peace to Sudan, leveraging its position as a permanent member of the Security Council and penholder on Sudan. We have convened multiple meetings to address the conflict, pushing for a ceasefire and highlighting the grave humanitarian and human rights crisis unfolding on the ground. However, external support to the warring parties, particularly through the supply of arms, risks prolonging the violence. We urgently call on all states to refrain from strengthening either side’s military capabilities, emphasising the need for neutrality and a unified approach toward achieving a ceasefire and civilian political transition. Failure to do so risks exacerbating regional instability, as many noble Lords have mentioned, especially with the involvement of external actors, which could further complicate efforts for peace in the region.
We have heard some horrific descriptions of what has been going on in the country and I appreciate the work of the noble Baronesses, Lady Helic and Lady Anelay, my noble friend Lady Goudie and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, on the prevention of sexual violence. The number of reports of conflict-related sexual violence are incredibly distressing. The United Kingdom’s Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative is playing a crucial role in addressing these atrocities. That is why I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, that through this initiative we are working to provide support to survivors of sexual violence, document these crimes and hold the perpetrators accountable. The stories of the Sudanese people must not go unheard. We cannot allow such crimes to go unpunished, and we will continue to support initiatives that seek justice for survivors.
Women and children are bearing the brunt of suffering in Sudan, and we are determined to support them. This includes, in answer to my noble friend Lady Blower, through education. It is also through healthcare initiatives that are essential for the long-term recovery and stability of the country as a whole. As I said in my opening remarks, the humanitarian situation has reached a critical point. In response, as I said, we have almost doubled UK ODA to £97 million this year. This funding will support key UN agencies providing emergency and life-saving food assistance. Our support to the Sudan Humanitarian Fund will also provide flexible funding to NGOs and grass-roots organisations operating at the forefront of the response.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that as a consequence of my honourable friend’s visit, we will see an additional £15 million in funding specifically to address the regional crisis across Sudan, South Sudan and Chad. That will include food parcels for 145,000 people in Sudan and around 60,000 vulnerable refugees in Chad, while supporting critical nutrition services for children under five in South Sudan.
I think all noble Lords are right: we need to build support for greater assistance, and certainly our activity is focused on increasing that with our allies and persuading others to put their contributions in too—that broad alliance I mentioned in the beginning. We are not turning our back on the region. As I said, we will continue to press our partners to increase their support.
Many noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in particular, raised how we have been at the forefront of action in diplomatic initiatives to secure humanitarian access. Last month, we called an urgent meeting of the United Nations Security Council to discuss the IPC Famine Review Committee’s confirmation of famine. My noble friend Lady Amos raised the code of conduct, how things are implemented, how words are translated into deeds and how we monitor those actions. I stress to all parties that, while we can welcome the access given by the opening of Adre, it cannot be on a limited basis. We are absolutely arguing that there should be no conditionality or limit on it at all.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, is absolutely right. He quoted Trotsky, but I rarely do that, so I am certainly not going to do it on this occasion. The simple fact, however, is that the impact of the conflict is affecting all our security; there is no doubt about that.
The figures in The Economist are true and are something we need to respond to. That is why we need to address these issues at source and back up the humanitarian support to reinforce the point about defence, diplomacy and development going together. That is absolutely the case with the funding I have mentioned in the region with Sudan, South Sudan and Chad. As noble Lords have mentioned, we are providing £2 million for up to 150,000 Sudanese refugees in Libya. I also confirm that FCDO officials continue to work with the Home Office to understand the ongoing impact of the conflict on migration numbers. We are absolutely determined to address that issue.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, we are committed to ensuring that aid is allowed to reach those in need. Starvation must not be allowed as a method of warfare; we have made that clear. The parties involved in that must be held to account and we will be pursuing that point. Our message remains absolutely clear: the obstruction of aid by the warring parties must stop in order to save countless innocent lives.
To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, the United Kingdom acknowledges the decision to reopen the Chad-Sudan Adre border crossing for humanitarian assistance. We called on the Sudanese Armed Forces to extend the three-month limit as we are not satisfied that it meets their obligations. We have also, just to repeat myself, said to the Rapid Support Forces that they must urgently secure access across all the lines of conflict so that life-saving aid can get in.
My noble friend Lord Anderson and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, raised sanctions. We have taken a leading role, and this Government, like the previous Government, are committed to advocating targeted sanctions against individuals and entities perpetuating the violence in Sudan. As I said, the sanctions are not only punitive but a necessary measure to deter further atrocities and to signal that the international community will not stand by. We have seen some progress. The sanctions imposed on key figures linked to both the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces have sent a clear message to those who commit atrocities, and they will be held accountable. The UK will continue to work closely with the UN and other international bodies to ensure that sanctions are effectively enforced and that they contribute to the broader strategy of peacebuilding and conflict resolution.
Many noble Lords raised the vital issue of accountability. I knew that many noble Lords would look at Hansard to see what I have previously said, and I have not changed my mind. These issues are absolutely vital. We need to ensure that people who commit these crimes know that they will be held accountable. The reports that warring parties are deliberately targeting civilians, using sexual violence as a weapon of war and obstructing the provision of humanitarian relief are absolutely abhorrent. International humanitarian law is the cornerstone of our efforts to protect civilians during armed conflicts, and its principles must be rigorously upheld and enforced in Sudan. The UK will continue to press all parties on this.
We are actively supporting the efforts to document human rights abuses and gather evidence that can be used in international courts—noble Lords know I have raised this in previous debates. We led the efforts in the United Nations Human Rights Council last year to establish the independent fact-finding mission for Sudan, and allegations of human rights violations and abuses will be investigated impartially. The findings of the fact-finding mission this week are absolutely awful and reprehensible. There are reports of widespread attacks against civilians, the use of sexual violence as a tactic of war, and the killing and maiming of children. These are truly shocking. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others that we will seek an extension of that body’s mandate and are absolutely committed to it.
Generally, we are bolstering the capacity within Sudan to monitor atrocities taking place. The evidence will be shared with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and other accountability partners. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, that this includes funding for the Centre for Information Resilience, a research body that is gathering open-source evidence about the ongoing fighting in Sudan. As I said, we will continue to provide support for all those relevant bodies.
I reassure noble Lords that we strongly support the ICC and its prosecutors’ continuing investigation into allegations of atrocity crimes committed in Darfur since July 2002. This encompasses the current conflict, where there are credible reports of further atrocities being committed. We are absolutely committed to that due process, and we will ensure that people are held to account.
Recently I visited Slovakia and spoke at the Holocaust memorial service, representing the United Kingdom. I also visited the genocide museum in Rwanda. The message I always understood, particularly with the Holocaust, was that it did not start with the gas chambers. It started with words, and a process of dehumanisation, where people were no longer considered human beings. When you visit the genocide museum in Kigali, you realise that those actions started under colonial rule, which is something we need to acknowledge in terms of the future.
My noble friend Lady Amos, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and others, raised the critical issue of the right to protect, which is vital in the UN’s policy. We have used our position as the penholder at the Security Council to call for a ceasefire and for all warring parties to protect civilians. On 13 June, the Security Council adopted at UK-led resolution demanding a halt to the RSF’s siege of Al-Fashir and requesting the Secretary-General to provide recommendations on the protection of civilians. These will be released in due course, but I reassure noble Lords that during our presidency of the Security Council in November we will ensure that those options are translated into action. We cannot let this be just a matter of resolutions and words.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and others raised the question of arms embargoes. We have a long-standing commitment on arms embargoes, which are in place for the whole of Sudan as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, as well as the UN arms embargo on Darfur. The Sudan (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 put in place measures to ensure that the United Kingdom continues to meet its obligations under UN sanction regimes relating to Sudan to encourage the resolution of armed conflicts and the stabilisation of Sudan. We are determined to ensure that that process continues. However, as noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lady Ashton, have said, the real effort has to be focused on diplomacy to bring about a peaceful resolution to the conflict. It is our firm belief that the future of Sudan must be determined by its people, free from the influence of those who have led the country into its current turmoil.
To respond to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, we are actively supporting the Tuqaddum coalition—I mentioned it in my introduction—providing both technical and diplomatic assistance to promote dialogue among all Sudanese stakeholders. This includes working with 200 women within the coalition to find inclusive political solutions. This week, as noble Lords know, officials met the women’s shuttle diplomacy mission. The United Kingdom is committed to ensuring women’s equal and meaningful participation so that peace efforts can be fully effective.
Again, as my noble friend Lady Ashton and the noble Lords, Lord Ahmad and Lord Verdirame, have emphasised, our diplomatic effort by its very nature often has to be discreet. Diplomacy has to be in terms of building confidence and building that dialogue. We will continue to support international partners seeking to bring the warring parties to a ceasefire and to a sustained, meaningful and inclusive peace process.
I do not think this Government will rule out any option, particularly as penholder. We will be determined to ensure that we support any effort that could lead to all parties being brought round the table. Regardless of where mediation takes place, it is essential that African and Arab voices are represented and that all ceasefire initiatives are co-ordinated.
I very much welcome the ongoing advocacy and tireless efforts of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. Of course, the United Kingdom recognises the important role of local Sudanese faith-based actors in advocating for an end to this senseless violence and for a peaceful future for the Sudanese people.
I conclude by reassuring all noble Lords that we will continue to strive for a better future for the people of Sudan through our diplomatic and development work. We will push for accountability, humanitarian relief and human rights to be respected, while promoting efforts to build a lasting peace. The road ahead will not be an easy one, but with sustained international support, I believe that Sudan can and will emerge from this dark chapter.