Sudan

Baroness Amos Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

Afghanistan

Baroness Amos Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Amos (Lab)]

My Lords, it is eight years since I visited Afghanistan, and the appalling scenes from Kabul, the heart-breaking testimony of women and girls, the despair of aid workers and the questioning of the value of our interaction and presence by so many of our Armed Forces brought back to me forcefully the anger and frustration of dealing with conflict situations, particularly where the rhetoric of the international community does not match the reality.

Previous speakers have spoken eloquently of the scale of the global diplomatic failure, the long-term security consequences, the urgency of the humanitarian catastrophe facing the country, the need to support the Afghan people—particularly women and girls—and the importance of focusing on what we do now and next. From my experience, I know that the Afghan people will feel abandoned. They will not know where to turn, as they await reprisals for the glimmer of hope they allowed themselves to feel that their country was opening up and that the gains that had been made were being consolidated—gains that were made on the back of the courage and bravery of millions of Afghans.

Many of the things that struck me about Afghanistan all those years ago are still relevant today. The first is the complexity of the country—its urban and rural regional differences. Some areas outside Kabul were actually peaceful. The complexity is reflected in its history and the different interests of the UN Security Council members and neighbouring countries, such as Pakistan.

One of the major failings of Britain and the international community seems to be our ongoing lack of understanding of culture and context. In 2018, the ODI produced a report called Life under the Taliban Shadow Government, which concluded:

“The Taliban set the rules in vast swathes of Afghanistan, controlling education, access to information, healthcare, economic activity”


and so on, which impact the lives of millions of Afghans. Had we done our homework, we would not have been surprised at the speed of their recent success. It underlines that we use the language of global Britain to mask a failure of comprehensive policy analysis to inform strategic decision-making. I ask the Minister: when the Prime Minister speaks to other G7 leaders and engages with the Security Council, what will change in our approach?

Secondly, in terms of the need for dialogue, the Taliban are not a monolithic organisation. We saw the way that local staff working for civil society organisations, for example, negotiated locally for access and service provision. We need to create the possibility that the extreme voices do not flourish. Track two diplomacy is a real thing, used in every conflict; it is a nonsense to pretend otherwise. Can the Minister say what plans we have in that regard? Can he also say whether we will support a resolution to protect women and girls—indeed, whether we will initiate such a resolution—at the Security Council? How do we intend to support UN and other agencies working in Afghanistan and neighbouring countries as they respond to the unfolding crisis? Will the Government rethink their decisions on the aid budget?

I have watched every time that we have let people down. I ran out of things to say; I ran out of excuses to make. Let us not do it again.