Sudan

Baroness Helic Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Lord of the importance of Taqaddum and the engagement with civil society in Sudan. I not only met His Excellency Mr Hamdok yesterday but saw him at the FT Africa conference today. I will continue to engage with Taqaddum. We have been a constant supporter of the group, as it is very important. When I met His Excellency, we stressed the importance of inclusive engagement, so that everyone in Sudan feels involved.

On the situation in Darfur and the UN resolution, as the noble Lord understands we tend not to move resolutions that we cannot garner support for. What I do not want to do is to move the clock back. By working with the Human Rights Council, we managed to ensure that the fact-finding mission had its remit extended, and we increased the number of people supporting that Motion. We will take all diplomatic steps. I hope that when we take the presidency of the Security Council, which I will attend, we will ensure that the focus to which the noble Lord is drawing the House’s attention will be included.

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Alton. The independent commission reported yesterday with a devastating litany of human rights abuses, from indiscriminate bombardment to sexual violence and the starvation and displacement of civilians. I fully agree with the Minister that we do not want to start something that we cannot finish, but will he take another look at the recommendations that the arms embargo under the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction should go beyond Darfur and that there should be a no-fly zone? I know that this is difficult, but the situation in Sudan is absolutely desperate and we must do everything we can to try to lessen the suffering of those affected.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I completely understand and sympathise with the noble Baroness and her arguments, but, as she knows, we need to ensure that, whatever we do, we can win support for it and make it effective. In the meantime, we are not holding back; we are working with our allies to look at other opportunities, such as possible future sanctions. For every issue in the Secretary-General’s statement on the protection of civilians, particularly women and girls, we will hold those people to account. I reassure the noble Baroness that we are definitely working on this, but I do not wish to mislead the House, because, at the end of the day, if you push a resolution and lose it, you could turn the clock back further. We do not want to be in a worse position. We are absolutely determined, because there are players and actors in the world who are currently taking advantage of extending this conflict rather than ending it.

Ethiopia Famine: 40th Anniversary

Baroness Helic Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for introducing this crucial debate.

As many noble Lords have already said—it is worth repeating—the Ethiopian famine of the 1980s was one of the most devastating humanitarian crises of the last century, claiming up to a million lives and displacing millions more. It shocked the world into action. However, famine is not just a historical tragedy. It remains a deadly weapon in modern conflicts, including in Ethiopia.

I personally witnessed the use of food as a weapon during the 1990s, when the Bosnian Serb army laid siege to Sarajevo. My friends and relatives perished, some from bombings and others due to a lack of food and medicine. I also recall the so-called UN safe area of Srebrenica, where mass starvation of the civilian population preceded the genocide. Ethiopia’s tragedy should have served as a warning—a call to ensure that such horrors were never repeated—yet, in some cases, the lessons learned have been exploited to further weaponise food, with dire consequences.

It is worth reflecting on what this means in practice. The suffering inflicted on families deliberately deprived of the means of sustaining life is horrific; the effects persist long after the fighting. Children in the final stages of starvation endure their bodies self-cannibalising. Growth ceases. Limbs wither, bones decay and organs shrink. In the South Sudanese conflict, for example, women and girls were raped. They were forced into marriage and prostitution to survive. Single women, female-headed households, adolescent girls, elderly women, women with disabilities, and children are at particular risk.

Today, in Tigray, where food was used as a weapon during the recent conflict, the situation is particularly dire. Some 3.5 million people—more than half of the region’s population—require aid throughout the year. The root cause is the war’s devastation, which has plunged Tigray into extreme poverty. Soldiers were stealing and destroying food, destroying farms and livestock, vandalising water systems and obstructing humanitarian aid. Although natural disasters such as droughts and floods may seem inevitable, famine is often a man-made crisis, resulting from a deliberate withholding of supplies and a failure to act, leading to inhumane and catastrophic outcomes.

The integrated food security phase classification system warned recently of catastrophic and emergency levels of food insecurity across Haiti, the DRC, Sudan, Gaza and Afghanistan. USAID has described the crisis in Sudan as potentially even worse than the Ethiopian famine of the 1980s. The Norwegian Refugee Council stated that,

“Sudan is experiencing a starvation crisis of historic proportions. And yet, the silence is deafening. People are dying of hunger, every day, and yet the focus remains on semantic debates and legal definitions”.


I therefore welcome the noble Lord’s personal commitment to this region and look forward to more progress than we have made so far.

Although the climate crisis is a leading cause of the global rise in hunger, with climate shocks destroying crops, livelihoods and communities’ ability to sustain themselves, nearly 70% of the 309 million people facing acute hunger are in fragile or conflict-ridden countries. Violence and instability in regions such as the Middle East, Africa, the Caribbean, South Asia and eastern Europe disrupt food production, displace populations and often hinder humanitarian access to those in need.

The weaponisation of food is a political and military strategy intended to inflict suffering. However, rather than securing military victories, these policies fuel further violence and sow seeds of long-term instability. Since Defense Minister Gallant’s speech on 10 October, the Government in Israel have targeted food supplies, healthcare facilities and water infrastructure, cut communications and blocked humanitarian aid. Recently, humanitarian assistance was denied to 400,000 civilians in north Gaza. We decided to intervene, in particular the United States, and four days ago a letter was sent to Minister Gallant requiring assurances that American aid would not be arbitrarily restricted or obstructed, and signalling a potential halt to arms transfers if it was. The pressure seems to have worked, as 50 trucks were immediately allowed in; more might follow. However, it has taken way too long. One might cynically attribute this belated intervention by the US Administration to the upcoming US elections and competition for votes. Just imagine what a timely, earlier intervention, combined with a concerted diplomatic pressure, could have achieved, and the lives that might have been saved as a consequence.

The impact extends beyond hunger. Famine tears apart communities, weakens state structures and contributes to atrocities such as sexual violence. Famine often leads to forced resettlement, leading to overcrowding, insecurity and chaos, which creates the enabling environment for rampant sexual violence. Perpetrators frequently exploit the depleted protection mechanisms to inflict horrific suffering. The stories of sex for food and of sexual starvation crimes in Tigray and Sudan have been tragic examples of this.

We must act, not only because it is morally right and our common humanity demands it but because it serves our national interest. The unanimous adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2417 in 2018 was a milestone in recognising the links between conflict and hunger, yet today, Sudan’s conflict has ignited a hunger crisis of historic proportions. Without urgent action, hunger will claim more lives than the fighting itself.

Hunger is not merely a byproduct of conflict. It results from deliberate choices by warring parties to ignore international law, disrupt food systems, displace populations and obstruct aid. It often may appear that nothing can be done. That is not the case. We must prioritise ending fighting and ensuring respect for international humanitarian law. This includes insisting upon unhindered access for humanitarian aid, whenever and wherever, across borders and front lines; the protection of civilians and essential infrastructure; monitoring and mitigating threats to children, women and girls at risk of abuse due to food insecurity; helping to boost food production through steps such as the removal of mines from farmland; and supporting local communities.

In 2021, we committed to the G7 famine prevention and humanitarian crises compact, pledging to uphold UN Security Council Resolutions 2417 and 2286, yet we have lost momentum. I therefore urge the Government to recommit to these resolutions, particularly Resolution 2417, which condemns the starving of civilians and unlawfully denying humanitarian access.

Sadly, the famine of the 1980s was not an isolated incident. It was a collective failure to prevent and respond to policies of collective punishment that were repeated elsewhere. The culture of impunity persists, allowing the weaponisation of food and abuse to go unchecked. I hope that we can learn from the past and from our own mistakes. The best way to honour victims is to use every tool to ensure that starvation can no longer be used with impunity as a weapon of war. For that, we must act decisively, not just to respond but to prevent future conflicts and famines.

Sudan

Baroness Helic Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

Afghanistan

Baroness Helic Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Helic (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I start by paying tribute to all those who served in Afghanistan, those who lost their lives and those who were injured. I agree that this is a disaster. The coalition’s withdrawal has created a long-term problem: a major humanitarian crisis with no end in sight and an ongoing risk of Afghanistan once again becoming a terrorists’ safe haven. I welcome the decision to receive 20,000 refugees, but, given the urgency of the situation, I fear that 5,000 is insufficient for the next year. When people face death, the prospect of asylum in a year’s time is not much hope. Most Afghans will stay in Afghanistan, and 20,000 is less than 0.1% of the population.

The world should open its doors to refugees with generosity, but we cannot empty the country. What is going to happen to the Afghans left behind? Humanitarian aid will be necessary. We cut our aid funding for Afghanistan by 78% this year. That has to be reversed fast. Supporting women and girls with education and healthcare will be more important now than ever, whether they are in refugee camps or in towns and villages throughout Afghanistan. This will be far harder than before, but we must find a way.

We must also ask how we ended up here. How did an army collapse overnight? The withdrawal of American troops was a severe blow to capability and morale. The importance of the 2,500 American soldiers far outweighed their number. Their presence was a sign of the weight of global backing behind the Afghans on the front line. They were a crucial buttress for the Afghan national army—a core part of its design. Their withdrawal left it unsupported, demoralised and ready to crash down.

Even more worrying than the effect of the withdrawal on the Afghan national army was its apparently similar effect on NATO and the international coalition. I understand that the MoD tried to rally international partners to take up America’s role. That that proved impossible does not reflect well on the strength of NATO and on our ability to act abroad or without the US by our side. Only five months after it was published, the integrated review is out of date. It said:

“We will continue to support stability in Afghanistan, as part of a wider coalition”


and that providing support to the Government of Afghanistan would be a key part of our counterterror strategy. The Government of Afghanistan are no more, the wider coalition has collapsed, and our influence in Washington seems alarmingly limited, as is our influence in Europe.

The past week has been the most extraordinary of the reversals. The Afghan Government were flawed but they were democratic. The direction of travel was right. Now they have been swept aside and all the gains of the past 20 years could go into reverse. As we approach the 20th anniversary of 9/11 next month, the Taliban control more of Afghanistan than they did when the Twin Towers fell. That leaves us with three urgent questions. How do we support the Afghans now stuck under the new rule? Where does this leave our allies and our foreign policy? Where does this leave global Britain? The Government must try to answer them.

Integrated Review

Baroness Helic Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

As I have said, the full integrated review when published next year will set out our overarching strategy for national security and foreign policy.

[Baroness Helic (Con) [V]]

I join noble Lords in welcoming this significant and long-overdue spending commitment. What impact will it have on job creation in all four nations of the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

As I said in a previous answer, we believe that this settlement will create jobs across the United Kingdom. For instance, in Scotland, we already spend £1.7 billion a year supporting 10,000 jobs, and we are taking forward our plans for the eight Type 26 and five Type 31 frigates currently being constructed on the Clyde. There will be further growth of jobs in Northern Ireland and, we hope, in Wales. This is indeed a good settlement for job creation in the United Kingdom. We want construction on those projects to be UK-led. As I said, we hope that 10,000 jobs a year will be created, with many more within the supply chains, across the UK.

Syria: UK Military Action

Baroness Helic Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his powerful and timely maiden speech. I had the privilege to work with him for over a decade and it is my honour to be on the same Benches now.

When the Arab spring arrived in Syria, I was heartened by the support that many rightfully offered to its people. I was disappointed when that support ebbed away and, most of all, when the hands of our own Government were tied after the use of chemical weapons by Assad forces. Those who voted against military action then, when ISIL barely existed, said it could only make things worse. Today, thousands more people are dead, there are 5 million refugees and Lebanon, Turkey, Tunisia and Paris have been attacked. It is hard to imagine how it could have been any worse.

I supported the Government then and I support the Government now. Daesh poses a threat to the United Kingdom and we cannot rely on the others to defend our security. It is deliberately working to undermine the cohesion as well as the security of our societies by trying to create a clash of religions. If we simply wait, the poison will spread and we will have to pay an even higher price to confront it in the future.

It seems obvious that military action to disrupt Daesh is only a part of the solution, along with choking off its finances and external support, securing the border between Turkey and Syria and, above all, working on a political settlement. This means being clear about what kind of Syria we wish to see emerge and overcoming the question of President Assad that has paralysed diplomacy. We should not confuse the process of diplomacy, which will require dealings with Damascus, however unpalatable, with the outcome we are seeking—a stable, sovereign Syria, at peace with itself and its neighbours.

Like others in this House, I recall the ending of the war in Bosnia, after mass atrocities, mass displacement and the Srebrenica genocide. The person behind many of these crimes, President Milosevic of Serbia, was one of the main signatories of the peace agreement with the full blessing of the international community. It was a flawed and unjust peace, giving de facto recognition to ethnic cleansing. However, it stopped the killings, refugees went back and Milosevic ended his days in The Hague, exactly where he belonged.

Assad has presided over the slaughter of his own people and the destruction of Syria. We cannot continue letting his sheer existence decide if, when and how the war ends. While there is no future for Assad in Syria, we today must find a way forward. We have faced such difficult moral, political and strategic situations before and found a solution through diplomacy and hard power. We must do the same for Syria for the sake of its people, peace and our own security. That, in my view, must start with military action against Daesh in Syria.