Combating Atrocity Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide

Baroness Helic Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as per the register. I welcome this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for introducing it and pay tribute to him and to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for giving voice to the survivors of atrocity crimes and pressing successive Governments to act before warning becomes catastrophe.

We cannot speak credibly about preventing genocide while disregarding existing mechanisms for confronting it: the genocide convention, the Rome statute, the international courts and international humanitarian law. Our problem is not the absence of legal frameworks but the absence of political will, moral clarity and preparedness to use what tools we have. As the United Nations Secretary-General recently warned, we are witnessing a dangerous erosion of respect for international law. Whatever view we hold of any individual conflict or of any individual state, the law cannot be selectively applied. Where grave violations occur, accountability must always follow, whoever the perpetrators are.

Genocide does not begin with mass killing, as others have said. It begins with dehumanisation, erosion of legal protections, impunity for attacks on civilians, and the use of sexual violence to terrorise communities, just to mention a few. Our recent history shows that prevention is possible, but only when states are prepared to act. In 1998, in Kosovo, we showed that timely international action saves lives. I am not arguing for military intervention. States have many other tools available to them: sanctions, arms embargoes, travel bans, effective diplomacy and legal action. We just have to be prepared to use them. Yet hesitation remains endemic. Each time the international community decides the moment to act has not yet arrived, the promise of “never again” grows weaker.

Today, warning signs are visible across multiple conflicts. I shall mention just a few. In Sudan, the United Nations and other independent bodies have documented credible allegations of ethnic massacres, widespread atrocities and conflict-related sexual violence. In El Fasher, survivors described armed men asking victims whether they were soldiers or civilians and then killing them regardless of the answer in conduct bearing “the hallmarks of genocide”.

In Gaza, we have watched restrictions on food and medical supplies, large-scale displacement, and credible allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian law. The gravity of these concerns has been underscored by international organisations and legal experts, and even in some situations by members of the Israel Defence Forces. One soldier recently recalled that the word “civilian” was scarcely mentioned during operations. Others described practices that, if verified, entirely disregard the laws of armed conflict, including the alleged use of captured Palestinians as so-called “mosquitoes” in place of sniffer dogs to trigger booby traps.

In Xinjiang, systematic repression of Uyghurs continues, as well as of Protestants and other Christian groups, including pervasive surveillance, coercive social control, and restrictions on cultural and religious life.

More broadly, the latest report of the United Nations Secretary-General on conflict-related sexual violence records a dramatic increase in such crimes in countries like Russia, but also in democracies like Israel, which shows the moral collapse that is happening in that country. Conflict-related sexual violence is not incidental; it is deployed deliberately to force displacement and destroy the fabric of communities. The United Kingdom once led international efforts to confront these crimes through the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative. Our leadership must not be allowed to diminish; recently, it seems to have done so. I fully note and welcome the latest initiative by the Foreign Office on countering violence against women and girls, but we have to do more about this.

I put several questions to the Minister. First, what further steps will the Government take to strengthen the United Kingdom’s capacity to identify and respond to genocide and atrocity crimes at an early stage? I hope that parliamentary time will be made available for the noble Lord’s Private Member’s Bill, which I hope to support. Secondly, has the time come to update our policy on universal jurisdiction to ensure that the United Kingdom does not become a safe haven for individuals implicated in genocide, crimes against humanity and other serious international crimes, as others have pointed out? Thirdly, can the noble Lord say what exact mechanisms are used by the Government to ensure that the warnings from international investigators, courts and monitoring bodies trigger preventive action rather than retrospective expressions of concern?

Finally, will the Government reaffirm the United Kingdom’s commitment to preventing conflict-related sexual violence through its sustained support for documentation, accountability and international co-ordination? I hope that the Prime Minister will appoint a new special envoy on this issue, as this position has remained vacant since November last year, while the crimes have been increasing—and not because they have decreased or because we are in a better place. We are in a much worse place than we were last year.

The question is not whether we possess the legal instruments to confront and prevent genocide and crimes against humanity—we do; the question is whether we possess the resolve to use them in a timely way. Too often, the international community acts only after the worst has happened, and so do we. Prevention requires vigilance, consistency and the courage to uphold our principles.

In conclusion, I hope that your Lordships will not mind me reminding the House of the late Sir Alex Younger, whose distinguished public service reflected a profound understanding that national security and democratic values cannot be separated. As he put it:

“If we undermine the values we defend, even in the name of defending them, then we have lost”.


That warning reaches far beyond the world of intelligence and security; it applies with equal force to our response to war crimes. The credibility of international law rests not on the principles we proclaim in comfortable times but on our willingness to uphold them when doing so is hard.

Starvation as a Weapon of War

Baroness Helic Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for securing this debate. In my own family’s memory lies Sarajevo and the siege, when starvation was wielded as a weapon and for more than 1,400 days, civilians were cut off from food, water, medicines and power. Some starved, surviving on nettles, grass and animal feed; others died as snipers and shells struck queues for bread and water. During that time, 11,500 civilians were killed, including more than 1,600 children.

The UN airlift later known as Operation Provide Promise flew 160,000 tonnes of aid into Sarajevo across more than 12,000 missions. It was far from perfect. Aid was often intercepted and spoiled by the besieging militias and forces, but it prevented famine and sent a message that the world would break the grip of siege designed to starve civilians into submission.

In Sarajevo today, you can see a monument shaped like a vast tin can and printed on it is the brand name ICAR, the canned food distributed to surviving civilians during the siege. It is a gritty reminder of indignity, but also of survival and international resolve. The monument stands not only for what was given but for what should never be withheld: the basic necessities of life. Sadly, the siege is not ancient history. The forced hunger and deprivation that we have seen in Syria, Myanmar, Ethiopia, Sudan and Gaza follow the same tactics. Civilians are reduced to begging for scraps or denied access to humanitarian relief convoys, even as they wait only a few hundred metres away—even as they can see them.

Sudan and Gaza are the most recent examples of this inhumanity. Gaza has been subject, on and off, to full or partial blockade since October 2023. Its civilians were starved, denied basic medical support and stripped of dignity and hope. A cruel collective punishment was inflicted on them, which resulted in a manmade famine. This lack of humanity spreads across countries and into our social media feeds. Only yesterday I was reading about Google’s recent facilitation of false advertising that starvation was taking place in Gaza. Today, it has said that it is not going to remove those posts from Instagram and so on. This week, the withdrawal of aid from Gaza was again used as a threat.

As has been mentioned, using hunger and starvation as tools of warfare is prohibited by international law: the Geneva conventions and additional protocols, the Rome statute and UN Security Council Resolutions 2047 and 2573. We have the legal framework. Yet, despite that legal framework and despite all the promises, outrage and condemnation, starvation is now used just as sexual violence is: not as a tragic by-product or a breakdown of discipline or an incident, but as a premeditated weapon designed to inflict pain and death. Blocked air corridors, denial of relief and seizure or destruction of supplies all contribute to catastrophic hunger and often amount to collective punishment, with consequences lasting generations. As we have heard, an often overlooked aspect is the dire impact that malnutrition has on the brains and bodies of young children. Those who survive never recover.

We do not lack legal means. What is missing is consistent enforcement, political courage and accountability. What we are missing is shame that this is happening on our watch. We in the United Kingdom should always be absolutely clear that there are no circumstances under which the withholding of food to a civilian population—no matter where they are, no matter the colour of their skin and no matter their religion—should ever be tolerated. It should never be allowed.

With this in mind, I ask the Minister to answer a few questions. First, how will His Majesty’s Government ensure that, wherever starvation is used as a method of war, it is systematically investigated and prosecuted? Secondly, with our foreign aid commitment set to fall to 0.3% by 2027—critically, programmes are already being closed in Sudan and elsewhere—will the Government consider ring-fencing resources for starvation prevention as a core humanitarian priority? Finally, what steps will the Government take to embed compliance with international humanitarian law not only in our Armed Forces’ training, but with partners trained here? Can the Minister confirm that proportional defence and military training is allocated under international humanitarian law compliance, so that the forces we train never become perpetrators of these crimes?

The legal tools and precedents exist; moral and political courage must follow. As the president of the ICRC has said:

“International humanitarian law is only as strong as leaders’ will to uphold it”.


I finish by reminding us all that our duty is not merely to condemn starvation as warfare; it is to ensure that starving civilians are protected, not as an afterthought, but as a legal, enforceable and moral imperative.

Conflict in the Middle East

Baroness Helic Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I will address the last question first, which is absolutely right. We are working with the E3, but we are also working in Ottawa to make sure that we can build a strong alliance to support these diplomatic efforts of President Trump to ensure a dialogue, and a deal—as he puts it—that will ensure safety and security in this incredibly dangerous moment.

I am not going to speculate on what information Israel may or may not have had. All I would say is that at this moment in time, we are urging the most important thing, which is to step back, not escalate the situation and not engage with others. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister has had direct calls with Benjamin Netanyahu, President Trump, the leaders of France and Germany and of course other allies in the region, particularly the United Arab Emirates. We have been conveying one simple message: we have urged restraint, to step back and de-escalate. That is the way to ensure a future deal, as President Trump put it.

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

Given Israel’s demonstrated capacity for precision targeting in operations in Tehran, conducted with reported minimal civilian casualties, what assessment have the Government made of the proportionality and distinction applied in Israel’s use of force in Gaza, where, according to The Lancet, the civilian fatalities have exceeded 70,000?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness knows our position in relation to the action in Gaza. We have been very clear that we have taken specific action by refusing to export arms to Israel that may be used in Gaza. We see the actions as being absolutely disastrous for the people of Gaza. We have seen the consequences and have been absolutely focused on trying to ensure that Israel works to deliver what we have been calling for: an immediate ceasefire, an immediate end to hostilities, and the release of hostages. But most importantly, we want to see them ensure that the humanitarian aid that is so necessary is able to be delivered.

Middle East Update

Baroness Helic Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very good point, and she is well aware of both my personal and this Government’s commitment to supporting civil society in all contexts. We have been pressing diplomatically. A lot of legislation has gone through the Knesset which still is not being implemented. We are absolutely clear that there should be no impediment to NGOs and civil society delivering that support and aid that are so desperately needed in both Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, according to OCHA, more than 13,000 children have been killed and an estimated 25,000 have been injured since the terror attack in October 2023. I welcome the Government’s decision to allow two children from Gaza to come to the United Kingdom for specialist treatment under Project Pure Hope. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to accept more children needing urgent medical intervention or specialist care?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am unable to confirm that, but I think the noble Baroness knows that we have been absolutely committed to trying to ensure that medical support and aid are delivered, either through the mobile units that we have been funding, through neighbouring countries or, in the case the noble Baroness mentioned, by bringing children here. The most important thing is how we can get immediate medical treatment for them, and that is what we are focused on.

Sudan: Sexual Violence Against Women and Girls

Baroness Helic Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I have mentioned before that we have a huge amount of humanitarian aid committed to Sudan that cannot reach the people who need it. The warring parties are stopping it. We had support at the UN Security Council for our resolution supporting the Secretary-General’s call for the protection of civilians. That was vetoed by the Russians for no reason at all, but that has not stopped us continuing to raise the issue of how we need to get humanitarian aid in.

The commitments are there already—we will get it in. As the Prime Minister said, Sudan will be a priority, which is why we have convened this special conference, co-hosted by a number of countries, in London in April.

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, children will be particularly affected by the cruel assaults conducted against them. Will any special support be given to children, and funding given to UNICEF, so that their recovery can be secured as much as possible, even though it will not be guaranteed?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I would urge noble Lords to read the UNICEF report—it is truly shocking. Very young children under the age of 10 are being subjected to these horrific crimes. The report’s findings show that over 200 children have been subject to that sort of sexual violence. The warring parties need to apply the commitments they made in Jeddah. We are absolutely committed to giving those children what support we can. But I cannot believe that they will ever recover from that shocking crime.

Defence and Security

Baroness Helic Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s words are wise ones and are taken on board entirely. I used to represent a constituency that had a defence industry, and I was proud to be the MP of that area. The simple fact that we are announcing an increase in defence spending, and the words the Prime Minister used, show that we are committed to the industry. There is an economic impact from this on the country as a whole, and we should recognise that. I assure the noble Lord that we will show that leadership, as required.

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s Statement and his commitment to increasing defence spending. The clarity with which he has approached this is encouraging and is good for our long-term security. However, making sure that peace in Europe is not eroded again, as it has been eroded in Ukraine, is crucial.

The western Balkans is currently in the worst possible security crisis since the end of the war in 1995. With that in mind, will the Government consider rejoining Operation Althea? At the moment, our deterrent is both weak and insufficient.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. She is absolutely right, and we accept that. We are currently working with key allies on that area. My noble friend may have something more to say on that at another point, but I entirely take the point she makes.

UK Strategy Towards the Arctic (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)

Baroness Helic Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this excellent and timely report. It confirms an urgent reality: the Arctic is no longer a frozen wilderness; it is the new frontier where climate change meets great power competition. Melting ice is reshaping trade routes, exposing vast reserves of oil, gas and rare earth metals essential to modern industry.

According to scientists, in 1987, planet earth experienced a global climate shift of unprecedented scale—a major step change or regime shift in earth’s biophysical systems, from the upper atmosphere to the depths of the ocean and from the Arctic to Antarctica. That very year, and with this unbeknown to him, Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking in Murmansk, envisioned the Arctic as a

“zone of peace and co-operation”.

Yet, under Vladimir Putin, the Arctic has become central to Russia’s quest to reclaim superpower status.

Today, Russia dominates the region, with its fleet of icebreakers, military bases and infrastructure along the Northern Sea Route. This route is not only economically vital to Moscow but geopolitically significant, enabling the rapid movement of its naval fleets and offering a platform for cyberattacks, disinformation and sabotage. We were recently made aware and reminded of Russian efforts and continuous attempts to sow discord across Europe, which is a stark warning of the risks posed by Russia’s Arctic pre-eminence.

Equally concerning is China’s growing interest in the Arctic. Although over 800 nautical miles from the Arctic Circle, Beijing now calls itself a “near-Arctic state”. By this logic, half of Europe, including the United Kingdom, could claim the same title, but China is far more than a passive observer. Between January 2022 and June 2023, 234 Chinese-owned firms registered in the Russian-controlled Arctic. China has built docks, railway lines and infrastructure in key Arctic ports, working hand in hand with Russia to consolidate control over energy supplies and resources. This partnership underscores the deepening Sino-Russian alignment in the Arctic—a development that we cannot ignore.

I will not comment on the US President-elect’s aspirations when it comes to Canada or Greenland, but we can be grateful that what Mr Trump is saying is not being uttered by Mr Putin, as I imagine there would be much chatter about Article 5 today. The strategic significance of the Arctic is clear; our collective response ought to be too. Although the UK is geographically distant, it is strategically intertwined with the High North. Securing NATO’s northern flank, ensuring freedom of navigation and maintaining vital energy imports from Norway all depend on our active engagement in this region.

I therefore welcome the report’s recommendations, in particular on partnering with businesses managing critical infrastructure, such as subsea cables and pipelines, to protect against emerging threats; on preventing unregulated fishing and supporting the creation of marine protected areas; and on its call to appoint an Arctic envoy or ambassador, and strengthen co-operation with other observer states on the Arctic Council while respecting the leadership of Arctic nations. The rules-based international order must shape the future of the Arctic, and I also welcome calls for a new international polar code to establish clear guidelines.

I also note the recommendation to engage with China on scientific research and climate change. Although it is important to engage with China on these issues, we must approach this cautiously, with a clear-eyed understanding of the challenges posed by the evolving partnership between Russia and China.

Part of this is a matter of our military capability. While our Armed Forces are not short of tasks, they are short of capability. They rely on a single polar-capable vessel, HMS “Protector”, which is regularly deployed between the Arctic and the Antarctic and has faced technical challenges. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will be aware of this, and I hope the Minister agrees that we must make sure that his recommendations, made in the SDR, are not constrained by defence spending commitments or the lack of them. Defence spending is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Without investment, in this case in polar assets, we cannot safeguard our interests or support our allies.

As we rightly focus on the Arctic, we must do everything to strengthen existing transit routes, ensuring their stability and security, as the best way of improving the stability and security of global shipping. It is astonishing that a non-state terrorist group can disrupt global shipping in the Red Sea, and the same can be said about piracy off the Horn of Africa and in the Strait of Malacca. Moreover, closer to home, shifting global shipping from the Suez Canal to the Northern Sea Route would carry serious geopolitical risks. Increased reliance on this route could deepen Europe’s dependence on Russia, in the same way that gas dependence has, limiting our collective ability to counter Moscow’s choices.

The Arctic is not someone else’s problem; it is ours too. Climate change, great power competition and emerging threats in this region will define global security in the years to come. The United Kingdom must remain not only present but relevant, to safeguard NATO’s northern flank and to protect our own national security. This demands proactive engagement, investment in polar capabilities and support for our allies.

Syria

Baroness Helic Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The important thing to stress, as I said earlier, reflecting the Secretary-General’s comments, is that it is for the Syrians to determine their own Government. Turning to HTS, it is important to repeat that we will judge HTS by its actions and continue to monitor closely how it and other parties in this conflict treat all civilians in all areas under their control. As the US special envoy said, we want an inclusive transition process and that is something that we will be monitoring extremely closely.

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, what assessment has been made of the threat that those being kept in the al-Hawl camp in northern Syria might present to the United Kingdom were the camp is to be disbanded? What consideration has been given to discussions with the new authorities and with our allies about the future of that camp?

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.