Sudan and Eastern DRC

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am very happy to associate myself with the final remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan.

The House is aware, as is the Minister, of my ongoing interest in supporting Sudanese civilians in exile. The humanitarian suffering continues on an enormous and heartbreaking scale, with what the US had previously categorised as genocide in Darfur, again, and atrocities committed by both sets of belligerents, civilians slaughtered by Chinese drones, reports of chemical weapons being used, and the systematic blocking of humanitarian aid to the communities that need it most, especially women and children.

There are still far too few safe zones, which should have been established many months ago. The Minister is aware that I have supported the Government’s work at the Security Council. It is worth reminding ourselves that, had it not been for the Russian veto, many of the diplomatic actions and work that we have been calling for would have been put in place as a result of the UK-drafted resolution.

The scale is enormous. That was brought home to me when I was in Nairobi last weekend, with civilians in exile, as part of dialogue. One of the former diplomats who is working tirelessly to try to bring about cohesion in the civilian voice told me that his brother had been killed the day before.

For those who are working to try to bring about an end to the war, who cannot return home and who have many family members at home in great peril, this is very real. In a country in which so many of its population face starvation—although Sudan is a country that could feed itself, and indeed export food elsewhere—there are still the basic needs of clean water, medicine and food.

Will the Minister reassert that there should be no impunity for those who are afflicting these terrible breaches of international humanitarian law and war crimes on the civilian population? There should be no hiding place for those who are committing the atrocities, or for those who are systematically blocking food, hydration and medicine. These are war crimes and need to called out as such. I commend the work that the UK is doing with others to ensure that there is the proper collation of evidence, so that there can be consequences to this.

It is not just about those who are afflicting the war crimes; it is about those who are profiting from it. I appeal to the Government to do more to reduce the illicit gold trade. I read a credible report that that part of the economy of Sudan is now more profitable as a result of nearly two years of war than it was prior to the war commencing. That means that near neighbours, including allies of the United Kingdom, are profiting from this humanitarian horror. What work are the Government doing to ensure that there is no profit from war for many of those within the Gulf or near neighbours who are seeking transactional relationships with the belligerents in the gold trade?

The same goes for possibly the most disgusting trade of all: that in human beings. There has been a proliferation of trafficking and smuggling. What actions are all parts of the UK Government taking to ensure that that element of the war economy is closed and there is no future for those who are profiting from war by securing advantage in any form of peace?

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s visit to the Chad border, and what he has said and is doing, as well as the work of our envoy and diplomats. Indeed, we are lucky to have the Minister for Africa in our own House, and I commend the work that he is doing. However, given the reports that the RSF may be seeking to form an administrative authority of its own, which it will call a Government, can the Minister confirm that we will not recognise or provide legitimacy to the RSF? At the moment, there is too much consideration of what Sudan might be if it becomes like Libya: two Governments—two competing authorities. The RSF may seek to an end to the war but it will also seek to have permanent influence; however, it should have no right to govern Sudan.

Does the Minister agree that there is an urgency to this? We are just a matter of eight or nine weeks from the second anniversary of the war, but there should be no third year. All efforts should be focused on these short weeks ahead to ensure that there is diplomatic effort to bring the belligerents to the table and to create the space where civilians can have the opportunity to govern one civilian-led Sudan at the end of the process.

Can the Minister say what assessment the UK has made of the terrible decisions that the Trump Administration are making on USAID? Have waivers been provided for US humanitarian and food assistance in Sudan? What is the Government’s assessment of the likely impact of the USAID decisions?

Turning to the DRC, there is little surprise that there has been ongoing territorial violence in that region; many have warned about that for many months. I commend the UN forces and any UK personnel who have been contributing to the end of this. I also send condolences to the families of those who have paid with their life in attempting to have peace in this area.

The work of the Rwandan Government and M23 has been raised in this House repeatedly. I raised it in June 2023, when I asked the Minister’s predecessor what actions the UK Government were taking with the Rwandan Government to cease the latter’s funding and support of the M23 group. It was marked that the previous Administration refused to make any public statement, probably because of the partnership agreement that they had signed with the Rwandan Government. I hope that the Government will not be shy of the consequences for UK funding support for the Rwandan Government if the latter continue to support an organisation that has been repeatedly held up for multiple violations of international humanitarian law and human rights abuses. Can the Minister comment on whether the Nairobi and Luanda process has now completely ended?

I close with an appeal to the Minister. What we have seen, both in Sudan and the DRC and with the Trump Administration, is that the need for UK development assistance and presence is greater than ever before. If there was ever an opportunity for the Government to review, take stock and then change course on their cut to development assistance, it is now. As well as helping with conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance, we need to ensure that the UK’s global soft power can be a force for good, and so we should not follow the Trump Administration in reducing official development assistance.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments.

I will focus first on the DRC, because the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked for an update. I decided that it would be better to discuss this Statement today so that I could afford the House an update on the situation. The United Kingdom remains firmly of the view that all parties should cease hostilities and return to diplomatic talks immediately. Their engagement in good faith in African-led processes is absolutely key. Of course, there can be no military solution.

Noble Lords will be aware that I have been engaged in following this conflict since day one. The very first country I visited was Angola, followed by the DRC and then Rwanda. Throughout those visits, I was focused on President Lourenço’s attempts at a new peace process to ensure that there was an inclusive process that could guarantee a future secure peace.

When I arrived in Angola, the Government there announced the ceasefire, and our attempts since that day have been to ensure that that ceasefire held. When we saw and heard the movement of M23 towards Goma, we made very clear our view that that should not happen and that Rwanda should cease supporting M23—and there was clear evidence that RDF forces were there also, supporting that move on Goma.

When I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Rwanda on 24 January, I made it clear that such a move would have consequences: the international community would respond on a collective basis—and the Foreign Secretary made the same call the next day to President Kagame and repeated that. Now, of course, Goma has fallen and it looks like M23 is determined to move further to Bukavu.

I have had conversations with the Angola Foreign Minister, as well as the DRC Foreign Minister, repeating the fact that we should keep Luanda as a process that is there and which can guarantee an inclusive dialogue if ceasefire is held and the combatants stop fighting immediately. I spoke to the Ugandan Foreign Minister just an hour ago to reiterate that collective view about the way forward in terms of the Luanda process and ensuring peace. The Foreign Secretary has had conversations with European allies, including the EU high representative, and I have also had conversations with European Foreign Ministers on the same subject. Yesterday we had the G7 statement, which very much reflected the United Kingdom’s position of ensuring that those combatants cease their conflict and cease moving towards the second largest city in eastern DRC. I know that the Foreign Secretary also had discussions with Secretary Rubio on this question, and the United States and the United Kingdom both remain concerned about the situation and want to ensure that there is de-escalation and a ceasefire as soon as possible.

We also should not underestimate the huge humanitarian impact of this conflict. Hundreds of thousands of people have been forced to flee since the beginning of the year. Currently, 7 million are displaced, and that has huge impact. We have also seen the terrible rise of sexual violence in conflict, which of course we are absolutely focused on. We also saw foreign embassies attacked in Kinshasa; fortunately, our staff were secure and safe. I have made it clear to the Foreign Minister, and I know the Foreign Secretary made it clear to President Tshisekedi, that the protection of diplomatic staff is essential.

We are going to take the matter forward. We are reflecting on our actions, but we think it is really important that we are sending a very clear message to Rwanda that it must cease this support and return to the negotiating table. We have made it clear that its presence in DRC is unacceptable. So we are not holding back in terms of communications, but we are absolutely determined to support the African-led peace processes, and SADC and the other regional organisations are very clearly coming to that view too. I will keep the House updated on what our attempts deliver, particularly as we move to a further meeting of the UN Security Council. We have already had two on the DRC, and we are absolutely committed to that collective action.

I appreciate the comments of noble Lords regarding the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Chad. I think it is the first visit of a Foreign Secretary to that situation. His visit to Adre, on the border, made absolutely clear our focus on the humanitarian situation and how to get aid in. This has created the worst humanitarian crisis, with half of Sudan’s population, 30 million people, in urgent need of aid, 12 million having been forced from their homes and 8.7 million on the brink of starvation. We need to move this up the global agenda and we are certainly determined to. We have worked with international partners, as a penholder at the United Nations Security Council. Noble Lords have mentioned the Russian veto on our last attempt, but that has not stopped us raising this question at the UN. We are focused on the Secretary-General’s call for the protection of civilians and in particular holding the combatants to their Jeddah commitments, to ensure that there is a mechanism to protect civilians.

We are absolutely convinced that more needs to be done. We are convening a meeting of foreign ministers, hopefully next month, in London, to galvanise efforts on Sudan, in particular on humanitarian support but also in terms of a political solution. The noble Lord knows very well how we have been seeking and supporting civilian actors in Sudan so that we can see a return to a civilian-led government. The integrity of Sudan is absolutely vital. We cannot afford to see it collapse and we are certainly not accepting that there should be any breakaway or any recognition of any force outside the move towards a democratically elected Sudan Government.

Of course, we have recognised the scale of this crisis with an unprecedented response. The Foreign Secretary has doubled UK aid to Sudan this year, as well as visiting the border in Chad to draw attention to the crisis. I am clear that we all must do more. Funding is just one part of the problem. Far too much of the aid already committed is unable to reach those who need it most. We are pressing all parties to ensure that there is safe and unimpeded access to humanitarian support.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, during the previous war in Congo, some six million people died. Can the Minister tell us what he believes is driving the conflict in the DRC, given that what are being called “blood minerals” are regularly sold through the markets in Rwanda? What have we said to our Commonwealth partner Rwanda about the exploitation of the DRC’s natural resources and how this is empowering groups of rebels to take the law into their own hands and to drive on the conflict?

In the case of Sudan, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, referred to the bombing of the hospital in al-Fashir, with the deaths of some 50 people. A further 70 people died in the nearby market as well. What are we doing to collect evidence to ensure that those responsible will be brought to justice? Far too many people who were responsible for the earlier genocide in Darfur are still roaming the land with impunity and fuelling the present conflict. I think the House would like to know what is being done to hold those to account who have been responsible for those atrocities.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think that the noble Lord appreciates that the issues surrounding this conflict are clearly complex in terms of the history of eastern DRC. We should not forget the genocide that occurred in Rwanda, which after all is only 30 years ago. However, the integrity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is important, and international law is important. That is what we have been focused on. As I mentioned, we have been supporting inclusive talks so that, where there are concerns, they should be addressed in those negotiations. I felt confident that at the meeting on 15 December we would make progress, but sadly we did not.

I am deeply concerned by the reports from the UN group of experts about M23 and Rwanda illegally extracting critical minerals from the DRC, including coltan. We have made our concerns known and will continue to do so.

On Sudan, the UK condemns in the strongest terms the increasing reports of atrocities being committed across Sudan, particularly in Darfur and al-Fashir, as the noble Lord mentioned. The Foreign Secretary issued a tweet on this subject, particularly in relation to the hospital. We are committed to doing everything in our power to ensure that those responsible are held to account. That means ensuring that those parties remain committed to their Jeddah commitments. We also strongly support the ICC’s active investigation into the situation in Darfur, and we welcome prosecutor Khan’s report and briefing to the council. We are absolutely committed to hold these people to account.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend my noble friend the Minister on his initiatives and his very strong personal commitment of long standing to peaceful solutions to conflicts in Africa. Clearly, both these conflicts depend in part on the lure of natural resources and on external intervention—Qatar and others in Sudan and Rwanda in the DRC.

Can my noble friend say what leverage we have, and are we prepared to use it in a clear form? For example, in 2012, the British Government froze our aid to Rwanda, which led fairly speedily to a solution to the M23 intervention in the DRC. Would we consider a similar intervention?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. The Foreign Secretary’s Statement in the other place last week made it clear that we will be working with our allies, and this is the important thing; we want a collective, international response that shows how serious and concerned we are about Rwanda’s activities in the eastern DRC. The first point is the one made by the noble, Lord Purvis: we have been absolutely clear in our message that it is unacceptable and there should be an immediate ceasefire. I will not speculate on what actions the international community will take, but rest assured they will be serious and will have an impact.

On the extractive industries and the mining situation, it is important to say that, when I first met President Lourenço, we talked about the Lobito corridor; we talked about the potential that Africa, and particularly that part of Africa, has in terms of greening the global economy. It has huge potential, and the DRC has the biggest amount of potential. We have focused in all our talks on saying there is a dividend for peace here—let us look at the future and not focus on the past. Sadly, we were unable to deliver that vision at the 15 December summit, but I am confident that we can refocus efforts on that and ensure we focus on progress in Africa.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, following on from the Minister’s point and what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, Rwanda is now exporting more gold and, in particular, more smart tech minerals than it is producing in country. So is there an argument for this Government to put pressure on the major tech companies to look at their global supply chains? Especially as, for example, the UN group of experts pointed out that there is now compelling evidence that minerals smuggled out of the DRC have been used by Apple in constructing its latest generation of iPhone.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As I have said, we have seen those reports from the mission and expressed serious concern about the exploitation of those minerals in the eastern DRC for the benefit of both M23 and Rwanda. We have expressed our concern. Again, I will not speculate on what action the international community takes, but the noble Lord can rest assured that we are determined to act on a collective basis that has the most impact.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend my noble friend the Minister on his comprehensive presentation. Clearly, it the most awful of situations, and I would like to say a word about the exploitation of children in the extractive industries, which I am sure the noble Lord agrees with. Very many children who should be in school are in mines in the DRC. As the Secretary of State noted in the other place, there has been a 16% increase in what he described as irregular migration from Sudan. On that basis, can the Minister say whether we are considering the possibility of safe and legal routes for people who may be in a position to leave Sudan, particularly those who may have family in the UK? I realise that that is very far from the answer to this problem, which should be African-led and should take place in Sudan.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right in her latter comments. Since the conflict began in Sudan, 3.6 million refugees have fled to neighbouring countries, including Chad, Egypt, South Sudan, Uganda and the Central African Republic. As the Foreign Secretary said, we have already seen an increase in people crossing into Europe, with the number of Sudanese people arriving irregularly to the UK increasing by 16% from the previous year to 2,882. Not only is UK aid vitally needed on humanitarian grounds but it will help people to stay within their immediate region. Having 3 million people trying to cross the Mediterranean is just not acceptable. We have to focus on those neighbours and on a solution for Sudan. We are committed not only to ensuring that we deliver the humanitarian aid that is so vitally needed now but to finding a political solution that ensures that we return to one Sudan, with a civilian-led Government who will put the interests of the Sudanese people first. That is what we need most.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry on the register in working for organisations committed to conflict prevention and resolution. In commending the Minister and his efforts across the piece, I put on record our thanks—I know, having sat where he is, the focus that a Minister engaging at this level brings. Turning to the important responsibility he now carries on preventing sexual violence in conflict, as the Minister will know, the biggest tragedy of all the tragedies that unfold in conflict is that it is the most vulnerable, particularly women and girls, who are targeted in the most abhorrent way by crimes. Over many years, we have supported the Panzi Hospital in the DRC and the excellent work done by Dr Mukwege. Can the Minister please update the House on our continued support for these initiatives that are helping victims at a time when they are facing the worst kind of tragedies and violations of their being?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right. I met Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Edinburgh last week and we talked about that hospital and the vital need to support it, and we continue to do so. As the noble Lord knows, the situation is extremely difficult. With fighting going on between combatants, it is extremely difficult to get in the support that is required, but we are committed to doing so and are supporting every effort to do so. He is right that we should focus on ensuring that the voices of those people suffering such abuse are heard. We have done that in Sudan—we raised it at the UN General Assembly, where we held a meeting so that survivors could speak—and we are determined to do that in the DRC. Many of those in internally displaced people camps have suffered from all kinds of sexual violence. We are focused on supporting them with aid and support, and giving them a voice so that the leaders of the DRC and Rwanda can hear the true consequences of their actions.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the genocide 30 years ago in Rwanda. I suppose nobody in your Lordships’ House can feel that more painfully than me, since I was the British ambassador to the United Nations at the time. I am all too well aware that, along with the rest of the international community, we did not come out covered with glory. But we really cannot allow that argument to justify the invasion of a neighbouring country, with the Rwandan military force operating in the DRC. Rwanda has used that argument again and again. Has not the time come to say very clearly—perhaps privately—to the Government of Rwanda that we are not prepared to justify or condone what they are doing in the DRC because of our failings in the 1990s?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hope I made it absolutely clear that we have communicated to the Government of Rwanda that it is totally unacceptable to invade a neighbouring country and to have forces present there. We have made that absolutely clear. When I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Rwanda, I attempted to halt that advance, as did David Lammy when he spoke to President Kagame. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I acknowledged that there are complexities to this conflict and issues that need to be addressed in an inclusive peace process. We were nearly there on 15 December—agreement had been reached. Sadly, one of the parties decided, right at the last moment, that they would not participate. We then saw the sudden surge and advance of troops towards Goma. We tried to stop that; sadly, we could not. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is right that it is totally unacceptable to invade a neighbouring country in the way that Rwanda has.