Sudan: US Determination of Genocide Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for International Development
Chris Law
Main Page: Chris Law (Scottish National Party - Dundee Central)Department Debates - View all Chris Law's debates with the Department for International Development
Sudan: US Determination of Genocide
Chris Law Excerpts(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the commitment of the Sudanese diaspora in Newport to supporting people in Sudan. I have seen that from people from the diaspora in communities right across the country, and indeed more broadly, with so many people who have seen the details of what is taking place in Sudan being desperately concerned about it. I reassure her that we are determined to do all that we can to ensure that lifesaving aid in food, healthcare and other means is delivered to people in need so that the people who are suffering so much in Sudan are protected.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
We all remember the appalling comments of the Foreign Secretary in October when he said that genocide is a legal term, which
“must be determined by international courts”,
which is appropriate only
“when millions of people lost their lives”.—[Official Report, 28 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 556.]
The special adviser to the UN Secretary-General on the prevention of genocide has said that the situation today in Sudan
“bears all the marks of risk of genocide”.
The US Secretary of State has determined that the RSF and its aligned militias have committed genocide. In the UK, Protection Approaches’ director said that
“the people of Sudan face unimaginable precarity under a triple threat of war, genocide and famine.”
Why is it that time after time in this House we are so reticent about using the word “genocide” when it is all around us and the evidence is there for us to see? Does the Minister stand by the Foreign Secretary’s assessment that it is only for international courts to make the assessment that millions must die before the term genocide can be used? Does she believe that the US Secretary of State’s use of the term “genocide” undermines its seriousness?
Anneliese Dodds
The Government believe it is critical that we have an approach to determining genocide that is consistent with our obligations under the genocide convention and the Rome statute. They are incredibly important. As I have said before, to have trust internationally in the system, it is critical that we ensure there is a clear, impartial and independent methodology for the determination of genocide. That is important because of the seriousness of the matter of which we speak.