Sudan

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I join colleagues in congratulating my noble friend Lord Collins on his appointment, on his speech and on his initiative in holding this debate. One thing that has struck me forcibly is the reservoir of expertise revealed by every speaker. It is, dare I say, rather humbling for someone with fairly limited experience of Sudan.

I recall that the Sudan civil service had a fine reputation. The background is that Sudan became independent in 1956 and, since that time, its history has been characterised by turbulence and violence. I was in Sudan in 1967 and met, at his home, Sadiq al-Mahdi, who was then considered to be the great potential for peacekeeping. Alas, it was not the case, and now, since April last year, a war has been led by two warlord generals and appears to wholly ignore the plight of the people. I shall not go over all the statistics—the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others have set them out, and perhaps there is no merit in repeating them. But the catastrophe is appalling.

I recall that, earlier in the debate, the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Suttie, mentioned that very little attention has been paid in the British press to the catastrophe in Sudan. I would argue to the contrary that, latterly, there has been a flurry of attention—I refer to articles in the Sunday Times, the Economist and the Financial Times, and let us not forget that, in the Library publication, there was a helpful summary of the problem in Sudan.

The Economist of 31 August had a leader and a special briefing headed: “Why Sudan’s catastrophic war is the world’s problem”. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, sermonised on that text. It said the catastrophic conflict

“could kill millions—and spread chaos across Africa and the Middle East”,

causing

“the world’s worst famine in 40 years”—

presumably referring to the crisis in Ethiopia in 1984, which received so much attention. We had special concerts and petitions. One is bound to ask: what is the difference between Ethiopia then and Sudan now? We understand from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, that there was a 40% shortfall in the fund for Sudan. Is it Gaza? Is it the other turbulence in the world? Is it aid fatigue? There is certainly a question about why there is such a difference.

We know that half the population is suffering from food insecurity. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, pointed out, we are talking about a highly fragile neighbourhood. To the west is the Sahel, with all the turbulence and Islamism of that area. To the east is the Horn of Africa, with all its turbulence. Just a mere glance at the map of Sudan will show the number of fragile countries which surround it, including, of course, Libya to the north, which leaks arms to Sudan. Libya has in effect now been divided. Some commentators suggest that the possible solution in Sudan is further fragmentation after the loss of South Sudan, just as happened in Ethiopia with the loss of Eritrea and now with Somaliland possibly leaving Somalia.

It is a highly volatile region. If we find all the awful statistics of the human catastrophe unconvincing, surely self-interest should prevail. I repeat what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said about refugees. Who can blame ordinary families in Sudan seeing the choice as being between staying put, possibly being killed or starved and fleeing to the north to escape that conflict? The point has been made that 60% of those in Calais waiting to come to the UK come from Sudan. There is also the danger to the Suez Canal, adding to what the Houthis are doing to that vital shipping lane, and that of an implosion within Sudan itself, with Sudan becoming even more a failed state—a failed state for terrorism in that region and a failed state for Islamism and all other evils.

The second recent article to which I referred was by Alex de Waal on 1 September in the Sunday Times. I know him as a first-rate scholar, but with all respect to him, his article was brilliant in analysis but lacking in any form of solution save for increased aid, on which we would all agree.

The final report to which I shall give some attention is from the Financial Times on Tuesday of this week. It stressed the danger of fragmentation, citing the precedent of Libya, the extent to which there is a struggle for resources among the so-called great powers, which adds to the many complications of Sudan, and the role of gold on both sides.

Of course, food aid is our immediate problem, but longer-term stability depends on peace. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister: what prospects are there? How can we map out a path to a solution, or is it all gloom at present, as the protagonists—or at least some of them—refuse to attend peace conferences? We know that, for them, it is a fight to the finish. One will win, one will lose; one will probably stay, one will go into exile. This is part of the problem: there appears to be no scope for compromise or for any intermediary. Does my noble friend see any potential intermediary on the horizon? There have been many attempts by the United Nations, by the African Union and by IGAD, but all have failed to broker a deal. Is there any prospect of curbing the arms supply? Sanctions have been mentioned. For example, if it be true that the Emiratis are supplying the RSF, we know that the US and others will not bring any pressure on them because they need their support for Gaza—it just adds to the many complexities of the situation.

What prospect is there of opening further parts of the border to supply aid? What more could we and the European Union do? We are the pen holder, and I believe that both sides, ourselves and the European Union, can seek to build up the strength of civil society. The most reverend Primate mentioned the role of the churches, which has always been important in Sudan. Surely there are signs of hope. Surely the world will now be ready to place Sudan further up the agenda of concern, and act.