Sudan

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to be speaking under your chairmanship, Mr Walker, and I welcome you to our debate. I also welcome hon. Members attending the debate, given all the influences of this afternoon. I am extremely grateful that they have come to what is, nevertheless, a very important debate. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party group of parliamentary friends of CAFOD—Catholic Fund for Overseas Development. I want to place on record my sincere thanks to Mr Speaker and the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate on the humanitarian and political situation in Sudan.

As hon. Members present at this debate already know, Sudan has recently voted to separate, in a week-long referendum which began on 9 January, and will formally divide on 9 July 2011. Along with the Sudanese people, I was very pleased to welcome the referendum, which is one major step towards completing the comprehensive peace agreement of 2005. After years of civil war, it seemed that finally a peaceful solution would be achieved. Unsurprisingly, however, a number of issues remain unresolved and require our urgent attention. In my view, alongside our international obligation as a guardian of the peace agreement, it is also our moral duty to ensure that a lasting peace is achieved.

In fairness to the Foreign Secretary, his action on Sudan in the run-up to the referendum was clear and constructive. He chaired a special session of the UN Security Council and announced Sudan as a priority for the Foreign Office. That has to be welcomed by all parts of the House. However, success in Sudan is not the final piece in the jigsaw; it is the first piece in a new jigsaw. I am sure that the Government will listen to the arguments put forward today not only by myself, but other hon. Members, and, more importantly, act on them with the urgency that they deserve. The issues are many and require greater detail than I can afford, given the time today. However, I will endeavour to offer an overview of the main causes for concern that the UK could and should act on, and I am sure that other hon. Members present will wish to explore those issues in greater detail.

The fertile and oil-producing border area of Abyei is proving to be a hot-spot of escalating violence and political turmoil. As the Minister will know—I welcome his presence this afternoon—the separate referendum in this part of the region has been stalled. That is because a nomadic tribe, the Misseriya, are now claiming to be residents of that area. Consequently, they are exerting their right to vote in the referendum. That is a serious and intractable problem which is causing civil unrest of grave concern. The UN has also reported that both the armies from the north and south are deploying heavy weapons. What is more, President Bashir has insisted that there can be no decision on the future status of Abyei that excludes the Misseriya. Is that not a clear attempt to influence the outcome of the referendum in favour of the north, which is lacking in the kind of balance that I believe is necessary, and for which I will argue later?

I am sure that the Foreign Office understands those issues. It has previously acknowledged the complexity of the situation that I have described. I note that the Government have also signed a statement, issued by the Troika on 15 March, condemning violence in the area. I welcome very much those interventions, but words need to be backed up. Will the Minister tell us what further steps the UK will take to ensure that this situation is resolved, and that the referendum is carried out with fair representation of the resident Dinka people? Will the Minister outline what support will be given to officials to uphold the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which empowers the Dinka people to choose their status in the referendum? I fear that unless the situation is properly addressed, the north will continue to exploit the peace process for greater concessions from the south and, inevitably, the south will fight back.

Another major threat to the peace process is posed by the recent reports of divisions between various factions in the south. I do not wish to add to the rumours that I have heard. However, it would be catastrophic for the peace process if those reported conflicts were to escalate on the eve of independence. There is a clear need for diplomatic assistance and our Government have to make sure that they continue to fulfil their role as one of the guarantors of the peace agreement. I accept absolutely that in that role, the Government have to be more even-handed between north and south than I feel I am able to be in this speech today. I echo the words of the Minister, when he said:

“It is important to recognise that we need not just to reduce the risks associated with disasters when they happen, but to have much better co-ordination on identifying and preventing risks before they happen”.—[Official Report, 8 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 886.]

Will the Minister tell the House what steps he and his colleagues will take to bring those words into fruition and co-ordinate an effective diplomatic mission to resolve the conflict in Abyei, and between the various factions in the south, before it escalates into full-blown civil conflict?

I would now like to draw the Minister’s attention to another outstanding issue—the popular consultations, which were due to be held in the South Kordofan and Blue Nile states. Although the consultation process is under way in the Blue Nile, it has yet to begin in South Kordofan, a clear indicator that the north is not taking those marginalised areas of Sudan as seriously as I believe it should. It is perhaps worth recalling the words of American historian Howard Zinn:

“The memory of oppressed people is one thing that cannot be taken away, and for such people, with such memories, revolt is always an inch below the surface.”

Will the Minister acknowledge the potential dangers if the north continues to ignore the demands of its marginalised states? Will he commit to putting added pressure on President Bashir meaningfully to uphold the promises in the comprehensive peace agreement for popular consultations to meet the expectations of the Sudanese people in South Kordofan and the Blue Nile?

The Minister will also be aware of another matter which affects all three states previously mentioned and which has yet to be resolved—border demarcation. That highly contentious issue directly affects 10 border states and some 13 million people. As always, these matters are complex. Can the Minister say what he and his colleagues are doing to support the important process of border delineation?

Following the independence of the south, the threat from the hardliners in the north is that sharia law will be more strictly applied and that there will be no place for southerners, especially if they fail to convert to Islam. Compare that with the south, where northerners have already been given guarantees that they are welcome to stay and to continue in whatever is their line of business. Does the Minister agree that Khartoum should be encouraged to adopt a similar attitude? What steps is he taking to ensure that the rights of southerners living in the north, and of northerners living in the south, will be respected?

The national debt, which is approximately $40 billion, is a big issue. South Sudan simply does not have the economic wherewithal to service that financial burden. However, north Sudan has offered to take on all of the country’s international debt when the south gains independence in July, requesting that that be in exchange for inclusion in the International Monetary Fund’s heavily indebted poor countries initiative. We are aware that our Government intend to cancel the £1 billion of Sudan’s debt that is owed to the UK, but when will that happen? What are the implications for the budget of the Department for International Development?

The Minister ought also to be aware of the important role of the Churches in mitigating the effects of conflict and in protecting the rights of citizens, despite the continued attempts by Khartoum to restrict their work. Non-governmental organisations such as CAFOD, which has worked in Sudan since the mid-1970s and has provided those essential links to the Church, have proven effective in dealing with the humanitarian and political crises.

There is much anticipation about the Government’s position on the humanitarian emergency response review. I suggest, too, that the Government take on board Lord Ashdown’s point of view, which I share, that

“indigenous and faith-based NGOs are often the first to respond, and understand both culture and context”.

Based on that shared view, will the Minister continue to support the work of the Churches in Sudan? Many NGOs have asked the Government to define the support to be provided. I welcome the Minister’s view on that aspect.

Another major issue is the unfolding humanitarian crisis. More than 190,000 southerners have returned from the north to the south since November 2010. I urge the Government to continue to live up to our responsibility to help the poorest in the world. Currently, the British public are legitimately concerned about cuts, but let that not deter the Government in their resolve to help those who need our attention.

I have covered only a handful of the issues facing Sudan as it approaches a new chapter. I have not even touched on the difficulties of ensuring a fair division of oil revenues or of the terrible threat posed by the Lord’s Resistance Army. Of equally great importance, we should never forget the plight of people in Darfur and the devastating human misery and suffering that the violence has caused. While conflict continues in Darfur, peace across the rest of the country is under constant threat. The international community has still to meet that challenge.

I would now like to conclude my speech with some final recommendations and thoughts, as I look forward to the contribution of other hon. Members. South Sudan is one of the most underdeveloped regions on the African continent. The UK special representative for Sudan, Michael Ryder, has recommended that the Government begin to outline a post-CPA framework. Does the Minister have any plans to do so? If so, what kind of action does he envisage the UK Government taking?

DFID’s wealth creation strategy could play a significant role in helping south Sudan prosper as it develops. As Ministers draw up their plans, I suggest that they take heed of informed contributions such as CAFOD’s “Think Small” report, which outlines the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular in developing countries where the informal sector is so prevalent.

I take the opportunity to express my support for the principle of country-by-country reporting, which would bring particular benefits to south Sudan. As a new country with significant oil resources, it will be starting from a blank page. Country-by-country reporting is one piece of the jigsaw that could help the people of south Sudan to hold their Government to account and to ensure that wealth is fairly shared. Country-by-country reporting is supported by the Chancellor, who has promised action to take it forward at a European Union level. What will such action look like?

South Sudan has enormous potential as a country, but our support is paramount at this critical time of state formation. So far, the UK Government have played an important supportive role: they must continue to do so. The alternative would be a travesty for the people of Sudan, who are waiting, hoping and praying for the international community to respond, and to respond positively. I called for the debate today because I and many others agree with that plea.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Kawczynski]

If we look at the map of Africa, we see that the greatest Chinese investment is primarily where the oil reserves are. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Chinese are keen to invest. There is huge construction of bridges, railways and other infrastructure to extract the minerals and oil that China so desperately needs for its economy.

I have had many meetings with the Sudanese ambassador to the UK at his embassy, and I pay tribute to him, because he is a good and diligent representative of his country. I have taken British businesses to see him, and he keeps telling me, “Sudan is open for business with the UK. We are desperate”—to return to the point made by the hon. Gentleman—“to detach ourselves from our over-dependence on China. We need to change our economy’s relationships to make sure we interact more with countries in Europe and particularly with the UK.” Many Sudanese people see the UK in an extremely positive way, and they have a long-standing friendship and relationship with us.

This is the first time I have heard of the cancellation of the £1 billion debt owed to Britain, which the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill highlighted. He asked the Minister to clarify when that debt will be cancelled, and I, too, am very much looking forward to hearing the answer. However, this should not just be a matter of saying, “Oh well, let’s cancel £1 billion of debt,” and we must remember that we are talking about British taxpayers’ money. Our country is heavily indebted, and various facilities are being closed in our constituencies, so £1 billion is a huge amount of taxpayers’ money to think of simply cancelling.

Rather than just cancelling £1 billion of debt, therefore, I suggest that we negotiate with the Sudanese. We should say that we will cancel a proportion of the debt in exchange for their hiring the services of British manufacturing consultancies or companies, which would go to their country to educate their people, set up production and help them set up factories. There must be a quid pro quo interaction between the British Government and Sudan. We should not simply cancel the debt, but cancel some of it and say that we want the Sudanese to use the money to hire the services of British companies.

[Mr Tom Clarke]

I hesitate to intervene in such a thoughtful speech, but it is important to register that much of the debt is interest accrued over the years on borrowing that many people at the time considered reckless. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that?

[Daniel Kawczynski]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but whether that borrowing was reckless or not, we all take out mortgages, and we normally all have to pay off the debt. Regrettably, some of my constituents have taken out loans that they cannot afford, and I have tried to help them to somehow negotiate their way through those loans. That is difficult, but a contract has been signed. We should show good will to the Sudanese by cancelling some of the debt, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would object to our also encouraging them to use some of the resources that would be freed up when they no longer have to pay us interest to engage the services of British engineering and manufacturing consultants in the development and restructuring of their country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tom Clarke]

I am not for one second introducing aggro that I do not feel by saying that I enjoyed the 43 minutes for which the Minister spoke. I assure him that I, like others, will carefully consider the many points that he made. We appreciate the thought that he has given to the various issues that were raised, and we will have an opportunity to read what he said. My immediate response before reading his speech is that what he said on CPA, Abyei, the Mbeki group, south Kordofan, the Blue Nile and so on was very helpful, if only because these issues have scarcely been reported in recent times. We all appreciate that there have been huge issues throughout the world in Tunisia, Egypt, Japan and elsewhere, and we understand that they should be fully reported, but the great merit of this excellent debate is that in this Parliament, which is representative of the people of the United Kingdom, we have put Darfur on the agenda again.

I welcome the Minister’s comments, and I welcome DFID’s role in these important matters. Numerous points were made in the debate. Did I agree with all of them? It would be less than honest if I said yes, but there was a remarkable measure of agreement throughout the Chamber. The points on which we agree—in a few moments I want to turn to the future of Sudan—and the debate have offered hope to many people, including those who have followed the debate, and those outside who hear about our discussion. That, too, is long overdue.

I thank the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) for his contribution. I am glad that I have time to say that he has focused on these issues, particularly Sudan, in his role as Chair of the Select Committee on International Development, and in so many other ways. I believe that on these issues his constituents should be proud of him, and I am sure that they are. If the debate had any purpose at all, it was met in his wonderful message in the statement from the Anglican bishops, and I hope that he will feel free to tell them that we reciprocate their objectives and hopes for the future of Sudan, and the prayers that they have no doubt expressed. I thank him for his contribution.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) travelled from Bournemouth for the debate, and I thank him for that. He referred to the complexities in north and south Sudan, such as the 200 ethnic groups. I was very pleased that he mentioned, as others did later, the humanitarian crisis and how the United Nations sees it. He also referred to the problems of fundamentalism.

If I have one regret when it comes to disagreement, it has to be with the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). Until the last five minutes or so of his speech, I thought he was doing remarkably well, and that is still my view. That said, he was a brave man willingly to take on Clare Short and China in one speech. Clare Short and I had our disagreements and, sadly, she is not now even a member of my party, but she re-established international development as a Department. It been on the fringes. I mean no disrespect, but when I came to Parliament it was led by a Minister of State in the House of Lords with 10 minutes’ Question Time at the end of Foreign Affairs questions. Clare Short re-established the role of international development and reminded the people of Britain that there are poor people in a rich world.

In 1982, when I came to Parliament, the Brandt report was published and reminded us that although we have responsibilities to the poor south, there is some interdependence. The point about looking to the future, and to trade, exports and interdependence was made well by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham and others. That is something I welcome and for which Clare ought to be remembered.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned mineral extraction—that point was taken up by other hon. Members and I will come to it later if time allows. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) made a positive speech. She dealt with violence after the referendum and rightly drew our attention again to Darfur, which she thought had been overshadowed. She was not the only hon. Member who mentioned gender, and she was absolutely right to raise that subject and speak about the lack of rights for women in Sudan. Although there may have been a few improvements on the fringes, her comments were a reflection of what is going on in both north and south Sudan, directed from Khartoum.

I regard the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) as a personal friend. He and I visited Australia together as part of a CPA delegation. I was not surprised that his speech was so beautifully well informed and comprehensive or that it contained a great deal of clarity to help our understanding of this complex situation. Without being too hard on the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, whom I respect very much, I felt that his description of the poverty, lack of clean water and health care, malnutrition and the poor priority given to education in that part of the world contrasted greatly with his attitude to debt that we heard towards the end of his speech.

Perhaps I should deal with the issue of debt before the clock ticks on much longer. I will set aside the domestic debate about the banks and so on because you would rightly remind me that that is not part of this debate, Mr Walker. I do not believe that in this wealthy, modern world of ours, the most impoverished and destitute people should be those who repay all the debt, base and interest. Every three seconds one of them has died as we have been debating this afternoon. Let me draw to the attention of the Chamber to the view of the Jubilee Debt Campaign; I assume from what the Minister has said that the Department for International Development will take these views on board. On Darfur it stated:

“Almost 60 per cent. ($20 billion) of Sudan’s debt is interest.”

That is money added to the sum that was borrowed, but it was not borrowed in the interests of those poor, hapless people who have been described so well by the hon. Member for The Cotswolds and others. I listen to opinions expressed by British taxpayers, and I do not believe that they are so mean-minded as to say that we who benefited from colonialism, not only in Sudan and Africa but elsewhere, and who also benefited from the Marshall plan after the second world war, without which we could never have thrived, would wish to deny the same things to countries as hapless and difficult as both sections of Sudan.

Having—I hope—put the issue of debt to bed, I will mention some of the other speeches. The hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) mentioned the Sudanese diaspora, which was an important contribution to the debate. I wish him well in the visit he is due to undertake, and I look forward to hearing his views on it afterwards. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) made a powerful and well-informed intervention that was witty, classical—

[Stephen Pound]

And irrelevant.

[Mr Clarke]

It was wholly relevant and compassionate. I will tell my hon. Friend something that I have always wanted to say, but did not plan on saying so publicly: he should not underestimate his own intellect. I think that he was on to something, and if we were to follow the advice that he gave us in his speech about how to deal with Sudan, and take that in a global context, much progress would be made. I welcomed his speech, and particularly the goals that he set.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) made one of the winding-up speeches, and I pay tribute to the clarity of his speech and to the marvellous work that he did in this field before coming to the House. I am delighted that he speaks on these issues from the Opposition Front Benches. He speaks well and is remarkably well informed. I hope that he will get the opportunity to implement in Government some of the beliefs that he has held for many years, sometimes alone. I remember him speaking at Scottish Labour party conferences, which were perhaps once more concerned with domestic issues. Nevertheless, he got right to the heart of the issues that we have been addressing today.

What are those issues? This is a time of globalisation, and despite the awful poverty, conflict and lack of hope for the future, Sudan has the benefit of mineral resources which, if properly organised, could mean a brilliant future for all people in the country. People rightly talk about corruption, and I accept that is an issue. Perhaps I may say with some modesty that I sponsored the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006 which dealt with that very issue. I acknowledge the help that I received in getting that Act through Parliament from a number of Government Members, not least the hon. Members for Bournemouth East and for Banbury.

Of course we want transparency and to wipe out corruption. I welcome what the Minister had to say on figures, and he should not take this as a rebuke. However, when he gave us those figures, I reflected that until we took the issue of corruption and transparency seriously, the money did not go where British taxpayers wanted it to go. That is why Clare Short was such a successful Minister. In some ways I am slightly surprised that nobody has mentioned the way she took on the European Union and said, “When it comes to multilateral agreements, development and aid we want to know why the EU is acting in that way and what the arguments are. We will support those arguments when we believe them to be right, but we are entitled to know the thinking behind them.” She deserves credit for that, and very much more.

As we come to the end of the debate, let me say that had it been held at prime time on the Floor of the House, people would have been very proud of our Parliament. They would have been proud because they share the view of Edmund Burke that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. With all its limitations, I believe that we have done something in today’s debate, and offered hope, prosperity and good will to people who have long deserved it.

Question put and agreed to.