London Sudan Conference

Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Thursday 24 April.

“Co-hosted with the African Union, the EU, France and Germany, the London Sudan conference convened Foreign Ministers, major donors and humanitarian leaders to galvanise co-ordinated international action on the conflict. Discussions focused on ensuring humanitarian access, protecting civilians and supporting a Sudanese-led peace process that preserves Sudan’s territorial integrity. A co-chairs’ statement set out the shared principles of an immediate ceasefire, rejection of external interference, opposition to parallel Governments, a return to a civilian-led transition and a principled approach to full, unimpeded humanitarian access.

Although this was not a pledging conference, international partners did announce over £800 million of support to address the humanitarian situation. This includes a further £120 million in UK aid for this year, which will reach over 650,000 people with food, nutrition support and emergency assistance, including for survivors of sexual violence. It follows our sustained push to ensure aid that reaches those in need, including through access corridors such as the Adre crossing from Chad.

The UK will continue to lead international efforts to end the conflict in Sudan. Our immediate goals are clear: to bring an end to this destructive war, to protect civilians and to get aid to where it is needed most. Our vision for Sudan is to work with the Sudanese people and international partners to deliver the democratic and peaceful future that they deserve”.

My Lords, the current situation in Sudan is truly appalling. Millions of Sudanese citizens have been internally displaced. Millions more have been forced to flee as refugees. Tens of thousands have been killed as a result of the awful violence in the region, which often seems designed to cause innocent people as much suffering as possible.

Can the Minister give us an update on how the conference went? Can she assure us that the UK will continue to work with the international community to ensure that the abhorrent atrocities that are being committed by both sides in Sudan are documented so that the perpetrators of those awful crimes can be held to account in the future?

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for his agreement with us about the nature of the conflict in Sudan and, as he quite rightly said, the horrific impact it is having on civilians—not least on women and very young children, who have been subject to the most violent sexual attacks. I can assure him that we will continue to do everything we can to bring about a peaceful resolution to this conflict, difficult though that undoubtedly is.

The conference that we held in London during recess involved Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, South Sudan, Chad, Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda, as well as Norway, Canada, the USA, Switzerland, the UN and the League of Arab States. We hosted it alongside the African Union. This was a good step, and there was a co-chairs’ statement at the end. This is unlikely to be a situation that is resolved by one intervention such as a conference, but it is right for the Foreign Secretary to show leadership, bring people together and try to at least take the first steps towards improving the situation.

My Lords, I declare my interest as chief executive of United Against Malnutrition & Hunger. I welcome the focus that the Government are giving to the Sudan crisis. However, the Minister will be aware of the critical need to scale up the humanitarian response before the rainy season starts in June, when humanitarian access will become even more difficult. In that context, could she expand on whether the conference concluded specific outcomes on humanitarian access, what the next steps are following the conference and how the Government will ensure that the additional —and welcome—humanitarian funding announced will get to the agencies on the ground as swiftly as possible?

I thank the noble Lord for raising the important issue of access for humanitarian support and aid. The conference was not designed as a pledging conference to raise money, but it did instigate the raising of £800 million towards supporting humanitarian work in Sudan for those who have been displaced. As he will know, there are many people who are now living in neighbouring countries in very difficult conditions. The safety of aid workers, access for aid and the protection of civilians were the three things that were agreed at the conference. We have committed to continuing to work to improve the situation on the ground, difficult though that is.

My Lords, last week I attended a meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Women, Peace and Security, of which I am a member, on the subject of sexual and gender-based violence in Sudan. Panellists expressed their frustration at the absence of Sudanese civil society actors at the conference. Given the FCDO’s often expressed commitment to supporting civil society in such engagements, how will the Government incorporate their voices in future diplomatic initiatives?

That is a very good point. The conference is not our only effort; it was a one-day event that was focused on representatives from government, but I met a leading female civil society activist from Sudan very recently. The noble Lord is right that civil society organisations are often the very best with which to engage, because the context of getting support into Sudan is so difficult. We know that it is almost always women who bear the brunt in these situations, and it is vital that we continue to be reminded of that.

My Lords, there was much mention at the conference, given the statements that came out of it, of a rejection of external interference, but there were people there who are externally interfering, such as the United Arab Emirates and Egypt. Although the focus on humanitarian access is absolutely right, there is also the problem of gold, and that the conflict is being fuelled by the economic element of ownership and extraction of gold. Do the Government have any plans to approach the economic benefits to the warring parties as a way of stopping the conflict?

As many in this Chamber who have followed not just the events in Sudan but conflicts throughout recent history will appreciate, it is often a good thing to start conversations on areas where we can find agreement. That is why we focused on humanitarian aid and the protection of civilians. There are 30 million people in need of aid in the region, so that was the right thing to do. On the wider issues that the right reverend Prelate raises, our position is very clear that it is not right that third parties or other countries are involving themselves in this, and we urge them not to do so.

My Lords, following the killing on 12 April of nine international relief organisation workers at Zamzam displacement camp in northern Darfur, will the Minister look into reports today that a militia from the Rapid Support Forces has arrested 40 aid workers and 50 civilians during an evacuation at Zamzam? Building on what she has just said to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, how does she respond to Rosemary DiCarlo, the United Nations under-secretary for political and peacebuilding affairs, who said that

“if the parties have been able to sustain their confrontation, it is in no small part thanks to the material support they receive from outside the Sudan. These … flout the sanctions regime … thereby fueling the conflict. This is illegal, it is immoral and it must stop”?

What are we doing, therefore, to challenge the countries responsible for this trade in death and human misery, and to finally end it?

We are clear that the conflict needs to end and that anyone with any influence over any of the warring parties should use it to bring the conflict to a peaceful conclusion. I am happy to look into the reports—which I was not aware of—that the noble Lord just raised about recent events in Zamzam, and to get back to him about that.

My Lords, is the Minister concerned that no contact group was set up for the conflict after the conference? Can she tell the House what assessment she has made of the withdrawal of USAID support?

Clearly, the withdrawal of USAID support is having an impact in many places around the world, and we are doing what we can. One of the outcomes from the conference, although not an aim of it, was that £800 million was raised, which is positive. But the noble Lord is right to raise the impact of the withdrawal of USAID as well. It is a mistake to impose a test of the success or failure of a conference such as the one we led that is about whether there was an agreed statement or a contact group. Clearly, ideally, you would have those things, but let us be realistic about where this is. If that became the test of a successful conference, I would venture to say that fewer leaders would take the steps that our Foreign Secretary did. This is protracted, long-standing and fiendishly difficult to resolve, but our Foreign Secretary cares deeply about it and wants to use his convening power to make progress. That is what he has done and will continue to do.

My Lords, no one doubts for one moment the Minister’s sincerity and activity and those of her colleagues the Minister for Africa and the Foreign Secretary on this issue. But the reality is that, only yesterday, news came out of Omdurman that some 31 people, including women and children, were executed. It was not a question of being caught in crossfire; they were executed by the Rapid Support Forces. We know that the churches are actively engaged with the Islamic community in promoting conflict resolution and peacebuilding—the Holy Father gave ample evidence of this. So, if civil society was not represented adequately at the conference—and it was not—what practical steps of support will HMG give to faith-based groups to tackle this issue?

The reality is exactly as the noble Lord describes. This is the worst humanitarian situation on the planet at the moment. It gets too little attention, but this Government want to use their influence, multilaterally and with partners in the region, to improve it. He is right to say that we ought to work more closely with faith and civil society organisations. We are doing that and, where we can do more, we will.