Contribution
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for securing this debate. The crisis in Sudan is something that we should all be seeing on our TV screens and social media feeds, and we should be debating it here in Parliament every day, yet tragically it barely features, so my hon. Friend’s success in securing this debate is all the more commendable. As we have heard so powerfully, in just over two years 28,000 people have been killed, 12 million people, half of them children, have been forced to flee their homes, and there are 15 million children in need of humanitarian assistance. The human impact of this conflict is truly shocking.
We know that the situation is particularly dire in North Darfur. Al Fashir has been described as a “city under siege”. At Zamzam refugee camp, starving people have been attacked, and aid agencies tell me that an estimated 450,000 to 500,000 have fled from the camp to Tawila, where they now live out in the open in extreme heat, with barely any food or water, and with diseases such as cholera taking hold. With the fighting now escalating in the Kordofan region, it looks set to be the next area of acute humanitarian crisis. As we have heard from other Members, that is not an accident; it is the result of a strategy by warring parties, at best, to allow civilians to be collateral damage in a vicious fight and, at worst, to deliberately and directly target them.
Let me turn to what needs to be done. As I think about what needs to happen in Sudan, in many ways it feels like a test of how we act in response to humanitarian crises more broadly in these new times. Our humanitarian aid budget is reduced, but our deep expertise and leverage in humanitarian action remain. The first thing to say is that funding is important, as it is in any humanitarian crisis. The £120 million that the UK committed to Sudan at the London conference in April—part of the £810 million aid package—will support 650,000 people with basic lifesaving aid this year, which we should be proud of.
What we do with the funding matters. We are increasingly good at focusing on interventions that are proven to work, such as the use of ready-to-use therapeutic food to treat severe and acute malnutrition. Who we fund also matters. Sudan is an example of why we have to get funding to the local responders in any humanitarian crisis, but in this case particularly to the emergency response rooms where there are extraordinary networks of volunteers embedded in communities, running community kitchens, feeding hundreds of families, operating mobile clinics, restoring basic infrastructure, and doing the work that international and humanitarian aid agencies are unable to do in the context.
Beyond funding, there are three further ways in which our actions can have an important impact in the crisis in Sudan and beyond. The first is by pushing for expanded humanitarian access. Large parts of Sudan are completely out of reach of the UN and international aid agencies, which is completely unacceptable given the scale of the humanitarian needs, so we must keep up the pressure on the warring parties and their external backers in Russia, the UAE and elsewhere to allow aid to flow in.
Sudan also shows why we may need new tools, whether it is in Yemen, Myanmar or, of course, Gaza. The denial of access to humanitarian aid has become a routine part of warring parties’ playbooks. We urgently need to find ways to create more expectation and more pressure. I think, for example, of the recommendation of my former employer, the International Rescue Committee, which has suggested that we should set up a new international mechanism to monitor and protect humanitarian aid access. That is just one idea.
The second point is about how we use our diplomatic assets and tools to push for a ceasefire and a peaceful resolution to the conflict. As one of the emergency response room spokespeople recently said:
“We cannot continue to respond to the crisis while the guns keep firing. The people of Sudan need a ceasefire—now—to save lives and to rebuild our communities.”
We have the opportunity of being the penholder on Sudan in the UN Security Council. We are rightly working with the African Union, the EU-convened group and others to make progress. We are looking outside of the established groups. I suspect it will be increasingly necessary to find informal coalitions of interested countries to work together for peace. It is complex and sensitive diplomacy, but it could not be more urgent.
The third point is about how we drive more accountability in these contexts for breaches of international humanitarian law. Last month five aid workers were killed in an appalling attack on a UN convoy near El Fasher. I am glad that we called for accountability at the time, but we see a sustained pattern of attacks on aid workers in Sudan and elsewhere. In the case of Sudan, the International Criminal Court’s Office of the Prosecutor has now found reasonable grounds to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity may well have been and continue to be committed in Darfur. We have to be clear that that is absolutely unacceptable.
I see the crisis in Sudan as a test of our compassion, but also of our capability in responding to humanitarian crises in the world today.