On Friday 13th of September, in the House of Lords there was a discussion about the “Palestine Statehood (Recognition) Bill [HL]” The Bill was introduced by Baroness Northover, read a first time and ordered to be printed.” This was followed by “Sudan – Motion to Take Note” and it then states “That this House takes note of the situation in Sudan.”

Ray Collins, a Labour Minister, named Baron Collins of Highbury, organised the discussion about Sudan and his words along with a number of others can be seen here:

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to have an in-depth debate about the crisis in Sudan, one of the most pressing humanitarian emergencies of our time. It is clear from their presence here today that noble Lords share my concerns over the gravity of the situation. The world is not paying enough attention, and we must keep it in the spotlight in order to galvanise further international action and support.

The contributions from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby and the Bishop of Leeds, Nick Baines can be shown below:

Archbishop of Canterbury is from here:

I too am grateful to the Minister for arranging this debate, in which we are hearing extraordinary expertise—with some exceptions. In particular, there are former Ministers for Africa. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who has had an extraordinarily distinguished career, and I look forward to hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. The speech given by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was truly remarkable.

It is noticeable in what we have heard so far that the history of Sudan has been very present to us. I echo the words we have heard more than once: that this is not simply a conflict between two major power groups seeking power in Sudan. It is based in the fragility of a society that has seen war more than it has seen peace since Sudan became independent—both in what is now South Sudan and in Sudan itself.

Sudan is already a human catastrophe on an extraordinary scale. It is using vast quantities of humanitarian aid and, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, that leads only to the most temporary of solutions. In Sudan and elsewhere, crisis follows crisis, and countries like our own are caught between the equally atrocious options of sticking plasters or ignoring the crises. We often have warnings. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Leeds spoke about his visit in June to Khartoum and the extraordinary Archbishop Ezekiel Kondo, with whom I spoke about a month before the war broke out. He said, “We sit in Khartoum with two armed groups looking at each other over the sights of their guns, and imminently, there is going to be trouble”. It was not a surprise.

In that context, I want to acknowledge and welcome the cross-party support, the very hard work of the FCDO, and the Minister’s clear speech. I start with one word of caution. The Minister rightly said that we must return to proper, democratic civilian rule, but as we have seen elsewhere, peace with an authoritarian Government is better than no peace at all. I hope that that is not so much of a red line that we will not work to establish the ceasefire and stability that will enable civilians to take over.

We cannot, and do not, abandon victims of war to famine. However, beyond the cause of humanitarian aid, there lie deeper questions for this debate. How can we anticipate such disasters, and what means are there to prevent them or cure them once they happen, whether in Sudan or elsewhere? I think especially of the DRC. How do we wage peace—be those to whom Jesus refers in the Beatitudes as blessed, and known as children of God?

The security and defence review, led by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, presents an important and welcome opportunity to build a new pillar in the way we structure our defence and security operations. It was a pillar notably absent from the two integrated reviews, an issue I will come back to in a moment. A peacebuilding option, well developed and acting in areas of fragility, would extend our influence, protect our interests and, as has been said several times, guard against fresh waves of migration. I already hear anecdotally from within the diocese of Canterbury that I serve, and its south coast, that those meeting people landing in boats find that a very high proportion are coming from Sudan.

The problem in Sudan is historically driven. It goes right back to the 1950s and to the settlement made by the Government of that time, which Churchill described as Munich on the Nile. The horrors of a long civil war have led to the division of the country once and its incapacity to avoid further divisions as we go forward. Therefore, I want to suggest to the Minister that we need to invest longer term in broader reconciliation resources, specifically designed with partners to find peaceful solutions.

In other words, the strategic defence review should be full spectrum, preparing this nation not only to wage war but to wage peace as well. I fear that may not be the case, but even if it does not happen in the SDR, I hope very much that the Government, in particular the FCDO, will look very carefully at putting such mechanisms in place—not least, in our current times in this country, for reasons of economy. Stopping conflict before it happens via peaceful political solutions should be central to any root and branch redesign of security and defence.

Our influence in sub-Saharan Africa remains enormous. Our expertise is very considerable, both in civil society among the Churches, where, for example, the Anglican Communion has its largest percentage of members, and through government and the long experience we have of understanding issues there. The work of peacebuilding not only saves lives but saves vast amounts of taxpayers’ money for defence, for migration control and from humanitarian aid. It can be used expertly in contexts where our military would, rightly, never operate in force, yet where strategic foreign policy must work, such as in the context of securing critical minerals for the global transition to renewable energies from countries such as the DRC. Reducing the need for emergency funding, reducing destruction and reducing the dangers of vastly increased immigration are in our interests.

The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, made a very powerful point when she spoke of seeing Wagner in Khartoum. We are engaged in supporting Ukraine and, as a global power, we must look globally in the offshoots of that conflict, which we are seeking to diminish. The recent creation of the FCDO’s negotiations and peace process support team is an attempt at this, but it is, frankly, underfunded, understaffed and held within a limited FCDO remit. Thus, as my last comment, I suggest that we should see the creation of a joint reconciliation unit, staffed by intelligence, conflict analysts and military, civilian and trade specialists, complemented by experienced international negotiators and underpinned by relations with NGOs and faith groups, for most of these conflicts are in areas of high levels of belief. It should report to the National Security Council, because it is a matter of security. Crises happen, and they will go on, but we can do far better to be more effective and secure our own interests in the long term.

Bishop of Leeds is from here

My Lords, it is always a daunting honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the previous speakers. Like them, I have some considerable experience of Sudan, having been there a number of times and had dealings not just at the political level but on the ground, among very real and ordinary communities. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for securing this debate.

Behind the statistics, there are human beings and stories; 25 million people going hungry could be just a number until you look individuals in the eye. Dig a little deeper and the whole situation in Sudan is much more complicated than simply two generals having a scrap. What we can say with confidence is this: military violence, including the bombing of children, women and ordinary civilians, is appalling. It is often indiscriminate, especially when unleashed by the RSF in what increasingly looks like deliberate and intentional genocide in parts of Sudan. A humanitarian catastrophe has exploded in plain sight of the world and its Governments, with food shortages; the closing down of access for humanitarian aid from neighbouring countries; famine; malnutrition; and a generation of children who are being starved, made homeless and given no medical care or education.

As the director of the World Food Programme told us at the APPG, as was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton:

“Avoidable famine is no longer a threat—it is a reality now”.

Future harvests are now in serious doubt. What will the consequences of that be? Do not be surprised if masses of Sudanese seek refuge through irregular immigration in this and other countries if the UK seeks to address the current crisis without addressing the consequent implications for a destabilised region: the wider corruption of civil society in Sudan and neighbouring countries; challenges in establishing future legitimate government with civil society engagement in a now-destroyed nation; and, one day, the challenge of reconstruction.

It is evident that elements associated with the RSF are seeking to kill Sudanese history, culture and identity in order to replace it with a different narrative, although there is not time to explain what I am referring to here. There are no simple or simply achievable solutions. We cannot urge action in this place to salve our consciences if our messaging, however well intentioned and humane, does not change anything on the ground for those both with and without power.

Against government advice but with deep respect to the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad—he has been completely supportive and honourable in my engagement with Sudan; I note that the consul from the Sudanese embassy is present in the Chamber for this morning’s debate—I visited Port Sudan in June with a colleague, the Bishop of Bradford. The diocese of Leeds has nearly half a century of strong relationships with the Episcopal Church in Sudan. Like the Church of England here, the Church in Sudan exists not for its own sake but for the sake of the people of Sudan. Despite massive threat and displacement, the bishops and clergy have largely stayed in situ. The Archbishop of Sudan, Ezekiel Kondo, saw everything in Khartoum destroyed by the RSF and escaped only with his life and the clothes he stood up in. Now based in Port Sudan, he runs the province from a small desk in the corner of his bedroom in a tiny, basic rented house.

While in Port Sudan, the Bishop of Bradford and I visited a camp for displaced people. Around 2,000 people live in a derelict school. Because they were internally displaced and are therefore not refugees, they receive no support for health, education or food—just a few tents from UNICEF. The night after we visited, a delegation came to see us and told us that at least one woman had been raped by soldiers in the early hours after we had left. We met a pastor, now also living in exile from Khartoum. His home was attacked by the RSF, and all he had had been destroyed. He was beaten a number of times before being asked, “How do you want to die?” He was rescued by a Muslim neighbour who hid him until he could escape and get to Port Sudan, mostly on foot.

We had time there with the director of central intelligence, who said that there was no restriction on what I could report of our conversation in my diocese or in this House. His narrative is one with which I am very familiar: the conflict is not a conflict of equals. The SAF and the Government are seeking to secure the future of Sudan. The RSF are rebels who seek their own gain, deploy violent mercenaries from other countries and kill indiscriminately, with a clear suggestion that they will settle for the possible division of the country. It was put to me that, when people need sanctuary, they do not flee to the open arms of the RSF or their controlled areas but to places controlled by the SAF. That is just a fact.

The case put by the current Sudanese Government is clear. The international community—especially the UK, as pen holder of the UN, along with our deep connections with Sudan over decades—must work to stop the flow of arms and money to the RSF, particularly from the United Arab Emirates. However, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Russia and others are also involved in this tragedy. Someone is profiting from the arms flow, and it is not the starving, suffering people of Sudan. Governments must apply pressure via sanctions and co-ordinated action—by a reinvigorated troika, for example—to cut off the flow. Surely the priority of a ceasefire, urged by many involved parties, is only possible once that arms flow has been stopped.

When a ceasefire becomes possible, who is going to lead the mediation? Many countries that wish to are directly involved on one side or the other. Calling for a ceasefire sounds noble until we dig into the pragmatics of how to make it happen. Also, if a ceasefire simply freezes the divisions that are there now on the ground and both sides keep the territory they control at that point, where do we go from there?

We cannot simply wait for the conflict to end or be ended. The international community must press hard now for protected access points to be opened across the country in order that millions of lives can be saved and a viable future for the children of Sudan can be opened up. Children must be prioritised if the seeds of the next several generations of violence, power struggles and poverty are not to be watered so freely in the blood-soaked violence of now.

The UK Government and partners must leverage all their resources and political power to cut off the arms flow and create the conditions where any credible ceasefire might create the space for negotiation. Failure to address this catastrophe now will only lead to increasingly uncontrollable consequences elsewhere, with further destabilisation of an already fragile region. For example, oil gelling in the pipelines will diminish South Sudan’s economy and add to economic and humanitarian challenges. Mass irregular migration will be a consequence, and so on. So I agree with the call for all diplomatic means, as the Minister said. It is essential that the new special envoy must physically get into Sudan. I have to say that Port Sudan, when I was there, was safer than London. We need a physical, visible presence, even if it is only on a regular visit. Other ambassadors and envoys are doing this.

The Church of England’s love for our sisters and brothers in Sudan will not diminish. We will continue not only to pray but to act, caring for the Sudanese expat community here and those in Sudan whom we can reach. We might justify the UK government advice again and visit the people we love. For us in the Christian Church, faith is incarnational: fleshed, physical and material. I urge the Minister in his response to give assurances that Sudan will gain in focus and not be left on the “too complicated” pile. I hope that the Minister will be willing to meet with me and others to pursue this further engagement.