House of Lords, Parliamentary Debates

(Hansard), 22 June 2017

Baroness Cox (CB): My Lords, I add my own very warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord
Ahmad, to his new portfolio.

I will focus on two countries that I visited recently, Sudan and Syria. Starting with Sudan, I shall
highlight four key issues, beginning with the continuing violence perpetrated by the
Government of Sudan in Darfur, the Nuba mountains in South Kordofan and Blue Nile, that was
so well described by the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey.

In Darfur, war has claimed over 300,000 lives and displaced over 2.5 million people. Although
violence has erupted again between the Government and rebel groups, the UN Security Council
is contemplating severe cuts to the UNAMID budget. This is dangerously inappropriate, and I
hope the UK will be pressing for the extension of UNAMID to all areas of Darfur and the
investigation of human rights abuses, particularly the allegations of the use of chemical
weapons in the Jebel Marra region.

Secondly, there are humanitarian crises in Darfur, Blue Nile and South Kordofan. I visited the
Nuba mountains in January to obtain first-hand evidence of the suffering of the people there. I
climbed a steep mountain to visit families forced by the Khartoum Governments aerial
bombardment to flee from their homes and live in horrific snake-infested caves. I sat with a
woman dying of malaria in one of those caves, and I met a father whose five children had been
burned alive when a shell dropped by a government Antonov ignited the straw around his
home. There are no medicines, and every drop of water and all food has to be carried up that
steep mountain. There is still no peace deal and no resolution to the aid blockade.

Will Her Majestys Government pressure the Government of Sudan to reach an agreement with
opposition forces to open up humanitarian corridors as a matter of great urgency?

Thirdly, I refer to the UK/Sudan strategic dialogue. Will the Government link any further
engagement with Sudan to the issues I have highlighted: humanitarian access to the two areas,
the survival of UNAMID and permission for UNAMID to access the Jebel Marra region?

Fourthly, there is the issue of the lifting of sanctions. The US is likely to approve the full lifting of
sanctions on 12 July. However, the lifting of those sanctions should be allowed only with clear
and measurable progress, including the following requirements:

unimpeded humanitarian access to the war-affected areas in Darfur, the Nuba mountains and
Blue Nile;
the verifiable cessation of hostilities; and serious peace negotiations with the armed
movements.

Without peace, the lifting of sanctions will enable more resources to be available to the regime
to fuel the war. On 26 April, when Brad Brooks-Rubin gave his testimony to the US House sub-
committee on Africa, his previous testimony was cited as follows: Sudan has used the
provisional easing of sanctions put in place in January not to begin the necessary reforms of
structural deformities of the countrys economy but instead order fighter jets and battle tanks
from its traditional arms suppliers in Russia and China.

Human rights must be added to the conditions. At a bare minimum, sanctions should not be
lifted while human rights defenders Mudawi Ibrahim and Hafiz Idris are detained and
mistreated.

Targeted sanctions are needed that will impact the regime and those responsible for the
continuing conflict and abuse of human rights, such as freezing the assets of those responsible
or sectoral sanctions focused on those involved with weapons manufacturing and companies
associated with corruption and human rights abuses.

Will Her Majestys Government maintain close monitoring of the fulfilment of these conditions
if sanctions are lifted and intervene appropriately if they are violated?

I turn now to another tragic country: Syria. During our visits, everyone we met, including
representatives of different faith communities and professions, such as the doctors society in
Aleppo, highlighted common concerns.

The first is the UK Governments commitment to enforced regime change and the removal of
President Assad. While it is impossible to condone violations of human rights, including the use
of torture, by President Assad and other Middle Eastern Governments, everyone to whom we
spoke now sees President Assad as the only effective bulwark against ISIS.

These include people active in opposition who originally took part in the demonstrations that
erupted into the current war. One put the position very vividlyand his feelings were typical of
all whom we met. He said, I never voted for Assad; I always called for reforms and changebut
now I would die for him.

There is a widespread fear that any regime change and removal of Assad would lead to a far
greater evilanother Libya or Iraq.

The second concern is the UK Governments role in the war. The UK had no legal grounds to
intervene in Syria. It did not act according to the UN charter or the UN Security Council; it was
not asked by the legitimate Government of Syria to intervene; and it was not attacked by Syria.
But Britain is supporting and training so-called moderate rebels, who are actually members of
radical groups, many related to ISIS and its related groups.

The UK has also given air support to ISIS by striking the Syrian army on many occasions. In
December 2016 the UK admitted taking part in the killing of 82 Syrian soldiers in Deir ez-Zor.
More crimes were committed recently against Syrian soldiers in the Tanaf area on the
Syrian/Iraqi border.

Perhaps I may ask the Minister what UK taxpayers money has done for peace for Syria, and
whether the Government will provide public accountability for the use of taxpayers money in
supporting rebel groups in Syria.

Thirdly, I turn to the US/UK response to the recent chemical weapon incident. To put this in
context, President Assad is recognized internationally by the American and French Presidents
and several Governments. The Syrian army is advancing and claiming territories previously lost
to terrorists groups. Suddenly an unknown chemical attack occurs in Idlib, the stronghold of al-
QaedainSyria. Without any investigation, the Americans hit an airbase in Homs that is used in
the fight against ISIS. The UK Government praise the hit. There are many questions about the
kind of gas used, its availability and by whom it was used. Therefore, the aerial attack was
widely seen as intemperate and immensely harmfuland, until today, there have still been no
investigations.

Fourthly, I turn to humanitarian needs and the effect of sanctions, which are crippling the state
and preventing it from providing life for its people. Syria is struggling to get machinery, raw
materials, fuel and such basic necessities as flour and medicines. This is causing great suffering
to innocent civilians and having a detrimental effect on attempts to encourage people displaced
by ISIS to return to their homes once they have been liberated. The effect of food shortages on
innocent civilians was graphically expressed by a local person who said, If you dont die from
the bombing and the bullets, you die from the beheadings. If you dont die from the beheadings,
you die from starvation thanks to sanctions.

Given the continuing suffering of the people of Syria, exacerbated by UK foreign policy, I was
very encouraged to read the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on International
Relations, published on 2 May, already referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford
and Lord Purvis of Tweed.

The report states: British confusion and disarray in Syria is a reflection of the contradictions in
international policy on President Bashar al-Assad, which must be rethought. The objective of
displacing Assad, as a prerequisite of any settlement, with the current means and policy, has
proved unachievable. Despite the chemical attack and the recent escalation of military conflict
Assad, with Russian support, remains in power ... There are no good options available in Syria
but the recent chemical attack, the urgency of the humanitarian crisis, with the potential to
destabilise the EU and countries of the Middle East with refugees, requires the UK, and
international community, to redouble its efforts to achieve a negotiated solution. I conclude
by asking whether the Minister will give an assurance that the Government will respond
positively to these very important recommendations.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon:

In relation to Sudan I assure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that the UK will continue
to be clear on where we have fundamental disagreements. But we believe that maintaining dialogue
with Sudan is important, to improve co-operation in areas where we have shared interests and to press
our case where we disagree.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, talked of Syria and the Assad regime. It
remains the Governments consistent view that it is the Assad regimes military campaign that has
driven the conflict and, as far as we are concerned, there can be only a transition away from the Assad
regime to a new and more inclusive Government who can unite all sides and bring peace to Syria. That
remains the UK Governments objective.