Conflict in Sudan Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Calum Miller
Main Page: Calum Miller (Liberal Democrat - Bicester and Woodstock)Department Debates - View all Calum Miller's debates with the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Rapid Support Forces’ capture of El Fasher, following an 18-month siege, has ushered in a new phase of terror. Reports of systematic sexual violence against women and the summary execution of civilians are truly horrific. The Minister referred to the UN Security Council, which met last week and demanded that all parties to the conflict protect civilians and abide by their obligations under international law. It is clear that those obligations are being entirely ignored. As the penholder on Sudan at the UN, the UK has a unique responsibility to show leadership and ensure that protection for citizens is more than just words.
I have three questions for the Minister. First, can he confirm whether the UK sought at the UN to secure a country-wide arms embargo? Secondly, do the Government consider that the United Arab Emirates is a party to the conflict? Thirdly, in the light of reports that British weapons have been supplied by the UAE to the RSF, will the Government ban arms sales to the UAE until it can be proven that Abu Dhabi is not re-exporting British arms to the RSF?
Mr Falconer
Let me take this opportunity to be clear on reports about British arms, because I can see from previous discussions in this Chamber that there is some confusion. There was an article that made reference to a range of different arms that might be in use in Sudan, and I have already spoken about the importance of all external parties not supporting the two parties to the conflict. Let me clear: the UK is providing no arms that are of use in the conflict. As I understand it, the article referred to a seatbelt or a harness, which is not a prohibited item; components of an engine; and a target practice item, all exports of which were stopped in 2017.
I reiterate that we interpret our arms obligations carefully and strictly, but to clear up any confusion for the House, in some cases, these are not items that are prohibited at all. None of those items is eligible for export at the moment, and none would make any difference to the scenes of conflict that we are discussing this afternoon.