---

Sudan

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has done a great service in raising the Sudan prior to the election and the referendum. My interest goes back a very long time, to 1947. I was the son of a British civil servant in the Sudan and I recall witnessing the 1953 elections which led to internal self-government in the Sudan. Those elections were very successful and were backed up by a good governance system in the Sudan in those days. I retain a picture of very decent people in both the north and south. But since then they have faced two prolonged civil wars, which have caused absolute devastation, enormous loss of life—2.5 million people—and the displacement of more than 4 million people. The Sudanese deserve better than that. Sudan is now on the verge of disintegration and faces interrelated issues, the north/south issue being the central one; the Darfur issue and other issues in the Blue Nile province and the Abyei area. Our hope has to lie in the comprehensive peace agreement. There is no option, it seems to me. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s assessment of the prospects for making at least some progress in that area. There needs to be confidence in this process on the part of all the parties if this whole venture is to succeed. The right reverend Prelate and others have mentioned the conditions that need to be satisfied if this problem is to be resolved; for example, as regards boundary demarcation in areas such as Abyei, which will become like Kashmir in the future if that is not resolved and the questions of security, the militias, the training of the police and dealing with displaced people. There needs to be adequate governance and the rule of law. Previous speakers have referred to the sharing of wealth, particularly that derived from oil. The census question needs to be addressed, as do the electoral arrangements. At the moment, they are very complex and people have to vote several times, employing several voting methods, in both the north and the south. We need to put aside preconceived views because only one thing matters; namely, that the people of Sudan are confident that the arrangements are trustworthy and will be honoured. If that does not happen, the whole thing will disintegrate and there will be violence all over again. It seems to me that we have to take a view of the two main parties—the National Congress Party in the north and the SPLM in the south. Both sides must feel that they have a self-interest in the success of the elections. If one party feels cornered, it will lash out, as we are seeing now in Zimbabwe. There is a lesson to be learnt from that. Therefore, to reassure people, there needs to be contingency planning for not only the electoral period and the referendum but for what happens after the referendum. That seems to be the key thing. People need to know that there will be a stable transition. Whether people vote for complete independence, a confederal arrangement, or whatever, they need to be assured that they can trust that arrangement and that adequate reconstruction plans in which many international Governments and multilateral bodies will participate are in place. Britain’s role is limited compared with our position 50 years ago. Nevertheless, we have a position. We have an envoy to Sudan. We have a role as a guarantor of the 2005 agreement. We must work with our colleagues in Egypt, China and the United States as closely as possible to try to move this forward satisfactorily. Sudan is at yet another crossroads. Failure would lead to disaster, disintegration and military conflict. Our interest is to do whatever we can, however limited our influence, to help the long-suffering people of Sudan.