The recent international conference on Sudan in Berlin was a welcome moment of renewed attention. At a time when the war is entering its third year, sustained engagement from the international community is both necessary and overdue.

The mobilisation of funding, and the recognition of the scale of the crisis, matter. Needs in Sudan remain immense, and support for those affected must continue.

The conference brought together representatives from over fifty countries, alongside major international institutions and humanitarian organisations. Yet notably absent were the parties to the conflict themselves. The Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces were not present. This underlines a broader limitation: while international stakeholders are able to convene, fund, and coordinate among themselves, their ability — or willingness — to influence the dynamics driving the war is still far less clear.

The conference also highlighted a more persistent problem.

Once again, the international response appears more effective at mobilising resources than at mobilising political action. While there was acknowledgment of the role of external enablers and the need to address arms flows, this did not translate into clear or coordinated measures to disrupt them.

This gap is not new — but it is becoming harder to justify.

A war that is financed, supplied, and politically enabled cannot be meaningfully addressed through funding alone. Without greater clarity and consistency in how external enablers are approached, the underlying incentives sustaining the conflict are unlikely to shift.
At the same time, another dimension of the crisis is beginning to emerge.

As conditions change in parts of Sudan, some civilians are attempting to return. But return does not mean recovery. Many are going back to areas where infrastructure has collapsed, services are limited or non-existent, and livelihoods have been entirely destroyed.

For those who have lost homes, income, and community networks, starting over is not simply a question of resilience — it is a question of support.

What mechanisms are in place to assist those returning?
How are their needs being assessed and prioritised?
And how does the international response plan to move beyond emergency assistance towards supporting longer-term recovery?

These questions remain largely unanswered.

If the focus remains overwhelmingly on immediate relief, without equal attention to political drivers and early recovery, there is a risk that return becomes another phase of vulnerability rather than a pathway to stability.

The Berlin conference was an important moment. It also underscored the limits of the current approach.

Sudan does not lack attention, nor does it lack resources. What it continues to lack is alignment between humanitarian response, political action, and longer-term recovery.

Until that alignment is achieved, progress will remain partial — and fragile.

As Sudan’s war approaches its third year, the scale of devastation is no longer in question. Millions have been displaced. Entire communities have been uprooted. Civilians continue to face violence, hunger, and profound uncertainty about their future.

The international response, while vital, remains a response to consequences — not causes.
Humanitarian crises do not sustain themselves. They are sustained.

The more difficult question is this: why has the international response remained so limited in addressing the forces that sustain the conflict?

From the outset, it has been clear that this war is not self-contained. It has been financed, supplied, and politically enabled. Yet efforts to meaningfully disrupt those external lifelines have been hesitant, fragmented, and often secondary to aid mobilisation.

Soft power — diplomatic engagement, political pressure, and the use of existing leverage — has not been deployed with sufficient urgency or clarity. Where there have been opportunities to press for restraint, transparency, and accountability, they have too often been approached cautiously or inconsistently.

This raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: what explains the gap between what is known about the drivers of the conflict and what is being done to address them?

A similar pattern can be seen in how the war itself is framed.

Darfur rightly commands attention, given the scale and historical significance of the atrocities committed there. But the conflict is not confined to Darfur, and the suffering is not limited to one region. Across Sudan, communities have experienced displacement, violence, and collapse of basic services — often with far less visibility or international recognition.

A more balanced understanding of the conflict is not simply a matter of fairness; it is essential for effective policy. Selective attention risks distorting both analysis and response.

There is also a longer-term cost to the current approach.

Decisions taken outside Sudan — even those not directly related to the conflict — are shaping the country’s future. The tightening of student visa policies in the United Kingdom, for example, has had a direct impact on Sudanese students, many of whom are now unable to continue or complete their studies.

At a moment when Sudan will ultimately require a generation equipped to rebuild institutions, govern effectively, and engage internationally, restricting educational pathways risks undermining the very capacity the country will need in the years ahead.

Three years on, Sudan’s crisis is not only a civilian crisis. It is a test of whether the international community is willing to align its actions with its stated commitments.

Humanitarian assistance must continue. But it cannot substitute for political action.

Unless the external enablers of the conflict are addressed, and unless international engagement becomes more consistent, more balanced, and more purposeful, the trajectory of the war is unlikely to change.

Sudan does not suffer from a lack of awareness. It suffers from a lack of alignment between knowledge and action.

That gap is where the failure lies.

This week marks 1,000 days since Sudan was plunged into a war that has devastated its people and hollowed out the state. It is now one of the gravest humanitarian and political crises in the world. Millions have been displaced. Civilians face famine, mass violence, and ethnic cleansing. Entire cities have been scarred beyond recognition. The conflict is no longer just a Sudanese tragedy—it is destabilising an already fragile region.

And yet, after nearly three years, the international response remains staggeringly inadequate. Not because the world does not know what is happening, but because it has repeatedly chosen caution, comfort, and process over action.

Humanitarian Aid Is Not a Strategy
Humanitarian assistance is essential. It saves lives every day in Sudan and must continue. But it cannot, and should not, be treated as a substitute for political action to stop the violence.

The international community has fallen into a dangerous pattern: fund the aid response, issue statements of concern, and avoid the harder task of confronting those driving the war and those enabling it. Aid is expected to compensate for the absence of diplomacy with teeth.

In Sudan, humanitarian access itself is routinely obstructed. Starvation is weaponised. Civilians are trapped between armed actors who face little external pressure. In this context, humanitarian relief—while vital—risks becoming a grim exercise in managing collapse rather than preventing it.

The Quad: A Theatre of Comfort, Not Change
This failure is epitomised by the so-called Quad. What was meant to be a mechanism for coordinated international pressure has instead become a diplomatic comfort blanket.

Meetings are held. Statements are issued. Familiar language about restraint and dialogue is recycled. But the Quad has not altered the behaviour of the warring parties, constrained external interference, or brought Sudan any closer to peace. It functions less as a tool for change and more as a way for the international community to feel that it is “doing something”.

At best, it is ineffective. At worst, it provides political cover for inaction.

The UK’s Self-Imposed Impotence
The UK’s role is particularly dispiriting. Once a serious diplomatic actor on Sudan, it now appears content with self-imposed impotence.

This is most glaring in its failure to exert meaningful pressure on the United Arab Emirates over credible allegations of arms transfers to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). These weapons are not abstract policy concerns. They are killing civilians, fuelling ethnic violence, and prolonging a war that has already gone on far too long.

Diplomacy without leverage is not diplomacy—it is theatre. If the UK is unwilling to confront allies when necessary, it should at least be honest about the limits of its influence and ambition.

The False Equivalence at the Heart of International Policy
Much of this paralysis is driven by a persistent and damaging false equivalence between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the RSF.

The SAF are the country’s legitimate national army. They are not beyond criticism, and Sudan’s history gives ample reason for scepticism of military power. But they remain a state institution, rooted—however imperfectly—in the idea of national defence.

What matters most is what Sudanese civilians themselves experience. When the SAF free a village, a town, or a city, people emerge from hiding. They welcome the army. Markets reopen. Families begin, cautiously, to return. There is relief—because order, however fragile, replaces chaos.

When the RSF takes over, the opposite happens. Civilians flee. Entire communities empty overnight. What follows is looting, sexual violence, ethnic targeting, and the systematic destruction of civilian life. RSF control is defined by fear.

This distinction is obvious to Sudanese people. It should be obvious to the international community. Pretending these forces are morally or politically interchangeable does not make diplomacy easier—it makes it dishonest, and it emboldens those who thrive on violence.

A Lesson in Diplomacy for Washington
Meanwhile, recent interventions from Masad Boulos, US President Trump’s senior adviser on Arab and Middle East affairs, have only added to the problem. Diplomacy requires precision, restraint, and an understanding of context—qualities that have been notably absent.

Sudan does not need performative pronouncements or clumsy engagement that emboldens spoilers and sidelines civilians. It needs serious, informed diplomacy that recognises the complexity of the conflict and the responsibility of external actors who are sustaining it.

At a moment when Sudanese civilians are paying the price of global neglect, careless diplomacy is not just unhelpful—it is dangerous.

1,000 Days Is Not Just a Milestone. It Is an Indictment.
One thousand days of war is not simply a tragic anniversary. It is an indictment of an international system that has chosen management over resolution, neutrality over clarity, and rhetoric over responsibility.

Sudan will not be saved by aid alone. It will not be helped by ineffective forums, timid diplomacy, or false equivalences. This war will only end when those with power decide to use it—against the perpetrators, against the arms pipelines, and against the inertia that has allowed this catastrophe to drag on for nearly three years.

The people of Sudan deserve more than sympathy. They deserve action.

Last night, in the IPU Room at the Palace of Westminster, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sudan and South Sudan formally launched the new report, Rivers of Blood: Escaping from Darfur. The PDF is too large to upload here. If you would like a copy of the report, please leave your email address in the comments and I will send it directly. My remarks are below.

I welcome this report and the powerful testimonies it brings from Darfur. These accounts are devastating, and they must be heard.

But Sudan’s war is not confined to Darfur. Communities in Khartoum, Gezira, the Kordofans and the East are facing the same violence, loss, and displacement. Their voices deserve equal attention.

It is also important to be precise about the role of the Sudanese Armed Forces today. The SAF is now the national army defending Sudan’s territorial integrity, and its actions should not be confused with those of the early 2000s, which operated under a different political leadership and agenda. In the UK, we must avoid applying outdated assumptions that misrepresent the present reality.

We must also ensure we do not appear to stand with one group of victims while overlooking others. All Sudanese civilians — from every region and background — are suffering and deserve recognition, support, and protection.

And we should be mindful of how our focus is understood inside Sudan. A narrow emphasis on Darfur alone can echo the international dynamics that preceded South Sudan’s separation. The UK must avoid unintentionally reinforcing fears of fragmentation or giving weight to divisive narratives.

This report also reinforces the UK’s legal responsibilities under its export controls and the Arms Trade Treaty. The Government must ensure it is not contributing to abuses by urgently reviewing arms exports to the UAE, publishing transparent findings, and applying targeted sanctions where credible evidence shows involvement in violations. If we are serious about ending this war, we must cut the oxygen of armaments that allows it to continue.

www.youtube.com/live/o3-uA1xwusg?t=7223

Preface

These are my full written remarks — the complete version of the speech I prepared.
Only two minutes were permitted for delivery, but the scale, complexity, and urgency of what is happening in Sudan cannot fit into two minutes.

For transparency, accountability, and public record, I am publishing my full text below.

*Full Speech *

People of conscience – Sudanese, African, Arab, the Global South – and every human being who refuses to look away.

Sudan today is the largest mass atrocity in the world – but the world is pretending not to see.

This is not a natural famine.
This is not a tragic accident.
This is not an unfortunate civil war.

This catastrophe has been engineered.
Engineered by the RSF.
Engineered through systematic looting, rape, execution, starvation, and the liquidation of civilian life for profit.

Entire families have been uprooted.
Entire cities have been erased.
Entire food systems have been deliberately destroyed.

This is what is happening to Sudan — in real time.

The RSF is not a political movement.
The RSF is not a legitimate force.
The RSF is a criminal enterprise operating as a militia, whose business model is crimes against humanity.

And let me say this clearly, loudly, and directly to the world:

No one can claim to oppose genocide and still remain silent in front of what the RSF is doing.

And we must also name the enabling system.

The RSF is being financially oxygenated and empowered through the gold laundering economy that flows through the UAE.

Gold stolen from Sudanese soil is turned into clean money inside Dubai.

So, if the world is serious about “never again,”
and if the world is serious about protecting human life,
and if the world is serious about ending atrocity-financed war —

then the world must boycott UAE gold.

The world must sanction and blacklist every refinery, every trader, and every logistics channel that launders Sudanese gold into clean revenue in Dubai — gold stolen through Sudanese suffering.

This is not hostility towards Emirati people.
This is not hate.
This is accountability.

If you stop the gold wash — RSF capacity collapses.

To Sudanese everywhere:

Inside Sudan.
In the region.
In the diaspora.

We do not have the privilege of internal fragmentation anymore.

Political disagreement is normal.
Political diversity is necessary.
Democratic argument is healthy.

But right now, Sudan is not in a normal political moment.

Sudan is in a national survival moment.

And in a national survival moment — unity is not optional.

The SAF is the internationally recognised sovereign national military institution of Sudan.

Supporting SAF in this moment is not a vote for dictatorship.
Supporting SAF in this moment is not a vote against democracy.
Supporting SAF in this moment is a vote for Sudan’s right to continue to exist as a country at all.

After we stop annihilation…
After we stop the RSF threat…
After we secure Sudanese territory and protect Sudanese civilians…

then we return to rebuilding a civilian democratic order — grounded in Sudanese consent, Sudanese participation, and Sudanese legitimacy.

But first — survival.
Sudan cannot democratise when Sudan is being erased.

Final Call

I call on every Sudanese:

to stand together,
to speak with one voice,
to unify our diplomatic lobbying,
and to focus our energy on three strategic objectives: 1. Total international isolation of the RSF 2. Total commercial boycott of UAE gold 3. Consolidation of support behind SAF in this war of national self-defense

We are not begging the world for charity.
We are demanding enforcement of the same laws the world claims to believe in.

If we do this with unity, precision, and discipline —
Sudan survives this chapter.

And when Sudan survives this chapter…
Sudan will write the next one.

A democratic one.
A sovereign one.
A civilian one.
A Sudanese one.

Thank you.

This week, we received some truly special news: the Care Quality Commission (CQC) has rated Kensington and Chelsea’s adult social care services as “outstanding” — the highest possible rating, and the best in Britain.

This is more than just a badge of honour. It’s a recognition of the care, professionalism, and compassion shown every day by our dedicated teams, our partner organisations, and the community that works alongside us.

The CQC singled out our leadership, our commitment to safeguarding vulnerable residents, and our ability to provide services that are both inclusive and deeply personal. They also acknowledged how we’ve learned from the Grenfell tragedy — ensuring that every decision we make is rooted in listening, building trust, and protecting those who rely on us most.

This achievement sits alongside our “outstanding” Ofsted rating for children’s services. Together, they show that even in the face of funding pressures, we are determined to deliver the highest quality support for residents at every stage of life.

I want to thank everyone who made this possible — our staff, volunteers, care providers, community groups, and of course the residents who help shape our services. This recognition belongs to all of you.

We’re proud of what we’ve achieved, but we’re not standing still. Our focus remains on listening, improving, and making sure every resident receives the dignity, respect, and care they deserve.

I don’t usually get fired up about council funding formulas. But what’s being proposed right now for Kensington and Chelsea is outrageous—and it deserves everyone’s attention.

The Government is planning to cut more than £80 million from our borough’s funding over the next three years. That’s around 40% of our controllable budget. Let that sink in.

This isn’t about tightening belts or trimming fat. This is a deep, calculated cut that would gut local services—not because we’ve failed to manage our finances, but because we’ve done exactly the opposite. We’re being punished for running things well.

The Flawed Logic Behind the Cuts

Here’s the trick they’re trying to pull: the new “Fair Funding” formula assumes a notional Council Tax Band D rate of £2,000. Ours is actually £1,079—one of the lowest in the country. And that’s something our Conservative council is rightly proud of. We’ve kept taxes low, services efficient, and targeted support where it’s needed most.

But instead of being recognised for that, the formula assumes we should have been charging residents double and uses that fictional figure to justify slashing our funding. You couldn’t make it up.

The Reality on the Ground

Kensington and Chelsea isn’t just a place on a map—it’s home to real people, including many who live in real deprivation. That gets missed in the headlines. The new formula redistributes money away from areas like ours while ignoring local pressures—like sky-high housing costs, a huge daytime population, and the fact that we act as a gateway to London, with all the services and infrastructure that entails.

Street cleaning, waste collection, social care, housing support—these aren’t luxuries. They’re essentials. And under these proposals, they’re all at risk.

Backing the Right Fight

Cllr Elizabeth Campbell, our Conservative Council Leader, is absolutely right to fight this. She’s been meeting ministers, pushing back in the media, and calling this out for what it is: selective de-funding. I stand with her on this.
This isn’t about party politics. It’s about basic fairness. When a well-run council gets hammered for doing the right thing, we should all be concerned.

What You Can Do

The Government is running a consultation on these changes—but the deadline is coming fast: 15 August 2025. If you care about the future of services in our borough, now is the time to speak up.

• Submit your view here: The Fair Funding Review 2.0
• Share this message. Talk to your neighbours. Write to your MP. Let’s make it clear: this is not acceptable.

We’ve worked hard to build a borough that works—for everyone. We’re not about to sit quietly while that’s torn down.

Today is World Bee Day. So I decided to celebrate by buying a jar of local honey and remind everybody of the importance of bees and pollinators.

For me, it all began about 7/8 years ago, on a beautiful sunny day. I was in the countryside, sitting outside surrounded by and soaking in England’s natural beauty. It was perfect, bar one thing. For almost an hour in the garden not one butterfly appeared. Even though I am not in the countryside a lot, I recalled a setting such as this will have a couple of them flying around. I spent the rest of my stay actively looking for them while outside and from inside, yet nothing. That got me thinking.

When I got home, I did a little research on why we’re not seeing butterflies like we used to? It turned out not only butterflies, but all of our pollinators are at risk and suffering from rapid decline. Because their natural habitats are being destroyed either for urbanisation or due to climate damage. These creatures mostly exist and fertilise by resting, eating and flying from flower to flower.

The loss of biodiversity was creating longer gaps between trips thus making pollinator journeys longer. Not all bugs were able to survive it. That’s when the idea of a Superhighway of connecting corridors to allow pollinators a continued and safe travel came to me.

So why Bee?

Because, in my opinion bees are the royalty of bugs and pollinators. Plus ‘The Bee Superhighway’ is catchy and has a nice ring to it.

Four years later I was elected Councillor for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. That’s when I thought now I can really do something about it. I had the platform, an audience and the resources. All I needed was the setting. Which came about the flowing year when I became Deputy Mayor in May 2019. I am very proud to say, with the backing of the then Mayor Cllr Will Pascal, I hosted an event that launched The Bee Superhighway putting it firmly on the borough’s map.

Yes, it was my idea, my vision and dream, but so many people are behind it’s success and existence. I, and the pollinators are very grateful for all of them. I am not going to mention names, because I will undoubtedly miss someone, but you all know who you are.

Today, on this World Bee Day, I and the Bees thank, appreciate and celebrate you all!

Happy World Bee Day!

I can’t believe it’s been almost two years since I last posted here. Time does fly! Lots has happened since my last post on why we should all #BackBoris. The nation overwhelmingly did back him. And thank God they did. He proved to be a great choice – a brilliant leader and a fine Prime Minster.

Since then, COVID took over our lives. Indiscriminately hitting all corners of the globe infecting and killing millions. But the world quickly responded by developing vaccines and deploying them everywhere, now every nation is vigorously fighting its spread.

On the international stage. We left the EU. Americans managed to unseat Trump and elect a former VP in his place. Troubles between Israel and Palestine are escalating. And the U.S. will finally withdrew all its troops from Afghanistan on September 11 of this year.

On a personal level, like most people I used the lockdowns to catch up on box sets, movies and some books. I had meetings, drinks and get togethers over Zoom. Also like most, I put on weight and became attached to my dogs. But most importantly, I learnt I can be very happy doing absolutely nothing of importance and the sky won’t fall down. So, now I am a lot more chillaxed.

As a Councillor, last week I was reshuffled out of Planning and opted to not take any of the fig leave posts I was offered. I liked Planning, and enjoyed working with the Planning team, they are a wonderful bunch to know and work with. I shall miss it and them. However, what I won’t miss is the looks of disappointment on residents when the decision doesn’t go their way.

This is an election year for me. So, from now until May 5, 2022 I will focus on my ward, my residents, my one Select Committee (The Environment) plus all things Bee Superhighway. Yesterday, I helped plant pollinators in a disused grassed area outside the Natural History Museum on the Exhibition Road side. That was a double bonus for me – my passion in my ward.

As usual I like to keep my posts short and sweet, but I am definitely back to stay. Enjoy your weekend.