“This is a battle effectively between two warlords. I think if I was to be pointing the finger at any foreign country, I would look at Russia.”
Colonel Richard Kemp says the country and the British Empire can’t be held responsible for the ongoing conflict in Sudan.
The former British Army commander in Afghanistan also spoke to GB News about the evacuation programme.
He said: “It seems to be working quite well, despite the various criticisms that have been levelled – probably mostly by people that don’t actually understand the situation. The Government delayed things slightly in order to be safe rather than rapid. It appears they’ve taken out around 1500 people, British passport holders from Sudan.
“My understanding is there’s now pretty much no one else who wants to go out, who’s in a position to get out. Of course, there’ll be many more British passport holders, perhaps another 1500 or more, who were there and hope they don’t leave despite the dangers. It appears to have been a successful operation.”
He added: “Britain really pretty much ceased to have any strong connection with Sudan many, many years ago and a lot of change and a lot has happened since. This is a battle effectively between two warlords. It’s really a conflict between the two for power in the country. I think if I was to be pointing the finger at any foreign country, outside of Sudan, for culpability here or shared culpability, I would look at Russia.
“The bargaining group and President Putin have been actively engaged in the conflict there. They’ve been training and equipping the rapid support forces, they’ve been looting gold from Sudan for a number of years. Russia is in the process of developing strategic relationships with elements of the Sudan Government to build a Russian naval base in Port Sudan. So I think if I was to identify any foreign player as having responsibility or any form of responsibility it would be Russia, not the UK.”
After suggestions of Britain extending a Ukrainian-style refugee system to Sudan, Mr Kemp warned the UK needs to be “extremely cautious”.
He added: “Of course, we have an obligation to take in British passport holders. There are safe neighbouring countries, where refugees can go and already have started going in the hundreds of thousands. There’ll be much better off there in my view, most of them in the region where they belong and can more easily return.
“I don’t think we would want to take responsibility for hundreds and thousands of Sudanese refugees. And of course, there may well be people who would wish harm to the country as we’ve seen with refugees coming from other parts of this region in the past.
“I wouldn’t wish to condemn the country as a whole of course not but it is a hotbed for some elements of Islamism, including militant Islamism. There are a number of terrorists over the years that have originated in Sudan. We should do whatever we can, we should provide what aid we are able to provide. We should bring back the people who have connections to this country, particularly British passport holders, who have a right to come here. We should not start taking in large numbers of people who potentially could include some extremists and their numbers.”
