Sudan. Why is repatriating British citizens caught up there all over the news?

[Fordian]

I don't recall this since Afghanistan? But even then, it was rescuing Afghans who'd assisted the west.

I am genuinely interested in knowing why, in this conflict, so much say, BBC news- is about the rescue of this group from Sudan?

Please note, I'm not disputing the worthiness if this effort, just wondering why THIS conflict's rescue efforts has resonance on MSM?

Yemen? Nothing. Unless there are a negligible %age of the population?

I don't know!

It’s just another thing to keep the 24 hour news cycle going/froth about.

@Fordian

i wonder if the people have to make a contribution to the costs. I hope so. I mean it was there choice to be there.

Maybe because it quite quickly got a lot more dangerous so lots of people stranded. Could also be because it's the first big evacuation since the mismanagement of Afghanistan so everyone is interested/watching closely.

@Tallcurves you can say that about anything. What about people who ride motorbikes? Undoubtedly a dangerous choice but they still get free NHS treatment if they crash, as it should be imo.

@Kinsters

i think the difference is if pqid for its in the UK. This is not. I think the jurisdiction is important.

Ps don’t you think people who break the law should be billed for the police chase?

don’t you think there is an increase in lack of personal responsibility ?

Part of citizenship is the back up of your embassy around the world.

@Tallcurves no I don't think people who break the law should be billed for police chases. It would cause so many problems, not least worsening the trap that some people find themselves in that leads to criminality.

I understand the NHS not flying people back for treatment if they're on holiday because they have options wherever they are, access to insurance etc. But an evacuation from a war torn country? You don't have options with that. Not sure the post office insurance will be organising a military evacuation anytime soon!

I pile of British citizens are in mortal danger? Why wouldn't it be in the news?

@Kinsters

the history of Sundan clearly shows it has not been safe for decades.
look how many times the rulers/government has changed in the last 30 years
this was always a very dangerous place
its not like war in Paris for example
far from it

but they are not actually explaining the situation in Sudan,
only the repatriation efforts.

@Tallcurves not all had a choice....sometimes to keep your job you have to go where you're posted

I think it's intended to make us all worry that there will be another wave of refugees heading our way. The optics of planes full of people are the point. It ties in with this change in law the are trying to get through about immigration.

Re! Why people were in Sudan when it's so unstable. I'd hazard a guess that most of those people were visiting family. It's not exactly a holiday destination is it.

I hope they all get back safe and sound.

Really? I've seen loads of explainers about what is happening and why.

@Tallcurves there's a difference between a country being unstable and it being so unsafe that evacuations are deemed necessary. The Foreign Office now advises against all travel to Sudan. The page was updated on 26th April. I'm not certain but I'd assume that before that they advised caution but not a blanket "advise against all travel".

This was my thought watching the news yesterday. I know there’s instability there but there always has been. It hasn’t been all over the news like this before. What has happened? What’s different now?
of course, the rolling news is not showing the UK in its best light. Our efforts seem so slow and disorganised…

I can't find the actual statement on the government website, but travel to Sudan has been flagged up as being very problematical for about 18 months now. There was a warning at the time that anyone going to the country should have arrangements in place for a swift exit. I understand that people will visit family but even so I think everyone should consider local situations before travel.
The other point is that if you are a dual national and in the country where you have that nationality then you can't access consular services. So people who have Sudanese nationality and British, while they are in Sudan that nationality takes precedence,they can't access UK consular assistance. I think people don't understand that.

Broadly, a military coalition overthrew the previous government now the two main factions of that military coalition are fighting for control.

Yes, the reporting has been very strange. It seems like there were no journalists in the country to give reports about the situation. Also when people have criticised the slowness / lack of coms they don’t seem to have considered that publicly announcing detailed rescue plans might be unwise!

@Snugglemonkey

well i think that might be true but that’s not really why they are set up.
and back up I agree with but not blank cheque when going freely to risky places independently.

any look Sudan shows the the political instability over decades

It's a complex situation. There are a lot more British citizens there than nationalities like French so it's harder to evacuate everyone. Plus many if not most of them are Sudanese people working and/or visiting family. These people now hold British passports but might be dual nationals.

In the case of one woman I saw interviewed, she'd taken her husband and two small children out there to visit her family, which is insane given the situation there over the last few years. She was then complaining that nobody had come to collect her and she was abandoned by the British and she needed to get out her whole family including her mother and sister (presumably Sudanese). She went on to say she could get a boat to Saudi Arabia but would prefer they would all be flown to the UK.

It's not a straight forward situation but the news channels like a sensationalist story like the government abandoning Brits abroad.

I think it’s the sudden nature of it. In a month’s time the media will have forgotten all about it.
The media’s angle seems to be to criticise the response for being “slow “ as that is how they have been framing their questions to people arriving in Stansted.
no nuance about the numbers involved, difficulty etc.
usual media knocking which provides no actual information.

I was in Sudan before Christmas, for a conference. I thoroughly risk assessed the visit with my own institution, my local partners and our travel security consultants. Sudan was not considered a ‘disturbed’ territory by our insurers, but it was a ‘sanctioned’ territory given the international sanctions so there was additional planning for that.

In the course of my work I’ve been to other, more dangerous places (Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia) and in comparison Sudan was much more navigable. Commercial planes flying out daily on different routes, open land borders, reasonably robust comms networks. It should have been a routine visit of conference rooms, projector screens and too much coffee, and it was, but if I’d gone months later it would have been a different story.

I have specialist hostile environments training, bells and whistles insurance and decades of experience. But if things had imploded whilst I was there I’d still have been looking for a ride out with my government, as that would be the most feasible option, and I’d have wanted far better communication and swifter action than was actually the case.

Keeping citizens safe is the basis of the social contract in any society and that extends to citizens abroad. That’s literally the point of consular assistance, and it doesn’t end when bombs go off.

For those hoping for an explainer, I found this helpful (and easily available in a major newspaper …): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/20/sudan-outsider-hemedti-mohamed-hamdan-dagalo-leader-militia-army-war-conflict?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=a8c9eaa3be-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_04_24_05_38&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-a8c9eaa3be-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D

thank you for the link

I know the govt has said we are different to say France and Germany as greater numbers involved but why would that mean we were slower to respond? If we have more people to move wouldn't that indicate we should get moving faster?

I think we’ve got more history with Sudan and more British people lived there/were on holiday there. It’s an ex empire country, so there were 4000 people to get out.
The Afghan evacuation did make the news a lot though , I remember it being on constantly.

It does frustrate me as an ex military person when people say ‘hurry up and evacuate them’ as though it’s simple to land a plane in a dynamic active war zone and British service men and women and all the kit is expendable. When you look at NEOs they can be VERY complicated.

I Think we were right to do it properly, the people who were evacuated have said it was very slick and professional once under way.

the news seems to be prioritizing criticizing the evacuation