Author: genocide

Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister whether his Government will make a statement on the mistreatment by the Chinese Government of Uyghurs in Xinjiang province.

The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)

We are aware of reports issued today by the Associated Press and the Jamestown Foundation alleging that the Chinese Government are using pregnancy checks and forced intra-uterine devices, sterilisation and abortion to minimise Uyghur birth rates. These reports add to our concern about the human rights situation in Xinjiang and of course we will be considering the report carefully.

The broader human rights situation in Xinjiang is of ongoing and serious concern to the Government. This includes the extrajudicial detention of over a million Uyghur Muslims and other minorities in political re-education camps, systematic restrictions on Uyghur culture and the practice of Islam, and extensive and invasive surveillance targeting minorities. Further reports indicating that forced labour is being used and that children are being forcibly separated from their parents add to the growing body of evidence about the disturbing situation that Uyghurs and other minorities are facing in Xinjiang.

We have expressed our serious concerns about these issues on many occasions. The Foreign Secretary raised them directly with his Chinese counterpart, Foreign Minister and State Councillor Wang Yi in March. I also raised the situation in Xinjiang with the Chinese ambassador to London in March. Since 2018, we have played a leading role in raising these concerns at the UN. For example, at the UN Third Committee in October, the UK read out a statement on behalf of 22 other countries drawing attention to the human rights violations and abuses in Xinjiang and calling on China to uphold its obligations to respect human rights. We have consistently raised the issue at the UN Human Rights Council, including at the most recent session in March, when Lord Ahmad, the Minister for human rights, raised the issue in the UK’s opening address. In addition, we advise all businesses involved in investing in Xinjiang or with parts of their supply chains in Xinjiang to consider conducting appropriate due diligence to satisfy themselves that their activities do not support, or risk being seen to support, any human rights violations or abuses. The UK will continue to exercise leadership on this important issue, raising it directly with the Chinese Government and working with partners to do so at the UN.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith

The Inter-parliamentary Alliance on China—IPAC—which is made up of 30 other lawmakers from 16 global legislatures, has today published research by Professor Adrian Zenz, the world’s leading expert on the treatment of minorities in Xinjiang province. The report shows that birth rates in the two mostly Uyghur regions plummeted by more than 60% from 2015 to 2018. Across the Xinjiang region, birth rates fell nearly 24% in a single year, compared with just 4.2% nationwide.

Worse, it is now clear that this is a direct result of Government actions. Unearthed Government documents mandate that birth control violations that come about

“due to the influence of extreme religious thinking”

should be “dealt with severely”, and that those unable to pay fines should be

“dealt with through coercive measures”,

including internment. Mr Zenz’s paper concludes that these measures are part of a state-wide crackdown that includes the mass sterilisation of women. This report corroborates the many horrific personal testimonies that many of us have heard. The genocide convention maintains that birth prevention targeted at minority groups is indicative of genocide, and the convention binds individual states to act, not just to rely on the international judicial system. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that the Uyghur people have been, and are, the victims of mass atrocity crimes?

I ask the Foreign Secretary to go to the UN and call for an independent inquiry, but, sadly, I also recognise that the ways to deal with this through the UN will almost certainly be blocked by China. Given that likelihood, will my hon. Friend at least get the UK to make its own legal determination after weighing up this new evidence? Of course the world wants to deal with China, but we cannot continue with business as usual while this sort of blatant activity continues. Furthermore, given the Chinese Government’s appalling record on human rights, their attack on freedoms in Hong Kong, their bullying behaviour in border disputes from the South China seas to India, their blatant breaching of the rules-based order governing the free market and their delayed declaration on covid-19, will the Government now initiate an internal review of the UK’s dependence on China, with a view to significantly reducing that dependence, and call on the free world to come together to ensure that this growing threat from China is dealt with together before, as history teaches us, it is too late?

Nigel Adams

My right hon. Friend speaks with great passion and knowledge on these subjects. He refers to legal determination. As I said in my opening statement, these reports add to our concern about the situation in Xinjiang, and we will of course consider them extremely carefully. Any legal determination would be a matter for a competent court. I reiterate that we have raised concerns about the situation in Xinjiang at the UN General Assembly Third Committee and UN Human Rights Council, alongside our international partners. We will continue to make our concerns known directly to China and bilaterally, as well as through the relevant bodies.

On a full Government review, our approach to China remains clear-eyed and is rooted in our values and interests. It has always been the case that when we have concerns we raise them, and that where we need to intervene we will. We have consistently led international efforts to highlight concern about the worsening human rights situation in Xinjiang, and I assure my right hon. Friend that the United Kingdom will continue to do so.

Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)

The Chinese Communist party’s brutal campaign of oppression against the Uyghur people is a scar on the conscience of the world. The Labour party stands with the people of China, including the Uyghur people in Xinjiang, and we condemn any actions by the CCP that infringe their human rights. We know that 1.5 million Uyghurs are incarcerated in re-education camps and subjected to ideological indoctrination courses, where they must learn Mandarin Chinese, recite laws banning unapproved religious practices and sing songs praising the Chinese Communist party, and we know that beatings and solitary confinement are routinely used to punish those who fail to comply.

The accounts that have emerged today about the CCP’s draconian measures to suppress birth rates are utterly horrific—women subjected to forced IUD insertions, pregnancy prevention injections, sterilisation. The CCP appears to be engaged in what some experts are calling a campaign of demographic genocide. Will the Minister therefore confirm that the Government will call for an impartial international investigation into what is happening in Xinjiang? Will he confirm that the imposition of measures intended to prevent births within an ethnic or religious group is expressly forbidden under article II(d) of the UN convention on genocide? Will he confirm that any country that is a contracting party to the UN convention on genocide may call upon the UN to take appropriate action under articles IV, V and VI of the convention, and that the UK Government will therefore now make the necessary representations?

Does the Minister recognise that the CCP’s actions in Xinjiang reflect a wider pattern of behaviour of increasingly authoritarian policies at home and aggressive expansionism abroad, including in Hong Kong, Ladakh and the South China sea? Will he set out how the Government intend to defend human rights and the rule of law? Will the Government now engage proactively with the European Union, the US and Governments in the Asia-Pacific region who share our democratic values to lead the international response in building consensus against the CCP’s increasingly belligerent behaviour towards its own people?

Nigel Adams

I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting so concisely his concern on this matter. I can tell him that we have been very active on this issue. We have played a leading role in raising these concerns bilaterally and at the United Nations.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have concerns about the detention and human rights abuses, with more than a million Uyghur Muslims and other minorities detained in political re-education camps—some people may refer to them as other things—and we deplore the systematic restrictions on their culture and practice of Islam, alongside the targeted surveillance of minorities.

On 10 March, at the 43rd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, we raised our concerns specifically about the violations and with regard to forced labour in Xinjiang, under our item 4 statement. On 9 March, the Foreign Secretary raised the same concerns about Xinjiang with his Chinese counterpart. As I said in my statement, I have spoken directly to the Chinese ambassador to raise our concerns about human rights in Xinjiang. On 25 February, at the 43rd session of the UN Human Rights Council, the Minister responsible for human rights, Lord Ahmad, directly raised his concerns about Xinjiang during his opening address at the conference. We call on China to allow the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights unfettered access to the region.

Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and associate myself, somewhat surprisingly, with the words of the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock)—that is a welcome change.

I have heard the various comments made by my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman, and I have heard the Minister’s answers, which I support. Will the Minister perhaps look at the companies operating here in the United Kingdom that may have benefited from some of the labour in Xinjiang that he described and explain why they are able to operate here in the UK? Why are they able to use labour from these camps for re-education, at best, and very often for worse? Why are these companies seemingly able to operate around the world as though they were ordinary companies?

Nigel Adams

The Chairman of the Select Committee is right to raise that point. He will be aware that bidders for any central Government contracts above certain thresholds are required to confirm that they are compliant with the transparency requirements in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. However, the decision on high-risk vendors did not involve the award of a contract to the telecommunications firm to which I assume the Chairmen of Select Committee may have been referring. We take this issue very seriously, and, as I said in my statement, all British companies involved in the region must consider carrying out proper due diligence to ensure that human rights violations have not been taking place in their supply chains.

Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]

I am glad to see such an element of consensus across the House today; I find it difficult to disagree with any of the previous contributions to this discussion. The challenge for us is to decide what we are actually going to do about it. Warm words and sympathy come easily to politicians, but Beijing would be entitled to feel that it is getting somewhat mixed messages. I concur that the UN mechanisms are pretty stymied. This is not a new problem—it has been going on for a number of years—and the UK is becoming increasingly involved in strategic developments with, in effect, emanations of the Chinese state. Huawei is one example, but there are others. Will the Minister undertake at least to promise to promote investigations by UN observers of the camps and, indeed, the reports of forced sterilisation, which is a degree of ethnic cleansing under the Rome statute? This is serious stuff on which we must take action. Will the Minister also come back to the House with an audit of all Government procurement contracts with Chinese companies and an assessment of these concerns?

Nigel Adams

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise those issues. He will be aware that access to Xinjiang is not particularly easy to procure. We would very much welcome United Nations personnel being allowed into the region and have pressed China on that. It has not been the most easy thing to deal with—I have raised the matter personally with the Chinese ambassador. I reiterate what I said earlier: we need to ensure that British firms really do consider due diligence in their supply chains.

Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]

Forced sterilisation of women; children ripped from their families; detention centres to treat the so-called pathology of religious and cultural beliefs; forced labour; rape, and DNA databases. In our history, we have learned that we must all take a stand against systematic and industrialised efforts to eradicate religious and ethnic minorities, so will my hon. Friend commit to using Magnitsky-style sanctions to bring to justice Chinese Communist party officials who perpetrate and profit from this cultural genocide of the Uyghur people?

Nigel Adams

My hon. Friend speaks with a great deal of experience in this area. Of course, she will be aware that the Foreign Secretary has committed to making a statement about our sanctions regime. That will be done before the summer recess. We have made clear our deep concern about this report and the human rights situation in Xinjiang. My hon. Friend will forgive me; of course, we will not speculate on who will be sanctioned under the new regime, particularly as the legislation is not yet in force, but she should not have too long to wait.

Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)

I have constituents who have repeatedly raised concerns with me about China’s human rights record, whether towards Buddhists in Tibet or towards Falun Gong practitioners, and now we are faced with allegations of human rights violations of the highest order. The Minister keeps saying that companies should conduct due diligence about their supply chains. What is he doing to ensure that they actually conduct that due diligence, and what is his advice to companies that find that there are human rights abuses in their supply chains?

Nigel Adams

Certainly, if I were a company and had found that there were human rights abuses in my supply chain, I would be looking at a different supply chain, quite frankly. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the issues with Tibet and Falun Gong. Clearly, these are very concerning issues. We will continue to work with private sector companies; we provide advice through our posts for those that wish to conduct business in China, and we will continue to do so. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point.

Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)

Reports of forced sterilisation and forced abortion are just further appalling reminders of the human rights record in China and the oppression of the Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang province. As well as confirming that he will continue to raise this issue in the international forum, will the Minister redouble his efforts to raise it—not just this specific issue, but China’s broader human rights record—directly with his Chinese counterparts?

Nigel Adams

My hon. Friend is right; we consistently do that. As I said, we have been leading the way in this regard in the international community since 2018. As well as the human rights issues, we have serious concerns about the use of extensive and invasive surveillance methods to target minorities in Xinjiang. We raise this on a bilateral basis with our Chinese counterparts and, as I have said on several occasions, at the United Nations.

Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]

It is clear that the situation in Xinjiang has deteriorated over the past years. The systematic oppression of a whole ethnic minority group, who are physically abused and psychologically indoctrinated, must be condemned. I am certain that this pandemic has only worsened the conditions in the internment camps and has created a double emergency for the Uyghur community. Will the Minister condemn the persecution of Uyghur Muslims to the fullest? Has he considered using Magnitsky powers for personal sanctions?

Nigel Adams

Again, the hon. Gentleman is right to raise that. I refer him to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on Magnitsky-style sanctions. The legislation will be cleared before the summer, so I am afraid the hon. Gentleman will have to wait a little longer in that regard. However, I can assure him how seriously the United Kingdom takes these human rights violations and abuses in Xinjiang—demonstrated not least by the statement at the UN Third Committee in October drawing attention to these violations, which was signed by 22 international partners. We will continue to call on China—we do so from here today—to uphold its obligations to respect human rights.

Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)

Reports of forced sterilisation by the Chinese authorities are leading many to fear something approaching genocide of the Uyghur Muslims. This is reminiscent of the worst totalitarian regimes. Does my hon. Friend agree that it cannot be business as usual with China while it treats its Muslim citizens and other minorities in this appalling way?

Nigel Adams

Clearly, as I have said previously, the reports we have seen in the last 24 hours or so add considerably to our serious concern about the situation in Xinjiang. We have had a short period of time to digest those reports. We will continue to stress our concern about the situation in Xinjiang and the way the Uyghur Muslim community in particular is having its human rights violated.

Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this welcome opportunity, and thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting it.

These reports would be horrific even if they were of stand-alone incidents, but of course we know they are not; they are part of a course of conduct that we have seen in recent years—the re-education camps, the forced repatriation of workers within China, and the reports of organ harvesting. As we have heard from others, this is a systematic operation, reminiscent of genocide, which is being visited upon the Uyghur population.

In January of last year I led a Westminster Hall debate calling for the Government to take this to the Security Council, with a motion demanding access for a working party to Xinjiang province. We all know the obvious difficulties with that, but with everything else having failed, why have the Government not done that yet?

Nigel Adams

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I said earlier in my statement that we are constantly raising this issue with the UN. He is right to mention organ harvesting, and I know how concerned hon. and right hon. Members are about this alleged practice. We take these allegations very seriously. We have consulted our international partners and the WHO, and the evidence provides disturbing details about the mistreatment of Falun Gong practitioners in particular, and raises worrying questions about China’s transplant system.

Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)

As well as oppressing the Uyghurs, the Communist Government of the People’s Republic of China discriminate against almost 100 million Christians. Last year alone, over 5,500 churches were destroyed, closed down or confiscated. Does my hon. Friend agree that freedom of religion and belief should remain a major global campaign for the Government, and what is he doing to ensure this is maintained?

Nigel Adams

It is absolutely the case that the Government remain committed to defending freedom of religion and belief for all people—for people of all faiths or none. The Prime Minister has his own special envoy, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), working on this issue, and through our extensive diplomatic network we continue to lobby Governments for changes in laws and practices, and raise individual cases of persecution. We also continue to use our influence to speak up for persecuted Christians and individuals of other faiths in multilateral institutions, including the UN and the OSCE.

Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)

For more than 60 years, the Chinese regime has sought to snuff out the culture, religion, heritage and liberty of the Tibetan people, and more than a million Tibetans have lost their lives. Now we hear of even more sinister tactics to suppress the Uyghurs, beyond even the outrageous concentration camps we already know about: sterilisation and eugenics. What is the Minister doing to enable UK officials to gain access to Uyghur areas, where they might find evidence of surveillance technology from Huawei aiding and abetting that suppression? Will he specifically take on the point made from the Opposition Front Bench about whether he, on behalf of the British Government, thinks that the measures meet the genocide criteria under article II(d) of the UN convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide?

Nigel Adams

British diplomats visit the region periodically. Although access is not particularly easy, we do require to observe the situation first hand. British diplomats visited most recently in November 2019. Their observations supported much of the most recent open source reporting about the restrictions that have been targeted at specific ethnic groups. My hon. Friend mentioned Tibet, which our diplomats visited from 15 to 19 July 2019. We continue to press for further access for our diplomats as well as urging the Chinese authorities to lift the visit restrictions that are imposed on all foreigners.

Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) [V]

The Uyghurs have been systematically persecuted for decades. Concentration camps have been built for millions and we now have clear evidence that the Uyghur population is being reduced through the forced sterilisation of women: so many early warning signs of genocide. I do not want to use any company that enables that and I would support any public body that felt exactly the same, but the Government intend to ban public bodies from expressing their condemnation through boycotts. Will they now reconsider?

Nigel Adams

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to be angry about those violations in the region. We referenced trade earlier, and of course we want to secure growth and investment for the UK, but upholding human rights and British values is not a zero-sum choice. Our experience is that political freedom and the rule of law are vital underpinnings for long-running prosperity and stability, and that by having a strong relationship with China, we can have open and sometimes difficult discussions on a range of issues, including human rights. We have had very open and difficult discussions directly with our counterparts in China.

Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)

Like many in the House, I am appalled by the treatment that the Uyghur people face at the hands of the Chinese Communist party, and I welcome the Minister’s strong statement and the Government’s opposition to that. Will the Government stand in solidarity with those people facing that dreadful treatment by considering giving additional asylum support to any who seek asylum in the UK?

Nigel Adams

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Of course, any asylum issue is a matter for the Home Office. I understand that advice has been put out to take into consideration across our network the situation that Uyghur Muslims find themselves in.

Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)

Does my hon. Friend agree that if China is to play a leading role in the international community, it must quite simply abide by international laws and human rights?

Nigel Adams

My hon. Friend puts it absolutely correctly. As I said earlier, our approach to China should be clear eyed and rooted in our values and our interests. China is a leading member of the international community and we have a strong and constructive relationship in many areas. It has to be part of the solution to many major global problems, whether that is global health, as we have seen in the past few months, or climate change. It has always been the case that where we have concerns, we raise them, and where the United Kingdom needs to intervene, we will.

Source: Hansard

Baroness Falkner of Margravine

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reassess their relationship with the government of China.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)

My Lords, as I updated the House on 17 June, our approach is already rooted in our values and strategic interests. When engaging China, we stand up for our principles, including international law, human rights and national security. We want a mature relationship, which means collaborating where our interests align, being clear where they do not and working to resolve our differences.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl)

My Lords, first, I pay tribute to Sir Simon McDonald as he stands down from the FCO. He has been a remarkable leader and an exceptional head of our foreign service, and I wish him well in his future roles.

There is a pattern in Chinese policy, which is increasingly assertive towards countries which do not bend to its will—take the experience of Australia, Sweden, Norway, France or even ours over Hong Kong. Does the Minister agree that as the international environment changes, the UK, too, needs to be clearer with China about engaging constructively where we can but taking a clear and united stand with our allies where our interests diverge from China’s? History tells us that statecraft and ambiguity are not always the best bedfellows.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

My Lords, first, I fully align myself with the sentiments the noble Baroness expressed about Sir Simon. He had a very distinguished career in the Foreign Office. On a personal level, he has been an excellent Permanent Under-Secretary and guided me through my early days as a Minister and continues to do so to this date.

On the noble Baroness’s point about the approach of having a balanced relationship with China, calling out Chinese activities, whether it is on Hong Kong or the situation as we see it in Shenzhen, we have done so. I agree with her comments in that respect.

The Lord Bishop of Coventry

My Lords, with Christian pastors made to preach on patriotism as a condition for restoring worship after Covid-19, the new ethnic unity law to sinicize Tibetan Buddhism, and reports of birth control forced on Uighur Muslims, does the Minister accept that firm, co-ordinated international effort is required to challenge Beijing’s abuses of its religious minorities and that such human rights abuses should not be overlooked in our trade negotiations with China?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate. As he will be aware, in international fora such as the 43rd Human Rights Council in March, we have made our position very clear. He also raises the importance of working with international partners in this respect, and we have done so on the situation with the Uighurs, as we have with the situation in Hong Kong.

Lord Hayward (Con) [V]

My Lords, there is a litany of cases, whether concerning international relations or human rights, where China’s contribution to the world is going backwards. In the past 12 months, is there any aspect of international relations with the Chinese that has actually got better rather than worse?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

My Lords, in the current pandemic, I have deliberately used the phrase “the interdependency of humanity” when we have seen the response on Covid-19. We have worked very closely with China, particularly on the procurement of equipment such as PPE. We continue to work closely as we prepare for COP 26 next November. Both countries, the United Kingdom and China, will be hosting international events in this respect, and collaboration is important.

Lord Boyce (CB) [V]

My Lords, while agreeing on the need to establish a sound relationship with China, does the Minister agree that it is of the utmost importance that we continue to exercise most robustly, through the Royal Navy among others, our right to freedom of navigation on the high seas in those waters of the South China Sea illegally claimed by China to be its own, in contravention of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea? Incidentally, that contravention was once again highlighted last Friday at the south-east Asian leaders conference.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

My Lords, I agree with the noble and gallant Lord. Our position on UNCLOS and the South China Sea, working with other allies in the region, is very clear. We call on China to respect international law in this respect.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab) [V]

My Lords, the approval by China’s National People’s Congress of the new national security laws for Hong Kong was immediately followed by worldwide condemnation. However, the Guardian reported that the National People’s Congress standing committee is currently holding a three-day deliberation and the law is expected to pass tomorrow. So China is clearly not standing down. Given the Prime Minister’s offer on 3 June that any Hong Kong citizen eligible to apply for a British National Overseas passport would have the right to live and work in the UK—although that has not been fully corroborated by our Foreign Secretary—how many might qualify for visas and how many will be allowed to claim full citizenship?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. The standing committee is currently debating this very issue and the decision is awaited. On BNOs, the Prime Minister has been very clear. I am sure that the noble Baroness also saw his article at the beginning of this month, where he made it clear that anyone eligible for BNO status—which is the larger number of more than 2.9 million people—would qualify for citizenship.

Baroness Northover (LD) [V]

My Lords, with which countries is the United Kingdom working to counter China’s threats to Hong Kong, Taiwan in the South China Sea and elsewhere, and how is that progressing?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

My Lords, as the noble Baroness will be aware—I am sure she follows this—we have worked very closely with our European allies, including the likes of Germany and France. Allies remain allies: the noble Lord may not agree with me, but they do. We will continue to work also with others in the region. An earlier question pointed at the South China Sea. We work with other key partners, including the likes of Australia.

Lord Robathan (Con) [V]

My Lords, we are now faced with an authoritarian and expansionist regime in China, which is buying up Africa and elsewhere, and threatening our ally Australia, as we heard, and others. It is threatening Australia for the temerity of asking for an independent inquiry into Covid-19. We have to live with China, but we need to sup with a very long spoon. Will Her Majesty’s Government stand resolute with Australia, Hong Kong and others against the threatening and bullying behaviour of the Chinese regime?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

My Lords, as my noble friend will know, we are very clear-eyed in our relationship with China. He points out the important relationship that we have with the likes of Australia. We stand with Australia. It is a key partner through security and other, wider strategic interests in the region. He also mentioned Hong Kong. I have made the Government’s position on that quite clear.

Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)

My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, what are we doing to support the seven United Nations special rapporteurs who last week expressed serious concern that Beijing’s new security law fails to comply with international human rights law? Do we regard that new security law as a formal breach of the Sino-British joint declaration?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord’s second question, we have made our position quite clear: it is a breach of that agreement, as well as a basic breach of Hong Kong’s own laws. On working in the UN and supporting what it is doing, he will be aware that we raised the issue at the UN Security Council on 29 May and continue to work with international partners on the issue of Hong Kong.

Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)

My Lords, the final report of the independent tribunal into forced organ harvesting in China described the practice as a crime against humanity. Last July, the Minister shared my concern that the evidence on which the WHO cleared China was based on self-assessment by China. What is the Government’s assessment now of the tribunal’s full report and what has been the result of the United Kingdom’s representations to both the WHO and the Chinese authorities?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct: the final report was issued on 1 March, and we noted that the testimonies added to the growing body of evidence about the disturbing situation that the Falun Gong practitioners, Uighurs and other minorities are facing. The Government’s position remains that the practice of systematic state-sponsored organ harvesting would constitute a serious violation of human rights, and I assure the noble Lord that we regularly raise these concerns with China. We have also consulted the World Health Organization in both Geneva and Beijing, although it maintains its view that China is implementing an ethical system. We will continue to keep this policy under review.

Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]

My Lords, I fully agree that we should be both fearful of and careful about Chinese bullying methods, of course, but if we are thinking about Hong Kong’s real, longer-term interests and prosperity, should we not be a bit hesitant about equating continued mindless street violence with the causes of freedom and democracy?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

My Lords, any violence is condemned by us; I am sure that all noble Lords share that sentiment. There are rights to protest, which should be respected, but anyone protesting should observe the rule of law.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. That concludes the Hybrid Sitting on Oral Questions.

On 29 June 2020, British Parliamentarians in both Houses called upon the UK Government to call the atrocities perpetrated against the Uighur Muslims genocide.

The urgent call for action follows a newly published report of Prof Adrian Zenz finding that Uighur Muslim women have been subjected to forced sterilisations and forced abortions.

The report finds, among others, that:

“Natural population growth in Xinjiang has declined dramatically; growth rates fell by 84% in the two largest Uyghur prefectures between 2015 and 2018, and declined further in 2019. For 2020, one Uyghur region set an unprecedented near-zero population growth target.”

The research suggests that “Documents from 2019 reveal plans for a campaign of mass female sterilization in rural Uyghur regions, targeting 14 and 34% of all married women of childbearing age in two Uyghur counties that year. This project targeted all of southern Xinjiang, and continued in 2020 with increased funding.”

“By 2019, Xinjiang planned to subject at least 80% of women of childbearing age in the rural southern four minority prefectures to intrusive birth prevention surgeries (IUDs or sterilizations), with actual shares likely being much higher. In 2018, 80% of all new IUD placements in China were performed in Xinjiang, despite the fact that the region only makes up 1.8% of the nation’s population.”

The Coalition for Genocide Response is concerned that the evidence described by Adrian Zenz is suggestive of China ‘imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group’, which in itself is a genocidal method under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Article II d). 

In light of the additional evidence, British Parliamentarians have been calling upon the UK Government to:

• make its own determination of the atrocities against the legal definition of genocide or other international crimes;
• lead the initiative at the UN to establish an independent investigative body to engage on the issue;
• review its relationship with China.

Elsewhere, a group of senior legislators under the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) launched a global campaign:

• For a resolution to be tabled at the United Nations General Assembly establishing an investigation into the situation in the Xinjiang Region.
• For governments to ensure that the appropriate legal determinations are made regarding the nature of alleged atrocities. Including the claims that the People’s Republic of China is pursuing and enforcing a coordinated policy to reduce the population of minority groups in the region.
• For rapid and decisive political action to be taken to prevent the further suffering of the Uyghur people and other minorities in China. The international community must show its determination to defend human rights globally.

The Coalition for Genocide Response wishes to join the calls for an independent inquiry into the atrocities, the determination of the atrocities for what they are, and for justice for the victims and survivors.

(Toronto, London)  A group of world leaders is calling on Cameroon’s warring parties to lower their weapons to let health workers tackle the coronavirus pandemic. Nobel Peace Prize laureates, former heads of state, and others are asking the government of Cameroon and the Anglophone militias fighting for independence to declare a humanitarian ceasefire, echoing the UN’s global ceasefire call. The conflict in Cameroon’s Anglophone regions began in 2016 and has claimed thousands of lives and forced more than half a million people to flee their homes. Cameroon has one of Africa’s highest rates of COVID-19 infection, and civilians are caught between conflict and coronavirus.

The Global Campaign for Peace & Justice in Cameroon today issues a COVID-19 ceasefire challenge to the Cameroon government and the non-state armed group leaders in the Anglophone conflict. They also challenge select international bodies to use all tools at their disposal to encourage a ceasefire. They are joined by 15 respected leaders in the international community as follows:

Doctor Denis Mukwege, Nobel Peace Prize 2018, Panzi Hospital and Foundation, Democratic Republic of the Congo and United States of America

Professor Muhammad Yunus, Nobel Peace Prize 2006, Founder of the Grameen Bank, People’s Republic of Bangladesh

The Honourable José Ramos-Horta, Nobel Peace Prize 1996, Former President of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste

The Honourable FW de Klerk, Nobel Peace Prize 1993, Former President of the Republic of South Africa

The Honourable Oscar Arias Sánchez, Nobel Peace Prize 1987, Former President of the Republic of Costa Rica

The Right Honourable Joe Clark, Former Prime Minister of Canada, Former Foreign Minister and Minister of Constitutional Affairs of Canada

The Honourable Ricardo Lagos, Former President of Chile

International Council of Nurses, Swiss Confederation

The Right Honourable Harriet Baldwin, Member of Parliament of the United Kingdom, Former United Kingdom Joint Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development

The Right Honourable Andrew Mitchell, Member of Parliament of the United Kingdom, Former United Kingdom Secretary of State for International Development

US Ambassador (ret.) R. Niels Marquardt, Former United States of America Ambassador to the Republic of Cameroon

US Ambassador (ret.) John Yates, Former United States of America Ambassador to the Republic of Cameroon

US Ambassador (ret.) Harriet Isom, Former United States of America Ambassador to the Republic of Cameroon

Doctor Simon Adams, Executive Director of The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, United States of America

Ms. Ewelina U. Ochab, Co-Founder of the Coalition for Genocide Response, United Kingdom

[Cameroonian names are intentionally withheld]

Together we:

• Applaud UN Secretary-General Guterres’s call for a global ceasefire to mitigate COVID-19 in conflict zones, including in Cameroon’s Anglophone regions;

• Echo this ceasefire call, and emphasize that COVID-19 cases cannot be reduced while infrastructure is being attacked, populations are harmed and displaced, and medical and humanitarian aid cannot reach all parts of the North-West and South-West regions; and note that the rate of coronavirus infection in Cameroon is among the highest in Africa;

• Implore all parties to put the people’s immediate health, lives and livelihoods ahead of military objectives;

• Challenge the warring parties in Cameroon’s Anglophone conflict to bravely and publicly declare a humanitarian ceasefire, as follows:

1 – We challenge the government and military of the Republic of Cameroon to call a ceasefire in the two Anglophone regions.

The government of the Republic of Cameroon holds a special responsibility to protect its citizens under international law. Citizens cannot be protected from COVID-19 and other catastrophic health threats in an active war zone. There should be a ceasefire to:

• protect human life, health workers, patients, health facilities, and ambulances
• allow unfettered access of humanitarian aid to the North-West and South-West regions

2 – We challenge all non-state armed groups (NSAGs) in the two Anglophone regions to call a ceasefire.

Thank you to APLM-SOCADEF for already declaring and renewing a temporary ceasefire. All other non-state armed groups are challenged to declare a ceasefire as well, to protect citizens from COVID-19 and other catastrophic health threats in an active war zone, and:

• protect human life, health workers, patients, health facilities, and ambulances
• allow unfettered access of humanitarian aid to the North-West and South-West regions

3 – We challenge the UN Security Council and UN Secretary-General, the African Union and Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, the Commonwealth, and La Francophonie to:

• use all instruments of power at their disposal to urge the Republic of Cameroon to call a COVID-19 ceasefire
• ensure that Cameroon’s Anglophone conflict is on the agenda of the forthcoming UN Security Council meeting and all UNOCA sessions before the UNSC

The Global Campaign for Peace & Justice in Cameroon is an informal group of academics, activists, journalists, lawyers, and other concerned citizens around the world who believe in the urgent need for a peaceful resolution of Cameroon’s Anglophone conflict. For further information: www.cameroonpeacejustice.ca

Available for media interviews:

Simon Adams and Juliette Pauuwe, The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (NYC) [email protected]   +1 212 817 1930 (land)   +1 347 967 7333 (mobile)        

The Global Campaign for Peace & Justice in Cameroon

Contact: [email protected]

                      

On 8 June 2020, The Gambia has filed an application for discovery, with the US District Court for the District of Columbia, to compel Facebook to provide information related to personal Facebook accounts of Myanmar officials. The information sought is to be used in ‘an action brought by the Republic of The Gambia against the Republic of the Union of Myanmar in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, The Netherlands’ for the commission of the crime of genocide against the Rohingya people.

The application indicates that ‘statements on social media, including Facebook, made by officials and representatives of Myanmar hostile to the Rohingya, or encouraging violence against them, including but not limited to statements made by senior military officers directed at rank-and-file soldiers or armed civilians who carried out attacks against the Rohingya, may constitute evidence of genocidal intent necessary o support a finding of responsibility for genocide.’

‘Facebook is a dominant platform in Myanmar of disseminating anti-Rohingya hate speech and incitement to violence. Indeed, an independent report commissioned by Facebook found that the platform “is being used [in Myanmar] by bad actors to spread hate speech, incite violence, and coordinate harm.” Moreover, the UN Fact-Finding Mission concluded that such hate speech is directed against the Rohingya and is pervasive in Myanmar, and that “messages portraying Rohingya as violent, dishonest, anti-Bamar, anti-Buddhist, illegal immigrants and/or terrorists… are particularly widespread on social media.’

The application further states ‘Using the Facebook platform, the military has circulated discriminatory posts to generate fear, mistrust and hatred against Rohingya Muslims.’

Facebook now banned Senior-General Min Aung Hlaing, the Commander-in-Chief of the Myanmar Amed Forced, and 19 other military individuals and organisations from its platform. The content has now been removed. However, has preserved the content of these pages and ‘should be available to properly constituted international and national judicial authorities for accountability purposes.’

You can find the court papers here: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.218820/gov.uscourts.dcd.218820.1.1.pdf

Further on Facebook removing relevant content: http://about.fb.com/news/2018/08/removing-myanmar-officials/

End of May 2020, the UN General Assembly proclaimed 9 September as the International Day to Protect Education from Attack. The resolution ‘reaffirms the right to education for all and the importance of ensuring safe enabling learning environments in humanitarian emergencies, as well as quality education at all levels, including for girls, including technical and vocational training opportunities, where possible, including through adequate funding and infrastructural investments, for the well-being of all, in this regard recognizes that access to quality education in humanitarian emergencies can contribute to long-term development goals and reiterates the need to protect and respect educational facilities in accordance with international humanitarian law, strongly condemns all attacks directed against schools and the use of schools for military purposes, when in contravention of international humanitarian law, and encourages efforts to promote safe and protective school environments in humanitarian emergencies reaffirming the right to education for all and stressing the need of ensuring safe learning environments in humanitarian emergencies.’

Among others, the resolution recognises that ‘many children in armed conflict, in particular girls, lack access to education owing to attacks against schools, damaged or destroyed school buildings, mines and unexploded ordnance, insecurity, the prevalence of violence, including gender-based violence, in and around schools and loss of documentation.’

Indeed, some perpetrators have been targeting schools as their weapon of choice. For example, Boko Haram, a radical Islamist terrorist group, has been targetting schools because of the belief that schools teach Western values. Boko Haram conducts attacks in predominately Muslim states and the majority of abducted girls are Muslim. However, Christian girls have also been targeted by Boko Haram. Christian girls abducted by Boko Haram are forced to convert to Islam (and/or marry their abductors). Among others, Leah Sharibu, a 16-year-old Nigerian girl, one of the 110 schoolgirls abducted by Boko Haram members from their school in Dapchi in February 2018, continues to be enslaved despite the fact that all of the other girls have now been released. According to one of the other girls, Leah declined to renounce her Christian faith and this is the very reason Boko Haram continues to enslave her.  Similarly, attacks on Fulani herdsmen in the Middle Belt disrupt access to education of children in that region. 

The Coalition for Genocide Response welcomes the UN General Assembly resolution and pledges to use the opportunity of the UN day to speak against attacks on education and ensure the safety of all children at schools.

You can find the UN General Assembly resolution here: https://www.un.org/pga/74/wp-content/uploads/sites/99/2020/05/A_74_L.66.pdf

In May 2020, the European Network of contact points in respect of persons responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes’ (the ‘Genocide Network’) and Eurojust, an EU agency, published a report ‘Cumulative prosecution of foreign terrorist fighters for core international crimes and terrorism-related offence.’ 

The report makes a clear case that:

‘The acts of violence meet the legal definitions of core international crimes and should therefore be investigated and prosecuted by national authorities to avoid impunity for these crimes. Prosecuting Daesh fighters for core international crimes they have committed will not only fulfil the legal obligation of States to prosecute the most serious international crimes, crimes against humanity, war crimes or the crime of genocide, but will also lead to a more tailored approach, longer sentences and the full criminal responsibility of perpetrators. Furthermore, by recognising and naming these crimes for what they are, justice is brought to the victims.’

Over the last five years, Lord Alton of Liverpool, peer at the UK House of Lords, has been raising the need to prosecute Daesh fighters (and Daesh foreign fighters on their return home) for international crimes, most notably, for genocide against religious minorities as Yazidis and Christians.  The Coalition for Genocide Response was established to, among others, continue with this work. 

In July 2019, a recommendation on prosecuting Daesh fighters was included in the Bishop of Truro review (the Independent Review for the Foreign Secretary of FCO Support for Persecuted Christians). Recommendation 21b, that was accepted by the UK Government, calls upon the ‘FCO to champion the prosecution of ISIS perpetrators of sex crimes against Yazidi and Christian women, not only as terrorists.’

The Coalition for Genocide Response sent a written submission to the FCO calling upon it to ensure that as they champion the prosecutions of Daesh fighters, they ensure that Daesh fighters are prosecuted for international crimes, including genocide and crimes against humanity, and where not possible, a litany of other criminal conduct. 

The Coalition for Genocide Response restates the urgent need to 1) recognise the Daesh atrocities for what they are and 2) prosecute the perpetrators for the crimes.

On 29 April 2020, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Yanghee Lee, called for an investigation into allegations of ongoing atrocities in Myanmar’s Rakhine and Chin States.

As the UN Special Rapporteur emphasised, ‘While the world is occupied with the COVID-19 pandemic, the Myanmar military continues to escalate its assault in Rakhine State, targeting the civilian population.’ The UN Special Rapporteur added that ‘The Tatmadaw is systematically violating the most fundamental principles of international humanitarian law and human rights. Its conduct against the civilian population of Rakhine and Chin States may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. All parties to the conflict, including the Arakan Army, must also protect civilians.’

The UN Special Rapporteur stressed the urgent need to investigate the alleged atrocities and to bring all responsible to account.

The UN Special Rapporteur further raised the issue of tight restrictions on humanitarian access since January 2019 to many parts of Myanmar, humanitarian workers being targeted in the conflict, journalists going into hiding in fear of arrest having reported on the conflict, and the mobile internet shutdown since June 2019.

Lastly, the UN Special Rapporteur called upon Myanmar and its security forces to abide by the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures.

See more on the provisional measures here.

See full statement from the UN Special Rapporteur here.