Category: Uncategorized

On 27 January 2021, a group of NGOs and religious leaders, led by the Coalition for Genocide Response, sent a letter to Prime Minister Boris Johnson asking him to introduce changes to the UK’s genocide responses. Among others, the letter called upon the Prime Minister to take the very first step needed to ensure a more effective response to genocide, namely, introducing mechanisms for monitoring and assessment of risk factors of genocide and determination.

The letter can be found here:

London, 27 January 2021

Dear Prime Minister,

On this occasion of Holocaust Memorial Day, we write to urge the Government to mark the day by committing to a more proactive response to genocide.

After the egregious Nazi crimes, states have been promising to never again allow such mass atrocities to be perpetrated. However, time and time again, the international community has failed to deliver on its solemn promise. This failure is, in large part, because the states themselves, including the UK, are not effectively fulfilling their duties under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention). Again and again, we are failing to act to prevent genocide, doing little to suppress it, failing to give the full support needed to those affected and shying away from prosecuting perpetrators. 

As Raphael Lemkin, the Polish lawyer who coined the word genocide after losing 49 members of his family in the Holocaust, asked: ‘Why is the killing of a million a lesser crime than the killing of an individual?’ Decades later, this is still true and, therefore, we are asking you, as Prime Minister: Why do we keep responding to lesser offences with more seriousness than to such mass atrocities as genocide?

Only in the last few years, we have been witnessing several instances of mass atrocities meeting the legal definition of genocide, including those perpetrated by Daesh against the Yazidis, Christians and others; by the Myanmar military against the Rohingyas; by Boko Haram and Fulani militia against Christians in Nigeria; and, by the Chinese Community Party against the Uyghurs.

None of these cases exist in a vacuum or occur without warning. Time and time again there were warning signs meeting the internationally recognised risk factors of genocide, that were not acted upon. States, including the UK, have a responsibility to prevent genocide at the very moment a state learns or should have learned of the serious risk of genocide. In all of the cases listed above, no state can realistically claim that they do, or did, not know about the serious risk of genocide. 

As the UK and other states continue to look the other way, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they are worried more about diplomatic and economic interests than protecting the world’s most vulnerable communities from annihilation. Actions speak louder than words. The lack of action means that those conducting the crime still believe they can act with impunity. Impunity begets further crime. If we do not stand up now, this will be the legacy that we leave for future generations who will only see more and more such atrocities.

We were profoundly concerned that the government chose not to support the Alton Amendment (the Genocide Amendment) to the Trade Bill as it sends a wrong message to states involved in such atrocities. The Genocide Amendment is an important first step towards the UK taking back control over its genocide response strategies. The UK, as a party to the Genocide Convention, is the duty bearer, not the UN or other international bodies. We urge the Government to reconsider its position for the refined Genocide Amendment, and instead choose to signal that now is the time the UK will stand up for those facing annihilation.

On this Holocaust Memorial Day, as we pay tribute to millions who perished, we must recognise that the only way we can truly honour them is by doing better, rather than by simply echoing an increasingly empty promise of never again.

We call upon you, as Prime Minister, to lead the UK Government towards a more proactive genocide response to prevent more communities being targeted for annihilation. We call upon you, as Prime Minister, to take the very first step needed to ensure more effective address to genocide, by introducing mechanisms for assessment of risk factors of genocide and determination (including as stipulated in the Genocide Amendments or the Genocide Determination Bill) to equip the UK Government to be able to make informed responses to genocide. We owe it not just to the six million who perished in the Holocaust, the 8,000 men and boys massacred at Srebrenica or 600,000 killed in Rwanda, but to the millions of humans who currently face the looming and real threat of genocidal acts. Our generation should not be one that turns away, as so many have before.

As the UK has left the EU this is the perfect time for us to redefine ourselves and affirm our moral position globally. We need your vision for genocide prevention. No empty promises. We need your leadership on the issue of genocide responses. No excuses. Informed responses to genocide start with recognising the issue, recognising the risk of genocide or of genocide being perpetrated. No empty promises. No excuses.

Yours sincerely,

Archbishop Angaelos, Coptic Orthodox Archbishop of London, Rt Revd Philip Mounstephen, Bishop of Truro, Coalition for Genocide Response, Rene Cassin, Waging Peace, The Rights Practice, Gender and Religious Freedom, Open Doors UK & Ireland, Humanists UK, CSW, End Transplant Abuse in China, Crown Christian Heritage Trust, All Faiths Network, Coptic Orthodox Church, Refcemi, Steadfast Global

The Response

The Prime Minister responded to the letter but not to the call. In a letter dated 4 March 2021, the Prime Minister commented on the situation of Uyghurs in China and the steps taken by the UK Government in response. The Prime Minister further commented upon the Genocide Amendment and the Neill’s Amendment. However, the Prime Minister failed to acknowledge and respond to the issue that changes needed to the UK’s Government’s responses to genocide are much greater than as stipulated in the Neill’s Amendment. Indeed, the UK Government does not monitor risk factors of genocide, analyse then and make determinations of a serious risk of genocide as per the International Court of Justice’s 2007 Judgment in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro.

The response can be found here:

Our co-founder, Ewelina U. Ochab, joined several lawyers and genocide scholars challenging the recent piece published by the Economist. Read it here:

Letter to the Economist

On February 13, 2021, The Economist ran a piece, “Genocide” is the wrong word for the horrors of Xinjiang, making several claims that are erroneous and need to be addressed. Genocide is not a word that should be used lightly. However, it does not mean that it should not be used. Indeed, where the elements of the legal definition are met (as per Article II of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention)), the crimes should be labelled exactly for what they are. 

‘Genocide’ as defined by the Genocide Convention and customary international law (and indeed US domestic law) does not necessarily entail the immediate destruction of the group by ‘mass slaughter.’ Destruction of the group (in whole or in part) must be the intended result, but this may be achieved in a number of ways. In the case of the Uyghurs, in terms of the legal test, allegations include killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (including physical abuse, rape and sexual violence), deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to destroy the group (by way of concentration camps, forced labour and other atrocities as a whole), imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group (by way of forced sterilisations, forced abortions, and also rape), forcibly transferring Uyghur children to another group. These acts are supported by evidence of the specific intent to destroy this ethno-religious group. This is in addition that to the fact that the specific intent can be inferred from the pattern and systemic nature of the atrocities. Understandably, each element of genocide has to be scrutinised in consideration of all the available evidence. It is wrong to claim that the US Administration woke up one day and decided to call the atrocities against the Uyghurs genocide. Indeed, the State Department has been working on the topic for months and uphold their own obligations between parties. 

In a perfect world, the allegations of genocide against the Uyghurs would be considered by an international court or tribunal or a specially established UN investigative mechanism, but this has not been done and it is unlikely to happen, given China’s powerful position at the UN and reservations to, or non-membership of, relevant treaties. This, however, does not preclude States making their own determination. In fact, States, as the duty holder under the Genocide Convention, must make such determinations to inform they responses. 

The article misses the fact that the Genocide Convention imposes certain duties upon States: the duty to prevent and punish. 

The duty to prevent genocide is extensive and critical. As the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case in Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro clarified, the duty to prevent: ‘Arise[s] at the instant that the State learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed.’ If this is the case, States must conduct their monitoring, analysis and determination of at least the serious risk of genocide very early on – in order to engage their duties. This ultimately means that States need to engage with considerations surrounding the legal elements of genocide and/or risk factors, as for example, per the UN Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes and Jacob Blaustein Institute’s Compilation of Risk Factors and Legal Norms for the Prevention of Genocide. As such, where, after the analysis of all relevant evidence, States conclude that the evidence indicates commission of genocide or a serious risk of genocide, such an analysis should not be disregarded as an ‘exaggeration’ or ‘rhetorical escalation.’ 

In order to ‘punish genocide’, States must introduce domestic laws to give effect to the Genocide Convention, including, criminalising genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide. This is where meeting the precise elements of the crime are crucial as otherwise the charges would not stand. 

It accomplishes nothing to reject such an analysis of the evidence and using euphemisms out of fear of upsetting the state perpetrating genocide. There are practical effects of a determination. Indeed, and again, as per the ICJ, once the state learns or should have learned about the serious risk of genocide, ‘from that moment onwards, if the State has available to it means likely to have a deterrent effect on those suspected of preparing genocide, or reasonably suspected of harbouring specific intent (dolus specialis), it is under a duty to make such use of these means as the circumstances permit.’ 

Claims that an analysis of the situation is an ‘exaggeration’ or ‘rhetorical escalation’, and this without any evidence in support, means that States may well evade acting upon their duties claiming that the trigger for the duty to prevent is not reached. That has too often been the case as the world watches genocides take place.

In a world where genocide still occurs, despite the promises of Never Again, inaction is not an option. We need to ensure that we are equipped to prevent genocide as the cost of allowing it is too great: it is the cost of lives and it is also the cost of our humanity.

Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, Director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute

Ewelina U. Ochab, Co-founder of the Coalition for Genocide Response 

Zachary D. Kaufman, JD, PhD, Associate Professor of Law and Political Science, University of Houston Law Centre

Kyle Matthews, Executive Director of the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies at Concordia University

John Packer, Neuberger-Jesin Professor of International Conflict Resolution at the Faculty of Law and Director of the Human Rights Research and Education Centre at the University of Ottawa

Michael Polak, Barrister, Lawyers for Uyghur Rights, Committee World Uyghur Congress London Office 

Nury Turkel, Attorney, Co-founder and Board Chair of the Uyghur Human Rights Project

Joanne Smith Finley, Reader in Chinese Studies, East Asian Studies, School of Modern Languages, Newcastle University

On 10 February 2021, Ewelina U. Ochab, the co-founder of the Coalition for Genocide Response, joined the UN Intersessional Meeting on the Prevention of Genocide. The session is aimed at accommodating a dialogue and cooperation in strengthening capacities for the prevention of genocide with a view to sharing good practices, achievements, challenges and lessons learned in three main areas: (i) the strengthening of national capacities; (ii) the promotion of States’ participation in regional and sub-regional initiatives; and (iii) the strengthening of early warning and prevention mechanisms within the United Nations system.

We must bridge the gap between the duties under the Genocide Convention and their realisation. This bridge includes states introducing comprehensive monitoring and assessment mechanisms. This also includes states taking ownership over their genocide determinations and using such a determination to inform their responses. In a world where genocide still occurs, despite the promises of Never Again, inaction is not an option. We need to ensure that we are equipped to prevent genocide as the cost of allowing it is too great: it is the cost of lives and it is also the cost of our humanity.

Ewelina U. Ochab, co-founder of the Coalition for Genocide Response

Read the statement here or watch on UN TV.

Read the full written statement here:

The following Private Notice Question will be considered later today:

Lord Alton of Liverpool to ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the war in the Ethiopian province of Tigray and what action it is taking to coordinate international action to prevent further conflict.  To be answered by Baroness Sugg (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office).

The Coalition for Genocide Response is deeply concerned at reports suggesting that atrocity crimes are underway in Ethiopia’s Tigray region.

End of August 2020, Genocide Watch issued a genocide warning for Ethiopia ‘due to the government’s inaction to stop ethnically motivated violence between Oromo, Amhara, Tigrayan and Gedeo peoples.’
In October 2020, Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, US Holocaust Memorial Museum warned about the high risk of further atrocities: ‘The multiple conflicts currently roiling Ethiopia and the willingness of antagonists to use violence against civilian populations indicates a risk of further atrocities. As more separatist actors and armed groups take advantage of unrest spreading to further regions of Ethiopia, state security could again target civilians. Leaders in the Tigray region have already defied the central government by conducting regional elections in advance of the delayed national elections, now slated for 2021. The armed youth-led mobs who targeted and killed Oromo and Amhara community members in July have not faced justice. Resentment directed at the Abiy administration from the Oromo opposition is only growing.’

On 20 November 2020, UNHCR reported that ‘the numbers of people fleeing Ethiopia’s Tigray region for eastern Sudan now exceed 33,000.’ (Read the full report here: https://www.unhcr.org/uk/news/briefing/2020/11/5fb78cec4/urgent-support-needed-help-ethiopian-refugees-reaching-sudan.html)

On 22 November 2020, The Sunday Telegraph warned that Ethiopia ‘may be on the edge of genocide.’ 

While the atrocities are yet to be analysed against the legal definition of genocide, the above reports are highly concerning.

The Coalition for Genocide Response would like to draw your attention to the duty to prevent genocide under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The International Court of Justice confirmed that ‘a State’s obligation to prevent, and the corresponding duty to act, arise at the instant that the State learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed. From that moment onwards, if the State has available to it means likely to have a deterrent effect on those suspected of preparing genocide, or reasonably suspected of harbouring specific intent (dolus specialis), it is under a duty to make such use of these means as the circumstances permit.’ [emphsis added]

In order for the UK Government to fulfil its duties under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the UK must assess the risk of genocide and act upon.

In 2011, the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, in cooperation with the Office of the UN Special Advisor for the Prevention of Genocide developed the Compilation of Risk Factors and Legal Norms for the Prevention of Genocide (the Compilation). The Compilation identifies 22 risk factors specific to genocide under two sub-groups: 1) discrimination-related risk factors, and 2) risk factors related to violations of the right to life and personal integrity.

These should be used to help to assess the situation and inform the UK Government’s response.