Asked by: Baroness Whitaker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations they have made to the government of Kosovo about permitting to Kosovan Roma who were forced to leave Kosovo as a result of war the right to vote in the forthcoming elections in that country.
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
In the run up to the recent elections, we publicly and privately encouraged the electoral authorities in Kosovo to ensure all eligible overseas voters in Kosovo were able to do so, regardless of ethnicity. These snap elections had a shorter preparatory period than normal, putting pressure on the Central Election Commission and creating risks that not all ballots cast overseas would arrive on time. The process of verifying and counting the votes from overseas is now underway.
Asked by: Baroness Whitaker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to make representations to the government of Kosovo about allowing Kosovan Roma in other countries the right to vote in the forthcoming elections.
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
In the run up to the recent elections, we publicly and privately encouraged the electoral authorities in Kosovo to ensure all eligible overseas voters in Kosovo were able to do so, regardless of ethnicity. These snap elections had a shorter preparatory period than normal, putting pressure on the Central Election Commission and creating risks that not all ballots cast overseas would arrive on time. The process of verifying and counting the votes from overseas is now underway.
Asked by: Baroness Whitaker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations they have made to the government of China about parole for Dr Gulshan Abbas on humanitarian grounds.
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
We are concerned at reports of the sentencing of Dr Gulshan Abbas to 20 years in jail, and note the health concerns expressed by her family. The Foreign Secretary has raised our serious concerns about the human rights situation in Xinjiang directly with his counterpart, China's Foreign Minister and State Counsellor Wang Yi. The UK has also repeatedly taken a leading international role in holding China to account internationally. For example, our joint statement at the UN General Assembly Third Committee in October 2020, where alongside Germany, we brought together a total of 39 countries to express grave concern at the situation in Xinjiang, and called for China to allow unfettered access to the region for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and other independent observers.
Asked by: Baroness Whitaker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the judgment by the Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on 28 January concerning the delimitation of maritime boundary between Mauritius and Maldives, which found that the Advisory Opinion was determinative of Mauritian sovereignty, what steps they are taking to comply with (1) the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, published on 25 February 2019 and (2) the UN General Assembly Resolution 73/295 from 22 May 2019.
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The United Kingdom is aware of the judgment delivered on 28 January by the Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) formed to deal with the dispute concerning delimitation of a maritime boundary claimed by Mauritius to exist between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean (Mauritius/Maldives). The UK is not a party to these proceedings, which can have no effect for the UK or for maritime delimitation between the UK (in respect of the British Indian Ocean Territory) and the Republic of the Maldives.
The UK Government respects the International Court of Justice and has considered the content of the Advisory Opinion carefully, but does not share the Court's approach. An Advisory Opinion is not a legally binding judgment, it is advice provided to the UN General Assembly at its request. The UN General Assembly resolution is also non-binding.
Asked by: Baroness Whitaker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Sugg on 18 November (HL10143), whether they accept the description used by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019 Legal Consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 that Chagossians were "forcibly removed" by the UK between 1967 and 1973.
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The UK Government has expressed sincere regret about the manner in which Chagossians were removed from BIOT in the 1960s and 1970s. In its Written Statement to the ICJ, the UK accepted that the way that Chagossians were treated was wrong and that there was a callous disregard for their interests. However, the UK did not characterise their treatment in the same terms as those used in the Advisory Opinion.
Asked by: Baroness Whitaker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Sugg on 18 November (HL10143), what assessment they have made of the extent to which their Chagossian support package, announced on 16 November 2016 (HCWS260), (1) addresses the aspiration of those Chagossians who wish to return or resettle in the Chagos Islands, and (2) takes into account the Advisory Opinion Legal Consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 issued by the International Court of Justice on 25 February 2019, which found that resettlement "is an issue relating to the protection of the human rights of those concerned which should be addressed by the General Assembly during the completion of the decolonization of Mauritius".
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The decision not to support resettlement followed an independent feasibility study of the practicalities of resettlement (published in February 2015) and a public consultation (results published in January 2016). The consultation found that there were differing indications of the likely demand from Chagossians for resettlement across the communities in the UK, Mauritius, the Seychelles and elsewhere.
The UK Government is determined to use the Support Package to address the aspirations of those Chagossians who wish to return or resettle, and all the community: the desire for better lives, and to maintain a connection to the Territory. For those that wish to return, the Support Package has funded to date eight heritage visits, with a total of 154 visiting the Territory. Unfortunately due to the pandemic we have had to suspend the Heritage Visit programme, but will resume it as soon as it is safe to do so. Beyond the programme of visits, the package focuses on improved access to health and social care, better education and employment opportunities, and cultural conservation. The detail of the package is kept under constant review and we remain committed to engaging with Chagossians to explore ways to better deliver its objectives.
The Support Package was announced in 2016 and is not affected by the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019.
Asked by: Baroness Whitaker (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of allegations that (1) the removal between 1968 and 1973, and (2) the subsequent treatment, of the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands is a crime against humanity as defined in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; and how they intend to respond to those allegations.
Answered by Baroness Sugg
The UK does not accept this characterisation of the removal of Chagossians from the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), or subsequent treatment of former inhabitants. Nor is this a description used by either the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its Advisory Opinion, or the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Tribunal members in the Award in respect of the circumstances of the removal of Chagossians.
The UK Government has expressed sincere regret about the manner in which Chagossians were removed from BIOT in the 1960s and 1970s. While it has decided not to support resettlement, the UK Government is determined to address the aspirations of Chagossians which make them seek to resettle, which are the desire for better lives, and the desire to maintain a connection to the Territory.