Genocide: Bringing Perpetrators to Justice
Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate and for his tireless work on genocide and other egregious human rights violations. We are legally bound by the 1948 convention to take all reasonable steps to punish and to prevent genocide. How many times have we said “never again”, despite inadequate action to break the cycle of it? Nothing will change unless we find a route to legal accountability and justice.
Regrettably, the Government’s actions fall short of their own rhetoric; they are slow to bring forward Magnitsky sanctions and are avoiding reform of supply chain legislation. They are in defiance of the House of Commons recognition of genocides and your Lordships’ overwhelming support for a judicial route to determination. They have prioritised their ability to enter trade negotiations with China over a process to assess the Uighur case. The Government hold an untenable position on the determination of genocide. You cannot say “genocide determination is for a court” when, with Chinese and Russian vetoes, no court will ever hear the case. Their policy is inoperable and now they must come forward with credible alternatives. They must continue to explore all legal routes to justice.
There are options. My honourable friend Stephen Kinnock urged the Foreign Secretary to introduce a UNGA resolution requesting an advisory opinion from the ICJ on the question of Uighur genocide and to explore legal avenues through other treaties and conventions, like the Convention against Torture, to which China is a signatory. If there was sufficient evidence against individuals, and they were to travel internationally, countries could assume jurisdiction to try those responsible for Uighur policies. France created a genocide unit to investigate and prosecute such offences and in May 2020 arrested a suspect in connection with the genocide in Rwanda.
Another option is bringing cases against Chinese officials at the ICC. China does not accept that jurisdiction, but, as a basis for jurisdiction, lawyers for exiled Uighurs claim some victims were kidnapped from Cambodia and Tajikistan, which do recognise the court. If not these, what credible alternatives do the Government have?
Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy
Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-chair of and consultant to the Nuclear Threat Initiative. In the other place, Tobias Ellwood, anticipating the visit of General Austin, the US Secretary of Defense, said:
“our special relationship requires work.”
Predicting warm words about the special relationship and our planned investment in
“special forces, cyber and space resilience,”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/4/21; col. 395]
he suggested that, in private, Austin would more candidly say our navy is way too small, conventional fighting capability should not be cut and nor should the F-35 order.
Although those words reflect Labour’s criticism of the integrated review, I want to focus on another aspect of the review and what it means for the relationship with the US. In doing so, I shall expand upon one of the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Reid. The meeting took place last Thursday, but I can find no reference to what was discussed on the MoD’s website. Five days later, the DoD carried a readout, which makes the usual positive noises about the relationship, mentions Russia amassing of forces on Ukraine’s border and an orderly end to the war in Afghanistan. It has a reference, expanded upon in a terse and matter-of-fact joint statement, to past and continuing consultation on the review and strategic alignment.
There is no reference to consultation with the Biden Administration but rather between the respective defence departments. That difference is not lost on those who have been commenting on the gaping disparity now between our new nuclear weapons posture and that of President Biden, who has spoken of a national security imperative and moral responsibility to manage and eliminate the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction.
UK officials have been briefing on the review in the US. One, asked whether the removal of the cap had been discussed with the Biden Administration, responded that the Government wanted to report to Parliament first. As our current nuclear posture is more an echo of the Trump Administration’s 2019 posture review than the aspirations of the new President, was prior discussion with the DoD under the previous Administration? An increase in the cap on our nuclear weapons stockpile to more than 260 warheads is a significant reversal from the long-standing position on reducing numbers while maintaining a minimum deterrent force.
Equally concerning to Biden must be that while Russia and the US publicly declare their numbers, we will no longer publish details of our operational nuclear stockpile and deployed warheads and missiles. This is a significant blow to transparency. The justification so far is thin and unconvincing. The review lacks a compelling rationale for raising the warhead cap. There is a brief reference to an
“evolving security environment, including the developing range of technological and doctrinal threats,”—
a reference to Russia’s new and planned nuclear systems. No explanation is given for how increasing the stockpile will provide a more credible deterrent, improve UK security or impress Moscow, whose nuclear force will continue to dwarf ours.
Now, we reserve the right to threaten nuclear use if a threat from chemical and biological weapons or “emerging technologies” makes it necessary. What does this really mean? This policy shift is not proportionate to the threat and under any circumstances is not credible. Would the UK ever use a nuclear weapon against a chemical, biological, or cyber attack? An expanded use policy for nuclear weapons is directly counter to Biden’s commitment to consult with allies about moving towards a “sole purpose” declaratory policy that the nuclear arsenal is only for deterring or retaliating against nuclear attacks.
Coming weeks after the announcement of the US and Russia agreeing to extend New START and to engage in successor agreement discussions, this flies in the face of this new opportunity to stop the nuclear arms race. When its closest ally moves in a contrary direction, it presents a significant barrier for the new Biden Administration. Will the Minister expand on the joint statement agreed between Ben Wallace and General Austin? When did consultation take place? What was the US response to what is universally now interpreted as an inexplicable abdication of the long-standing leadership role on nuclear disarmament by policy change, counter to Biden’s commitment to reduce the role of nuclear weapons and his commitment to sole purpose?
United States: Diplomatic Relations
Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, there is little in what the noble Lord has said that I disagree with. As ever, he provides valuable insights into our relationship with the US and other partners.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in 2017, the then Vice-President Biden declared that he and President Obama believed that deterrence of a nuclear attack should be the sole purpose of the US nuclear arsenal. As a presidential candidate, he pledged work to put that belief into practice in consultation with allies. This language was adopted in the Democratic Party’s official 2020 platform. I understand that consultations with the UK have begun. What is the Government’s position on the US nuclear declaratory formulation that the sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear abuse against it or its allies?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, we welcome the re-engagement of the US, in particular on its obligations through NATO. That will form the basis of how the United States continues to strengthen defence alliances with the United Kingdom and others in the defence of not just the interests of the United States but those of its allies.
In paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, as a historian, I remind noble Lords that we come together on the eve of the famous speech given 75 years ago in 1946 by Winston Churchill when he defined what the relationship was all about. He said that
“in the days to come the British and American peoples will, for their own safety and for the good of all, walk together side by side in majesty, in justice and in peace.”
Long may that last.
Myanmar
Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I cannot state firmly what the chances are, but I assure the noble Lord that we are doing all we can to ensure the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and the return of the democratically elected Government.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a credible inference that, in seizing power, General Min Aung Hlaing and the military were partly motivated by the desire to protect themselves and their families from investigation of their corrupt and lucrative financial deals and economic holdings by a strengthened democratic Government. It is certain that they have managed to squirrel away stolen assets in this country, the British Overseas Territories and other democratic countries. Following on from my noble friend Lord Triesman’s question, and recognising the limitations that the Minister is under, beyond sanctions, do the Government have the power and intent to trace, seize and freeze these assets so that, in due course, they can be returned to their rightful owners: the Myanmar people?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the imposition of sanctions means that any accounts held or travel undertaken is limited, so there are specific powers in the sanctions regime.
The UK’s Relationship with the Pacific Alliance (International Relations Committee Report)
Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his introductory speech, and the committee he then chaired and its staff and advisers for the report we are debating. As noble Lords have commented, because the formal request to join the CPTPP is—apparently—imminent, this debate, although delayed, is timely.
The report implies what a 2019 Foreign Affairs Committee report says specifically:
“South America is a source of … untapped potential”
for the UK, offering an opportunity to develop UK influence and promote mutual prosperity, security and stability. My interest is in security and stability. One important example of the success of UK diplomacy is the UK’s consistent support of the Colombian peace process. However, human rights continue to be a concern in Colombia and across the region, with an increasing number of attacks against human rights defenders, as my noble friend Lady Blower said. This and the report’s recommendations that emphasise upholding human rights will be, with specific reference to the Colombian peace process, the sole focus of my contribution to the debate.
Despite Colombia signing a peace accord in 2016, the human rights situation there is worsening. Violence against human rights defenders, former combatants and trade unionists has escalated. In fact, in December, the UN reported that 120 human rights defenders and 249 former combatants had been killed, and that there had been a generalised increase in violence in 2020, with 66 massacres in the country. According to its ministry of defence, in 2020 the number of victims of massacres quadrupled compared with the last year of the peace negotiations. Military intelligence was also found to be spying on human rights defenders, journalists, high court magistrates and members of the opposition, and to be selling information to neo-paramilitaries. It might well have used equipment we sold to it to do this.
Neo-paramilitary and other illegal groups continue to take advantage of the pandemic to strengthen their social and territorial control. Violence is perpetrated in Colombia by all armed actors, but the groups most responsible are the neo-paramilitary and criminal organisations. Not only do they take the lives of most human rights defenders and former combatants, but their activities in rural areas are exacerbating humanitarian crises, enforcing confinement, and driving forced displacement and other human rights abuses, as well as the expansion of illicit economies. They are the key players in the violence against communities and a major obstacle to the implementation of the peace accord.
The UN verification mission, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, civil society and others have all highlighted the importance of the National Commission on Security Guarantees for sustainable peace in Colombia. The commission is a body charged under the peace agreement with developing a public policy for dismantling neo-paramilitary and criminal organisations and their support networks. It is essential that the verification mission is supported to carry out its work effectively. If we are to see one of the major obstacles to peace in Colombia removed that is a necessity.
Upholding human rights and ensuring sustainable peace are essential before deepening trading relationships with Colombia, as some of the worst human rights abuses involving business occur—[Inaudible.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
Lord Browne, we seem to have lost your sound.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
I apologise. In this difficult context, businesses wittingly and unwittingly contribute to human rights harm.
The UK must always be confident—[Inaudible]—and that includes defending human rights. I have only one question for the Minister, and it is an addendum to my noble friend Lady Blower’s question. Once the assessment of recent violence is made and shared with us, what influence will that have on decisions we make on trade with Colombia?
Foreign Policy: UK-EU Dialogue
Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the practical terms that the noble Baroness mentioned, she will be aware that we are working closely with EU partners and other allies on issues of sanctions and indeed issues relating to Hong Kong. The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement affirms our mutual commitment to democratic principles, the rule of law and human rights. As the noble Baroness will be aware, we are already working closely on many important issues—including issues of human rights, which are part of my portfolio—both bilaterally and through multilateral organisations.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, an unstable and unruly world needs strong alliances between countries seeking international stability and co-operation rather than competition. The Biden Administration will expect the UK not to behave in a way that weakens the EU. As all but six members of the EU are members of NATO, we have already integrated sufficient elements of our defence. Does the Minister agree that formal arrangements of co-operation between us on security and foreign policy are inevitable? He certainly did so in October 2019, when he strongly supported deep co-operation as set out in the revised UK-EU political declaration.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord will know from his own experience as a Minister and as a Defence Secretary, and as he rightly articulated, NATO is the cornerstone of our relationship on the defence of Europe and the democratic values that we stand for. We remain committed to and at the centre of that NATO alliance, working with EU colleagues as well as other nations, most notably the United States. I reiterate our commitment to co-operation with our EU allies and others on important issues that currently confront the world.
Sustainable Development Goals
Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
I agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of investing in data. I am afraid I cannot commit to future spending in 2021 at this stage, but I agree that data is key to understanding progress against the SDGs and helping to identify where further action is needed. We will continue our partnership with the UN by ensuring that we provide the best data we can for countries around the world so that they can judge their own progress against the SDGs.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as a consequence of the Courtauld commitments, the Government have a partial strategy at least—one for the delivery of environmental goals in SDG 12. However, progress is slow and not on target for the reduction of food waste or emissions associated with the production and consumption of food, and we have no road map for the delivery of a water security target. The strategy is fine but what is being done to make sure that the goals are kept under proper review and, more importantly, realigned when necessary?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
We are, of course, committed to a sustainable and resilient recovery as we build back better from Covid-19. We look forward to hosting the COP 26 conference next November, where will be able to focus on all the issues that the noble Lord has raised.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lord, on my noble friend’s second point, we are acting in conjunction with our E3 allies to ensure that the JCPOA remains alive and on the table. It prevents Iran becoming a nuclear state, which must be a priority.
My noble friend raises concerns about the IRGC. We share them, particularly regarding Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s case and the challenge that she has been presented with the IRGC. On the efforts that we are making, we continue to work with our US allies and E3 partners to ensure that the current ban that was lifted on arm sales to Iran can also reach a conclusion that satisfies our allies across Europe and in the US.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in April 2019, the Government granted diplomatic protection status to Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe—a very welcome signal that the UK treats the case no longer as a consular matter but as a formal legal dispute between Britain and Iran. Has that change of status been reflected in any change in the Government’s approach to this matter? What difference has it made, if any?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, exercising diplomatic protection to Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s case formally raised it to the level of a state issue. We continue to take further action where we judge that it will help to secure her full and permanent release. For the time being, we welcome the fact that she has been allowed to return home and has not been taken to prison.
Covid-19: Access to Vaccine
Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, we are working closely with the WHO through the ACT accelerator to ensure that we are able to rapidly develop and produce the vaccines as and when they become available.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, although I too commend the Government for joining the COVAX initiative, I note that experts warn that this plan is no guarantee that Covid-19 vaccines will reach the world’s poor. Is the Minister aware that a team of global experts led by Ezekiel J Emanuel, a distinguished medical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, have proposed a new model known as the “fair priority model”? What is the Government’s assessment of this as an alternative plan?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, the funding I spoke of in my original Answer will contribute to the supply of 1 billion doses in 2021 and the vaccination of up to 500 million people. We believe that the right way forward is for the world to come together through the COVAX commitment. On the specific proposal that the noble Lord mentioned, I will have to look at that in detail and come back to him in writing.
LGBT International Rights
Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, the UK is recognised as one of the most progressive countries on LGBT rights and has one of the world’s strongest legislative frameworks to prevent and tackle discrimination. We are fully committed to the principle of non-discrimination on any grounds, including on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that on 27 September, an open letter was released urging the Polish Government to end discrimination against sexual minorities. It was sent by envoys from 50 countries, including the UK, the US, Israel, India and Poland’s EU partners. Many towns in Poland have declared themselves free from LGBT ideology. It is commendable that our ambassador signed the letter, but is that sufficient? Are there any plans for this message to be delivered to the Polish Government at ministerial level?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, our embassy in Warsaw works actively on this agenda with both civil society and the Polish Government, in close co-operation with our diplomatic partners. The noble Lord pointed to the letter that the UK ambassador recently signed. Earlier this year, the embassy hosted an expert round table with Polish businesses and LGBT groups. We fly the rainbow flag annually, and our embassy in Warsaw will continue to work on this important agenda and support the groups that are fighting for equal rights in Poland.