US Immigration Policy
Stephen Pound Excerpts(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I am sure that, as a man of catholic literary tastes, the Foreign Secretary will be as familiar with that great book “The Art of the Deal” as I am. In the book, Mr Trump says that a good negotiating position is to start with something so utterly outrageous that it will incite fury throughout the world, and then move to something that may initially seem outrageous, but by comparison appears almost reasonable. As a responsible Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman will have analysed possible future actions by the President. What conclusions has he drawn?
Boris Johnson
I think the conclusion that anybody looking at the President’s electoral rhetoric and what he is in fact doing will draw is that his bark is considerably worse than his bite. I think we have every opportunity to do a very good deal with him on all sorts of things, not least free trade.
Daesh: Genocide of Minorities
Stephen Pound Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I was particularly struck by the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). If we do appoint a global envoy, may I suggest that my right hon. Friend’s name be put forward? He held a similar position under Tony Blair, and I can think of no one better qualified. Much praise has already been given to the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and we should place on record the fact that in the short time she has been in the House, she has won for herself a reputation for great courage and determination as a defender of the weak, the poor and the defenceless. She has earned a great reputation, and she has done an enormous amount of good on these matters. She is ably followed by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in that regard. It is an honour to be speaking in a debate instigated by the hon. Lady. I am also glad to see two of the more humane Government Ministers on the Treasury Bench today. I am confident that they will respond in a way that reflects the emotion that is being felt right across the Chamber.
The hon. Member for Congleton listed the litany of horrors that we have heard, both last night and on so many other occasions. It seems almost otiose to repeat them, but I shall recount one chilling and almost unbelievably brutal incident. A group of captured young men were lined up and made to strip to the waist and hold their arms up. Those who had no hair under their arms were considered young enough to be taken away, indoctrinated and turned into bombers or jihadists; those who showed signs of puberty or maturity were shot. The fact that anyone can act with such callous, utter brutality in this day and age is almost beyond belief. The fact that they do it in the name of a religion, the name of which means peace, is absolutely unforgivable, impossible to contemplate and utterly inexcusable.
To anyone out there who thinks that this ghastly, nihilist death cult can in any way triumph, may I say what a pleasure it is to see the Palmyra arch being erected in Trafalgar Square as a physical demonstration of our commitment? Daesh can crush, destroy, kill, rape or maim, but it will never, ever win. It will not be allowed to win, because if it does, darkness will descend on the earth and we will be in a terrifying place.
The motion is extremely well crafted and beautifully phrased—I do not want to heap overmuch praise on the hon. Member for Congleton, because she is already embarrassed—and using the definition within it is incredibly important. We are quite rightly concentrating on the horrific circumstances of the Yazidis, but let us not forget that Daesh has probably killed more Muslims than people from any other religious or ethnic group. It does not in any way defend or protect its co-religionists; it slaughters indiscriminately.
Robert Flello
I gently take my hon. Friend to task for saying “indiscriminately”. Daesh does kill indiscriminately when it comes to some groups, but it absolutely discriminates when it comes to Christians and Yazidis, because it wants to exterminate them and completely eradicate them from the world.
Stephen Pound
My hon. Friend quite correctly takes me to task. I meant that Daesh’s slaughter was universal, but it does of course target some groups specifically.
At least one hon. Member present has been with me to northern Iraq, actually broken bread with members of the Assyrian Christian community, and seen the lives that they lived. Their lives were always difficult, but they were able to live and practise their faith in something approaching peace, even under the dark days of Saddam Hussein. To see those people now being hunted down, specifically discriminated against and slaughtered on the grounds of their faith is utterly chilling and terrifying. Is it not extraordinary how many of them refuse to recant or recuse, and how many say, “This is our faith”? In some cases, they die for that faith. That is extraordinary and testament to the courage that still exists. As for a specific genocide, the Jewish people are also being destroyed. The magnificent, huge Jewish community in Iraq that did so much for the country is being specifically hunted down and destroyed. We must never forget that whole groups of people are suffering.
This comes down to the word “genocide”. I have had so many debates on the Floor of the House about the Armenian genocide of 1915. I call it genocide, but I appreciate that the House chooses not to call the massacre of nearly 2 million Armenians a genocide because the word was not promulgated until 1948. In reality, however, we know it was genocide. To deny that recognition through the use of the word to a group of people who suffered that way is a double discrimination. It is a double death, in many ways. Let us call this what it is: this is genocide, and Daesh must not be allowed to triumph and win.
What can we do in this House? We must of course make the reference to the United Nations, but I want to speak beyond this House for a moment. We are not in a hermetically sealed bubble here; we are the sounding board of the nation. People are watching us and listening to us, and it is possible that somewhere in the dark places of our cities and towns there are people who are tempted by this death cult. There may be people who, as an excuse for their own inadequacies or some compensation for their failures, like the idea that they can go and die gloriously for this twisted philosophy. I want to speak to those outside this Chamber for a second. If anyone watching thinks that the great religion of Islam is calling them to go and slaughter children or unborn babies, to rape, to loot or to murder, read the holy Koran, the hadiths and the surahs. They will not find those words in the holy book. If anyone out there huddled away in darkness actually feels tempted for a moment to leave this country, their city, or our community to go and kill before they die, please think. They have the gift of life at the present time. Hold that gift of life. It is too precious to throw away, as are the lives of others; their lives matter just as much.
Why are Christians, Muslims, Assyrian Christians, the Shabak, and Jews being persecuted in this way? What have they done to bring this Armageddon down on their heads? They have not in any way threatened forced conversions on people who subscribe to the ISIS-Daesh philosophy. This is a war of aggression that must be described by the one word—the only word—that describes it today: genocide. This House must speak to not just fellow legislators or the United Nations, but all those out there who are thinking about the issue, and who may be even remotely tempted to move into an area so dark, deep and desperate that only the worst and most serious word, one which describes the ultimate crime, accurately describes the full horror of what is happening to communities in Syria and Iraq. We all know what that word is. Let us be united in this House, and hopefully outside, and say that what is happening is genocide, and has to be recognised as such.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I am proud to be a signatory to the motion, which was so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), to whom tributes have rightly been paid. I would also like to pay tribute to those Members of the other place who have made an enormous contribution to this battle. They include the noble Lord Alton, my noble Friend Lord Forsyth, Baroness Cox, Baroness Nicholson and many others. This is a big campaign across both Houses of Parliament on behalf of the British people, as the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) said.
The question that we have to decide today is whether Daesh could, as it were, be convicted by us of committing genocide. The United States thinks that it could be so convicted; that is the verdict of Congress and of Secretary of State Kerry. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), also takes that view, although his view has been tempered by his reference to the need for us to present evidence to the United Nations in order for prosecutions to take place. My view is that this debate, following the one that took place in the other place on 3 February, shows that the case that Daesh has been engaged in genocide has been made.
We have heard some powerful testimonies today. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) captivated the House with her speech. The hon. Member for Ealing North also provided the house with evidence. I nearly called him my hon. Friend; we are in fact very good friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) set out the legal conditions that apply under the 1948 convention, and it cannot be the case that none of those five conditions has been met. It seems to me that they have been met in full.
Sir Gerald Howarth
That is a very good question. I have not had the privilege of meeting the people that so many hon. Members across the Floor of the House have met, but I have been extremely moved by the testimonies that have been recounted today. I do not see how any normal person listening to our debate could possibly come to any conclusion other than that this was genocide and is genocide to this day, and that Christians, Yazidis and others are being wiped out. As many hon. Members have said, those actions are intentional. They are not a by-product of some other policy. The intention is to wipe them out.
I want to be brief, so I will conclude by saying that there are three powerful reasons for taking action and why the Government should listen. First, we are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, so let us refer this matter to ourselves. That should not be too difficult. We have an important role in the UN that we should fulfil. Secondly, to the great tragedy of this nation, our fellow citizens are unfortunately involved and are steeped in blood. They are complicit in this genocide. We therefore have a locus. Thirdly, we are a Christian country. Fellow Christians are being persecuted. We cannot, as my noble Friend Lord Forsyth said in the other place,
“pass by on the other side.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 March 2016; Vol. 769, c. 2157.]
We owe it to them to take action. As we will be reminding ourselves tomorrow, our sovereign is also the supreme governor of the Church of England. This is a part of our country.
I want to finish by referring to the words of my constituent Major General Tim Cross, who said when giving evidence in the other place recently:
“There can be no doubt that genocide is being carried out on Yazidi and Christian communities—and the West/international community’s failure to recognise what is happening will be to our collective shame in years to come”.
I hope that the Government will listen to the collective words of this House and the other place and act on the behalf of the British people against the appalling genocide of our fellow Christians and so many others.
Tamils Rights: Sri Lanka
Stephen Pound Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Tamil people’s rights in Sri Lanka.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I am particularly grateful that we have the opportunity to debate human rights in Sri Lanka in the same week that the UN Human Rights Council begins considering the same subject in its 30th session in Geneva. In the closing stages of the Sri Lankan civil war, 400,000 Tamil civilians were on the run as Government forces advanced and overrun the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam: the LTTE, or Tamil Tiger forces.
On 21 January 2009, the Sri Lankan Government announced the creation of a so-called no-fire zone: an area of 35 square kilometres where the fleeing civilians could take refuge. Many civilians fled to the no-fire zone expecting safety. Instead, that no-fire zone was heavily and systematically shelled by the Government. It is beyond sensible dispute that thousands of civilians were killed in that no-fire zone.
The UN was also operating in the no-fire zone. UN field workers ran a food distribution hub there. When an area nearby came under shelling from heavy ordnance, the UN field workers provided their GPS co-ordinates to the Government to ensure that ordnance was redirected. Three to four hours later, they came under a barrage of heavy mortar attack at those co-ordinates. There is clear evidence for this. The evidence is not from the Tamil Tigers, nor even from Tamil civilians, but from United Nations field workers. They themselves were there in the no-fire zone.
By early February 2009, the Government had overrun the first no-fire zone and created a second one on a beach in the east of the island. This no-fire zone was also heavily and systematically shelled by Government forces. In the second no-fire zone, which contained hundreds of thousands of Tamil civilians living in makeshift tents, there were just six doctors. Those doctors were working in the most horrific, dangerous and squalid conditions, yet they were denied basic supplies such as antibiotics and blood by the Government. It is estimated that the locations in which the doctors operated from, which included an abandoned school, were shelled some 65 times. Indeed, the attacks were so consistent that the doctors asked the International Committee of the Red Cross not to provide their GPS co-ordinates to the Government: something that is standard practice to avoid medical facilities being bombed in times of war. I have heard direct evidence about this from one of the doctors who was working bravely in that makeshift medical centre.
I should add that the Sri Lankan Government forces by no means had the monopoly on human rights abuses at the end of the war in Sri Lanka. Tamil civilians were also subjected to a variety of horrors at the hands of the LTTE, including being used as human shields. However, it is important that the two are not conflated. The all-party group for Tamils, which I chair and of which various Members from different parties are here today, is concerned with Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka and in the non-resident community, which includes many of our constituents, many of whom suffered terribly. We have no truck with the LTTE, which is a terrorist organisation that I condemn absolutely. Equally, we have no truck with those who label the people who stand up for Tamil rights in Sri Lanka as LTTE sympathisers.
With that caveat, I should add that there is compelling evidence that the laws of war and international human rights laws were breached with respect to LTTE—or suspected LTTE—captives after their surrender. There is evidence that LTTE members holding white flags of surrender were none the less shot by Government forces. There is clear evidence that female Tamil captives were sexually abused before being shot, and there is clear evidence in the form of sickening video footage of Government soldiers shooting Tamils—presumably LTTE fighters—in the head while they were on their knees, blindfolded, with their hands tied behind their backs. The comparison with the gruesome footage of executions released by the barbaric Daesh in Syria is obvious.
The UN has estimated that in the closing stages of the civil war between January and May 2009, some 40,000 civilians died. Most of those were Tamil. Although that period was not the beginning nor the end of the human rights abuses suffered by people from all sides of the conflict in Sri Lanka, it is justice for the human rights abuses in that period that we are primarily concerned with today.
In response to the Sri Lankan Government’s abject failure to secure accountability for the deaths, on 22 June 2010, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed a UN panel of experts to consider alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law during the final stages of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka. The panel reported on 31 March 2011. In its excoriating report, which I will quote from briefly, it lay blame on both sides. Its executive summary stated:
“The Panel’s determination of credible allegations reveals a very different version of the final stages of the war than that maintained to this day by the Government...The Government says it pursued a ‘humanitarian rescue operation’ with...‘zero civilian casualties.’ In stark contrast, the Panel found credible allegations, which if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law was committed both by the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. Indeed, the conduct of the war represented a grave assault on the entire regime of international law designed to protect individual dignity during both war and peace."
Instead of engaging with the UN report in a meaningful or sensible way, the Sri Lankan Government arrogantly rejected it, describing it as “fundamentally flawed” and “patently biased”. Sri Lanka did nothing to address the alleged human rights abuses at the end of the war. Not a single prosecution was instigated. It is reasonable to surmise that the Sri Lankan Government hoped that the international community would turn the other way.
But the United Kingdom did not look the other way. In November 2013, the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting convened in Sri Lanka. Some of the heads of state who were invited, such as Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, chose to boycott the meeting in protest at the Sri Lankan Government’s record on human rights. Our Prime Minister, who was urged not to attend, did attend to encourage progress on human rights. Away from the Government’s stage-managed photo opportunities, our Prime Minister bravely used the opportunity to visit the north and to hear at first hand the harrowing accounts from Tamil civilians.
Plainly moved by those accounts, and Sri Lanka’s ongoing and abject failure to investigate human rights abuses, the Prime Minister used the March 2014 session of the UN Human Rights Council to call for a full and independent investigation into human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. I am proud that Britain led the calls for an independent investigation. I am proud that David Cameron and his allies at the UNHRC delivered a resolution requiring an independent investigation. It should not be forgotten that this was not an easy sell on the council. In fact, of the 47 members, only 23 countries voted positively for the resolution; 12 abstained and 12 voted against.
Welcoming the resolution, our Prime Minister said:
“This is a victory for the people of Sri Lanka who need to know the truth about what happened during those terrible years of the civil war so that they can move forward. Today’s outcome has been triggered by the failure of the Sri Lankan government to stand by its promises to credibly and independently investigate alleged violations on both sides during the war."
On Monday, the UNHRC met for its 30th session in Geneva. At the end of the session on 30 September, the council will consider the UN’s report, which is expected to be published tomorrow, and what the next steps should be with respect to Sri Lanka. I believe my right hon. Friend the Minister returned from Geneva yesterday. In this debate, I would like to ask the Government to consider two things: first, the grave doubts of many Tamil people about the fairness of any domestic justice mechanism, and secondly, whether the UN Human Rights Council can be used as an opportunity for pressure to be put on the Sri Lankan Government to take action in a wider respect in the north and the east.
As for the accountability mechanism, the Sri Lankan Government have in the past and continue to this day to reject absolutely an international mechanism for determining human rights abuses of the form that we saw in Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Cambodia post-conflict. When there are serious allegations on both sides of a conflict of an international human rights nature, the Government’s reasons for rejecting an international mechanism should be scrutinised most closely.
To be clear, many Tamils reject a domestic mechanism. That is the point of view of the Tamil National Alliance, which has just won 16 parliamentary seats in the August elections; it is the view of the Chief Minister of the Northern Province, which is predominantly Tamil; and it is the view of the British Tamils Forum and of the Global Tamil Forum, which the BTF is part of. Put simply, they do not see any difference between the conditions in 2014, which led to the UNHRC’s resolution for an international investigation over a domestic one, and those that exist today.
There are three principal objections to a domestic tribunal. First, how can the victims of alleged horrendous human rights abuses have any confidence in the fairness or the impartiality of a tribunal convened by a Government comprised of a number of the people accused of those very abuses?
The easy answer to that question would be that in January 2015 a new President— President Sirisena—was elected, which heralds a new era. But as human rights groups have pointed out, President Sirisena is the same man who was the acting Defence Minister in the final days of the civil war, when most civilian casualties occurred. And many people in top-ranking Government, military and other state positions remain the same. General Fonseka, the Commander of Armed Forces at the end of the civil war, was recently promoted to the rank of field marshal. Major General Jagath Dias, commander of the 57th division, whose units stand accused of committing some of the worst human rights abuses at the end of the civil war, was promoted to Army Chief of Staff just this May.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this most timely and extremely relevant debate. Bearing in mind the rather unfortunate history of other countries intervening in Sri Lanka, be they Scandinavian countries or India, who does he suggest should be the agency behind the independent commission to examine what is undoubtedly a series of incidents that could be described by any impartial person as war crimes?
James Berry
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The form of the mechanism will obviously be debated at the UNHRC and in my view it will be led by the United Nations, and will be under their guidance.
James Berry
Yes.
For the reasons I just mentioned, it is small wonder that many Tamil people have little faith in the Government to convene a fair and impartial justice mechanism.
The second objection to a domestic inquiry is that Sri Lanka is not a signatory to the Rome statute; its domestic laws do not cover a number of the international laws that were breached by both sides, credible evidence of which is found in the 2011 UN report. So, as a bare minimum for a domestic mechanism, Sri Lanka’s domestic laws must cover each and every law that was breached; again, the UN has found credible evidence for those breaches in its new report, which is due to be issued tomorrow.
The third objection to a domestic inquiry is the lack of confidence of witnesses to come forward. A number of the witnesses who the UN spoke to, both when it prepared its new report and when it prepared its report in 2011, only spoke to it on condition of strict anonymity. Many Tamil victims of and witnesses to human rights abuses have fled the country and been granted asylum in countries such as the UK and Canada because of the fate they suffered in Sri Lanka. They would fear returning to Sri Lanka to participate in a tribunal where the prosecutors and indeed the witness protection, if there was any, were to be provided by the Sri Lankan Government.
Moreover, international human rights groups and charities have recently published reports detailing worrying ongoing human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. A number of these groups and charities exist in the UK. Freedom from Torture, a British charity, produced a report in August that cited evidence of human rights abuses since the ceasefire. So, between May 2009 and this year, there is evidence that the Sri Lankan military, police and intelligence services have practised torture, including rape and extensive burning. So, what confidence can witnesses have in coming forward in a perceived climate of fear, especially when it is believed that witnesses who have come forward previously have suffered as a result?
I recognise that there appears to be little appetite among the UNHRC members at its current summit for a fully independent justice mechanism. That is obviously disappointing, but perhaps it is unsurprising given how tight the vote was back in 2014 for an independent investigation. If it really is the case that there is no international appetite for an independent inquiry, it is probably right that there is little to be gained by Britain going out on a limb. Nevertheless, I ask the Minister to do what he can to ensure that the justice mechanism is a robust one, preferably with UN involvement both in the prosecution and the judicial tribunal.