Human Rights: Kashmir
Sarah Owen Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams
We cannot say—this has been said on too many occasions—that this is just a bilateral issue. I will come to that point in a moment.
The last point that was raised is around the discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities. The UN report also noted that the number of armed groups that have been operating across IAK and which were also held responsible for human rights abuses, including kidnappings, killings and sexual violence. The report stated that, despite the Pakistan Government’s denial,
“experts believe that Pakistan’s military continues to support their operations across the Line of Control in Indian-Administered Kashmir.”
The human rights high commissioner made a series of recommendations to both the Indian and Pakistani Governments, and the primary one that covers both is that the rule of law and international human rights must be upheld. Both of these countries are signatories to the universal declaration and they must be upheld.
Specifically, the high commissioner recommended that India repeal the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act 1958 and ensure that the 1978 public safety Act was compliant with international law. It was recommended that Pakistan amend the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, bringing it in line with international human rights standards and safeguards as well as amend the interim constitution of AJK and other legislation that limits the rights of freedom of expression and opinion.
Let us fast forward to July 2019 when a second UN report was published. This was meant to be a progress report, but the high commissioner expressed real concerns that very little progress had been made. It noted that the political and military tensions between them, particularly as a result of the Pulwama attack in February, was having an impact on the human rights of Kashmiris on both sides of the line of control.
On 5 August 2019, as Members will know, after the Bharatiya Janata party’s general election win in India, Prime Minister Modi announced the revocation of article 370 in India’s constitution. The effect was to remove the special status afforded to Jammu and Kashmir since partition. A Bill was rapidly approved by both Houses of Parliament, splitting the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two federal territories, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, with direct rule from Delhi. The revocation of article 370 was also extended to article 35A, which removes the rights of indigenous Kashmiris, and has the potential to alter the distinct demographic character of IAK—a direct contravention of the 2007 UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for bringing this debate to the House. This week, Narendra Modi will be addressing the United Nations General Assembly. Does she agree that it is high time that Narendra Modi is challenged on the breaking of the UN conventions and on the reports of human rights abuses in Kashmir?
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that whenever and wherever there are human rights abuses—in whichever country, including our own—we should hold that country to account. That still needs to happen.
Accompanying the changes to India’s constitution, the Indian Government sent tens of thousands of Indian troops to the Kashmir valley, imposed a strict curfew and blocked all communications. In addition, initially hundreds and then thousands of people, including politicians, were detained. The National Federation of Indian Women claims that 13,000 teenage boys, some as young as 14, were imprisoned for up to 45 days, far away from their families.
During the weeks and months that followed, it was difficult to get accurate information about what was happening in IAK. There was an imposed media blackout and the Indian Government refused to allow independent observers to IAK, other than through those carefully choreographed visits. Despite that, there were reports of food and medicines shortages, and ongoing communication issues, especially for non-business purposes. Concerns were also being raised about the restrictions on access to essential healthcare as a result of the lockdown measures. Children’s education was severely disrupted, with parents afraid to let their children out of their sight. Although some of those detained have been released, thousands still remain in prison. In some cases, their families do not know where they are. On top of this, there are very concerning allegations of torture.
It is in this context that in early 2020 the all-party parliamentary Kashmir group decided that a delegation should try to visit IAK and PAK as early as possible in that year. The Kashmiri diaspora in the UK had raised concerns about family members still in Kashmir, and this is still a real concern for our constituents. Unfortunately, the Indian Government did not respond to the APPG’s request to visit. However, through the Pakistani high commissioner in London, to whom I express my sincere thanks, the Pakistani Government agreed to allow the APPG unfettered access to PAK in February 2020. We said who we wanted to meet and where we wanted to go, and that was followed.
During our delegation’s visit, we met Prime Minister Khan and Foreign Minister Qureshi in Islamabad, the Prime Minister and President of Azad Kashmir in Muzaffarabad, and the Pakistan parliamentary committee on Kashmir. We used those meetings to ask pointed questions—and they were pointed—about the reports in the UN human rights report. At the time of our visit, Prime Minister Khan had just brokered a peace deal with Afghanistan, and that was his focus. He said, “This will allow us a bit more freedom also to look at what is happening on the east of our border.” If only we had known then what we know now.
It is fair to say that the pressure that Pakistan now faces along the Durand line has significantly escalated since our visit. As I said last month when we were recalled, the international community must step up and offer support to Pakistan and other third countries as this new wave of Afghan refugees migrates across the border. I sincerely hope, given that Pakistan has been such a strong advocate for human rights in IAK, that when it is engaging with the Taliban, it also speaks about the human rights of all Afghanis.
As much as the APPG delegates enjoyed meeting parliamentarians, I think we would probably say that we were particularly moved by our visit to a refugee camp in Gulpur, where we heard at first hand about the experience of people who had fled from IAK. The visit to the line of control at Chakoti, where we were briefed by the Pakistan military, made us acutely aware of the tensions at the border, and we were shown video footage of civilians apparently being shot at by the Indian military.
I found the briefings from the British high commission and the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan particularly revealing. UNMOGIP confirmed an extensive military presence in Srinagar and especially in IAK, with armed forces personnel every 30 metres or so contributing to the feelings of harassment and being under siege reported by civilians in IAK—and this was pre-covid. With the advent of the covid pandemic, civic society stakeholders reported a double lockdown with further detentions of large numbers of young IAK men in the spring of 2020, when we were all grappling with our first experience of lockdown. The use of other legislation, including the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Order and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act were further examples of infringements by the Indian Government of international and human rights law.
The attack on human rights organisations such as Amnesty International India is another area of grave concern.
Withdrawal from Afghanistan: Joint Committee
Sarah Owen Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
There have been so many sobering scenes over the last few weeks: families separated, Taliban soldiers ripping through villages, people so desperate to flee that they clung to planes and died falling from the sky. Any situation in which we see a mother hand a baby over barbed wire to a soldier in the vain hope of escape is one that demands the attention of our country, as a responsible member of the international community.
At the last count, 69 people in Luton North had been in touch with me about relations in Afghanistan trying to escape war. We have had a handful back, but no response from the majority. People have called me in tears telling me about Taliban fighters going from door to door and killing their relatives’ neighbours. These cases will stay with me forever—particularly one involving the family in Luton North of an Afghan doctor who had been on the frontline of the former regime’s vaccination programme and women’s rights campaigns, and who is now stranded and terrified for her life. Ministers knew the details of her case, but she was turned away at Baron Hotel. I should be grateful for an update on her case.
Like all other Members, I have received vague stock responses. This simply is not good enough when people’s lives are in danger. The best advice that the Government could give our staff was to manage the expectations of people escaping a war zone, but it should not be left to our caseworkers to manage a response to a crisis of this scale. They needed leadership from the Government, and it never came. Leadership is about taking responsibility, and ultimately the buck stops with the Prime Minister. If he does not want to lead our country during a crisis, he can stand aside for someone who does.
The response from this Government shamefully abandoned British nationals. It abandoned our armed forces and civil servants, and abandoned the most vulnerable people in Afghanistan. Our standing in the world under this Government has already been defined by the decision to cut aid to the most vulnerable people in the world, and by the UK’s continued inaction over human rights atrocities in Russia, Xinjiang, Tigre, Kashmir, Palestine and now Afghanistan. We need a Government who stand proud on the world stage, and do not stand back from our responsibilities as a country.
Official Development Assistance and the British Council
Sarah Owen Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Murrison
One year is temporary; that is the pledge that has been made. I think that is a perfectly reasonable commitment to hold Ministers to. It could be that there is something else around the corner that can be interpreted as force majeure, as set out in the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015, but in the absence of that my belief is that this, as a temporary measure—one year—is acceptable. I do not like it—I loathe it and I accept my responsibility for some of the consequences—but it seems to me to be reasonable.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this temporary cut will have lifelong consequences and life-ending consequences for the people we have it for?
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), although I respectfully disagree on some issues, particularly the focus on polling. On an issue this serious, leadership is about doing what is right not just what is popular. There are political points in my speech, because this is a political issue.
Poverty is a political choice, and cutting aid to the world’s poorest at this time is a very poor political choice. The last Labour Government’s commitment to the world’s poorest is one of our proudest achievements. On this side of the House, we have more that unites us than divides us, and this is something on which we can say we are truly united.
What we have is a divided Government who cannot decide whether charity begins at home or they want to build a global Britain. It is a totally incoherent position. I completely agree that we should be doing more to look after the poorest in our own country, so let us never forget that this is the Government who were so embarrassed by their record of increasing child poverty in our own country that they once tried to abolish its very definition in law.
Those pushing this cut tell us that charity begins at home, so why are they content with over 7,000 children living in poverty in Luton North? If charity really begins at home, why was the Conservative party, during the pandemic, okay with sending a single cheese slice, a few bits of ham and a couple of slices of bread and calling it a week’s worth of food for a child? And if charity really begins at home, why are we allowing as many as 3,500 veterans in Britain today, people who fought for our country, to go without a home? Is that really looking after our own?
Let us never forget what looking after our own has looked like under the Conservatives over the past 11 years. Let us never let the Tories forget that that is their record when they say they want to cut aid to the most vulnerable people in our world.
The Government are not just on morally dangerous ground, they have seriously misjudged the British people on this issue. When people in Luton North, and I am sure in all our constituencies, saw that children were going without food, laptops or school uniforms during the covid crisis, they clubbed together. We do not turn our backs on people in their hour of need. The patronising attitude, frankly, of Ministers cutting aid because they think it is popular in Labour heartlands or goes down well with certain media outlets, is completely mismatched with my experience of people in our country. I see people banding together to raise money and giving to people and causes both in our own communities and when disasters happen on the other side of the world.
I wholeheartedly agree with Gordon Brown when he says that the decision to gut the UK aid budget is a life or death situation for so many people across the world. Our collective aim should be to end the wars, the climate change, the poverty and the tyranny that leave people across the world poorer and in search of safety, but when we see the Government failing on our global commitments, taking a step back and lowering our standing on the world stage, our collective aims grow so much more difficult to achieve. Until we have a Prime Minister with a sense of moral and collective responsibility, and until we have a Government who truly live up to the promise of a global Britain—where we are all proud of taking our obligations and responsibilities seriously and standing tall on the world stage again—the least we can do is give our fair share of international aid.
If we are to end the cycle of dangerous new variants entering this country, we need to provide the support and the vaccines to the world’s most vulnerable. None of us is protected until we all are. That applies not just during the pandemic and to vaccines, but to general health, too: sanitation, safety and education, particularly for women and girls. As a country that wants to stand proud at home and abroad, we have a moral obligation to the world’s poorest. We should leave this global pandemic even more connected and even more committed to seeing every corner of this world safe and thriving, not less.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Owen Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wendy Morton
I know my right hon. Friend has taken a keen interest in this and has been trying to get a question at Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office orals for some time. It is evident that good nutrition underpins education and health outcomes, and adult learning, in developing countries. That was the rationale for the UK playing a lead role on nutrition over the past decade. The prevention and treatment of malnutrition remain key to achieving the Government’s commitment to ending the preventable deaths of mothers, newborns and children. The Department is, of course, beginning a rigorous internal prioritisation process in response to the spending review announcement, and we will update on the implications of that for nutrition as soon as is feasible.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
We are aware of reports that an Indian soldier has been charged after the deaths of three Kashmiri men. We welcome assurances from the Indian Government that their army is committed to ethical conduct, and that disciplinary action will be undertaken in accordance with Indian law where necessary. Where we have concerns about human rights in Kashmir we will continue to raise them with the India and Pakistani Governments.
Sarah Owen [V]
Three young Kashmiris working as labourers were abducted and brutally murdered by an army counter-insurgency officer. Illegal weapons were strapped to their bodies and they were wrongly branded hardcore terrorists. I know the Minister shares my concern that horrific abuses in Kashmir are not new or uncommon, but as our country continues to chart a new course internationally, can he tell us what the Government are actually doing to protect human rights in Kashmir and why the Secretary of State, sat next to him, lacks the courage to speak out against injustices around the world?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady, I know, is very passionate about this area and speaks on behalf of many of her constituents who have an interest in Kashmir. I can assure her that the Foreign Secretary has spoken directly with his counterpart as recently as December on this issue. India and Pakistan are long-standing important friends of the UK. We encourage both to engage in dialogue and find lasting diplomatic solutions to maintain stability in the region. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or act as a mediator; it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution on Kashmir.
Kashmir
Sarah Owen Excerpts(3 years, 3 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
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the political situation in Kashmir.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I will not take interventions, as this is a short debate and I want everybody to have an opportunity to say what they want and need to say.
I am sure we have all caught ourselves at some stage moaning about lockdown, but for the people of Kashmir it is not something new and, unlike here, in Kashmir lockdown is not about safety; it is about control. In our lockdown, we talk about Netflix, FaceTime and Zoom. In Kashmir, it is very different. The lockdown of 2019 shut off entire communities and their communications to the outside world. Around 7 million people have been silenced and cut off. There were families worried about loved ones. Students studying in Luton were unable to get fees paid by parents in Kashmir, as banking ceased. There are curfews to control people lives, not a virus—a lockdown enforced by half a million soldiers.
When Narendra Modi stripped Kashmir of its autonomy and statehood in August 2019, he also cancelled Kashmiris’ rights to land and jobs. Along with the loss of rights came the loss of dreams for so many. It has also laid bare the true motivation for such a removal of freedoms for the entire world to see—see, yet say nothing about, and, in most cases unfortunately, do nothing about as well.
I have attended numerous meetings with people living in Luton and internationally—those who live in Jammu and Kashmir, those who have loved ones there and people who just care about human rights. A person does not and should not have to be Kashmiri to care about their struggle for self-determination—their struggle to live safely and freely. What happens in Kashmir is felt across the world and in communities such as mine in Luton North.
The pandemic has not slowed the reports of human rights abuses. In some cases, it has exacerbated people’s pain. Muslims have reported being turned away from hospitals. That is shocking at the best of times, but especially so during a global pandemic. There are spates of unexplained and uninvestigated killings. The recent killing of two young men and a 16-year-old boy, Athar Mushtaq, must be investigated. Will the Minister join the call for a transparent investigation into their deaths? Will he make that call clear to his relevant international counterparts?
As with all war, sadly, women are the silent casualties. The situation in Kashmir is no different. There are numerous reports of Kashmiri women and girls being raped. Senior officials in the Bharatiya Janata party have put on record their intentions to make Kashmiri women a part of the conflict. The Chief Minister of Haryana said:
“Some people are now saying that as Kashmir is open, brides will be brought from there. But jokes apart, if [the gender] ratio is improved, then there will be a right balance in society”.
That is appalling. I have heard from women in Kashmir who are terrified of being assaulted by the thousands of soldiers on their doorstep. Women fear for their lives and do not feel safe.
We often hear about the UK’s commitment to women’s rights, but will the Minister’s actions match the rhetoric? What guarantees can he give that rape claims in asylum cases from Kashmiri women will be taken seriously by his colleagues at the Home Office, especially after the worrying reports from Women Against Rape that thousands of asylum-seeking women were either disbelieved out of hand or not routinely asked if they had suffered sexual violence in asylum interviews? I sincerely hope that changes.
I want to raise with the Minister an issue not often discussed regarding Kashmir, but which is incredibly important in the world we live in. What are the Government doing to tackle the use of social media sites, in particular WhatsApp, which are used to stoke the flames of division and further weaponise Islamophobia in the region? Online communication is now part of modern-day warfare. We regularly see states and leaders—not just Trump—use online propaganda as part of their arsenal. On the flip side, Kashmiris’ freedom of speech online is suffocated to the point that any criticism of the Indian Government risks terrorism charges. Will the Minister commit to work internationally on online propaganda, fake news, the spread of racism and the measures taken to silence news coming from Kashmir?
The fight for Kashmiris to determine their own future is now decades-long, and that outcome looks further from reality than ever before. I wish we were here to talk about what the future of Kashmir could look like—how its people could rightly shape and be in charge of their own destiny. What would come next? However, given the current political situation in Jammu and Kashmir, it is clear that we are a long way from realising that hope.
Until the people of Kashmir have the most fundamental of all human rights—to live safely and to be free from fear—we must, and we will, continue to stand with the people of Kashmir. I say to Kashmiris, whether in Kashmir or in Luton North, you have not only my solidarity, but my enduring friendship and commitment to keep fighting until your human rights are protected, now and in the future.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
As people can see, there are eight people on the call list wishing to speak. I want to get to the Front-Bench spokespersons by as close to 5.10 pm as possible, so we will start with a limit of five minutes, which will probably have to be reduced. I call James Daly.
Sarah Owen
I thank the Minister for his response. May I ask for a follow-up meeting to discuss some of the issues we did not get to touch on today? An hour is far too short to discuss an issue as complex as Kashmir.
I thank hon. Members for their heartfelt contributions and concerns, which are cross-party, as has been mentioned time and again. That goes to the heart of the point that this is a human rights issue and is not something that divides us politically. If we care about human rights, it does not matter where in the world the human rights abuses are taking place or who is being abused, we have to stand up and stand up loud and proud for those human rights.
On that note, I make a particular mention of freedom of expression. What we are seeing in Kashmir is only a snippet—it is only the surface of what is happening—because of the lack of transparency and the lack of freedom of expression.
Xinjiang: Forced Labour
Sarah Owen Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dominic Raab
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The most important thing that could shift the dial on accountability—and, frankly, have a deterrent effect—would be an authoritative third party being able to go and review, and test the denials of the Chinese Government against the widespread reports that we have seen. I personally think the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is well placed to do that—authoritative, independent, no bias, no partisanship, no political interference. China has rejected that. We need to keep the pressure up for that individual or someone else of a similar level of impartiality, influence and authority.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]
What is happening in Xinjiang is the tragic reality of state-sanctioned Islamophobia. Leaders within the Muslim community in Luton North have expressed to me their horror at seeing this Government stand idly by while these human rights abuses are carried out, including reports of the forced sterilisation of Uyghur women, which is expressly forbidden under article II(d) of the UN convention on genocide.
I have asked before and I ask again: will the UK Government now use, not just talk about, sanctions to address these gross human rights abuses imposed on the Uyghur people?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady may have missed what I said: through the transparency requirements, the fines, the export controls and the four measures I announced today, we are increasing the strength of the targeted measures we are taking. Of course, as other Members have asked, we hold the Magnitsky sanctions in reserve.
Hong Kong: Sentencing of Pro-democracy Activists
Sarah Owen Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. We consistently raise our concerns with the Chinese authorities, and the Hong Kong authorities as well. As I referred to earlier, we have raised our concerns at the UN, where 38 countries joined our statement on 6 October expressing our deep concern about Hong Kong, and we will continue to bring together international partners in that regard to stand up for all Hongkongers.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]
What support is the UK Foreign Office offering to BNO passport holders who have been arrested by Chinese state authorities, and how are consular officials providing advice to BNO passport holders being held in Chinese prisons?
Nigel Adams
As I said in a previous answer, China does not recognise dual citizenship. Therefore, gaining access to provide consular assistance to BNOs is nigh-on impossible.
Hong Kong
Sarah Owen Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for her continued interest in China and her work at the FCO previous to her work in this place. The simple answer is that we cannot submit a case to the ICJ without the consent of China. In my judgment, and I would imagine that of anybody of sound mind, it is very clear that China would not accept that. There is no easy adjudicative route, I am afraid.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]
What progress has the Minister made in identifying the senior Chinese Government officials who have committed serious human rights violations in Hong Kong, and also those who have persecuted Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang? We are not asking for speculation: when will the Government do more than just consider Magnitsky sanctions and actually use them?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. We are deeply concerned about the extrajudicial detention of over 1 million Uyghur Muslims and other minorities in so-called political re-education camps. We have made our case very clear to the Chinese authorities in this regard—that invasive surveillance targeting techniques and suppression of freedom of religion and belief are unacceptable. I am sorry to have to refer to my previous answers in terms of sanctions. We are constantly considering designations under our Magnitsky-style regime, but it would not be helpful to speculate on the names of the people that are being considered at the moment.