Sri Lanka

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House is concerned by reports of increased militarisation and human rights violations in Sri Lanka, particularly during the country’s current economic crisis; calls upon the Government, as a key stakeholder of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), to propose conditionalities on any IMF financial assistance for Sri Lanka during the current economic crisis, including that Sri Lanka carries out a Strategic Defence and Security Review to reduce its military spending and remove the military from engaging in commercial activities, that Sri Lanka meets the criteria required for Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus, and that Sri Lanka re-engages with the United Nations Human Rights Council process and fully implements resolution 30/1; and calls upon the Government to implement targeted sanctions against individuals who are credibly accused of committing war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War.

I begin by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this important debate. I thank in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), as well as the dozens of other colleagues who sponsored the application for this debate. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Tamils and as a Member of Parliament representing thousands of Tamil constituents in Carshalton and Wallington. I thank those constituents who reached out to me to talk more about the situation in Sri Lanka, as well as the various community groups we have heard from in the APPG since the Parliament was reformed in 2019.

It has been more than 13 years since the civil war came to an end, and the origins of that conflict stretch back several decades. It resulted in well over 100,000 deaths from all sides. However, it was the final months of the conflict in 2009 that saw things take a particularly bloody turn for the worse. During that period, the Sri Lankan military deliberately targeted thousands of civilian lives, committing grotesque genocidal acts, war crimes and crimes against humanity, largely against the Tamil population of the island.

The culmination of these atrocities was the Mullivaikkal massacre. In 2009, a strip of land in Mullivaikkal was designated as a so-called no fire zone. These were designated areas where civilians were told to gather to avoid being harmed. However, nothing could have been further from the truth. Sri Lankan Government forces entrapped tens of thousands of civilians in the zone and committed heinous war crimes. After providing an initial death toll of 40,000, the United Nations found evidence suggesting that as many as 70,000 were killed. Local census records indicate that at least 146,679 people are still unaccounted for and are presumed to have been killed. By examining different sources, including the United Nations, census figures and World Bank data, the International Truth and Justice Project has found that the highest estimate of those killed during that final phase could be as large as 169,796. Most of those deaths were as a result of the Sri Lankan Government forces shelling civilian buildings, including hospitals. There were also reports of civilian bunkers being targeted with grenades, people being run over by military vehicles and surrendering civilians being stripped naked and executed.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I commend the hon. Member on his brave and accurate speech. Would he agree with me that all the things he has cited about the bombing of hospitals, the bombing of people on the beach and the targeting of Tamils fits the definition of genocide?

[Elliot Colburn]

I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for that intervention, and I absolutely agree with her. One of the shocking things we have heard—she will know this as a member of the APPG—is that those credibly accused of committing these war crimes have been, have recently been or still are serving at the top level of Sri Lankan society. That is absolutely shocking, but I will come on to some more of that in my speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I thank colleagues from the APPG for Tamils for securing this incredibly important debate. For 13 long years since the end of the Sri Lankan civil war, the road to truth, justice and accountability has presented the Tamil community with so many challenges, so little progress and so much pain. No one who saw the images of the final days of the civil war could possibly forget them. The mass violation of human rights leaves a stain of injustice on Sri Lanka. The world looked away, but today we will not.

The ongoing crisis in Sri Lanka is having a devastating effect, with skyrocketing inflation and shortages of basic essentials such as food and medicine. Close to half the population now live below the poverty line. The UN warns that approximately one third of the population is experiencing food insecurity. This is a crisis in democracy decades in the making.

The world turned away when the Rajapaksa Government cluster-bombed their own people, committed genocide, murdered their journalists and enriched a small group led by one family. Their malign dynastic control stripped the economy bare, leaving behind a broken nation on the brink of economic collapse. The International Crisis Group points to Gotabaya’s authoritarian centralised and non-transparent decision making, describing the Administration as

“surrounded by cronies and oblivious to criticism”

and saying that they

“rejected repeated calls for a course correction as the crisis deepened.”

What should happen now? First, the country agreed a preliminary deal with the IMF in September for a loan of $2.9 billion. An IMF bailout is essential, but does the Minister agree that any financial assistance must go hand in hand with democratic and human rights reforms, in particular for the Tamil community?

Meanwhile, during the current crisis, the Sri Lankan Government have once more shown their brutal face, by aggressively cracking down, under draconian anti-terror legislation, on protesters such as Wasantha Mudalige, convener of the Inter University Students’ Federation, who was arrested at a peaceful protest in August. They agreed with the UN and the EU that they would either change or abolish the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Instead, they are using it in full force, creating unsafe conditions for all political activists, and defenders of human rights and democratic rights.

We should be extremely concerned by the findings of the UN high commissioner on the office on missing persons, which stated that it

“seems to be aimed at reducing the caseload and closing files rather than a comprehensive approach to establish the truth and ensure justice and redress to families.”

[John McDonnell]

There is a tragic irony that some of our constituents have gone out to Sri Lanka to look for the disappeared, and have been disappeared themselves. That is the failure of the whole system to have accountability and to investigate in an effective way.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. For years and years, families have searched for their loved ones. Women have sought their husbands, sons and brothers, and nothing happens. Irrespective of the international community and its demands, nothing happens. Every Tamil family knows someone who is missing. What steps have been taken to address that judgment?

In the most recent UN resolution, to which the UK was a penholder, why was there no recommendation to pursue criminal accountability by referral to the International Criminal Court? I could barely believe my eyes when reading the Government’s reasoning, which cited “insufficient…Security Council support.” Who are we to cast a veto for China or Russia before they have done so themselves? Our role on the international stage must be to send the loudest message that impunity will not be tolerated, not to pre-empt the inaction of other nations.

Finally, why has Britain failed to impose Magnitsky-style sanctions on any Sri Lankan official implicated in human rights abuses or corruption? The Opposition firmly believe that those who have been involved in such crimes should be brought to justice. I hope the Minister will see the strength of cross-party feeling on the issues raised today. I know that the Tamil community in my constituency will be listening carefully to the answers given. Let me finish by thanking them all for their contribution to Mitcham and Morden, and by saying loud and clear that, however long the road to reconciliation may still be, we will keep fighting for justice and human rights until they are achieved.

Sri Lanka

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question) To ask the Foreign Secretary if she will make a statement on the state of emergency declared in Sri Lanka.

[The Minister for Asia and the Middle East (Amanda Milling)]

We are closely monitoring the fast-moving and fluid political, economic and security situation in Sri Lanka. The Minister of State with responsibility for south Asia, Lord Ahmad, has engaged directly with our high commissioner and team on the ground. We encourage all sides to find a peaceful, democratic and inclusive approach to resolving the current political and economic challenges. Sri Lanka’s political and economic challenges should be resolved through an inclusive and cross-party process. Any transition of power should be peaceful, constitutional and democratic. I call on all parties to exercise restraint and refrain from violence.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

A state of emergency has been declared in Sri Lanka by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe after President Rajapaksa fled the country last night. That follows weeks of protests on the island, with inflation running at more than 50%, rocketing the price of everyday goods. The health system is on the verge of collapse due to a lack of medicine. There is no fuel for essential transport services and medical vehicles. There have been power cuts, school closures and we woke this morning to protestors overtaking the Prime Minister’s office, tear gas fired by police, a curfew imposed on the capital and the national TV broadcast suspended.

This is a crisis in democracy decades in the making. The world turned away when the Rajapaksa Government cluster bombed their own people committing genocide, murdered their journalists and enriched a small group led by one family. Their malign, dynastic control has stripped the country bare, leaving behind a broken nation on the brink of economic collapse. Sri Lanka is unable to buy essential goods from abroad and for the first time in its history it failed to make a payment on its foreign debt, a consequence of swingeing populist tax cuts at a time of economic instability—Tory leadership candidates beware.

An International Monetary Fund bailout is essential, but does the Minister agree that any financial assistance must go hand in hand with democratic and human rights reforms, in particular for the Tamil community which continues to fight for truth, justice and accountability as a result of the human rights abuses perpetrated at the end of the civil war by the outgoing Rajapaksa regime?

[Amanda Milling]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. As I say, we have been monitoring this very fast-moving and fluid political, economic and security situation. As she did, we urge a peaceful and democratic transition in line with the constitution and the rule of law. The Minister with responsibility for south Asia has been thoroughly engaged with the team on the ground in the high commission. I stress that he visited Sri Lanka earlier this year and met a range of civil society groups specifically to discuss the human rights situation. At that time, he met Ministers, including the President and the Foreign Minister, and urged them to take steps to improve human rights, and to deliver justice and accountability following the conflict. I reassure the House that we are closely monitoring the situation on the ground, which is very fast moving and fluid.

British and Overseas Judges: Hong Kong

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Huge congratulations to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for all his leadership, time and commitment on this issue, and to all the other Members across the House who have made their views clear and put effort into encouraging the Government to take today’s decision.

I appreciate that it cannot have been easy. Any of us involved in human rights issues across the world are regularly frustrated with the response of the Foreign Office, because of the argument that staying there and arguing the case is better than walking away and standing up. I appreciate that the balance in that argument is a very fine one, but there must come a point at which carrying on in the hope of diplomacy is simply not the right answer.

I have a few simple points to put on the record today. We all know that the presence of overseas judges stretches back to a 1997 agreement, which aimed to maintain Hong Kong’s judiciary’s independence and credibility. However, the circumstances have changed.

The introduction of the Hong Kong national security law has undeniably restricted those rights and freedoms guaranteed to Hong Kong 25 years ago, and the legal system is unquestionably compromised. Now, the Hong Kong Secretary for Justice decides the charges in sensitive national security cases; there is a pre-vetted list of designated national security law judges; the Hong Kong Government decide on the judge; and everything is held closely to account by the pro-Beijing press.

Some people—with the best of intentions, I am sure—argue that overseas judges maintain influence, and that they have some kind of sway. However, in reality they are only able to preside over trials in the Court of Final Appeal, and given that they have no influence over the cases that come before that court, it is unlikely that they would ever have been chosen for a national security law case. In fact, we were still waiting for an overseas judge to participate in a case considered under the law, because the Hong Kong Chief Executive and National Security Commission were able to hand-pick them.

I am glad that the Government have agreed that the overseas judges’ presence on the grounds of influence was erroneous at best. The simple fact is that as long as overseas judges continued to serve in Hong Kong, they would have been providing unwitting support for the Chinese Government’s crushing of the city’s democracies, rights and freedoms. That is not just the view of the Members here today, or of the Government; Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, herself noted that foreign judges have helped

“maintain a high degree of confidence”

in Hong Kong’s legal system.

I am glad that the British Government share my concerns. After all, they have already introduced the new visa route for British nationals overseas, extended the arms embargo for exports to China to include Hong Kong, and suspended the UK’s extradition treaty with Hong Kong indefinitely. The concern was always apparent. However, when we consider the changes since those measures, the reality is that the situation in Hong Kong has not improved. The Chinese Government continue their clampdown on freedoms in the city, so the question had to be asked as to the difference made by continued support lent to the judicial system.

I recognise that there are difficult decisions to be made here. In theory, the question is whether it is better to be in the room or watching from outside. However, the longer we remained inside, the clearer it became that the ability to influence was close to redundant, and that our presence instead provided a veneer of legitimacy to a judicial system that had long since lost its democratic legitimacy.

I am glad that the Government have made their decision today. I hope that they will go further—that they listen to the amendment suggested by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green on procuring items for the NHS, and extend the number of people to be sanctioned for their involvement in the genocide of the Uyghurs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend will understand why I will not go into specific details of that case. I can assure him that in our bilateral relationships with Pakistan and other countries where we are aid donors, we also ensure that we use that relationship to promote the values not just of tolerance but of protection of religious freedom. That is as true in Pakistan as it is in other areas, and it is an issue that my noble Friend Lord Ahmed raises bilaterally.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

What more evidence does the Foreign Secretary need to take sanctions against General Silva, the chief of the defence in Sri Lanka, to follow the American Government in those sanctions for war crimes?

[Amanda Milling]

We have regularly engaged with the United States and other partners on issues relating to Sri Lanka. The UK Government keep all evidence and potential designations under the UK global human rights sanctions regime under close review, guided by the objectives of the sanctions regime. We would not normally speculate about future sanctions targets, as to do so would reduce their impact.

Uyghur Tribunal Judgment

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I am honoured to follow the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) and her powerful opening of this very important debate.

China has committed genocide against the Uyghur people in Xinjiang. That was the definitive conclusion of the Uyghur Tribunal in London. It is a definition that Governments around the world, including our own, have been nervous to arrive at. The right hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), when he was a Minister at the Foreign Office, wrote to me about human rights in China. He outlined that the Government recognised internment camps with more than 1 million Uyghurs, acknowledged reports of forced labour, and noted human rights violations, and so what did he propose? More research. Well, the research is in and the findings of the tribunal are loud and clear. I ask the Minister, does she unequivocally accept the tribunal’s findings of genocide? Does she consider Uyghurs to be at serious risk of genocide, or will the Government hide behind the international ramifications of this definition? A cowardly country would use that linguistic excuse. Shame on us if we choose that path. The Chinese Government’s actions must be stated for what they are: an apparatus of control and a systematic and calculated programme of ethnic cleansing against the Uyghur people. We can no longer say that we did not know. We need to ask ourselves: what does it mean to be complicit?

As a member of the Treasury Committee, I am particularly interested in the role played by financial institutions. Let us take HSBC, for example, a bank headquartered and registered in the UK. Last week, it came to light that it had purchased shares in Xinjiang Tianli, a plastic manufacturer owned by the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps. It is a Chinese-backed, state paramilitary organisation that has been subject to US Government sanctions for its role in perpetrating atrocities in the Uyghur region, and yet the UK has no legislation to prohibit HSBC and other UK firms from investing in organisations perpetrating human rights abuses in the Uyghur region. I urge the Government to draw up a blacklist of entities identified as perpetrating atrocities in the Uyghur region and to bar UK firms from investing in them. We simply cannot allow our financial institutions to bankroll these atrocities.

Although the responsibility to act must come from the top, I say to anybody watching this debate: “Do you have an HSBC account? Think about where your money is invested. What about your pension?” Last year, more than 100 MPs joined me in writing directly to the chairman and trustees of our pension fund, calling on them to divest from Chinese companies accused of complicity in gross human rights violations. We were relieved to receive confirmation that the fund is no longer invested in the Blackrock iShares emerging markets index fund, but similar concerns were shared by our staff and their scheme with Legal and General. They have taken it on themselves to secure a meeting with the institution next week to discuss how their contributions are being invested. I know that there is particular concern about investments in iFlytek, a company blacklisted in the USA for its involvement in the mass incarceration of more than 1 million Uyghur Muslims.

It is the responsibility of all of us to ask the same difficult questions. Meanwhile, I am waiting for answers from Amazon following accusations of its relationship with Chinese genomics giant, BGI Group. Last March, Amazon disclosed that it was using a modification of BGI’s covid-19 testing kit that would initially be used for its employee testing programme. Its partnership with the BGI Group comes despite a report published by the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence in the United States that concluded that the BGI Group may be serving as a,

“global collection mechanism for Chinese government genetic databases.”

Amazon can hardly say that it did not know that because Andy Jassy, its chief executive, was serving on the commission at the time.

Whether through multinational financial institutions such as HSBC, global organisations such as Amazon, or lucrative pension fund investments, we have a shared responsibility to ensure that we are not complicit in genocide. Above all, that requires the Government to treat the findings of the Uyghur Tribunal with the severity that they deserve and require.

I thank other hon. Members for their courage in speaking out, in particular the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for her unwavering voice. I say to the Minister, if we look on, history will condemn our unforgivable cowardice and ask why those in power did not act, because this time, no one can say that they did not know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Milling]

I will come to the UN shortly. The statement we secured in October demonstrated the breadth of international concern, with fresh support from Turkey, a member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, as well as Eswatini and Liberia. Through the UN statements, we have pressed China to allow urgent and unfettered access to Xinjiang for independent observers, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In recent national statements, we welcomed the high commissioner’s plans to publish an assessment of the available information on Xinjiang. I assure Members that the UK will continue to play a significant role in holding China to account for its gross human rights violations there.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Will the Minister give way?

[Amanda Milling]

No; we have had a long debate and I would like the opportunity to respond to it.

To monitor the evolving situation, we funded research reports from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and the Rights Practice, a non-governmental organisation, on how China is implementing repressive policies on Xinjiang. Those reports are credible and compelling and will inform future action. We will continue to fund future research.

The Uyghur diaspora also play a crucial role in our understanding the situation. We regularly speak to members of that community to inform policies and ensure that Uyghur voices are heard. Members expressed concern about reports of Uyghurs in the UK being harassed by Chinese authorities. We have repeatedly made it plain that that is unacceptable and have raised our concerns with the embassy.

Human Rights: Xinjiang

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on her tireless and unwavering support of the Uyghur and her courageous refusal to be silenced, a sentiment that is of course extended to all those who have spoken out, even at their own personal cost.

How could we stay silent when the world is presented with such overwhelming evidence of gross human rights abuses? Nobody can turn a blind eye. There are accusations of torture, the forced abortion of babies, the sterilisation of women and the removal of their wombs. This must be stated for what it is: a genocide of the Uyghurs is happening before our eyes. Recent reports reveal the inhuman actions of Chinese Government officials in visiting the family members of those who have fled the region and then video-calling them from a relative’s phone threatening punishment for their family. It is persecution, it is manipulation and it is a horrifying 21st-century oppression. If we look on, history will condemn our unforgivable cowardice and ask why those in power did not act.

Last year, over 130 Members across the House joined me in expressing our horror in a letter directly to the Chinese ambassador. The embassy’s reply is truly chilling, stating that we have been “misled by lies of the century, cooked up by anti-China forces”. We are even warned: “It is hoped that UK parliamentarians will see Xinjiang’s development achievement from a comprehensive and objective manner. Do not spread or believe lies and do not take Xinjiang issues as an excuse to interfere in Chinese internal affairs.” Interfere? The flagrant denial of oppression in Xinjiang is almost as terrifying as the rare image or video that filters out. The Chinese Government’s actions must be stated for what they are—an apparatus of control with a systematic and calculated programme of ethnic cleansing against the Uyghur people.

So outraged was I at the embassy’s reply that I shared it directly with the Minister, but his response was just astonishing. He said that he recognised that there were internment camps with over 1 million Uyghurs. He acknowledged reports of forced labour. He noted human rights violations, so he proposed: more research. I say to the Minister that condemning the world’s next superpower is easy. Taking action is much harder.

The Foreign Secretary said in January that we should not be doing trade deals with countries committing human rights abuses

“well below the level of genocide”—

yet by rejecting the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill, the Government have done everything they can to protect the UK right to do deals with potentially genocidal states. Can the Minister explain this rank hypocrisy? Why have only four Chinese officials been sanctioned? Why has the Modern Slavery Act not been strengthened to ensure that UK business supply chains do not include workers subject to forced labour in Xinjiang? And why are we not calling this what it is: a genocide? Is it because he knows the international ramifications of arriving at that definition? A cowardly country could hide behind the linguistic excuse. Shame on us if we choose that path, because this time, no one can say that we did not know.

Sri Lanka

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes with concern the reports of a systematic attack in Sri Lanka on democratic governance, the rule of law and human rights including renewed discrimination against the Tamil and Muslim communities; is profoundly concerned that the Sri Lankan Government has refused to investigate accusations of war crimes including by key members of the current government and has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1; welcomes the significant leadership role played by successive UK Governments at the Human Rights Council and urges the Government to provide clear policy direction and leadership to ensure a new substantive resolution is passed at the upcoming Council session in March 2021 that will enable continued monitoring by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and mandate a mechanism to gather, preserve and analyse evidence of violations for future investigations and prosecutions; and calls upon the Government to develop a consistent and coherent policy to assist the Sri Lankan people through its trade, investment and aid programmes, and in its diplomatic and military relations.

I begin by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for approving this debate and the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for co-sponsoring it. I proudly declare my interest as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Tamils. For 12 long years since the end of the Sri Lankan civil war, I have stood alongside my Tamil constituents on the road to truth, justice and accountability. Those 12 years have presented them with so many challenges, so little progress and so much pain. The images of the final days of the civil war are scarred on my memory. No one who saw them could possibly forget them, and the mass violation of human rights left a stain of injustice on Sri Lanka. The world looked away, but today we will not.

I shall introduce today’s debate by running through a decade-long quest for justice. I will continue with the last UN Human Rights Council resolution on Sri Lanka—a resolution that the country itself disappointingly withdrew from—and I will finish by highlighting the urgent need to strengthen the new resolution on the table in Geneva, because the measure of success for global Britain comes not just in rhetoric but in the actions that we take on the international stage, particularly in the face of international justice.

But first, the history. In 2009, in the final few months of Sri Lanka’s civil war, tens of thousands of civilians lost their lives. We all remember the horror of the Mullivaikkal massacre, the most recent peak of genocidal killings against the Tamil people committed by the Sri Lankan state. The current Prime Minister, Mahinda Rajapaksa, was President and his brother Gotabaya, the current President, was Defence Secretary. They are the present-day link to the atrocities of the past. The bombing of the Government-designated no-fire zone, where Tamil civilians took refuge, is as utterly horrifying today as it was 12 years ago, as are the findings of experts that Government forces even systematically shelled hospitals.

Amnesty International estimates that, since the 1980s, there have been at least 60,000 and as many as 100,000 cases of enforced disappearance in Sri Lanka, the vast majority from the Tamil community. These figures illustrate the scale of the suffering, the uncertainty surrounding the facts and the urgent need for resolution. Members will have heard of the horror of rape, torture and murder used during the civil war, the stories of the mass violation of women’s rights—stories that brought the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women to urge investigations into sexual violence. They are stories we could never forget, but, to this day, no one has been held accountable for international crimes that have led many to accuse the Sri Lankan Government of genocide against the Tamil community.

The pursuit of justice must now move decisively forward with more sincerity from the international community. The Human Rights Council meeting happening now provides the perfect opportunity. Before turning to today’s resolution, it is important to consider the resolution that came before. Passed in 2015, with the consensus of Sri Lanka, it promised the establishment of a process of justice, accountability, reform and reconciliation, but six years on, Sri Lanka has made it clear that it has absolutely no intention of pursuing prosecutions or legal redress for war crimes. Its withdrawal from the process altogether could not have spelled this out more clearly. The little progress made has been rolled right back. The ongoing Human Rights Council meeting is our chance to finally secure progress, making it clear that a country cannot fail to fulfil international commitments. To do so risks undermining the credibility of the council as a mechanism of accountability.

I turn to the current resolution, to which the UK is a penholder. Disappointingly, it falls short. First, there is no recommendation to pursue criminal accountability by referral to the International Criminal Court. I could barely believe my eyes reading the Government’s reasoning, citing “insufficient…Security Council support”. Who are we to cast the veto for China or Russia before they have done so themselves? Our role on the international stage must be to send the loudest message that impunity will not be tolerated, not to pre-empt the inaction of other nations.

Secondly, there is a clear need for an international, impartial and independent mechanism to investigate the most serious international crimes. The Minister may point to resolution operative paragraph 6, but can he confirm whether preparation of files to facilitate criminal proceedings will be carried out in accordance with international criminal law standards? The resolution must be absolutely clear about the requirement to establish a IIIM to investigate allegations of war crimes, secure evidence, identify perpetrators and prosecute those responsible. The High Commissioner for Human Rights should continue to monitor and report on human rights in Sri Lanka, providing recommendations to ensure justice for victims and accountability for perpetrators. To rely, as the Foreign Office argues, on the Sri Lankan Government to investigate and prosecute all allegations of gross human rights violations is simply unrealistic, falling far short of our moral responsibility.

Thirdly, why have we not applied sanctions against those credibly accused of gross human rights violations? The US has designated General Silva and his immediate family over his role in extrajudicial killing of Tamils. It is an immediate step that we could take and the Minister cannot point to a veto as an excuse for our inaction. We must ensure a coherent approach to aid, trade and diplomatic and military engagement with Sri Lanka, consistent with the international obligations to human rights. That is long overdue.

Let me turn to the present day. Human rights are under attack in Sri Lanka again, with President Rajapaksa waging a campaign of war. Many of those who face serious wartime abuse allegations have been appointed to senior Government positions. Members of the Rajapaksa family hold nine ministerial roles, including seven Cabinet posts, and manage almost a quarter of the budget. It is total control. President Rajapaksa even pardoned one of the few members of the security forces to be convicted of human rights violations, Sergeant Sunil Ratnayake. That was unsurprising, given his stated determination to protect so-called war heroes during the presidential campaign.

The intimidation is perhaps best demonstrated by the demolition of the Mullivaikkal memorial at Jaffna University in January. That same month, the damning report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights warned that Sri Lanka was on an

“alarming path towards recurrence of grave human rights violations”,

and called on the UN Human Rights Council to take strong action to promote accountability and reconciliation.

This is not just about the human rights of Tamils: the Rajapaksa Government even insisted on the forced cremation of those who died from coronavirus, thereby disregarding the religious beliefs of the Christian and Muslim communities in the country. The ongoing attack on human rights is undeniable. As we are a penholder to the UN resolution, the world will watch closely the strength of our response.

I look around the Chamber and, unless I am mistaken, I cannot see the Foreign Secretary. Perhaps I should not be surprised; he repeatedly declined to meet the APPG for Tamils in the build-up to the UN Human Rights Council meeting. I ask the Minister, with all due respect: where is the Foreign Secretary? The Foreign Secretary under the Labour Government personally flew to Sri Lanka at the end of the civil war to press for a ceasefire. The Foreign Secretary’s absence not only today but in the months leading up to the Human Rights Council meeting will be felt strongly by the Tamil community.

Before I conclude, let me turn to the Tamil community. There are half a million Tamils throughout the UK. They are a hard-working, respectful and dedicated community who have my utmost respect. We owe a debt of thanks to the huge number of Tamils who are working tirelessly on the frontline of our NHS. I sincerely thank them and say loud and clear that however long the road to reconciliation may still be, we will keep fighting for justice and human rights until they are achieved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I thank all the hon. and right hon. Members from across the House who have taken part in this debate. Their commitment to the minority community of a small island is very much appreciated, but their interest is because of the hard work of the members of the Tamil community. They simply cannot forget the relatives they no longer have, the relatives who they have no idea where they are, the relatives who were bombed in hospitals and the relatives who were left on beaches having lost their limbs by a Government now led by the same men who did that to members of their family.

This debate is about the credibility of the British Government in taking seriously the loss and distress of a community in this country—half a million who work hard, do their best and contribute greatly to our nation. Are we serious about representing them, or do we believe that Governments who have powerful friends should be allowed to behave as they like?

I suggest that the Government of Sri Lanka only understand very firm action. To rely on that Government to seek out those who committed the atrocities or to take action is simply a fool’s errand, and it has to stop. We have to seriously mean that we will help the Tamils in this country to find their relatives, to know what happened, and to allow their relatives to live in a community where they are able to vote, to take part and to believe that their views are taken seriously.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes with concern the reports of a systematic attack in Sri Lanka on democratic governance, the rule of law and human rights including renewed discrimination against the Tamil and Muslim communities; is profoundly concerned that the Sri Lankan Government has refused to investigate accusations of war crimes including by key members of the current government and has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1; welcomes the significant leadership role played by successive UK Governments at the Human Rights Council and urges the Government to provide clear policy direction and leadership to ensure a new substantive resolution is passed at the upcoming Council session in March 2021 that will enable continued monitoring by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and mandate a mechanism to gather, preserve and analyse evidence of violations for future investigations and prosecutions; and calls upon the Government to develop a consistent and coherent policy to assist the Sri Lankan people through its trade, investment and aid programmes, and in its diplomatic and military relations.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We will suspend very briefly for the cleaning of the Dispatch Boxes.

Hong Kong: Electoral Reforms

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend raises a very good point. This is a real opportunity for the United Kingdom to raise important matters, as we have the presidency of the G7. It is absolutely crucial that China understands the breadth of international concern regarding its actions not just in Xinjiang but in Hong Kong, and we are taking a leading role in that regard. I referred to the number of countries that have supported our statements at the UN General Assembly Third Committee rising from 23 to 39, and that does send a very powerful message to China.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Does the Minister share my assessment that it is inappropriate for UK-based financial institutions, such as HSBC, to have corporate sponsorship in the UK, given their public support for the national security law and the freezing of Ted Hui’s and his family’s bank accounts? Does he agree that this support undermines the UK Government’s attempts to hold the Chinese Government to account?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Lady raises two important point. I met Ted Hui recently, in February, and we are in close contact with a wide range of businesses in Hong Kong, but it is important that businesses themselves make their own judgment calls. Businesses, including HSBC in Hong Kong, have to do that. They need to be able to stand by each decision they make publicly. We have made a historic commitment to the people of Hong Kong to protect their autonomy and their freedom and, importantly, so did China when it signed the Sino-British joint declaration.

Persecution of Ahmadis

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)]

I am an Ahmadi—an Ahmadi Muslim. Ahmadis are a peace-loving community, whose motto is “Love for all, hatred for none”. At the core of Islam is a belief that the only true way to serve the Lord is to serve and love his creation. It is for this reason that Ahmadis devote themselves to serving the cause of justice and humanity everywhere. Sadly, however, the Ahmadiyya Muslim community is an object of hate and suffers vicious persecution around the world. The epicentre of this hatred is Pakistan.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

In the light of what the hon. Member has just said, is he aware that, only yesterday, another Ahmadi—Dr Tahir Ahmad—was murdered in Lahore, Pakistan by a teenager? Does he regard it as frightening that the most radicalised and anti-Ahmadi of the community in Pakistan tend to be the young?

[Imran Ahmad Khan]

I thank the hon. Lady. The tragic news of Dr Tahir and his murder was on Friday evening. A gunman came to their home and shot at him and his family. He sadly died immediately. His father, I understand, is still in a critical condition, fighting for his life. Other members of the family sustained gunshot injuries. I understand they are believed to be making it through. But this is simply a sad testament to the environment of hate and intolerance that is being preached in Pakistan.

This is what I was saying: the Ahmadiyya Muslim community is an object of hate and suffers vicious persecution around the world, but the epicentre of this hatred is Pakistan, where Ahmadis are the only religious community to be targeted by the state on the basis of their faith.

China’s Policy on its Uyghur Population

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Gray. I defer to the great knowledge of Members in this room. My own interest and involvement in the plight of the Uyghurs come from watching the Andrew Marr interview with the Chinese ambassador in July. The flagrant denial of oppression in Xinjiang was almost as terrifying as the images and videos that accompanied the interview on screen: row after row of men blindfolded with their heads shaven, waiting to be loaded on to trains. The images were so shocking that they play on one’s mind for days and weeks, and even now. The similarities, as so many have said, between that video and historic footage of Nazi concentration camps are truly chilling. All of us rightly remember and reflect on the sickening and frightening ways in which humans treat one another, and we pledge that it must never happen again. Now that the world is presented with such overwhelming evidence of gross human rights abuses, nobody can turn a blind eye.

Some 141 parliamentarians, including some Members in this debate, joined me in publicly expressing absolute condemnation of such oppression in an open letter to the ambassador after his interview. More than a month on, we have still not received a reply. In the meantime, shocking testimony and frightening reports have filled our in-boxes and our screens, each more terrifying than the last. There are accusations of torture, the forced abortion of babies, the sterilisation of women and the removal of their wombs. A genocide of the Uyghurs is happening before our eyes.

The Minister knows how important the word “genocide” is in international law. He might even be under strict instructions not to use that word here today, but he will know how unlikely it is that the world will arrive at a definition, given the countries that sit in the United Nations and the veto that they hold. A cowardly country could hide behind the linguistic excuse. Shame on us if we choose that path, because the Chinese Government’s actions must be stated as what they are: a systematic and calculated programme of ethnic cleansing against the Uyghur people.

An independent tribunal is under way, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC. Government endorsement of the findings, whatever they may be, is surely the moral and necessary action to take. Organising and leading an international tribunal would be even stronger. No one could leave this debate anything other than horrified at the situation in Xinjiang. Condemning the world’s next superpower is easy. Taking action is much harder. If we look on, history will condemn our unforgivable cowardice and ask why those in power did not act. This is a heavy burden for the Minister, but he is the person in the chair in a position of influence. Warm words are simply not enough because this time no one can say that they did not know.