UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Foreign Affairs

  • Theresa Villiers – 2022 Speech on Sri Lanka

    Theresa Villiers – 2022 Speech on Sri Lanka

    The speech made by Theresa Villiers, the Conservative MP for Chipping Barnet, in the House of Commons on 9 November 2022.

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing this debate and for his powerful opening speech, and it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), who also contributed effectively and powerfully to this debate. I thank, too, the Backbench Business Committee for making the debate possible.

    I would like to declare an interest: I am vice-chair of the all-party group on Tamils. Members of the British Tamil community have supported me in many ways, including in assistance with fundraising and making it possible for me to visit the UN in Geneva to make the case for justice for Tamils in Sri Lanka.

    Many thousands of Tamils died in the closing months of the terrible civil war, and many are still unaccounted for. The descriptions we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington were truly harrowing. No matter how often one is told about these appalling episodes of gender-based violence and other sorts of violence, it is still deeply disturbing to hear about them happening in the modern era in a Commonwealth country.

    Margaret Ferrier

    I am deeply concerned about the lack of progress on women’s rights in Sri Lanka: girls can still be married from as young as 12 and women remain second-class citizens, which should not be the case in the modern world. Does the right hon. Lady agree that women need further support in Sri Lanka and this must be our focal point?

    Theresa Villiers

    I do agree. It is a development priority for the UK Government to support the empowerment of women and girls around the world. I hope that Ministers will raise these matters with their counterparts in Sri Lanka.

    Families of the disappeared have been protesting for more than 2,000 days, demanding to know what happened to their missing loved ones. The establishment of the Office on Missing Persons looked like such a positive step forward—tangible progress following UNHRC resolutions—but the depressing reality is the OMP has not been able to trace a single person on its list of over 6,000 cases, nor has it clarified the fate of the disappeared in any meaningful way. Such was the conclusion of UN Human Rights commissioner Bachelet. She is also clear that the human rights situation in Sri Lanka is deteriorating. It is not just Tamils who suffer as a result; Muslims have also been targeted, as have Sinhala people who have joined some of the widespread protests about economic failure.

    So let no one think that the great questions we are debating today here in the mother of Parliaments are only about legacy, important though they are. The oppressive security apparatus of the Sri Lankan state is still being used to exert control over the country’s citizens. People are still arrested and detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, despite the promise made by the Sri Lankan Government in resolution 30/1 seven years ago to repeal it. The military remains entrenched in economic activities across the north and east; it retains control of swathes of land confiscated from Tamils, and senior military figures still hold prominent positions in Government, some of them appointed only in recent years. It is, frankly, astonishing that spending on the armed forces is greater today than at the height of the conflict, outstripping the combined total of the health and education budgets. This must have contributed to the debt crisis in Sri Lanka. In short, the Rajapaksa regime wrecked the economy and, as yet, there seems little visible progress under its successor. So, as Members have already acknowledged, there is a deep crisis in both economic and human rights terms.

    In his response to the debate, I hope the Minister will commit the Government to the following actions: first, that they will push strongly in the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva for the Sri Lankan Government to meet the obligations that they undertook in resolution 30/1, and which the Human Rights Council reiterated recently in resolution 51/1. The UK Government have a good record of being the penholder in that process and making a real difference, but they must keep up the pressure in the light of a deteriorating situation. Secondly, in the light of continued failure to bring war criminals to justice, progress must be made on an international mechanism to deliver accountability at last. This issue cannot wait any longer.

    Thirdly, the Government must impose sanctions on those figures credibly implicated in war crimes and human rights abuses, as has been the case in countries such as the United States. Fourthly, they must find a way to ensure that any bailout from international institutions be accompanied by rigorous efforts to root out cronyism and corruption in Sri Lanka, and cut the irrationally large military spending budget. Finally, the UK Government must advocate for a new constitutional settlement in Sri Lanka that delivers power sharing and political equality, to meet the legitimate aspirations of the Tamil people to have a real say in how they are governed.

    Sri Lanka has a tragic past, as shown by the film “Continuing Cycles of Violence and Genocide in Sri Lanka”. The film was created by members of the British Tamil community and screened here in Parliament at an event I hosted for the British Tamils Forum in July. It is truly shocking to see the recurrent pattern of violence and injustice directed towards Tamils over many decades. However, there are grounds for hope. Recent protests saw people from diverse backgrounds, faiths and ethnicities coming together to demand change and a better future for all Sri Lankans. Let us all in this House and in this Government play our part in helping them reach that historic goal.

  • Elliot Colburn – 2022 Speech on Sri Lanka

    Elliot Colburn – 2022 Speech on Sri Lanka

    The speech made by Elliot Colburn, the Conservative MP for Carshalton and Wallington, in the House of Commons on 9 November 2022.

    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.

    Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)

    I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for securing this important debate, because many of my constituents are extremely concerned about the safety and wellbeing of their loved ones, given the reports of increased militarisation and human rights violations, particularly when the country is going through a severe economic crisis. Does he agree that, as friends of Sri Lanka, we all have a duty to stand by that country in its time of need and impress upon its new Government the need to promote peace, justice and a brighter future for all, regardless of people’s background, colour or creed?

    Elliot Colburn

    I absolutely agree. I am very glad that the Government have decided to support the motion today, so that we can get to work on bringing everyone back around the table, because we have seen so little progress on implementing UN resolutions so far. There is a lot of hopelessness out there, particularly among the Tamil community, that any progress will be made. We need to get on top of this and use our position as a friend of Sri Lanka to do just that. I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention.

    If I may, I will talk a little bit more about some of the violence and atrocities used during the end of the conflict. Rape and sexual violence against Tamil women and, in some reports, against Tamil men during the final stages of the armed conflict and in its aftermath are also considered to be greatly under-reported. That is according to an investigation by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights into Sri Lanka. Several witnesses have spoken about women being taken away towards the jungle by soldiers, allegedly for sexual abuse, as they crossed over into Government-controlled territory.

    An investigation by Human Rights Watch reported on one woman’s experience. She said:

    “The army made us strip completely in front of the children. All the women were made to walk around the soldiers in a circle. The soldiers were laughing at us. All the women were then raped in front of everyone. My daughter and I were raped in front of her children. I was raped in front of my grandchildren. After about two hours, the soldiers asked a naked boy and girl, who didn’t know each other, to hug each other at gunpoint. As they hugged due to fear, they were shot in front of our eyes.”

    These atrocities did not take place during a medieval skirmish hundreds of years ago; they took place in a Commonwealth country in 2009. Many of my constituents and those of other Members in this place have suffered to this day because of the crimes that they saw or were subjected to. The physical and mental scars are still there. Thirteen years later, these families are still waiting for peace, justice, truth and accountability.

    I am pleased that last month the UN Human Rights Council adopted resolution 51/L1 on Sri Lanka, which will extend and reinforce the capacity of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to collect, consolidate, analyse and preserve evidence that may be used in future war crimes trials. The Sri Lankan Government have rejected this resolution, as they have previously, instead claiming confidence in their domestic mechanisms, which 13 years on from the end of the war are yet to produce any results for the victims of the atrocities. The new resolution certainly is a step in the right direction to achieving justice and accountability, but—with respect—we have had resolutions before. International action at the Human Rights Council on its own is not enough. The resolution falls short of providing a mechanism to truly investigate war crimes and pursue criminal accountability.

    Specific resources need to be raised to build cases against those who are accused of war crimes and to prosecute them. Criminal accountability should be pursued by referral to the International Criminal Court. Those who commit war crimes should not enjoy immunity because the state in question is unwilling or unable to prosecute them. Furthermore, the UK should follow other allies around the world, particularly the United States, in introducing a targeted sanctions regime for those who are credibly accused of committing war crimes and human rights abuses in Sri Lanka.

    That should include notable Sri Lankan individuals, such as Shavendra Silva, a current army commander. General Silva stands credibly accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity during the final phases of the conflict. The accused war criminal was head of the notorious 58 Division during the conflict. In his experience as a commander, he oversaw the unit committing grave violations of international law. Under his command, hospitals were repeatedly bombed and widespread sexual violence occurred, as well as the torture and executions of surrendering Tamils. Eyewitnesses also demonstrated that he was present at the Wadduvakkal bridge, where, according to the available evidence, he oversaw hundreds of surrendering Tamil military and political leaders and their families being subjected to summary execution and arbitrary detention, as well as enforced disappearance.

    Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)

    I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. The implementation of vague laws to facilitate arbitrary arrests and the restriction of movement on citizens is something we see in countries with poor human rights records. Such laws in Sri Lanka make it much harder for those wrongly arrested to challenge detention. Does he share my concern that access to justice is being actively hindered, which leaves activists at too great a risk?

    Elliot Colburn

    I am grateful for that intervention. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member, but I would add an extra layer to that. The difficulty in Sri Lanka is not just that people are being held on false pretences and false charges, but that a gravely high number of people are still missing. We do not know where they are or where they are being held, so we cannot help them. If they are still alive, there is no way to help them. That is the grave situation that islanders are facing at the moment.

    The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights recommended that states, including the UK, sanction Silva and other alleged perpetrators in Sri Lanka, as the United States did in 2020. Another individual worth noting is Kamal Gunaratne, who is the current Defence Secretary in Sri Lanka. In February 2009, he led the final assault from the south on the beaches at Mullivaikkal as the 53 Division commander. The assault involved repeated attacks on civilian hospitals, makeshift hospitals and food distribution points, and resulted in tens of thousands of civilian casualties. He was also in charge of displaced persons while hundreds of thousands of civilians were held in arbitrary detention after the end of the war, and he was commander of the Joseph army camp, which was notorious for torture.

    By sanctioning those two individuals and many others, the UK Government would support UN and US action in demonstrating that alleged perpetrators of mass atrocities are not welcome in the UK. Members of the APPG for Tamils have raised this issue multiple times in the Chamber, as well as privately and through other channels with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, so I hope that the Minister will today provide an encouraging update on the Government’s position regarding the sanctioning of individuals credibly accused of war crimes.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this debate. I am minded of the fact that although the officers give the commands, the soldiers who carry them out are also accountable. When it comes to having their time in court, which we hope they will, does he agree that it is important to do everything to catch those soldiers as well? The generals can be caught, because they are big names, but the soldiers need to know that they cannot get away with it either.

    Elliot Colburn

    I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I hope that the UK sees that the new resolution passed by the UN Human Rights Council about collecting evidence should indeed include the specific soldiers who committed those atrocities as well.

    The past atrocities that occurred in Sri Lanka are only one of the reasons we are having this debate. The second part of the motion is about the current economic and political instability there. The country is suffering its worst economic crisis since gaining independence in 1948. It defaulted on $51 billion of external debt in mid-April and is in talks with the International Monetary Fund for a $2.9 billion bailout.

    Due to a shortage of hard currency to pay for imports, there have been shortages of basic necessities, including medicines, cooking gas, fuel and food, so 3.4 million people are now in need of urgent humanitarian help on the island. UN agencies working in Sri Lanka announced yesterday that they had raised $79 million to feed those in need, but the increasing number of those in need means that another estimated $70 million is needed.

    In July, the new President imposed a state of emergency after his predecessor fled the country and resigned from his post following massive anti-Government protests about the Government’s mishandling of the economy, which threw the country into further instability. The FCDO updated its travel advice over the summer to advise against all but essential travel to the island, due to the political and economic instability. The causes of Sri Lanka’s financial crisis are multifaceted.

    Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)

    Does my hon. Friend share my concern that military spending in Sri Lanka is higher now than it was at the height of the civil war? Surely that expenditure is contributing to the debt crisis that the country is facing.

    Elliot Colburn

    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention; she has been a doughty champion in this place for the Tamil population for many years and I thank her for lending her expertise to this debate. I hope to come on to that point later.

    The failure to include Tamils in economic activity, a large defence budget that supports a disproportionately large military—as my right hon. Friend mentioned—corruption and, of course, poor fiscal policies have led Sri Lanka’s economy to the brink of bankruptcy. For Sri Lanka to be rescued, it needs to reduce its military spending, which stands at $1.86 billion per annum. That makes it one of the largest militaries in the world and costs more than its health and education budgets combined.

    The militarisation of the country is also firmly linked to the deteriorating human rights situation on the island. The Prevention of Terrorism Act has been used to target predominately Muslim and Tamil communities, resulting in arbitrary detention, sexual torture and enforced disappearances. In fact, Sri Lanka has the second highest number of UN-registered enforced disappearances in the world, most of whom are Tamils.

    Furthermore, the Sri Lankan military is engaged in commercial activities in the north-east, including tourism, farming and fishing, which stifles the local economy and prevents Tamils from contributing to economic activity in any meaningful way. That needs to be stopped to allow for regional economic regeneration. Sri Lanka also needs to conduct a strategic defence and security review, similar to the one that the UK completed in 2021, to ensure that its military size reflects its security requirements.

    All of Sri Lanka’s projections for emerging out of the economic crisis are predicated on the country retaining its generalised scheme of preferences and trade concession. That annual trade concession is worth more than $500 million and has boosted Sri Lanka’s exports to EU member states over the years. However, Sri Lanka has failed to meet the key labour and human rights requirements for receiving that preferential treatment, and the EU recently issued a warning that it is set to lose its concession if it continues to ignore its obligations.

    Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing the debate and raising such important matters. Does he agree that it is vital for the UK Government to demonstrate support for Sri Lanka’s fair and just development through our trade policy with Sri Lanka and how we secure our trade agreements?

    Elliot Colburn

    The hon. Member has taken my next words out of my mouth, so I am grateful for that intervention. For Sri Lanka to meet those requirements, it needs to re-engage with the UNHRC and address human rights abuses past and present. Sri Lanka is seeking its third IMF bail-out since the end of the war in 2009. Bail-out conditions set by the IMF in the past have focused on economic reform alone, and have not prevented Sri Lanka from sliding into yet another balance of payments crisis. To elevate the country out of the cyclical crisis it finds itself in, it is vital that the measures taken this time around are comprehensive and address some of the root causes of the issues that it faces.

    As a key stakeholder at the IMF, the UK Government should propose conditions on any IMF financial assistance for Sri Lanka during the current economic crisis, including that Sri Lanka should carry out a strategic defence and security review to reduce its military spending, remove the military from engaging in commercial activities, meet the criteria for GSP+, and re-engage with the UNHRC process. I appreciate that the IMF does not have powers to impose such conditions on its own, but the UK, as penholder, can have significant influence in the discussions before any bail-out is agreed.

    John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)

    One issue that we consistently raise, in addition to human rights abuses, is the level of corruption in Sri Lanka. One way we have been able to expose and tackle that corruption is through elements of the excellent media in Sri Lanka, but over the past 12 months—over a longer period too, but intensively over the past 12 months—we have seen harassment of journalists and the closure of the free media that exists. One condition that should be attached to any form of aid that goes into Sri Lanka—or any relationship that we have in the future—is that corruption is tackled as a result of a free media unharassed by Government.

    Elliot Colburn

    I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member’s point about the importance of a free press. What he describes is having an effect beyond the borders of the island. A prominent Tamil news outlet, the Tamil Guardian, has been repeatedly engaged in battles with social media companies about its content. Because of the investigations that have been taking place, the Sri Lankan Government are actively trying to force action by social media companies worldwide. In the UK, the Tamil Guardian has had its content taken offline because of complaints from the Sri Lankan state. That cannot be right.

    I am conscious that I have been speaking for quite a while, so I will bring my remarks to a close so that we can hear from other Back Benchers—

    Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) rose—

    Elliot Colburn

    First, though, I gladly give way.

    Ed Davey

    The hon. Gentleman is making a speech with which I totally agree. I just want to check something, because it is really helpful that we have all-party agreement on this. For all the reasons he set out, does he not agree that we need to review the generalised system of preferences that are given to Sri Lanka? It is not meeting the conditions that it is supposed to meet. It is time, I think, to withdraw those preferences.

    Elliot Colburn

    I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, we have set out in our motion—I am glad that it will pass unopposed—that that is what the UK Government should be doing.

    I look forward to hearing from the Minister what engagement the FCDO has had with the IMF and the UNHRC on this matter. The human rights and economic situation in Sri Lanka is increasingly deteriorating. I hope that I have demonstrated succinctly why the UK needs to show international leadership on these issues, not just for our constituents who are still affected by the events that have taken place—and continue to take place—on the island, but to fulfil our international responsibility to a Commonwealth partner in dire need. I look forward to hearing Members’ contributions to the debate.

    Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)

    I thank all those involved in securing the debate. I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the all-party group for Tamils.

    It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, not least to represent my constituents in Kingston and Surbiton from the Tamil community. They have been appalled, as we all have, by the devastating economic situation that has unfolded in Sri Lanka over the past year or so. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) said, that was a direct result of the economic mismanagement and corruption of the Sri Lankan Government. Their unfunded tax cuts and huge defence spending are all related to the appalling crisis that is hitting Sri Lankans from all communities.

    However, I want to focus on the impact on the Tamil community. There are an estimated 5 million Tamils in Sri Lanka today, and they have endured the recent economic crisis after a whole series of what can only be described as acts of oppression—indeed, in many cases, genocide—from the civil war to the poor treatment they face now. With human rights abuses, abuse of the free press and abuse of the judiciary, the Sri Lankan state continues to target Tamils in some of the most unfair ways imaginable.

    I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members have constituents who have come from Sri Lanka who can testify personally to the abuses they have faced at the hands of the Sri Lankan police and military and security forces. Given that we know that from people who are now our own citizens and can bear witness to it in the way that the hon. Gentleman spoke about, this country has a duty. We have, more or less, a pretty good history of defending human rights around the world, and we must continue that by standing up for Sri Lankan Tamils.

    I want in particular to focus on the generalised scheme of preferences in relation to trade. I am delighted that that point appears in the motion, and I really hope that the Minister will respond to it. It is an area that I have looked at in some detail. As a trade Minister between 2010 and 2012, I led a campaign at the EU to prevent Sri Lanka from being awarded what the EU calls GSP+ trade benefits. The evidence that I looked at showed overwhelmingly that Sri Lana was in blatant breach of most of the conditions that it was supposed to have met to be given those benefits, in particular with regard to various human rights conventions. I am pleased to report that, back then, the UK was successful in stopping the Colombo Government getting those valuable rights.

    Regrettably, in 2015 and 2016, the UK Government strongly supported the position of other EU member states and, together, they granted those trade benefits to Sri Lanka. It worried me at the time, looking in from outside—I was temporarily not in the House—that there was no debate about the fact that Sri Lanka was still clearly in breach of the framework of conditions around GSP+. That was not taken into account and was not highlighted in debate.

    When I have engaged on this issue, not just in this country but at the EU, I have heard officials say that the argument for giving Sri Lanka those benefits is that it enables the EU and the UK to exercise some influence—that, due to the existence of the trade benefits, they can monitor whether the Sri Lankan Government are abiding by the conditions or making progress towards meeting them. I have never found that argument terribly convincing, but it is very convenient. People say, “We know they’re in breach, but they’re going to make some progress, so we’ll forget the conditions existed.” That is not good enough.

    Let us give some credit and imagine that international monitors, from either the UK or the EU, were in Sri Lanka and engaging. Is there any evidence that that influence has resulted in any change in the Sri Lankan Government’s performance in respect of those conditions? I am afraid that, once again, the overwhelming evidence is that it has not. The Sri Lankan Government just continue as before; in fact, if anything, the situation has deteriorated. I am afraid that the argument that is sometimes made—“It’s okay, let’s have these conditions. We have a relationship; we can use that”—is just not working. We can only conclude that Sri Lanka has to be stripped of these trade benefits.

    Some might argue that there is an economic crisis and it is the wrong time to do that. I am not against IMF support as long as it has real conditions, whether on human rights or with respect to the Sri Lankan Government agreeing to an independent mechanism of accountability for their actions, as we have all argued for—perhaps media rights could be included in the list of conditions, too—but I just think that, on GSP+, we have to send a real signal. Until they properly implement the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution, we cannot continue as we have been since 2015-16.

    It might be argued that we should go further, and I think we should. The draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act that the Sri Lankan Government have implemented, and enforced primarily against Tamils and Muslim Sri Lankans, must be repealed. The Minister might not have heard this or been briefed on it, but I hear reports that the Sri Lankan Government are thinking of repealing the Act but of replacing it with a system based on the Chinese system of managing these issues. That would be a backward step as the Chinese influence in Colombo increases, and it would not help the Tamils whatever.

    The Government must move beyond words; we need some real actions, such as those outlined in the motion. I have written to both the Foreign Affairs Committee and the International Trade Committee; it is time for a joint inquiry in this Parliament into the interaction between the UK’s foreign policy and our international trade. If we have learned anything from the last year, particularly from Sri Lanka but more broadly as well, it is that these two areas must be joined up given the challenging geopolitical situation now facing us. We could helpfully debate many other countries in this regard, but that would be outwith the scope of the debate.

    Specifically on Sri Lanka, we must consider the whole series of foreign policy tools. The Magnitsky sanctions regime must be applied, with their full force applying to people such as the Rajapaksa brothers; there is a lot of evidence in the international community from what remains of the free press in Sri Lanka of corruption and their having implemented shocking policies on the country, and that they were responsible for overseeing the heinous atrocities and war crimes, particularly in 2009. The case for acting is made stronger because some of our closest allies have already acted: the United States of America has not been as squeamish as the UK Government, and we do have to move.

    For me, what the UK Government have done at the UNHRC is a case of the glass being half empty. Resolution 51/1 was welcome, but it was not tough enough. The Minister might say that in the negotiations in Geneva words had to change in order to bring more people on board to support it. The UK was the penholder, however, and can the Minister enlighten the House about the diplomatic arguments: why was the resolution so weak? In such debates in the chambers of the UN, we have to stand up for what we believe in, and a very strong case can be made on Sri Lanka: we can have tougher resolutions, and they need to be tougher.

    I hope the UK Government will go further and will work through the UN for those stronger mechanisms. We should be promoting the case for Sri Lanka’s Government to be taken to the International Criminal Court. I welcomed the new Prime Minister’s commitment a week ago that his Government support the ICC; sometimes his predecessors seemed to wobble on that, so I was pleased he made that commitment. But we must move beyond words, and instead campaign to use the International Criminal Court proactively against war criminals such as the Rajapaksa brothers.

    I look forward to hearing other Members’ contributions. It is very good that we have come together to talk to our Government, and I hope the Government will hear that there is impatience in all quarters for stronger action given what is happening in Sri Lanka and what has happened for years now. We must flex our muscles on this.

  • Elliot Colburn – 2022 Question on Human Rights in Sri Lanka

    Elliot Colburn – 2022 Question on Human Rights in Sri Lanka

    The question asked by Elliot Colburn, the Conservative MP for Carshalton and Wallington, in the House of Commons on 8 November 2022.

  • David Rutley – 2022 Statement on British Embassy in Israel Relocation to Jerusalem

    David Rutley – 2022 Statement on British Embassy in Israel Relocation to Jerusalem

    The statement made by David Rutley, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development, in the House of Commons on 8 November 2022.

    There are no plans to move the UK embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv. Israel is a close friend and a key strategic partner, built on decades of co-operation. We will continue to strengthen our relationship with Israel through our embassy in Tel Aviv.

  • David Lammy – 2022 Question on the Government’s Strategy for China

    David Lammy – 2022 Question on the Government’s Strategy for China

    The question asked by David Lammy, the Labour MP for Tottenham, in the House of Commons on 8 November 2022.

  • Alexander Stafford – 2022 Question on the British National Overseas Visa Scheme

    Alexander Stafford – 2022 Question on the British National Overseas Visa Scheme

    The question asked by Alexander Stafford, the Conservative MP for Rother Valley, in the House of Commons on 8 November 2022.

    What assessment he has made of the impact of the British national overseas visa scheme on diplomatic relations with China. (902107)

    The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)

    We warmly welcome all those who have taken up the BNO visa route. This route is about our relationship with Hong Kong and its people. The BNO visa scheme was introduced in response to China’s breaches of the Sino-British joint declaration, including its imposition of the national security law, which has been used to undermine rights and freedoms in Hong Kong.

    Alexander Stafford

    I deeply commend the Government on implementing the impressive, tailor-made British national overseas visa and standing up for the Hongkongers in the face of growing repression from Beijing. British nationals overseas are Britons, and it is important that we defend them at home and abroad. In the light of the recent assault on a Hongkonger inside the Chinese consulate in Manchester and the increasing harassment of Hongkongers by the Chinese state all over the world, will my right hon. Friend commit to protecting the British Hongkongers?

    Anne-Marie Trevelyan

    We are steadfast in our support of the Hong Kong BNO community. Those who choose to live their lives in the UK should enjoy the same freedoms that are afforded to any nationality. As British nationals, BNO passport holders are entitled to consulate assistance from our diplomatic posts overseas.

  • Nigel Farage – 2022 Comments on Republican Disappointment at Mid-Terms

    Nigel Farage – 2022 Comments on Republican Disappointment at Mid-Terms

    The comments made by Nigel Farage, the former UKIP leader, on Twitter on 9 November 2022.

    Tonight is a disappointment for the Republican Party. The polls were wrong and the red wave is a ripple. Massive early voting has changed American politics.

  • Kate Osamor – 2022 Question on Situation on Flood Relief in Nigeria

    Kate Osamor – 2022 Question on Situation on Flood Relief in Nigeria

    The question asked by Kate Osamor, the Labour MP for Edmonton, in the House of Commons on 8 November 2022.

    What steps he is taking to support flood relief efforts in Nigeria.

    The Minister for Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)

    Nigeria is one of the world’s most vulnerable countries to climate change, and it is experiencing the worst floods in a decade. The UK is providing support through the multi-donor Start fund, which has allocated £580,000 so far this rainy season. That funding is supporting 26,288 people affected by flooding. We will continue to help Nigeria make progress towards long-term climate change adaptation and resilience.

    Kate Osamor

    I welcome the Minister to his place. The floods in Nigeria have already left more than 1 million people displaced, 200,000 homes destroyed and, sadly, 600 people dead. In the wake of those floods, cholera cases are skyrocketing in some areas, due to a lack of access to clean water. Will the Minister assure me that the Government will be focusing aid to help ensure access to water and sanitation, and prevent the death toll from rising further?

    Mr Mitchell

    I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and her question. Over the past five years, Britain has provided £425 million of humanitarian support, which has specifically reached more than 2 million people in north-east Nigeria, including individuals affected by the flooding. I give her a commitment that, working with Nigerian agencies, we will seek to strengthen flood risk management. Prior to COP26 we supported Nigeria’s national adaptation work to help cope with climate change.

  • Rishi Sunak – 2022 Comments on Benjamin Netanyahu Winning Election in Israel

    Rishi Sunak – 2022 Comments on Benjamin Netanyahu Winning Election in Israel

    The comments made by Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, on 7 November 2022.

    On behalf of the UK, I would like to congratulate Benjamin Netanyahu on his victory in the Israeli elections. Across areas like trade, security and technology there is a huge amount our countries do together and I look forward to working with the returning Prime Minister.

  • Iain Duncan Smith – 2002 Speech to the Royal Institute for International Affairs

    Iain Duncan Smith – 2002 Speech to the Royal Institute for International Affairs

    The speech made by Iain Duncan Smith, the then Leader of the Opposition, on 31 January 2002.

    For more than three-quarters of a century, British and foreign politicians alike have been beating a path to the doors of Chatham House in order to set out their wares before this distinguished and discriminating gathering. I am honoured and delighted to be invited to do likewise.

    Henry Kissinger’s most recent book, published before the outrages of 11th September, was provocatively entitled “Does America Need a Foreign Policy?” His answer, of course, was “yes”. Dr Kissinger argues that (I quote) “in the 1990s, American preeminence evolved less from any strategic design than a series of ad hoc decisions designed to satisfy domestic constituencies” which had “given rise to the temptation of acting as if the United States needed no long-range foreign policy at all”.

    Under President George W. Bush – as I learned for myself when I talked to him and senior members of his Administration – America does indeed now have such a policy. It is strong, focused, self-confident, realistic and governed by an intelligent perception of America’s national interest.

    In this, as in other respects, the Americans have much to remind us of.

    Dr Kissinger’s question about America was obviously asked tongue-in-cheek: a super-power does clearly need a long-range foreign policy. But Britain needs one just as much. We are the fourth largest economy, a power with global interests but limited resources to defend them. We have to be focused in our analysis, realistic in our objectives, staunch in our alliances, ingenious in our methods and resolute in our actions.

    And, to quote Kissinger again, our leaders need “the intuitive ability to sense the future and thereby master it”. It is a tall order. But, then, whoever said statesmanship was easy?

    Tuesday 11th September brought home to many the domestic imperative of foreign affairs. The terrorist outrages committed against New York and Washington transformed public perceptions throughout the West. Suddenly, people of all political persuasions and none were compelled to take stock of the dangers and the complexities of the world beyond our shores.

    It is essential, however, not to fall into the trap of believing that the world itself – along with perceptions of it – changed fundamentally on that fateful Tuesday.

    Most obviously, al-Qaeda was planning these attacks for a number of years beforehand. Indeed, arguably, if different decisions had been taken by the US authorities in the wake of earlier outrages the horrors of last September might have been avoided.

    As the title of this address suggests, Britain does indeed have to make its way in a “changing world”. But it is important to distinguish what changes from what stays the same.

    11th September was not, after all, the first time even in modern recollection when the world appeared to be undergoing fundamental change. It happened at the end of the Cold War. Freedom was extended to millions who had never known it. And geopolitics was all at once turned up-side-down. The world became uni-polar, with the United States as the only global superpower. The international system was more open but less predictable. It was one where the globalisation of both economics and culture were promoted by a communications revolution.

    But there also grew up a dangerously false view of realities. The Cold War had lasted so long that many people assumed that a stand-off between great powers was the usual state of affairs. And now that there was no such stand off, it was tacitly assumed that there was also no serious threat to peace.

    In fact, the end of the Cold War meant no such thing. It marked in many respects a return to earlier conditions – ones where a number of powers jostled for advantage, and where both alliances and tensions shifted in line with the circumstances of the day.

    Within this more fluid world NATO’s role retained its importance. And so did America’s leadership. But the old disciplines disappeared along with the old rigidities. Hence the rise of the rogue state. Hence also Saddam Hussein and the Gulf War.

    And then again the world seemed fundamentally to change on 11th September. Old rivalries have given way to at least one new partnership – that emerging between the West and Russia, whose strategic importance has been emphasised by the demands of the War Against Terrorism. So too, the rivalry between the US and China, which had grown sharply in recent years, has suddenly been put on hold. These, then, are some of the ways in which the world today has changed.

    And yet equally important is the extent to which the underlying realities have not changed at all – either with the end of the Cold War or with the start of the War on Terrorism. We have clearly not reached anything like the “End of History”, when swords are forged into ploughshares – or perhaps laptops – as the lure of prosperity transforms yesterday’s warrior into today’s entrepreneur.

    Yet these particular instances fail to get to the heart of the matter. Even before we analyse the risks that surround us we should at least always assume that they exist. For that is the way the world is. Human nature has made it so.

    The insight I have described here is at the heart of the Conservative view of foreign policy. Conservatives – with a big and a small “c” – are interested in the world as it is. We are realists; and we rejoice in the fact, because we know that it allows us to avoid succumbing to the distractions and descending into the cul-de-sacs that lure the unwary.

    There is, though, another view. And it is frequently proclaimed by the Prime Minister.

    The Conservative Party has supported, and will support, the Prime Minister whenever the national interest demands. But this does not detract from the fact that the present government has an approach to British foreign and security policy which is, at its very roots, misguided.

    The problem is simple and fundamental. It is that the Prime Minister seems to believe that there are no limits to what Britain, acting as part of an all-embracing global coalition of the Righteous, can and should do to make the world a better place. To judge from a speech he made earlier this month in Bangalore, he does not even see any limits to foreign policy, saying (I quote): “In today’s globally interdependent world foreign and domestic policy are part of the same thing”.

    If, of course, this means that you cannot have a successful foreign policy without also having a successful domestic policy, then there is a certain amount of truth in it. But, even then, it is not the whole truth. Countries which seek to pursue ambitious foreign policies which neither advance their interests nor match their resources are putting their standing and possibly their security at risk. And there is worse. An unfocused approach to foreign policy leads to, and is often devised in pursuit of, media grand-standing.

    The truth is that high profile diplomacy always contains it own temptations. Before foreign leaders decide to offer their personal services in sorting out long-standing international disputes, they should be clear about the answer to three searching questions. First: what do I expect to achieve?

    Second: what practical means are at my disposal?

    And third: am I best placed to do it?

    Without clarity on these points, the correct conclusion may be to stay at home.

    So much of today’s Designer Diplomacy demonstrates a worrying lack of realism. What is at work is a delusion about the way the world actually works, one which consists (in T. S. Eliot’s words) of : “Dreaming a system so perfect that no-one will need to be good”.

    Today’s utopian internationalists, who only have to glance at an opportunity for multilateral intervention in order to jump at it, run the risk of weakening national support for those military engagements which are fundamental to our security. Moreover, they fail to recognise that it is only when nations consider that their vital interests are engaged that they will make those sacrifices and shoulder those commitments that lead to successful outcomes.

    Let me take the War Against Terrorism as a decisive case in point.

    The attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon provoked such national, as well as international, outrage because no-one could fail to see that they were intended as attacks not just on America’s interests, policies, and actions but on America herself.

    I said at the time that America’s war was – and is – our war. That is both because our people and our interests are so close to those of America and because we also had the will and the means to make America’s struggle ours as well. But the fact remains that America unambiguously led the war – a sovereign power leading a coalition of sovereign powers.

    America has now demonstrated decisively that its capacity for action is the best guarantee of the world’s security. But America has also demonstrated that, no matter how powerful the currents of globalism and internationalism, the decisive strike against international terrorism required mobilising national loyalty, national pride and national willingness for sacrifice. That remains the most reliable way of ensuring that grave wrongs are punished and that just wars are won.

    This reflection leads to my first conclusion about the right priorities for British policy today. For me, as a Conservative, a successful foreign and security policy is one which always has a clear understanding of the national interest.

    That is not an isolationist principle: quite the reverse – it is precisely because our national interest is bound with the interests of other civilized nations that we must pursue a vigorous foreign policy. But we must always have a clear understanding of our mission.

    But, naturally, the national interest has to be viewed in the round, with intelligence and perception.

    In today’s interdependent world, the national interest can be damaged or advanced by crises arising far away from our shores – not unusually in the Middle East, home to most of the world’s hydrocarbon resources. But many other areas too, where international terrorism, or proliferation of weaponry, or destabilising ethnic tension, or human or ecological disaster threaten, will rightly concern us. The War Against Terrorism itself reinforces this truth. After all, when our troops were acting to smash the Taliban in Afghanistan they were also acting to cut off a deadly channel of heroin that kills young people in our cities at home.

    Moreover, it can sometimes arise, as in Kosovo, that a failure to take military action to protect an endangered civilian population would be morally culpable. It may also be right to intervene in order to maintain a great principle whose infraction with impunity could set a fatal precedent – for example, the principle that aggression shall not prosper, or that borders shall not be changed by force. And over and above all these security matters, the maintenance of global trade, promotion of global prosperity and enlargement of global freedom are real national concerns of Britain. But when we do, which was not the case in Kosovo at the outset, we must determine to put the right forces in place to force our plan.

    The history of our nation has qualified us well to play a major strategic and humanitarian role. The fact that Britain bestrides three spheres of influence: its Commonwealth, its special relationship with America and its partnership with other European states enables it to have influence over the response of the international community to disasters both natural and man-made.

    Other countries actually look to Britain to take a lead because of our heritage in international diplomacy and our reputation for getting things done.

    British NGO s are highly regarded and it is no surprise that the United Nations has just picked Oxfam as an acknowledged world expert to restore water supplies in Goma. Providing international help on this scale is resource hungry that is why hard questions need to be asked about the effectiveness of aid, making sure it gets into the right hands. And as far as possible helping to make a country self-reliant and not dependent.

    Reform of international organisations through whom Britain channels its multi-lateral aid should not escape our attention. European Development assistance accounts for a third of all our giving and although there has been some progress in cutting red tape and speeding up EU relief efforts, much more needs to be done. Britain’s role on the international stage is an important part of our nation’s identity. Being respected for the quality of our help to others in trouble is something we can be rightly proud of.

    The second follows from a clear understanding of our priorities. It is that diplomacy is no substitute for strong defence, and foreign entanglements that leave British forces overstretched and vulnerable are to be avoided.

    Britain is not just another second order world power. We are unique, and our uniqueness lends our opinions weight. No other power enjoys the combination of far-flung links through the Commonwealth, or our special standing in the Gulf, or our place at the historic hub of the English speaking world or our long tradition of civil peace or our international reputation for decency and fair-dealing. These are all important advantages. But while trumpeting all these claims, let’s not forget something else: Jaw-Jaw is indeed preferable to War-War – but investment in defence is also an investment in our international influence. We are listened to, above all, because we are permanent member of the UN Security Council, and a nuclear power with highly effective armed forces – and because we benefit from a uniquely close relationship with the only global superpower. Each of these – our defence preparedness and our alliance with America – is vital to our national interest.

    Happily, our relations with our great ally are in good repair, though I should like to see them stronger still, as I shall explain.

    Our lack of defence preparedness, however, gives greater cause for concern. The size of our armed forces has been shrinking at the same time as they have been tasked with extra commitments – the most recent being a new peacekeeping mission in Kabul which is much less well-defined than the original objective of removing the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

    What any sensible British Government has to recognise, and then to act upon, is that we cannot hope to do more in the world and yet spend less on it. That’s called facing up to reality.

    In the US today, there is a drive towards further strengthening of military capabilities. In Europe, however, it is a very different picture. According to the latest figures from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, EU countries’ defence spending continues to fall. This is deeply disturbing, and there is no sign yet that the events of 11th September have shaken Europeans – or the British Government – out of their complacency.

    That brings me to my third conclusion – the vital strategic importance of our relationship with America. For it is upon our American friends’ cooperation that our effectiveness as a military power and our security as a nation depend. Not the least of the positive inheritance from the Conservative eighties and nineties is that Americans know that Britain is America’s most reliable ally. It is to the credit of the Prime Minister that he has reinforced that perception by his well-chosen words of support during recent months. In fact, at an emotional level the Trans-Atlantic relationship has rarely been closer.

    This emotion also reflects a deep reality. People sometimes query the importance of the “special relationship” and suggest that it is just nostalgia. It isn’t. It reflects the fact that the British and Americans see the world in much the same way – which itself reflects our shared history, language, culture, values and beliefs. And it is upon such foundations that international relationships are built. Yet while psychological closeness is important, it is not a substitute for decision-making.

    Since September 11th something else has changed. We have all but seen the last of the attempts to induce America to abandon its plans for Ballistic Missile Defence. Russia has been constructive over the issue, recognizing that the ABM Treaty was based on a military doctrine which has substantially changed. The priority now is not so much to deter a massive nuclear strike: it is to protect ourselves, our forces and our allies from missile attack by rogue states or from the risk of accidental missile launches.

    I believe that the British Government should have given stronger support to President Bush’s plans and led the debate here in Europe. Indeed, we should be doing all we can to take advantage of them. Just as we benefit from America’s nuclear umbrella, so we should also seek to benefit from its Ballistic Missile shield. Staying outside it by default would be to take an unforgivable risk with our nation’s security.

    A further piece of confusion is also discernable on the political horizon. Labour’s position on Ballistic Missile Defence is explicable by the internal politics of the Labour Party.

    Yet America is determined to see this enterprise through – and rightly so. Washington clearly sees that the problem of rogue states and the problem of international terrorism are intimately connected.

    The world cannot be safe while Saddam Hussein is free to develop weapons of mass destruction. Nor can we accept that, simply because they were hostile to the Taliban, other states which actively support terrorism should be treated as if they were upstanding members of the international community. Britain should give absolute support to the measures necessary to ensure that events like those of 11th September are never repeated.

    We should always recognize that our ability to help shape the thinking of the USA is greatest if we retain the capacity to act. If all we have to offer is our wisdom, our influence is likely to be diminished.

    The confusions evident in this Government’s approach to foreign and security policy are also reflected in its confused approach to Europe. What is required is a clear, consistent strategy to promote Britain’s national interests in all our dealings with the European Union – and that is my fourth conclusion. This is a larger topic than can conveniently be covered here. But the main components of the Conservative Party’s policy are well known and enjoy very widespread support.

    They are, first, that we believe that the European Union continues to have great potential to help bring stability and prosperity to what should be a growing number of member states. To deliver that the EU needs radical reform, and that reform should be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down – in other words from the nation states and their parliamentary and political systems. A Conservative government would lead that process of reform, rather than pursue the Government’s policy of continual drift.

    The statements of both the present Right-of-Centre Italian Government and of the Conservative Candidate for the German Chancellorship demonstrate that the kind of concerns we have about over-centralisation are widely shared – even within countries which have been at the forefront of closer European integration.

    Second, and in keeping with this, we continue to oppose Sterling’s abolition in favour of the Euro. Our view is that there will never be a single interest rate and a single monetary policy which are right for all European countries. We remember the effects of the ERM. We also note the disastrous consequences of a fixed exchange rate in Argentina. We shall strongly, and I believe successfully, argue for retention of the Pound in any referendum which is called.

    Third, we believe that the proposed European Rapid Reaction Force is an exercise in politics not in serious security policy. It is – and has been intended as – an alternative to NATO, the most successful defence organisation that the world has ever seen. It will involve duplication. It will lack credibility. It will create confusion about Western aims. It risks decoupling Europe from America. It will add nothing to European defence capabilities, which as I have already noted are actually declining. In short, the European Army is a venture which only makes sense if it is regarded as a necessary part of creating a European superstate – something which the Prime Minister denies is his intention.

    The fifth element of our Conservative foreign policy concerns supranational organisations more widely. International cooperation between sovereign states is and always will be necessary to achieve practical objectives which would be beyond countries acting alone. That is why we have always been supportive of international bodies including the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation. The danger today, however, is that some supranational organisations are being invested with more powers than they are suited to wield.

    For example, we expressed our concerns in the last parliament about how the blueprint for an International Criminal Court would work in practice. It may, as in the cases of Yugoslavia and Rwanda, be necessary to set up special courts to deal with altogether unique circumstances. But we must avoid at all costs creating a situation which makes it more difficult for law-abiding nations to pursue just action, because it is their officials or soldiers which will find themselves having to answer to such a political body, not those from countries which scorn all law.

    There are parallel issues in economic affairs. We need to find and retain the right balance between global and national decision-making. The World Trade Organisation, as successor to the GATT, does sterling work in helping integrate the global market place. Removing obstacles to trade is the single most important task international economic decision makers have – for trade is the driving force of prosperity. But at the same time we should be cautious about more ambitious plans that have been mooted to create a “New Economic Order”.

    We should, in fact, remember: supranational organisations never of themselves kept the peace – that has been left to well-armed nation states. And supranational organisations never of themselves made nations rich – that was the work of countless individuals producing and consuming in the market place, in the context of fair and democratic institutions.

    I have tried to cover a wide canvas today, and some details will need to be filled in on other occasions. But the five axioms I have set out – and the philosophy which underpins them – are, I believe, clear, consistent and coherent. They stem from a view of the world, a world seen through Conservative eyes. The great Macaulay was not, of course, a Conservative – though I fancy he would be today. I warm to his observation, all the same, that “an acre in Middlesex is worth a principality in Utopia”. Our historian would doubtless be extremely surprised at the cost of land in Middlesex. But I am sure he would not be at all surprised to find preoccupations with Utopia still generating political folly. The next Conservative Government will try to change that.