Deforestation in the Amazon

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

It is excellent to see you in the chair, Mr McCabe. I once again find myself in agreement with the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), as I was in the tourism and travel debate. I thank him for securing this vital debate, which could not have come at a more appropriate time, as we marked World Rainforest Day yesterday.

Last February, Chief Raoni, a chief of the Kayapo people in north central Brazil, visited the UK and addressed a number of us, including the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who spoke earlier. He told us about the destruction of their lands by strip-mining, farming and industrialisation. It was not just a threat to the rainforest—his people were being killed if caught, in their own lands. Since then, I have kept in touch with the non-governmental organisations and Chief Raoni, who say that the destruction and human rights abuses have sped up since covid, with little ability to curb the rapacious nature of the forest destroyers and the Brazilian President acting more as a co-conspirator than as a protector of our greatest natural resource.

Chief Raoni’s biggest ask is to make indigenous lands protected reserves, with not just legal protection but security and human rights defenders on the ground, supported by us in the international community. However, the demarcation process is threatened under President Bolsonaro, who is a right-wing populist climate change sceptic who continues to open the door of protected lands to mining and agribusiness.

Last month, Chief Raoni and another top indigenous leader, Chief Almir Surui, asked the International Criminal Court to investigate Bolsonaro for crimes against humanity, accusing him of unprecedented environmental damage, killings and persecution in the Amazon. Will the UK Government be supporting Chief Raoni and Chief Surui, who are on the front line and have lost members of their tribes to those who destroy the rainforest?

Immediate action is so important as the climate crisis picks up speed and temperatures steadily rise. The lungs of our planet are burning. The Amazon rainforest is at a tipping point. Droughts and wildfires are now the norm, with 2021 set to be a particularly bad year. Just yesterday, an international study led by the University of Leeds warned that huge areas in the eastern part of the Amazon face severe drying by the end of the century if action is not taken to curb carbon emissions.

Under Bolsonaro, we have seen record levels of deforestation, with an area seven times greater than London destroyed last year alone. Crucially, the Amazon may begin to contribute more greenhouse gases to the air than it absorbs by 2050, or possibly even sooner if the expansion of this work under Bolsonaro continues. His predecessor President Lula brought in protections that we saw work, and the rainforest loss was curbed. However, that work has all been undone in quite a short space of time. Now the Brazilian Government are pushing laws to make deforestation easier.

Bill 2633 in the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies encourages and legalises land grabbing of public lands, and is one of the key parts of the President’s legislative agenda. Bill 510 is a Brazilian Senate ill that also encourages land grabbing. These bills, encouraging land grabbing of public lands and authorising mining construction in indigenous lands, are set to be pushed through before the summer recess next month.

We need to consider this in our own law making. The Environment Bill will require firms to carry out due diligence on whether or not commodities come from areas that have been illegally deforested. Yet that only addresses illegal deforestation. If Bolsonaro’s Government are successful, what is currently illegal will become legal, and the Environment Bill will be unable to stop it or curb it in any way. We urgently need the Bill to be amended in the other place, where it now rests, so that we are not creating demand for the destruction of the Amazon.

The Conservative party promised to fight against Amazon deforestation, yet one of their biggest donors is an investor who profits from the destruction of Brazilian rainforests. If the Prime Minister is happy to take Crispin Odey’s money, questions have to be asked about his commitment to protecting the Amazon.

The Amazon is thought to be the home of 10% of known species on Earth, including 16,000 species of trees, 3,000 species of fish, and more species of primates than anywhere else. I work closely with the WWF, and hosted its Brazil director in March last year, right here in Portcullis House. The WWF told us that new species are being discovered all the time. Between 1999 and 2015, 2,200 new animal and plant species were discovered in the Amazon, including a river dolphin, a vegetarian piranha and eight species of monkey, including one that purrs like a cat. Are these not just wonderous, joyful things?

The outstanding biodiversity of the Amazon is not only important for the natural ecosystem, it also provides many befits to us as humans. The plants and animals are used for food, research, medicine and textiles. Any reduction in biodiversity can also contribute to increased disease risks, and after this past year we all know what zoonotic diseases and global pandemics are. In its initial report on the origins of covid-19, the WHO pointed out the threat of natural ecosystem destruction breaking down the buffer zone that protects us from wildlife- borne viruses.

Just as a virus born in one country can sweep across the globe, deforestation of the Amazon has the capacity to devastate not just Brazil, but the entire world. While Brazil acts as the primary custodian, maintaining the rainforest should not solely fall on their shoulders. Internationally, we must reflect critically as to how we consume the planet’s resources. COP26 will be a pivotal moment to focus on efforts to protect the Amazon rainforest and tackle unnecessary deforestation, with Brazilian representatives right here on our own shores.

The natural world does not reflect man-made borders, which is why we need multilateral co-operation on this issue. Now more than ever, the UK Government—even though they are retreating from their international development commitments—need to provide funds to protect the rainforest and its people. I will finish with the words of Chief Raoni:

“I'm overwhelmed with sadness when I see how our lands are being destroyed more each day”.

Uyghur Tribunal: London

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and is right to highlight that. We will continue to work with our international partners to build that international caucus of those who are prepared to speak out—sadly, there are plenty of countries that are not prepared to speak out on this issue—and increase the pressure on China to change its behaviour. We have gone from a situation in which China was denying what was going on—denying the very existence of these o camps—to a situation in which it now at least has to acknowledge the existence of the treatment. We have led joint statements and UN human rights bodies, and most recently we were joined by 38 countries at the UN General Assembly third committee in October. We will continue to work alongside our international partners to keep the pressure on China.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

At the tribunal, we heard the evidence of Tursunay Ziyadin about how beatings and internal torture in the camps had left her sterile—we in the Jewish community are all too familiar with such evidence from events 80 years ago. In China, a woman whom Tursunay did not know was presented as a good friend and claimed that infertility was why Tursunay’s husband left her, but he actually died in a car crash. How will the Minister ensure protection for those who give evidence, many of whom have sought political asylum in our country? In response to the direct witness evidence we heard, what is he going to do to ensure that fake testimony and false news are not spread in the UK or internationally?

[Nigel Adams]

We are disturbed by the reports of attempts to intimidate those who have been appearing at the recent hearing. Any attempt by China to silence its critics is unwarranted—it is completely unacceptable, as we saw at the press conference held in China most recently. We are aware of reports of members of the Uyghur diaspora being harassed by the Chinese authorities in an effort to intimidate them into silence. Again, we have called out that behaviour and raised our concerns directly with the Chinese embassy in London.

Freedom of Religion or Belief

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I am deeply indebted to the hon. Gentleman for his work. This is not a self-congratulation society, but I greatly appreciate what he does and the role that he plays, and the energy, interest and commitment that he shows. We are pleased that he is in place and we hope that there will be a fruitful conclusion to his endeavours and those of the Government.

My next question is: will the UK Government focus more or most of its international development aid on Nigeria to assist the victims and protect the vulnerable from Nigeria’s insecurity crisis? Will they use a large percentage of their aid budget to Nigeria to provide more direct assistance to internally displaced persons who live in poor conditions and to enhance security provision for vulnerable communities and people, including the Christian communities in the north-east and middle belt where they have been particularly targeted, by the Nigerian Government’s own admission?

Finally, given the Prime Minister’s call for increased post-Brexit trade and investments in Nigeria, in which the Prime Minister’s trade envoy, the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), will be interested, what security advice and warnings are the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Trade offering to British investors? Those are all important issues.

In my role as chair of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief, I campaign on behalf of all who are persecuted, not just Christians, because I am a Christian and I believe that my God loves everyone. That is why I, and all hon. Members present, believe that it is our duty to speak out not only for those of Christian faith, but for people of any faith and of course, just as important, those who do not profess a faith at all. That is why I now turn to the persecution that other groups, including the non-religious, are facing around the world.

Atheists, agnostics and other non-religious people often face extreme violations of FORB. Indeed, in Saudi Arabia, that great ally of the United Kingdom—questions were asked about that relationship in the Chamber today—atheism is considered a criminal offence, punishable by death. In the eyes of the Saudi Government, therefore, many British people, including some in this House, are the worst criminals and not deserving of life.

According to “The Freedom of Thought Report” published by the International Humanist and Ethical Union,

“even on the most conservative estimates, there are untold millions of de facto humanists, atheists and otherwise religiously unaffiliated people living in countries where they face discrimination or outright persecution, both in society and at the hands of the state. In the most extreme cases, the non-religious are told that…to promote humanist values…is a kind of criminal attack on culture.”

Again, that is simply unacceptable.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I praise the hon. Gentleman for his dogged determination in bringing debates on this subject to the House and pursuing these issues. Does he agree that the media abroad and in the UK sometimes fuel the violence against and harassment of people of faith and, as he mentioned, people without faith by misrepresenting who they are and what they think? That can have as much of an effect on people as, for instance, state violence.

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, I think the media have a lot to answer for, on not just this but many subjects. They influence opinion and focus attention unfairly.

Of course, it is not only the non-religious who are suffering. Just under two weeks ago, on 1 March, the Independent Tribunal into Forced Organ Harvesting from Prisoners of Conscience in China, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice, QC, released its full judgment. Its interim judgement, released in 2018, declared that forced organ harvesting from religious prisoners of conscience was taking place. The final judgment confirms that view and declares:

“Forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale and that Falun Gong practitioners have been one—and probably the main—source of organ supply. The concerted persecution and medical testing of the Uyghurs is more recent and it may be that evidence of forced organ harvesting of this group may emerge in due course.”

After yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate on that very issue, I am aware that it is emerging. The judgment continues:

“The Tribunal has had no evidence that the significant infrastructure associated with China’s transplantation industry has been dismantled”,

which is disappointing,

“and absent a satisfactory explanation as to the source of readily available organs concludes that forced organ harvesting continues till today.”

I have a nephew back home who had to wait five or six years for a kidney transplant. I understand that the wait it is partly about age and getting older, but it is also about availability. Someone could go to China almost any day, any week, and receive an organ. How can that happen? Even though it is a bigger nation, it poses a question.

Thousands of miles away in Westminster, it is sometimes hard to appreciate the horror of that statement—forced organ harvesting on a commercial scale. It is hard not to wonder how anyone could treat their fellow humans so cruelly. I also wonder how many more will suffer that fate before the UK Government—my Government—take action. I wonder how long the Government will refuse to acknowledge the evidence, which includes admissions from doctors in leading Chinese transplant hospitals. I wonder how history will remember those who ignored what Lord Alton of Liverpool described as a practice comparable with,

“‘the worst atrocities committed in conflicts of the 20th century’, including the gassing of Jews by the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge massacres in Cambodia”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 March 2020; Vol. 802, c. 390.]

The Government say that the World Health Organisation has found China’s transplant system to be legitimate. I find that incredible. It is a system in which it takes two to three weeks to get an organ donation, compared with two to three years in the UK. If the system is legitimate, it is the envy of the world and it is a matter of the utmost priority that the NHS should learn from China to save British lives. If it is legitimate, it is an absolute dereliction of responsibility by the UK Government that they have not done everything in their power to understand how China’s system works, so we can replicate its efficiency in the UK.

Indeed, last year, 34 parliamentarians from both Houses wrote a letter to the WHO director general to request that information, but despite chasing it several times with his office, the WHO did not respond. Surely, if the Chinese system is legitimate, the WHO should be begging the Chinese Government to share their medical marvel with the world, but we all know the real reason why organ transplants are available. The Government are not doing that, and the evidence tells us why.

Beyond Falun Gong practitioners, Uighur Muslims are also suffering in China, as we discussed in yesterday’s debate with the same Minister present. I spoke then as well—in this room, probably from this seat—about China’s treatment of its Uighur population. We learned that “hundreds of thousands”, in fact probably between 1 million and 3 million, are imprisoned in China and that many have experienced acts of torture.

Muslims are not just being persecuted in China, however. Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar have suffered what has been described by the United Nations as a

“textbook example of ethnic cleansing”.

The Rohingya were stripped of their citizenship in 1982 and suffered systematic persecution by Buddhist nationalists. That culminated in a brutal military offensive in August 2017 that killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands more, who were forced into neighbouring Bangladesh. We thank Bangladesh for stepping up and reaching out.

In a worrying parallel, at the end of July 2018, in Assam, the Indian Government effectively stripped 4 million people, mostly Muslims, of their citizenship, and branded them illegal immigrants from Bangladesh amid an atmosphere of rising Hindu nationalism. Muslims in India also claim that they are being persecuted by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act passed by the Indian Parliament in December, which provides a fast track to Indian citizenship for non-Muslim migrants from India’s neighbours. Protests erupted across India in response to the law, which is seen by many as discriminatory against Muslims.

Britain in the World

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) on his very comprehensive speech. However, I have to say that he failed to mention the famous Wakefield Trinity rugby league team. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you, like me, noticed that. As the Member for Wood Green, I know that the London Skolars rugby league club is in Wood Green and may well one day meet Trinity, which is, of course, a very famous rugby league team. In replacing the outgoing Member for Wakefield, the hon. Gentleman has very large shoes to fill. I look forward to further, perhaps shorter, interventions to learn more about him.

We know that good foreign policy is underpinned by three basic pillars of security, trade and human rights. In my remarks today, which will be quite short, I will set out why I believe that the UK’s departure from the European Union could, in geopolitical terms, weaken our role, our influence and our position in the world. Hopefully, that will only be for the short term, but it will certainly be for the foreseeable future.

World peace and the UK’s security rely on a series of strong relationships and networks that can assert a dominant position so that aggressive forces can be held in check. Belonging to the EU provides a non-military network of friends and allies to rely on in tough times. Modern defence issues are as much about shared databases as traditional notions of bombs and guns. Leaving European agreements on security undermines a well-tested system of keeping us safe. Brexit puts at real risk the joint approaches with European systems to ensure cyber-security and the sharing of intelligence. It also undermines the European arrest warrant. Abandoning our leadership role in European affairs could fragment a very strong and assertive voice in defence, such as in discussions on cyber-security, in shared counter-terror tools and in wider questions of weapons proliferation.

Increasingly, climate change also presents insecurity on a global scale. This year, the UK could become a true leader on the climate crisis, with Glasgow hosting the COP26 climate summit in November—I hope it will be more conclusive than the Madrid meeting—following closely on Labour’s push for this House to become the first Parliament in the world to declare a climate emergency. It is a real pleasure to hear Members from across the House promoting the role that the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association play in developing that role for parliamentarians.

Although the UK has a good policy platform at the level of UK missions abroad—for example, promoting measures to mitigate climate change—this priority could be at risk if a free trade agreement demands some other priority.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

On that point about climate change and international trade, the UK is hosting the COP26 conference in Glasgow in November this year. Is that not an opportunity to assert how climate change should be at the heart of our international trade policy?

[Catherine West]

Indeed, that is the case. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have seen that, when one visits certain missions abroad, there is a good policy understanding among our diplomats. However, that is sometimes not necessarily reflected in this House, and we must work much harder to ensure that we have our Ministers talking about the subject and promoting it much more themselves.

Secondly, good foreign policy relies on a vibrant domestic economy and a realistic trade policy, providing a positive financial context in which to play a leadership role abroad. Instead, Brexit provides years of uncertainty, which will harm long-term economic growth and a sense of buoyancy in our economy while consigning our economic importance to that of a middling nation.

The past decade has already seen anaemic growth in the domestic economy as a result of the disastrous policy of austerity and the self-inflicted wounds of Brexit. Just today, in the financial pages, there is much discussion about another rate cap by the Bank of England because of fears of another dip in our economy. Households are worse off now than they were in 2010—10 years ago. Simultaneously, there is a real risk that UK trade policy could erode standards on our trade in goods and lead to a diminishing of the ease of trading in services owing to the ridiculously short adjustment period that the Government have given themselves to achieve equivalence in financial services. The amount of political capital in energy required to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU and the unrealistic timeframe of 11 months will mean that the UK is likely to reduce its influence in other crucial international relations issues.

Finally, membership of the European Union has, to date, provided a strong front to promote values and norms in international relations, including a robust approach to promoting human rights. The UK was instrumental in designing a strong framework of protecting human rights, as it was the first nation to ratify the Council of Europe’s convention on human rights in war-ravaged Europe in 1949. The convention commits each signatory—each nation that signs up to it—to abide by certain standards of behaviour and protect the basic rights and freedoms of ordinary people. The treaty aims to protect the rule of law and promote democracy. The EU institutions in practice have performed an important function to maintain human rights dialogue with large trade partners, such as China, Japan and Turkey. Let us take, for example, trade relationships with Turkey. How will the UK be able to hold Turkey to account on its treatment, for example, of the Kurdish and Alevi communities, when trying at the same time to forge a trade deal and possibly to selling them even more arms than we do now? On the case of China, how can we have those honest discussions with that giant nation around the issues of Xinjiang province, Hong Kong and Taiwan, when, at the same time, we desperately want to promote our trade arrangements with them?