(3 days, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberAs my noble friend says, the situation is extremely difficult, and we are relying in large part on our partners on the ground to be able to support women in the most horrendous of circumstances. Let us remember that the ban that she refers to comes on top of laws requiring women to be veiled at all times in public, banning women from singing, reciting or reading aloud in public, forbidding them to look at men they are not related to and strictly enforcing male escorts for women. The situation is intolerable, and it is good that we have supported taking this to the ICJ. In the meantime, we are doing everything we can on the ground to support women in Afghanistan.
My Lords, the brave Afghan women who peacefully protest against these brutal policies have been threatened, arrested, forcibly disappeared, detained and tortured. Their voices must be heard. They want concrete and effective measures against the Taliban. They do not want the Taliban to be granted any legitimacy and normalisation of their oppressive rule under the guise of engagement—those are their words. Do His Majesty’s Government agree that targeted sanctions, refusal to recognise this repressive regime and unwavering support for women’s resistance in Afghanistan are the minimum actions that the international community must take in good faith?
We are extremely careful about the way that we engage with Afghanistan. The noble Baroness knows that we recognise states and not Governments. On sanctions, we implement the UN sanctions. We have some very limited engagement with the Taliban to bring about some of the changes that we want to see and to make these points about women and human rights, but as she will know, this is incredibly difficult. We are working for the large part through international partners on the ground to make sure that we get humanitarian aid to support people today.
(3 days, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberIt is our view that the best way to get aid in as efficiently as is needed is through UNRWA. It is good that some aid has started to get in over the past few days but, without UNRWA, it is very hard to see how that will be sustained. To answer his specific question, yes, we have made that case very clearly to the Government of Israel.
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s comments on UNRWA. It is reported that, in the first week of the ceasefire, UNRWA delivered 60% of all food aid into the Gaza Strip. It is therefore very difficult, without any other information from the Israeli Government, to know how they propose to replace that. Or will they literally leave people to starve in the Gaza Strip? We saw the horrific footage of hundreds of thousands of people returning to their land without much to go home to after the destruction there. The need is absolutely critical and, at a time like this, to outlaw UNRWA is completely irresponsible.
Can the Minister say whether the British Government have yet commented on the Trump Administration’s desire to “clean out” Gaza? I note that the French President and the German Chancellor have said that they do not support it and have condemned it. Indeed, in Egypt, Jordan and across the Arab world, it has been condemned and not supported. Will the British Government join those voices and utterly condemn what has been described as potential ethnic cleansing?
We do not agree that the people of Gaza should be prevented from returning to their homes. We are very clear about that. On what the noble Baroness said about UNRWA, yes, it is very difficult to see how the aid will be delivered and received without UNRWA. If there is another way of doing this that can be done straight away, on the scale that we need—clearly, the only important thing is that the aid gets where it is needed, not who does it—it is difficult to imagine how that could be achieved. So we continue to make that case; we know what the date is and what the law says. We will continue to make the case to the Israeli Government, but we are concerned, as the noble Baroness indicates we should be.