Ceasefire in Gaza

John Nicolson Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

How do I find words in my allotted three minutes for the tragedy that has engulfed the Palestinian people? Israeli bombs have killed 30,000. More than 10,000 children have died. The death toll per head of population is greater than in any conflict since the second world war. Gaza lies in ruins. People are starving. Women are enduring caesareans without anaesthetic. And yet this House has been paralysed.

I vividly recall that when I was a journalist in Palestinian refugee camps, Palestinians would come up to show me keys to lost homes their families were forced to flee in what is now Israel, when advancing guerrilla troops spread terror. Along with their old-fashioned keys, they would also show me British Palestine mandate house deeds—issued by us, guaranteed by the United Kingdom and stamped with the mark of the Crown. We owe them. At the very least, we owe them our voices raised in outrage at the collective punishment they are now enduring in defiance of international law. We are talking about innocent people, children, babies, who are not remotely responsible for the atrocities carried out by evil Hamas. Slaughtering, indiscriminately, the innocent for the crimes of the guilty is the very definition of collective punishment.

Some say, “What’s the point?”. We know we cannot force Netanyahu to stop bombing. But we can apply pressure. Silence is tacit acceptance of Israel’s actions. We can show Palestinians, who still imagine that this House has a moral compass, that we do care passionately about their plight, we lament their suffering and we despair at the lost innocence of their children, as another generation learns to associate Israel with cruelty, extremism and hate. The vote at Westminster tonight, the second we on these Benches have called, is not and never was, as some commentators parochially claimed, about embarrassing political opponents. Not everything is about Britain. I will not speak for colleagues in other parties, but I know that many outwith the SNP support our motion; some have lost their Front-Bench jobs because they cannot, in good conscience, remain silent. I hope the majority of Westminster MPs now feel the same. Embarrassed silence will not save lives. If we do not call for an immediate ceasefire now, when will we? How many more innocents have to die? No, it is past time for our voices to be heard loudly and unambiguously: enough bombing, enough slaughter.

Israel and Palestine

John Nicolson Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Percy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I meant since the events of 7 October. I am not sure whether anybody else has had the opportunity to spend time in the communities that were attacked in the most horrific way on 7 October and to spend time with the survivors and with the families of the hostages from those communities, so I will avail the House of my experience there this afternoon.

Let me come to the three petitions. Of course, in relation to the second petition, we all want to see humanitarian aid being facilitated and delivered into Gaza, so I have no issue with that petition—absolutely not. We all wish to see that. It would be helpful, of course, if Hamas did not steal a lot of the aid and misdirect it towards their terror network, but of course every effort should be put into that aid. However, in terms of the third petition, calling for a ceasefire, I find it incredible that we have people arguing that a ceasefire is achievable with Hamas, who, since 7 October, have made it absolutely clear that it is their intention to commit such atrocities again and again. There can be no ceasefire with Hamas—none whatever. Their intention, in their own charter, is to seek the annihilation of not just every Jew in Israel but every Jew on this planet. Let us not pretend for a moment that there is any credible option of a ceasefire with Hamas. That is a position, I am pleased to say, that both the Opposition Front Bench and my own Government’s Front Bench support.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Perhaps he can explain to us what his long-term objective is. Will the citizens of Gaza be bombed indefinitely until Hamas surrender?

[Andrew Percy]

The question that the hon. Member should be asking is, what is the long-term strategy of the—

[John Nicolson]

I will ask the question that I want to ask.

[Andrew Percy]

The hon. Member has had his intervention. He does not get to shout from a sedentary position again; he gets to listen to the response. That is the polite way in which debates operate in this House.

It is a very clear position that Hamas must be degraded to such a point that they can have no further involvement in the governance of the Gaza strip. That is the position of this Government; it is the position of Governments across Europe; it is the position of the United States Government and of many others around the world.

When I visited Israel less than a month after the attacks took place, I went to the place where bodies were being identified. I saw those bodies, and I saw those body parts that were still awaiting identification. It was one of the most shocking and horrendous things that I have ever seen or have ever smelled.

I also visited Kibbutz Kfar Aza, which is a kibbutz that was founded by peaceniks—it was actually founded by Egyptian Jews. It is a community that was led by Ofir Libstein, who was a man known for his desire for peace and was in the process of trying to seek a joint-employment zone with Gaza so that Jews from Israel could work alongside Gazans. He was picked out specifically by Hamas and shot on his front doorstep. The scene in that kibbutz was just utterly horrendous.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

As of today, it is estimated that 17,000 have been killed in Gaza—around 7,000 of the dead are children, and 63 journalists have been killed. Israel has a right to defend itself; the attack on innocent Israeli civilians was wicked beyond description. But surely we can agree that what we have been witnessing long ago tipped from justifiable self-defence into brutal attack.

Most of the world watches, horrified by the continuing heavy, deadly, inhumane bombardment of a tiny patch of land, the Gaza strip, and of the terrified and traumatised people living there—dying there. Israel tells them to flee, but to flee where? Where do people flee if every border is closed? When they do try to flee, they are bombed. International law says that care must be taken to safeguard civilians. What care is Israel taking? It has bombed schools, hospitals and homes. A university was flattened. Collective punishment is another war crime.

These war crimes are committed not by a monstrous terrorist group such as Hamas, but by a country that we laud as the only democracy in the region. Most Palestinians and Mediterranean people had no time for the zealotry of Hamas, but who will the orphaned children of Gaza turn to when they crawl out of the rubble? Bitterness and hatred have been planted deep in the souls of innocents. They will remember these weeks for the rest of their lives.

What of the UK? Surely we have a special responsibility, as the former occupying power. Our abstention on the UN ceasefire resolution on Friday shamed us. Labour’s abstention on the ceasefire motion in this Parliament shamed its party leadership. Many honourable MPs stood up against the intense pressure they had to endure from their party Whips, but what is Labour doing abstaining on an issue such as this? At what point will the Labour leadership realise how desperately out of step it is with public opinion and decency?

Only four Back-Bench Tories have thought the most crucial—

[Alison Thewliss]

They are not even Tories.

[John Nicolson]

I beg your pardon—I am not wearing my glasses. I will do that again for the edit. How can so few Conservatives turn up to a debate such as this? It really is dreadful. How can Tory and Labour Front Benchers watch and stay silent? How can the Labour leader, watching this carnage and cruelty, say the Israeli Government are within their rights to withhold water from children—yet another crime? The Labour leadership’s volte-face, when it comes, will be excruciating to watch.

UK neutrality, food to the starving, water, electricity for the hospitals, a halt to the bombardment and death; that is all that our constituents want us to argue for and vote in favour of—basic humanity. Otherwise, where does it all end? I suspect that, far from being weakened, extremist groups will be strengthened, which would be the worst possible outcome.

The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said that the bombardment must continue indefinitely, until Hamas surrender. Hamas are not going to surrender. Why should innocent Palestinians trapped in Gaza pay the price, with this wicked organisation, Hamas, raining terror down upon them? Why should ordinary people pay the price?

This conflict cannot be won by military means. If we study the history, we must surely know that. Only a ceasefire and negotiations can stop this carnage, so I call on colleagues on both sides of the House to raise their voices for peace and an immediate ceasefire.

UK’s Exit from the European Union

John Nicolson Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.

Historians will write in amazement about Brexit: the swagger of its proponents, the vanity, the false promises and the lies; the salutary sight of focused Brussels negotiators sitting, well briefed, at the negotiating table opposite a series of hapless, unbriefed Tory Ministers; the laughable suggestion that other EU countries would be so envious of Brexit that they would rush to emulate it; the sage advice of our friends ignored; the Brexit enthusiasts, Trump, Farage and Putin, whose malign presence alone should have served as a warning; the campaign tinged with racism and attacks on foreigners; the misplaced triumphalism; the sheer, vulgar philistinism; and the disdain shown for the people of Scotland—if you are in the European Union, you can leave, but if you are in this Union, your voice does not count.

I was on the BBC’s “Debate Night” programme recently. I was up against a Scottish Tory MSP and a member of the audience asked her what benefits she thought Brexit had brought. Do you know what she said? She said, “None at all”—full marks for honesty. However, the Scottish Tory press office went into meltdown, of course, and I am not sure that she has been since.

We all know the truth about Brexit, but we do not expect for a moment that the Tory UK Government will do as today’s petitioners demand. The embarrassment would be too much even for this apparently unembarrassable Administration. And what of my Labour friends? Alas, they are leaderless and sinking on Europe; they are now a party tethered to the anchor of a failing Brexit. There are honourable exceptions; I am talking about the party leadership.

I know that Brexit leaders have not suffered. Some were rewarded with seats for life in the Lords as unelected legislators. We know that many of them, having searched family histories or exploited the generosity of the Irish Government for passports, can skip past fellow Britons who are queuing for many hours at EU borders.

However, what of our constituents who suffer from Brexit? My constituency, Ochil and South Perthshire, straddles rural and urban areas. Brexit, which was rejected emphatically by the Scottish electorate, has impacted every single part of it. Young people have lost access to the incredible Erasmus scheme. Previously, medical students and young social workers could go on a long work placement in Germany and bring their experience back. Students from all backgrounds could spend a year in France or Spain or Romania, to improve their language skills and widen their horizons.

The replacement for Erasmus is the so-called “Turing scheme”—poor Alan Turing; how sad that his name should be associated with it. It promised worldwide advantages, but not for my constituent who travelled to Singapore via the Turing scheme. Once he was there, he was told that there was no money left in the pot to fund his continued stay. He was offered no alternatives or assistance—typical, bungling Brexit chaos. My amazing office team had to work with him to find all sorts of odd and unexpected allowances, bursaries and funds that would plug the gap.

I have the oldest distillery in the country, Glenturret, in my constituency. The boss told me last week that pre-Brexit they delivered, without impediment, all across Europe, sharing lorries with other companies for cost and environmental reasons. Now, if any other firm on the shared transport has made the slightest paperwork mistake, all their goods collectively are sent back with export and other duties. One consignment was sent back twice, the first time because the whisky was labelled “From Scotland” and the second time because it was labelled “From Britain”. The rules that we have negotiated mean that neither name is recognised. “Global Britain” is ironic, eh?.

According to the distillery boss, now it sometimes takes longer to get whisky to Paris than to Japan. That is not because it is becoming quicker to get to Japan; getting to Paris has simply become a nightmare. Glenturret has now had to design new labels for every single market within the EU—seven different labels, with all the added cost of switching a machine and switching the labels. It has had to abandon smaller markets in the Baltic states and elsewhere—

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division. We will be back in 15 minutes. Is that okay?

[John Nicolson]

Curses.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[John Nicolson]

If only there was some way of voting electronically, Mr Dowd, that would not require us to dash backwards and forwards. Before I was interrupted, I was talking about a wonderful company in my constituency, the distillery Glenturret, and how it has had to design new labels for every market within the European Union—seven different labels—with all the added cost. It has had to abandon smaller markets in the Baltic states and elsewhere because the added costs wipe out any profits.

Then, there are firms in my constituency crying out for labour. We have heard about this before, with fruit rotting in fields across the country because EU workers cannot get visas. In my constituency, hotels cannot open to full capacity for the very same reason. One owner implored me to hand-deliver a letter to UK Ministers. “If only they knew what was happening on the ground,” he said, “they would do something!” I said: “They know. They don’t care.” Brexit zealots would have us living in caves if it meant delivering the pure Brexit isolation that so many of them crave.

So, as we wait—perhaps forever—for Brexiter Tories and Labour Front Benchers wearing Brexiter clothes that fit so badly, I suspect we can offer petitioners little hope today of a Brexit apology from Westminster. It is those of us on the SNP Benches who offer the only unambiguous pro-EU vision. We want to rejoin the EU at the first possible opportunity. Scotland, independent and within the European Union, will enjoy excellent access to trade, like our long-term ally and near neighbour, Denmark. Our ancient and modern universities and networks of colleges will reconnect with thousands of institutions across the EU to share research, opportunities and students. Young people will once more be able to live, love and work across the EU, as my generation did. We will thrive as part of a co-operative team of nations, small and large. We know we have friends across the Union—the European Union. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) would say, keep a light on for us. We are coming back soon.

UK-Taiwan Friendship and Co-operation

John Nicolson Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I am very lucky to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma)—I do call him my hon. Friend—as they both covered so many of the issues that I would have covered. I am freed to speak on a slightly wider area, because this is not just about the immediate proximity of the relationship between the United Kingdom and Taiwan; it is about the relationship that we have sadly had with Beijing in recent years.

A few years ago, I was privileged to be elected by the previous Parliament as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. One of the first things I wanted to do was to look at our relationship with China, to see how we could develop it, what we could improve, what we could make better and perhaps what we could put aside. I reached out to the then Chinese ambassador, was invited to meet China’s Potemkin Parliament and the Committee was invited to Beijing.

We did what we usually do and put in our visa requests, having already been told that, as guests of the National People’s Congress, they would go through. One of our members, my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell)—I am glad to see him here today—was with us and China stopped the visa process. I was told that I had to demand that he apologise for being a member of the all-party parliamentary group on Taiwan. I know many people have ideas that Committee Chairs are getting too powerful, but even I did not think I had the power to silence him. Indeed, many Prime Ministers and many greater people than me have found that no one has the power to silence him.

I am delighted to say that the politburo and the chairman of the Central Military Commission, from which the man who claims to be President derives his real power, discovered that they do not have the power to silence my hon. Friend, either. He did not apologise and visas were issued. For me, it was a very important first lesson that we have to stand up for what really matters. We have to stand up for ourselves, for our democracy and for our freedom, and we have to be absolutely clear why we are doing it. Of course we wanted to visit Beijing, and of course the Chinese Government have the right to issue or not to issue visas to the Foreign Affairs Committee—that is absolutely fair, as they do not have to issue visas to us—but they do not have the right to decide who sits on the Committee, as that is the privilege of this House and of our people.

That was my first lesson on the kind of relationship we have with Beijing at the moment. It hugely reversed what I hoped would be a constructive direction, and I am very sorry that it did so. Many of us who have been to China on a few occasions think incredibly highly of the Chinese people and of the culture and civilisation that has developed in different communities—some Han, some Mongol, some Tibetan, some Uyghur. We know that the Hui people have harboured Islam in their hearts, and we know there are Christian communities that go back 1,600, 1,700 and maybe even 1,800 years in different parts of China. We know this is a culture that is expressed in many different ways, and it is not always in a single unitary state. This is an area that has given the world such enormous wealth, richness, diversity and innovation.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of these peoples do not want to be Chinese? They want to be Tibetan, for instance. They are forced to remain within China’s boundaries against their will, and China refuses them the opportunity for self-determination, which is shameful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Thompson]

Where I would agree with the hon. Gentleman is that if the people of Taiwan wanted to have a referendum—and it is entirely a matter for the people of Taiwan—I would be 100% behind it. I think people would be astonished to find any disagreement about that among SNP Members. However, self-determination is not a one-time event, one vote and that is the end of it; self-determination is an ongoing process. That is why the SNP believes that an important consideration in determining how Taiwan is governed is what the people of Taiwan want, and how they express those desires at the ballot box.

Viewers in Scotland will already be well acquainted with the double standards of the UK Government when it comes to Scottish self-determination, but at times the Government also fall short of honouring that important principle when it comes to Taiwan. The UK does not recognise Taiwan enough and, as we have heard, there are no formal diplomatic relations with the island. That is something that could be simply looked at and corrected.

[John Nicolson]

It has been deeply heartening to hear so many Conservatives throughout this debate champion the idea of self-determination. Given that there is no international court of arbitration to determine self-determination for countries such as Tibet, is it not all the more important for countries such as the UK to stand up, and for their Governments to be not cowardly but outspoken in supporting those peoples?

[Owen Thompson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is critical that the UK Government lead by example. If we say that we support the right of people to choose, we must demonstrate that we support the right of people to choose. An SNP-led independent Scotland would support Taiwanese accession to multilateral organisations such as the World Health Organisation, recognising Taiwanese wishes to be an active and co-operative global player. Our friendship runs deep and goes beyond the principles of democracy and how we practise it.

We have already heard from many about the huge democratic reforms that have taken place in Taiwan from the ’80s through to the current day, and about the major progress that now sees Taiwan highlighted as a star performer and the No.1 democracy in Asia. However, Taiwan’s deepening democracy chimes with the Scottish Government’s agenda, with both Scotland and Taiwan seeking to broaden and deepen democratic participation. There is a lot we can learn from each other, such as Taiwan’s world-leading efforts to leverage technology and citizen participation into a system of digital democracy, which was most recently credited with containing covid in Taiwan.

Speaking of covid, we have heard about Taiwan’s handling of the pandemic and how exemplary it has been, despite its having only observer status rather than full membership of the WHO. When it comes to technology, it cannot be overstated how important the Taiwanese technological sector is for Scotland and the UK. Semiconductor chips—a resource now essential to all our online lifestyles—are overwhelmingly made in Taiwan, so trade link security is vital. The Scottish Government recognised this and opened a virtual Scottish Development International office in Taipei. Scotland has a positive story to tell on trade with Taiwan, and there are many areas of potential growth w full trading powers after independence. To name a few sectors with huge potential for trade and co-operation, we need look no further than the UK’s list of market access ambitions following the 24th annual UK-Taiwan trade talks: energy, offshore wind power, financial services, agriculture and whisky. These are all Scottish specialties.

As a fan of a malt myself, I cannot help but mention that, according to the Scotch Whisky Association, Taiwan was the fourth largest export destination for Scotch whisky by value in 2020, so slàinte to that. I particularly enjoy Taiwanese whisky, which has a very distinct taste—there is a certain sweetness that is not there in some of the single malts from up the road.

Trade opportunities are, of course, supplemented by academic collaboration. Between 7,000 and 8,000 Taiwanese students study in the UK each year, and Taiwan’s aim to become a society that is fully bilingual in English and Mandarin will make collaboration even easier.

The parallels between Scotland and Taiwan, and our shared ambitions, also extend to our climate priorities. The Taiwanese Government have committed to achieving net zero by 2050, with a target of 25% renewable energy by 2025. British Office Taipei has promoted UK offshore wind companies, many from Scotland, to Taiwanese partners. There is also scope for climate co-operation with the Scottish Government’s ScotWind strategy. Scottish Development International is exploring the possibility of a strategic partnership with Taiwan that would allow renewable energy supply chain companies to access the Taiwanese market much more easily.

Among all this, we cannot avoid the elephant in the room. China’s current denial of Taiwan’s right to self-determination and its insistence that Taiwan is merely a stray province of the PRC is a major concern. All this puts Taiwan’s future at risk, and we have a moral obligation in this place to stand against it, as we do to protect the self-determination of all peoples and nations.

Taiwan’s principled moves set an example to Scotland that small states can punch well above their weight. In an increasingly fraught and global world, smaller does not have to mean weaker. We have concerns that the Government’s integrated review makes no mention of Taiwan, and I hope they will correct that omission by reflecting the importance of Taiwan in their China strategy. It is perplexing that Taiwan is not afforded due consideration in the Government’s most recent foreign policy document. I sincerely hope that concern will be seriously considered and acted on.

When I look back at my time in Taiwan, I think of the friends I made from South Africa, Norway, Sweden, St Kitts, Bermuda and across the globe. We had a wonderful time exchanging ideas and thoughts with each other, and these will always be friendships. To the people of Taiwan, I simply say, “Yŏngyuăn de péngyou.”

Bosnia and Herzegovina: Stability and Peace

John Nicolson Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) said, Putin is the common factor in destabilising Belarus, Ukraine and Bosnia. Just as we support them, should we not also make it clear to the Serbs that if they continue to destabilise and to help Putin, EU membership will remain a distant dream for them?

[Wayne David]

Yes, I think we have to be objectively very critical of a number of players in the area. Russia is, of course, destabilising the situation for its own ends—as, indeed, it is doing elsewhere—and I think the House will be united in condemnation of its efforts. However, other countries leave a lot to be desired in their activities too; the hon. Member correctly refers to Serbia. We need to be determined in saying to our friends and allies that we do not expect that kind of behaviour, and we really have to work together as an international community to stabilise the situation and take things forward.

However, it is important to recognise that the main external disruptor is indeed Russia. We have to be very clear with Russia, in a whole host of ways and in different spheres, that its material efforts at destabilisation are totally unacceptable. We realise what is happening, we will not have the wool pulled over our eyes, and we must stand united against its destabilisation efforts.

It is extremely important that this debate is taking place today and that a powerful and united message is sent from all democrats and peace lovers in this House, right across the Chamber. But a debate is not enough; we need to make sure, dare I say it, that our Government are wholeheartedly involved and using their maximum diplomatic and material effort to stabilise the situation. It is important, too, that we do not see this as a one-off debate but that we maintain our interest and concern so that we have a genuine, long-lasting peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I deployed in September 1992 with 900 men and some women to save lives. We were neutral. We were cast into the middle of a war between three basic sides, not including the mafia. Bosnian Serbs were fighting Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims. Bosnian Muslims were fighting Bosnian Serbs and sometimes Bosnian Croats. Bosnian Croats were fighting Bosnian Serbs and occasionally Bosnian Muslims. We have to avoid that happening again. We were sent there to try to give Bosnia a chance. We managed to save quite a number of people, for example in April 1993 we led on pulling out about 2,000 people from Srebrenica three years before the disaster of July 1995, but we failed to save many others, so, in my view, it was not a success.

What is pertinent to this debate is the fact that I witnessed a political solution, the Vance-Owen plan, which the Bosnian Croats immediately tried to put into action by trying to take out a town called Gornji Vakuf. I watched as the Brigadier General of the Bosnian-Croat army tasked his tanks to fire one round at each house, one after the other, destroying the town piecemeal. I spent three weeks personally trying to stop that fighting, at some cost—my escort driver was killed. The lesson for me was that having a political solution that starts dividing Bosnia is asking for real trouble, so it must not happen.

I left in May 1993, but the war ground on. There was political indecision and a lack of will among Europeans, the Americans and the United Nations. It ground on until that awful genocide of Srebrenica in July 1995, when 8,372 men and boys were murdered by the Bosnian Serb army—by the way, the same Bosnian Serb army that might want to split away. Srebrenica was the catalyst for Dayton. The Dayton peace accords—thank goodness it happened—achieved its primary end: it stopped the war.

As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), no one has been shot or blown up in Bosnia since—I am sure they have, but to our knowledge they have not—but it was lousy politics, because it set up a very weak country and a very weak Government, with three Presidents in rotation representing each side for eight months, and it did not work. Dayton was meant to last for only a short while. Look how long it has had to exist. Now, we have this Bosnian Serb, Dodik, who is threatening to take Republika Srpska out of Bosnia.

I was very friendly with the late Lord Paddy Ashdown. Paddy told me a story about having dinner with Franjo Tuđman, the President of Croatia, in May 1995 at the Guildhall in London. Paddy said to Tuđman, “How do you see the future of Bosnia in 10 years’ time?” Tuđman grabbed a menu, drew a map of Bosnia and divided it in half: half Serb, half Croat. Paddy asked, “What is going to happen to the Bosnian Muslims?” Tuđman said, “Well, maybe a small section in a Croatian area.” By the way, they are all south Slav. Everyone is a south Slav, but by religion they are 30% Serb, 15% Croat and over 50% Bosnian Muslim—1.8 million people. Bosnia matters to us, because if the Croats and the Serbs divide the country in half, guess what will happen to 1.8 million people. They are going to be on the road. They will not be looking east, but north and west. It matters to us what happens in Bosnia.

[John Nicolson]

As the right hon. and gallant Member knows, as a BBC presenter I interviewed him many times at that time. He mentioned a number of times the secession of the Bosnian Serb part of Bosnia. If they pull out their troops from the joint army and set up their own army, that surely takes us right back to the time that he was there. It is a clear breach of the Dayton accords. It arms them and makes them dangerous. That should be our line in the sand, surely?

[Bob Stewart]

I agree.

There are two lessons: dividing Bosnia will not work; and the only way to get a solution in Bosnia is by robust international actions. So what will we do? Let me finish by making four points.

First, we have to sustain Dayton at least until we get something to replace it or help it. Secondly, Mr Christian Schmidt, who is sitting here today, requires our absolute and unequivocal support. He must be given all the power we can provide for him to stop the country going backwards. We need another Dayton, which some have called Dayton II. We need the involvement of the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Russia, which is playing hard to get, and Serbia. And, of course, in any Dayton II we require the presence of the Bosnian Serbs, because they were not there at Dayton I. I expect—I hope that the Minister is listening to me carefully—the UK to lead on sorting this out.

My final point is this: we must be prepared to send in our soldiers to save lives. That is what we did before: save lives. Fifty-seven of our soldiers died. One of them, Lance Corporal Wayne Edwards, was my driver. That does not count Dobrila Kolaba, my wonderful interpreter who was killed. Minister, it is over to you. The UK must lead and sort out this problem. We can do it.

Human Rights in Hong Kong

John Nicolson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]]

What we are seeing in Hong Kong is a two-pronged assault on truth. First, China attacks the source of truth—reporting—by threatening and expelling journalists who expose the extent of China’s authoritarian behaviour. Secondly, China creates an Orwellian alternative narrative in which those who tell the truth are the liars, and those who commit violent acts of repression are the liberators.

China’s leaders hate journalism. At the end of March, the BBC’s China correspondent was driven out of Hong Kong. Plain-clothes goons followed him and his family to the airport. This was not an isolated case. Most independent foreign correspondents have now been expelled, as Beijing proceeds to eliminate the last vestiges of Hong Kong’s freedom. With this in mind, it is hardly surprising to see China being ranked by the World Press Freedom Index as one of the worst countries in the world for media freedoms; it is ranked a dismal 177th.

Once upon a time, some thought that Hong Kong could be a beacon for China, spreading its values to the mainland. Instead, the opposite has happened. Under its current leader, China has become ever more controlling and hostile to the truth. Hong Kong is merely the latest victim of a malign system that has trampled on press freedoms, democracy, cultural and religious minorities, and once independent nations, as the downtrodden and oppressed people of Tibet, the Uyghurs and many others can testify.

Journalistic censorship is paired with other despotic trademarks, disinformation being the foremost. In the digital world in which we live, it is not enough for the Chinese leadership to stem information coming from legitimate news outlets; information from normal citizens must also be quashed. China employs what is sometimes called the 50 cent army, so-called because of their meagre daily pay. Thought to number millions, these Communist party drones track online activity and work to sway public opinion with disinformation both inside China and outwith. Bots counter unfavourable reports and conversations about the Chinese regime.

It is a tactic deployed by the Kremlin, too, and it is spreading across the globe. During the recent onslaught against Gaza by the Israelis, there were mounting reports of another onslaught—the mass reporting by pro-Israeli groups of Palestinian posts from Gaza. This is a new world in which social media is weaponised by the powerful.

What can we do when faced with this bleak descent into untruth? We must champion journalism; we must speak up when we are told that there are “alternative facts”; we must steel the resolve of social media companies when they crumble under the weight of totalitarian pressure and their own avarice; we must speak the names of those who are bullied, arrested and imprisoned; we must honour the memory of those brave young people crushed by the Chinese regime in Tiananmen Square; we must assert the rights of the Uyghurs, and call out their detention and torture; we must champion the right of Tibet to self-determination; and we must never accept Hong Kong’s slide into the grim and oppressive reality faced by so many in mainland China, because we promised its people better.

Xinjiang: Forced Labour

John Nicolson Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is right as a matter of human rights, but he is also right as a matter of trust. One of the issues on this and in relation to the joint declaration in the context of Hong Kong, as we have said, is that these are obligations freely assumed. These are basic obligations that come with being a responsible and, as he says, leading member of the international community. Ultimately, if China cannot live up to those responsibilities and obligations, that raises a much broader issue of trust and confidence.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]]

The poet Perhat Tursun, one of the foremost living writers in the Uyghur language, is one of around 1 million who have been disappeared by the Chinese state into the so-called re-education camps. Turson has been missing since his detention in January 2018. In one of his poems, he writes presciently:

“When they search the streets and cannot find my vanished figure

Do you know that I am with you”.

The Foreign Secretary must go further than today’s announcements. Uyghurs are not being persecuted for what they pick, but for who they are. As with the Tibetans, does he support their right to the self-determination that they seek?

[Dominic Raab]

We certainly want to see the human rights, freedoms and basic liberties of the people of Tibet, Hong Kong and Xinjiang respected. We are taking a series of measures, and are in the vanguard internationally with the measures that we have taken. It is important to try to keep clusters of like-minded partners with us to have the maximum effect precisely to provide redress and accountability for the violations of human rights that the hon. Gentleman and I rightly deplore.

Hong Kong

John Nicolson Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend is 100% correct in every word he has just said. I can assure him that we will continue to lead this international effort against the violations and the breaches of the joint declaration. We are in constant touch with our international partners on this, not least Australia, Canada, Germany and the US, which, I reiterate, have all issued statements today condemning this action by China.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]]

Given the latest brutal attack by China on Hong Kong democracy and freedom of speech, will the Minister undertake to increase the number of visas available to Hong Kong citizens, tell us what he will do if they are not recognised by China and reassure those who may need them that they will have access and recourse, in the short term at least, to public funds in the UK if they need to flee?

[Nigel Adams]

It is a very generous offer that we have laid out to British national overseas citizens. We will expect them to be self-sufficient and contribute to UK society. We look forward to welcoming those applications. As I have said, the new route that the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary have hammered out is compelling and compassionate, particularly, as the hon. Gentleman will welcome, with regard to applications that are made as a family unit. We will use discretion in issuing a grant to children of BNO status holders who fall into this category.

UK Telecommunications

John Nicolson Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my right hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to the assiduous and rigorous work done under her leadership and by her Government, which has made possible the decision that we make today. I can confirm that, in her words, there will be no impact on intelligence. We seek to continue to work with the Five Eyes on intelligence; indeed, we want to strengthen that relationship as we depart from the EU. Co-operation should also expand in relation to dealing with the shortfall in, and the need to improve diversity of, supply in the telecoms network.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

The Conservative party likes to brand itself as the party of security, but many will think that this decision is born out of weakness. It has come about as a result of short-termism and decades of under-investment. The Prime Minister has gone for the cheapest, least secure option, but it does not take a genius to work out why Huawei is so competitive in cost. It is the Chinese Communist party branded as a company, and the Conservative Government have chosen low cost over security. 5G has been described as the central nervous system of a modern society, and every citizen wants to know whether the state itself can be undermined by the decision that the Government have made. But let us be in no doubt: 5G infrastructure from China is not safe. Under Chinese law, every Chinese company is mandated to give whatever help it is asked to give to the Chinese intelligence services, and in secret. That alone should have been enough for the Prime Minister to decide against allowing the company access.

The Secretary of State has said that the company will be limited to 35% market share in the periphery of the 5G network and will be banned from core functions, but anyone who understands 5G will know that that is not how it works. Installing masts, for instance, may seem innocuous, but each antenna has software, which is remotely updatable, and the so-called peripheral access network can communicate. It can contain malware, which these days is tiny and hard to detect. There is a very good reason why countries such as Australia and New Zealand have chosen not to let the company into their markets. I suspect history will judge that their Governments showed more wisdom at a critical time.

The Government have made a choice: low cost over security. It is the wrong choice, and surely the Foreign Secretary must realise that future generations may come to judge his decision harshly.

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman questioned the rigour of the decision, but as I set out in my statement, it follows—in fairness to the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), he acknowledged this—what has been a very thorough and extended assessment, including the telecoms supply chain review and the analysis on the security side by the National Cyber Security Centre. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) is at odds with all of that analysis, including that provided by the intelligence agencies to the Government. He mentioned some countries that have taken a different decision, but as far as I am aware, New Zealand has not taken the decision that he describes. I am afraid that he is wrong on that count. If he is calling for an outright ban he should say so, and he should also address square on the fact that the analysis that we have received shows that that would not be an effective, targeted or forensic way to address the security concerns rightly identified by the review that we conducted. It would not remove Chinese production from the UK telecoms supply. It would reduce competition, which he suggested is part of the problem, and that would make things worse. It would significantly increase the costs for industry and would delay the roll-out of 5G. On all counts, I say respectfully that he has got his analysis wrong.