China: Human Rights and Security
Lord Bishop of Winchester Excerpts(3 days, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
I am very grateful to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for securing this vital and urgent debate. I congratulate him on his election as chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. There is no one better qualified to fulfil that role.
If we are to understand China from the perspective of human rights, security or trade, or indeed from any other perspective, we must see the country in its own terms and as it sees itself rather than simply through western lenses. To understand China as she understands herself, it will not do to look at her in terms of Marxism or indeed Maoism. If once it was said of the Labour Party that it was more Methodist than Marxist, it can be fairly said of the Chinese Communist Party that it is at least as Confucianist as it is communist. At the heart of China’s concept of itself lies the concept of tianxia, a word that means “all under heaven”—and that I almost certainly mispronounce. Even in those three words, you can grasp a sense of its import. It is an ancient concept, dating at least to the start of the first millennium BC, describing a system of relations across Asia, with China as the centre of the civilised world and the apex of culture, the heart of a sage empire, spreading material benefits and wisdom to all mankind—a geopolitical system with China at the centre and the Emperor at the centre of the centre.
When Lord Macartney visited the Emperor in 1793 to discuss trade terms, the Emperor stated that China was the foremost and most divine nation on earth and had no need of foreign goods. That was a pure expression of tianxia. In subsequent decades, with the opium wars, the collapse of the empire, the disaster of the Second World War and Maoism, the concept took quite a battering, only to reassert itself now under President Xi, just as neo-tsarism has in Russia.
In contemporary China, tianxia manifests itself in the ideology of “one country, one people, one party, one leader”, and it has global implications too. In the words of Steve Tsang, the director of the SOAS China Institute, President Xi is undeterred by western objections because he believes in the moral righteousness and inevitability of Chinese global leadership. Of course he does because he believes in tianxia and, as we can see and as has been outlined in this debate, it manifests itself in Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong, in the South China Sea, in aggression towards Taiwan, in transnational repression and in malign influence such as we have seen here in recent days. The belt and road initiative is just another manifestation of it. It is seen specifically in violations of religion or belief. Religious minorities—Muslims in Xinjiang, Buddhists in Tibet, Falun Gong and Christians across China—must be repressed because they do not accept that ultimate authority rests with the one at the heart of the system, as tianxia dictates.
So how do we address it? Not by assuming that China believes in the international rules-based system but by understanding, ideologically and indeed theologically, where China is coming from. China simply does not see itself as one nation state among many; tianxia will not allow for that. A religiously illiterate approach that relies on western secular assumptions simply will not do, and we cannot counter a three millennia-old concept by appeal to a Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was drawn up only in 1948, deeply as I believe in it.
We must take a religiously informed approach to such a concept. In that light, I warmly welcome the announcement of the new freedom of religion or belief special envoy, the Member for North Northumberland, David Smith MP. He is very well equipped to take on this role, not only to advocate for marginalised communities but to help us understand these big-picture issues as they relate to increased authoritarianism and repression in the world today. I very much hope that, despite reports to the contrary, his office will be properly resourced, both financially and with staff, so that he can make the fullest impact possible in his role. There is no doubt that with Senator Rubio in post as Secretary of State—I note that he is currently under a Chinese travel ban—the incoming Trump Administration will foreground freedom of religion or belief in foreign policy. Mr Smith’s appointment gives us the perfect opportunity to make common cause with the United States on this issue, and we must grasp it.
Only a robust approach to China will do. It is not my place to suggest what that approach might be, though the implementation of the foreign influence registration scheme seems a good place to start, but we are not powerless in this. The UK and our allies are not without influence and we must use our seat on the Security Council. Despite what the Emperor said to Lord Macartney, China needs our trade—but we cannot trade at any price and must not leave this too late.
India: Freedom of Religion or Belief
Lord Bishop of Winchester Excerpts(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs what assessment he has made of the current state of freedom of religion or belief in India.
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton) (Con)
My Lords, India is a multifaith, multiethnic democracy and remains among the most religiously diverse societies in the world. It is home to 966 million Hindus, 172 million Muslims, 28 million Christians, 20 million Sikhs, 8 million Buddhists and 4.5 million Jains. India is committed via its constitution to freedom of religion and belief. Where specific issues or concerns arise, the UK Government of course raise these directly with the Government of India.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Disturbing reports of violations of freedom of religion or belief in the Indian state of Manipur over the past year have been rightly highlighted by the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance —of which the UK is a member, under the leadership of the Member of Parliament for Congleton, Fiona Bruce MP, the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm his support for the Bill to place the vital international role of the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on FORB on a statutory footing? I hope to bring that Bill forward to this House in the next few weeks once it concludes its current stages in another place. The statutory establishment of this role was a recommendation of the Truro review that I was honoured to author, the implementation of which remains government policy.
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Con)
I can certainly give the right reverend Prelate that confirmation. I very much agree with the Bill. In fact, I insisted that it went forward with government support. Fiona Bruce does an excellent job in this regard and, for the first time, one of these governmental envoys will be placed on a statutory footing. That reflects the importance that we in this Government and in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office attach to celebrating freedom of religious belief. She does a great job and should be able to do it on a statutory basis.
Climate Change: Impact on Developing Nations
Lord Bishop of Winchester Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Winchester (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am conscious of the immense privilege that is mine to have a seat as of right in your Lordships’ House. I am very grateful for the welcome and help I have received from noble Lords and staff, both today and as I have been inducted into its ways.
The See of Winchester, which I serve, was founded in 660. In 838, at the Great Council of Kingston, King Ecgberht of Wessex entered into a compact with the Sees of Winchester and Canterbury, in return for their promise of support for his son Aethelwulf’s claim to the Throne. Aethelwulf was the father of Alfred the Great. That ancient compact was a key moment in the developing relationship between Church and state that has done so much to shape to the life of this country, as together we have sought the common good—and it is to that theme of the common good that I will return later.
I turn specifically to the matter of this debate. In looking at this issue of international development, I believe we must pay proper attention to two cardinal principles: internationalism and localism. It is vital that, as a country, we take an internationalist approach to international development. Global problems, including climate change, require global solutions, and nothing less will do. But, in all that, the local must not be lost. Effective development must always have purchase at the grass roots in specific contexts and communities, or it will be simply unsustainable.
In my clerical career, I have been immensely privileged to have been given both a broad international perspective and unique insights into the local and particular. I have led a church in a rather unremarked but wonderful corner of south London, and I have led another at the heart of Paris, exercising ministry at the crossroads of the world. I have led a global mission agency deeply committed to pursuing a global agenda through the context of the very local. I have been Bishop of Truro in Cornwall, a place with great international reach historically and with its own much-prized local culture.
I now serve in Winchester, a diocese that can lay good claim to having shaped the wider world—think of Bishop Lancelot Andrewes overseeing the compilation of the authorised version of the Bible and its global impact. But it is also a diocese made up of truly distinctive local places: Winchester, England’s ancient capital; the great port city of Southampton; the burgeoning boroughs of Bournemouth, Basingstoke and Christchurch; our historic market towns; and innumerable picture-perfect Hampshire villages. Each is a place of value in its own right but also part of a greater whole.
This theme of globalism and localism has particular relevance when we look at one theme critical to international development: freedom of religion or belief—FoRB. It is critical because the denial of FoRB is inimical to effective community development. As Bishop of Truro, at the invitation of the then Foreign Secretary, the Member for South West Surrey, the right honourable Jeremy Hunt MP, I authored a report on FoRB, the recommendations of which became and remain government policy. I am hugely grateful to my friend in the other place, the Member for Congleton, Fiona Bruce MP, who holds the role of Prime Minister’s special envoy for FoRB, for her dogged commitment to the implementation of those recommendations, which have even led to the passing of a UN Security Council resolution on this issue for the first time.
In this global struggle for FoRB, in which the UK plays a leading role, we value both the international—this is a universal right and a global problem—and the local, in that it is minority communities that are most under threat from its denial. The denial of FoRB is a scourge on local minority communities and, therefore, on their development. Its denial can be laid squarely at the feet of both weak government and intolerant, authoritarian and nationalistic regimes that brook no dissent. This is therefore a growing global problem that requires a global response, and I am honoured to play my part, along with many others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, in such a response.
It is vital that we act globally to protect the distinctive and the local, and there is a moral connection between the global struggle for FoRB and the challenge of climate change. In the end, only plural states with a heart for the common global good, rather than their own self-aggrandisement, will truly care about these issues. So action on FoRB and action on climate change spring from a common concern for the common good. In tackling both, we seek the health and welfare of the whole planet, and a common good that, in the end, can be expressed only through flourishing local communities. Promoting FoRB promotes plural, prosperous and stable states, contributing significantly to international development and global security.
In tackling climate change and FoRB together, we must stand against those regimes that are more concerned with preserving their own power than seeking the local rights of minorities and the global good of the whole planet. I urge His Majesty’s Government to maintain a broad international perspective and to value and treasure the local and particular, both things which make this world so rich and so blessed a place.