Combating Atrocity Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide

Lord Hussain Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hussain (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this timely debate. “Never again” was the promise made after the Holocaust. Since then, the world has witnessed Cambodia, Rwanda, Srebrenica, Kashmir, Myanmar and more recent mass atrocities in South Sudan and Sudan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere. The promise has been broken too often.

Prevention is not a technical footnote to foreign policy. It is the central test of whether the post-1945 international system works. Once mass killing begins, stopping it costs more lives, money and credibility than preventing it. We must get better at early warning and early action. Atrocities do not erupt without signs. Hate speech that dehumanises a group, systematic discrimination, the build-up of militias, attacks on journalists and civil society, the manipulation of elections and identity politics are patterns that UN offices and NGOs have documented for decades.

The UK helped create the UN Office on Genocide Prevention, but early warning is useless without early action. The UN Security Council must shift from crisis response to crisis prevention. That means using the UN General Assembly’s uniting for peace procedure more often when a veto paralyses the UN Security Council. The General Assembly cannot authorise force but it can mandate fact-finding, sanctions and diplomatic initiatives. We must fund the UN’s prevention architecture properly.

What should the British Government do? The UK has unique tools: it is a P5 seat holder with strong intelligence capacity, a global diplomatic network and the FCDO’s atrocity prevention department. But we need to use these tools more consistently by making atrocity prevention a core objective of all UK country strategies, not just in obvious conflict zones. Trade, aid and security partnerships should all be screened for risk. The UK-India FTA had no human rights clause. That sends the wrong signal. Every agreement should have clear benchmarks and consequences.

The UK must lead on accountability. It should support the ICC, politically and financially, and use sanctions against individuals inciting genocide or crimes against humanity faster. We must protect those who sound the alarm. Journalists, human rights defenders and local civil society groups are the first to document atrocity risks, yet they are often the first targets. Our aid and diplomatic protection must prioritise them.

The UK must address the drivers at home. Genocide does not start with killing; it starts with rhetoric that divides “us” from “them”. The UK must enforce laws against incitement to hatred and disinformation that targets ethnic or religious groups, including online. Prevention begins in our own public discourse.

We must be honest about inconsistency. The credibility of “never again” depends on applying it everywhere. When international law is enforced selectively, with some victims getting UN Security Council resolutions and others silence, the whole framework weakens. Civilians in Sudan, Palestine, Ukraine, Myanmar and Kashmir deserve the same standards of protection.

Prevention is political, not just humanitarian. It means being willing to have difficult conversations with allies and partners. It means accepting that short-term stability brought about by ignoring repression usually collapses into long-term conflict. It means the UK using its P5 voice to push for mediation before the killing starts, not after.

I believe that genocide is not a natural disaster. It is a political crime with political causes. It can be prevented if we choose to see the warning signs and act early. The British Government should make atrocity prevention a standing priority across the FCDO, the MoD and trade policy. The UN should resource prevention, use the General Assembly when the Security Council is blocked and protect those documenting risk on the ground. “Never again” cannot be a slogan we dust off after mass graves are found. It must be the calculation we make when the first warning sign appears.

With that in mind, what is the Government’s assessment of the latest report of the renowned international human rights organisation, Genocide Watch, which indicates that India has reached stage 7—preparation—of genocide? What steps are the British Government taking to stop that genocide taking place? Finally, will the Government publish the annual atrocity risk assessment and table a UN General Assembly resolution strengthening early warning and prevention mechanisms when the Security Council is unable to act?

Middle East

Lord Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I appreciate the comments of the noble Lord. We are determined to actually focus on all those diplomatic tools we have available. We are absolutely focused on that. I also reassure noble Lords that we did not participate in the US or Israeli strikes. We were given due notice, as we would expect as close allies of the US. We have been moving assets to the region to make sure that we are in a position to protect our own interests, personnel, assets and allies. Our first duty is to ensure that our forces and bases in the region are safe and secure. We have been moving assets to the region for that reason.

I agree with the noble Lord. We are cautious and absolutely focused on diplomatic efforts, but we remain committed to protecting our troops and assets.

[Lord Hussain (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s Statement on the de-escalation of the crisis in Iran, but my heart bleeds for the people of Gaza who are being killed—men, women and children—while trying to collect food and water. According to Reuters, 44 people were killed by Israeli strikes in Gaza on Friday while collecting aid. Can the Minister assure the House that British weapons supplied to Israel are not used to kill innocent men, women and children in Gaza?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The simple answer to the noble Lord is that I can give him that assurance. We have absolutely complied with those licences. We stopped issuing licences for exports to Israel that could be used in Gaza. We are absolutely complying with what he says.

Syria: UK Military Action

Lord Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hussain (LD)]

Organisations such as Daesh—known by some as ISIS—in the Middle East, the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Boko Haram in Africa were born from the ashes of wars in Iraq, Libya and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and injustices in the Middle East.

My country of origin, Pakistan, has seen some of the worst atrocities committed by the Taliban targeting mosques, shrines and schools, killing more than 45,000 Pakistani men, women and children. Pakistan’s army is currently fully engaged in eradicating these extremists and terrorists from the country, with the unanimous approval of its Parliament, including the religious parties, and the full support of its public.

Daesh is known to be responsible for current mass killings in Tunisia, Lebanon, Turkey and France. It has forcefully acquired a large area of Iraq and Syria by defeating both armies. That shows that it has some of the most modern weapons and military force. I believe that terrorists who kill children in schools, worshippers in mosques and churches, innocent shoppers, passengers and other ordinary peaceful men, women and children, or blow themselves up in busy marketplaces, causing carnage, have no religion or faith. They need to be defeated.

The question in front of us today is whether Britain should join its allies in military action against Daesh in Syria. I am not a legal expert, so I will not argue about the legality of the air strikes against Daesh, as many legal experts in this House have already given their views on it. However, some serious questions need answering. I wish to ask the Minister a few questions.

First, the use of force should be undertaken as a last resort. Have we exhausted all the peaceful means to neutralise Daesh, particularly by depriving it of weapons and finance?

Secondly, from the information available it seems that the allied forces have very little, if any, intelligence on the ground in Daesh-controlled areas, so they rely heavily on images taken from the skies above these areas. How do they distinguish Daesh from groups of students, religious congregations, funeral gatherings or the Free Syrian Army?

Thirdly, would victims of any potential friendly-fire air strikes not radicalise more people? Russian forces are involved in bombing anti-Assad forces. What pressure is being applied on Russia to see an end to that? Will more bombing not create more destabilisation and lead to more people fleeing Syria? Are the UK Government willing to accept more refugees? Will our actions make the UK and the rest of the world any safer?