Democratic Republic of the Congo (Human Rights)

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am pleased that we are having this half-hour debate on the situation facing the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is an interest of mine as the vice-chair of the all-party group on human rights and as a member of the all-party group on the African great lakes region, to which I pay tribute for the work it has done over many years to increase many Members’ interest in the DRC. In particular, I pay tribute to our excellent worker, Carole Velasquez, who does a great deal to support the group and to ensure that we are effective in raising issues in the House.

I also have a constituency interest, because a considerable number of people from all parts of the DRC have made their home in my constituency. They make a great contribution to the local community and the local economy. They have family connections to the DRC, and they have real-life experience of not only its joys and cultural wonders but the horrors of war and conflict, which have so disfigured the country for so long.

Sadly, the horrors of the Congo are not new. From the time of slavery and occupation, when the Congo was the personal fiefdom of King Leopold of the Belgians, the abuse of human rights and the environment, and the exploitation of the place, have been second to none in the litany of one human’s abuse of another. The European’s sheer racism towards the Congo throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, and the slavery that went with it, are legendary. If anyone has any doubts about that, I urge them to read the wonderful work by American writer Adam Hochschild on the Congo.

However, we should also recognise the wonderful work done by many people. E.D. Morel exposed the slave trade in the Congo while working as a shipping clerk in Liverpool. The British consul in the area, Roger Casement, was later executed for his part in the Easter rising, but he nevertheless did a great deal to expose what was going on in the Congo.

When independence came in 1961, and Patrice Lumumba became the first Prime Minister, the break-up of the Congo was threatened and military coups took place. Patrice Lumumba was assassinated shortly after taking office, and there has been political instability ever since, with coups and military Governments. However, a great deal of wealth has also been made out of the Congo by international mining companies and timber companies and by some of the world’s biggest agribusinesses. The country has therefore enriched the rest of the world, providing uranium, gold, diamonds and many other minerals; indeed, every one of us who has a mobile phone will, at some point, probably have had one with coltan in it from the DRC. This is a place where the world has made wealth, but that wealth has not, unfortunately, been extended to the people of the DRC. It is important to put these things in a slightly historical context.

I want now to raise four related issues: the conflict in the east of the country; political violence and instability; governance; and what the international community, the UN and particularly the UK can do to improve the situation.

To give an example of how awful the situation is, let me quote Amnesty International’s 2014 annual report on the DRC:

“The security situation in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo…remained dire and an upsurge in violence by armed groups claimed the lives of thousands of civilians and forced more than a million people to leave their homes. Human rights abuses, including killings and mass rapes, were committed by both government security forces and armed groups. Violence against women and girls was prevalent throughout the country. Plans to amend the Constitution to allow President Kabila to stay in office beyond 2016 prompted protests. Human rights defenders, journalists and members of the political opposition were threatened, harassed and arbitrarily arrested by armed groups and by government security forces…More than 170,000 DRC nationals were expelled from the Republic of Congo”—

Congo-Brazzaville, as it was formerly called—

“to the DRC between 4 April and early September. Among them were refugees and asylum-seekers. Some of the expelled were allegedly arrested and detained incommunicado in Kinshasa.

Little assistance was provided by the DRC government, and as of September, more than 100 families were living on the streets of Kinshasa without tents, health care, food or any assistance.”

The situation and the way people are having to survive are terrible by any stretch of the imagination.

The violence is awful, and we have to look at what the international community is doing. MONUSCO—the United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo—is one of the UN’s biggest, most expensive missions, and its performance, activity and governance are extremely controversial. I have visited the DRC twice, I have spent time with MONUSCO officials and officers and I have heard what people think of MONUSCO. At its best, it can be very helpful and effective. When I was in Goma there was a plane crash, and the MONUSCO officials from India and Pakistan were extremely helpful, effective and good at assisting the victims. At other levels, however, the complaints about harassment and abuse by UN soldiers and about the lack of control over them are very damaging to the UN’s image and to ordinary people’s confidence in the UN.

As time has gone on, MONUSCO’s mandate has changed. The mission has become much more assertive militarily, and many people in the Congo find it a bit hard to distinguish between the UN and anybody else taking on rebel and guerrilla forces such as the March 23 movement. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some indication of the direction in which MONUSCO is moving. I do not underestimate the security difficulties and problems, but there must be an understanding that the UN’s role is not to fight wars on behalf of other people but to bring about peace, security and above all development, so that people can live reasonable and decent lives.

The Catholic Fund for Overseas Development is very active in the Congo and very knowledgeable about it. In a research paper, it recommends that the new MONUSCO mandate should include

“the need to prioritize civilian approaches to protection of civilians”

and

“improved communication between the civilian and military sections of the mission”;

emphasise

“the need for improved contingency planning which focuses on the prevention of civilian harm in both the immediate and the longer term”;

request

“that the Secretary General’s…reporting on the mission includes key indicators against which the impact of protection efforts can be evaluated”;

ensure

“that any military operation is accompanied by concrete actions addressing security sector reform…and demobilization, disarmament and reintegration”;

strengthen

“mechanisms for holding the DRC Government to account for human rights abuses committed by their personnel”,

committing

“additional resources to this end”;

and stress

“that consolidation of state authority in eastern DRC must deliver effective protection”.

Those are all sensible, reasonable proposals, and the Minister is well aware of the situation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for outlining the issues so clearly. It is said that 4 million people died in the civil war, of whom 20% were targeted for their Christian beliefs. The hon. Gentleman has outlined the situation as it affects everyone, but does he agree that the DRC Government and the UN should take every action necessary to protect the Christians in the country, and their religious freedom, and is he aware of what discussions our Government have had on their behalf?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Absolutely. Religious freedom is, to me, a basis of normal, decent civilian life, which I think is what my hon. Friend, if I may call him that, was saying. That must be correct. On one of my visits to the DRC I stayed in a Catholic mission, and was impressed with what the people there were doing, and with its ecumenical nature. They extended their hand to other faiths and groups. There is a huge variety of religious persuasions in the DRC, including evangelical Christians as well as the perhaps more traditional Catholic Church and very big Churches such as the Simon Kimbangu foundation. It is an interesting place, and the hon. Gentleman has made an important and valid point.

I had a useful meeting and discussion last week with a representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Markus Geisser. He helpfully sent some information about what it is doing. The ICRC first went to the Congo in 1960 and had a permanent mission from 1978 onwards. It has a great deal of experience and is well respected. Because it is the ICRC it manages effectively to reach all parts. Its budget is 63 million Swiss francs, of which 13 million Swiss francs are spent on protection, 41 million Swiss francs on assistance, 5 million Swiss francs on prevention and 2 million Swiss francs on co-operation with civil society. It has a considerable local staff and has issued an emergency appeal for 2015 to help fund its activities in the DRC. I hope that the British Government will respond positively.

I want to draw attention to the question of violence against the individual. I have talked about the number of people killed and forced into exile, and the horrors that go with that. There is a disproportionate impact on women and girls, and to quote again from the Amnesty International report:

“Rape and other forms of sexual violence against women and girls remained endemic, not only in areas of conflict, but also in parts of the country not affected by armed hostilities. Acts of sexual violence were committed by armed groups, by members of the security forces and by unarmed civilians. The perpetrators of rape and other sexual violence enjoyed virtually total impunity.

Mass rapes, in which dozens of women and girls were sexually assaulted with extreme brutality, were committed by armed groups and by members of the security forces during attacks on villages in remote areas, particularly in North Kivu and Katanga. Such attacks often also involved other forms of torture, killings and looting.”

What can the UK and the Department for International Development do? The DFID programme is welcome; it is £162 million for 2013-14, and I hope it will rise in the future. Our programme includes support for such things as the political framework at a national level; key reform processes; work on tangible peace dividends and benefits to communities, particularly in the east; and progress in addressing grievances, perceptions and community tensions. Much of that is valuable and it is important to pursue it. Without the development of civil society, little can be achieved.

I was once on a visit with a delegation in Goma; we had travelled for a long time from Rwanda. When we arrived we visited a women’s centre. It was humbling, to say the least, to be asked to address—in the dark, because we arrived after nightfall, but they wanted to see us anyway—a meeting of 300 to 400 women, every one of whom had been a victim of rape, or multiple rape, and violence. They were doing their best to rebuild their lives. They were trying to get to a place of security and were at least in the centre in Goma. I also visited refugee camps and spoke to a lot of women about what had happened to them there. The violence that had happened to them was indeed rape as a weapon of war.

The former Foreign Secretary, now the Leader of the House, took the issue up at an international summit, and I was pleased that he did and that far more publicity has been given to the fact that rape is used as a weapon of war. I support any funding that we can give to women’s organisations and centres in Goma and other parts of Congo—particularly if that is used to support women to go back to villages and develop economic life, recognising that women are crucial to the peace process. They are, essentially, the builders of communities, and they have a special place in Africa because of their huge contribution to agriculture.

Education is the key—and that includes the education of boys. In Kinshasa I visited what euphemistically passed for children’s homes but were really houses where boys slept at night; they went off in the day to do whatever they wanted, because they had nothing else to do. They had little education or support and hardly any role models. If we do not give the next generation of boys, and the one after that, education and opportunity, the horrors of the abuse of women, and the arrogance of male behaviour in the Congo, will simply continue and get worse. Investment in education is key.

As I said when I began, Britain has made a big contribution through DFID. We have sent support and election observers, and I hope that we will send observers to the forthcoming elections. However, I hope that we will take action in this country as well. Coltan does not come from nowhere. Okay, it is a conflict mineral and it is not supposed to be imported because of that. I have deep suspicions that it gets in through Rwanda and possibly Uganda. I have deep suspicions about the export of many minerals from conflict zones, particularly in the DRC. The Congo is theoretically signed up to the extractive industries transparency initiative. It should be held to account on that because mining companies based in Switzerland and London make a great deal of money out of the resources of the Congo, which should go to its people. Oxfam, the ICRC and many others have made enormous contributions to the effort to bring about some sort of peace and justice. CAFOD has made some valuable contributions as to the way MONUSCO should develop in future. It is up to us to take political action.

Finally, I ask the Minister to give what support he can in the case of the imprisonment of one Member of Parliament—not just because he is a Member of Parliament but because he represents something about democracy and freedom in the country. The MP is the hon. Vano Kiboko, who has now been in prison for nearly 100 days. His crime was apparently to raise criticisms of President Kabila, which many journalists and others have done. If we want a free and democratic Congo to develop, it is not up to us to occupy and invade; it is up to us to recognise the appalling loss of life, the horror of many individuals’ lives, and the contribution that the rest of the world could make if instead of taking the profits of the Congo it tried to ensure that they were invested in the people of the DRC.

Shaker Aamer

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be a signatory to the motion, along with colleagues from all parties. I draw attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) cannot be in the Chamber because he is engaged in other parliamentary business. It is only right to record that he strongly supports the motion, and he is a member of the cross-party group.

The fact that we are having this debate at all is a credit to the system under which the Backbench Business Committee allocates time. More importantly, it is a credit to the campaigners and supporters of Shaker Aamer and other people who have been so wrongly and grossly detained at Guantanamo Bay. We should pay tribute to those who have worked for many years for Shaker Aamer’s release. They have stood outside Parliament, collected signatures on street corners on wet and windy Saturday mornings, and e-mailed, written to and lobbied MPs. They are the lifeblood of democracy, and we should show them some respect today: having this debate—albeit not as well attended as one hoped—is a credit to them.

Much could be said, but in a sense it has all been said. The facts of the matter are quite simple. Shaker Aamer was wrongly taken from his family and imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay, and he has been disgracefully treated. He was cleared for release by President Bush, subsequently re-cleared for release by President Obama, but he has still not been released. He has been cleared for release for longer than President Obama has been President. It does not say very much about the power of the US presidency when the President can campaign for election partly on the basis of closing Guantanamo Bay, having specifically ordered the release of those against whom there is no case whatsoever but who have still not been released.

I have been involved in numerous meetings with the Foreign Office and others on this subject over the years, and I am at a loss to understand what is preventing Shaker Aamer’s release. If there is no case against him, why is he still in Guantanamo Bay? Is he being held because he knows too much and has seen too much—the hunger strikes, the torture and the brutality—or is it because there is still pressure to take him to Saudi Arabia, from where he originates? That would be a disgrace, and I am sure that he would refuse to go there. He is a British resident, and he has a family in this country, with a young child he has never seen. Surely he should be released and brought back to this country as quickly as possible. I repeat that there is no case against him whatsoever in this country.

Many people have taken up this cause, not least the Prime Minister and successive Foreign Secretaries and Foreign Office Ministers. When Hillary Clinton wrote to the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), she thanked him for his letter of 21 July 2010 concerning Shaker Aamer, and went on:

“Our national security interests will continue to benefit from close consultation and mutual assistance with these issues.”

She welcomed the opportunity to meet experts from the State Department to discuss the case, referred to President Obama’s Executive order of 22 January 2009 and looked forward to working closely with the Foreign Office to resolve the issue. It does not say much for a special relationship when the President orders a release and the Foreign Secretary and the US Secretary of State agree to work closely together, but Shaker Aamer still remains in prison with no case whatsoever against him.

We have to look at the background to the human rights abuses in Guantanamo Bay. Much has been written about that in many documents, but a very interesting one put out by Amnesty International states:

“There has been little or no accountability for the human rights violations that have occurred at Guantanamo, including the crimes under international law of torture and enforced disappearance. The recently published summary of the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI)’s review of the secret detention programme operated by the Central Intelligence Agency…finally confirmed that the naval base had been the location for a CIA ‘black site’ in 2003 and 2004 at which detainees were subject to enforced disappearance.”

That is the nub of it: there has been enforced disappearance to a place that is a legal void and that knows no recognition in any form of international law in any country whatsoever.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) that if this had been the treatment of a US citizen anywhere in the world, we would never have heard the end of it from successive US Presidents. I do not doubt that there would have been the threat of military action and all kinds of other things against any country that held a US citizen in these circumstances. I am not advocating sending the SAS to Guantanamo Bay to free Shaker Aamer or anything like that; what I am saying is that if the close relationship with the USA means anything, Shaker Aamer must be released immediately.

If the House approves the motion tonight, as I am sure it will, it should be communicated in the strongest possible terms to the Senate and the House in the USA that the British Parliament fully supports the release of Shaker Aamer. The breadth of political support for him in the cross-party group is surprising. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) will not mind my mentioning—indeed, he said the same of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—that he and I agree on very little, except for humanity and justice. In this case, we absolutely agree that the way in which Shaker Aamer has been treated is completely unjust and that he must be released. That, surely, has to be the message that we give tonight.

People have campaigned for justice for many years. We achieved a Parliament because people campaigned for our right to have a democracy. The essential part of a democracy is that the judicial system is independent of the political system and that everyone has the right to an independent hearing in a court of law. There is an exhibition in Westminster Hall that says just that because it is 800 years since Magna Carta. This man has never been in court, has never been charged, has never been convicted, has no case against him and has been approved for release and freedom, yet he is still in prison. Surely the message from this Parliament is, “Bring him home. Close Guantanamo Bay and end the outrage and abuse of human rights that it represents.” Otherwise, what is the message to the rest of the world? It is that we are incapable, that we do not care, or that, by our inaction, we tacitly approve of something as vile as Guantanamo Bay and the torture and ill-treatment that has gone on there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and his co-sponsors on securing this debate on Shaker Aamer, and I apologise for missing a significant part of his contribution. He has been one of the leading parliamentary campaigners for Mr Aamer’s release, and I acknowledge the presence of the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who is the constituency MP for Mr Aamer and his family—indeed, this debate provides an important opportunity to follow up a Backbench Business Committee debate on the same subject that she initiated in April 2013. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) has also been a particularly active campaigner for Mr Aamer’s release, given that, as I understand, some of Mr Aamer’s wider family live in his constituency.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend has rightly praised the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) and others. Will he include in that praise the great work done by Reprieve and Clive Stafford Smith on this case? They have bravely unearthed so much about the horrors of Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition, which is a blot on all our legal pasts in this country.

[Mr Thomas]

As on so many things, my hon. Friend is ahead of me. I will happily do that, although I want to return to the role of Reprieve and Clive Stafford Smith a little later in my remarks.

I strongly support hon. Members across the House in saying that the last remaining British detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Mr Aamer, should be released and returned to the UK as soon as humanly possible. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have shared profound concern about Mr Aamer’s case and, indeed, about the continued existence of the Guantanamo Bay facility. National security and the continuing drive to keep our citizens safe is the first responsibility of government, but we have always been clear that a profound respect for human rights must also lie at the heart of policy.

We remain deeply concerned that Guantanamo detainees are held without trial indefinitely. As my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), has previously underlined—as others have done today—that in itself is a serious affront to international human rights standards. She has also previously drawn attention, rightly, to the concern and condemnation from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights that the continuing indefinite imprisonment of many of the Guantanamo Bay detainees was in clear breach of international law, referencing the systematic breaches of individual human rights. The Opposition remain firmly opposed to the continuation of the Guantanamo Bay facility. Through our diplomatic efforts when in government, all British citizens and all but one of those who had been resident in Britain were transferred out of Guantanamo Bay.

As other hon. Members have made clear, Mr Aamer is a Saudi citizen who was resident in the UK. He is married to a British woman and he has four British children who live in London. I understand, as others have made clear, that Mr Aamer has never met his youngest son, who was born on the very day he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay. Mr Aamer was detained in Afghanistan in November 2001, where the US authorities apparently suspected that he had been working for Osama bin Laden. He has been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay since February 2002. He is now the last remaining British resident held there. He has, I understand, always maintained his innocence, and Clive Stafford Smith, his lawyer, claims the documents that the accusations against him are based on would not stand up in court. Indeed, his legal team state that his treatment at Bagram airfield in 2001, allegedly including sleep deprivation and physical abuse, led him to make a false confession that has been used to justify his detention without trial ever since.

There is great concern about Mr Aamer’s health. Earlier this year, I understand that a number of leading doctors wrote an open letter to raise a number of concerns about the impact on Mr Aamer’s physical and mental well-being of spending 13 years in Guantanamo Bay. I understand that a medical assessment carried out last year found he was suffering from serious psychiatric problems and a number of serious physical ailments, too. It is alleged that Mr Aamer has been beaten more than 300 times while in detention and has suffered regularly from sleep deprivation. Reports that Mr Aamer has on occasion been deprived of water and has arthritis, asthma, prostate and kidney problems and severe backache are very worrying. It is a deeply damaging allegation, aired again by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), that he is only still being held because he has witnessed significant human rights abuses, which the Guantanamo Bay authorities fear would be revealed if Mr Aamer was released and spoke out about his experience.

As other hon. Members have made clear, Mr Aamer has been cleared for transfer out of Guantanamo Bay on two occasions—in 2007 and in 2009—yet has still not been released. I understand that British diplomatic staff are not able to visit Mr Aamer, although it would be helpful if the Minister provided clarification on that point. I understand that the International Committee of the Red Cross is able to visit Mr Aamer, and it would be helpful to hear from the Minister when the ICRC last did so.

It is clear that Mr Aamer will be released only after further encouragement—let me use those words carefully —to the US authorities, so it would be helpful to hear from the Minister when the last ministerial representations to their US equivalents about Mr Aamer took place. There has been speculation that the key US legislation determining whether Guantanamo Bay detainees can be released or transferred is the 2011 National Defence Authorisation Act, which allows the US Defence Secretary to exercise a waiver and therefore release individual detainees if certain conditions are met. Has any UK Minister raised Mr Aamer’s case with the US Defence Secretary? What prospects can the Minister offer the House that the NDAA might offer a potential route to secure Mr Aamer’s release from Guantanamo Bay soon?

Given that Mr Aamer is a Saudi national and the reports that he has, as I indicated, previously been cleared for transfer out of Guantanamo Bay but allegedly only to Saudi Arabia, what discussions have Foreign Office Ministers had with their Saudi counterparts? Do the Saudi Government support Mr Aamer’s release from Guantanamo Bay and, crucially, do they support his release back to the UK?

Reprieve and Amnesty International have campaigned for Mr Aamer’s release. Reprieve, in particular, has used freedom of information requests to establish that significant meetings have taken place between US and British officials to discuss Mr Aamer’s possible transfer, most recently, I understand, on 29 October 2013. It would be helpful if the Minister set out in a little more detail what he understands are the substantive remaining US concerns about Mr Aamer that are preventing his release. The essential question remains: why, despite being cleared for transfer out of Guantanamo Bay six and eight years ago, is Mr Aamer still being detained? There remains the question whether he was cleared for release back to Saudi Arabia only. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister clarified that issue. I understand that Mr Aamer has indefinite leave to remain here in the UK. He has family here in the UK; he is married to a British citizen; his children are British citizens; and he has not been convicted of any crime. By any reasonable consideration, he should be allowed to be transferred back to the UK, never mind to Saudi Arabia.

Guantanamo Bay is a continuing blight on the human rights record of one of our closest allies, and the whole House will empathise with the anguish that Mr Aamer’s family and friends feel at his continued detention. I look forward to the Minister answering my and other hon. Members’ questions, reflecting our concerns and reassuring the House that the Government will redouble their efforts to secure Mr Aamer’s release.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I want to make some progress. As I shall make clear shortly, I am not privy to the very complicated process, involving six United States Government Departments, that every single detainee will have to undergo before being cleared for release. That is the process that Shaker Aamer must undergo, like everyone else who has been released so far or will be released in the future.

In supporting Mr Aamer’s release, we have emphasised to the United States Government that any individual who engages in terrorist-related activity in the United Kingdom can expect to be dealt with through use of the full range of powers that are available to us. I shall not list them here, but they are extensive, and we remain confident in the ability of our police and security services to deal with any such threats. I think that that partly answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion.

It would be inappropriate to comment on why Mr Aamer is in the Guantanamo Bay facility, especially as we continue to discuss the details of his case with the United States in order to secure his release. This is a sensitive issue and, as the House will understand, it has been the policy of successive Governments not to discuss intelligence matters. However, as Members well know, the United Kingdom does not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment for any purpose. We remain absolutely committed to ensuring that serious allegations of UK complicity in alleged rendition and mistreatment overseas are examined carefully. If any evidence of that were to come to light, we would take appropriate action. The investigation of, or prosecution of individuals involved in, any alleged torture carried out by the United States is a matter for the United States authorities.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

I will, but then I must make some progress.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous. In these investigations into torture and extraordinary rendition, is he getting all the co-operation he has asked for from the US authorities?

[Mr Ellwood]

I can only repeat what I have just said: I cannot comment on intelligence matters relating to this particular case.

Consular access is afforded to states only as regards their own nationals and, as has been repeated in this Chamber, Mr Aamer is a Saudi national. Our consular policy for non-British nationals is clear: we cannot help non-nationals no matter how long they have lived in the UK and regardless of their connections to the UK.

Although the timeline for the closure of the facility remains a matter for the US Government, President Obama was elected in November 2008 having vowed to close Guantanamo Bay. In the early days of his presidency, he said:

“There is…no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world.”

He recognised that, faced with uncertain threats, hasty decisions were made

“based on fear rather than foresight”.

President Obama remains determined to see the Guantanamo Bay facilities closed by the end of his Administration, and we remain committed to assisting him in this aim.

Of the original 779 detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, 122 remain, including Mr Aamer. Five detainees have been released so far this year, but in 2014 the US released 28, 19 of whom were released in November and December. That is a considerable increase in releases compared with previous years. From 2011 to 2013, a total of just 19 detainees were released.

We have already made a significant contribution to reducing the number of detainees in Guantanamo Bay by taking back nine UK nationals and, exceptionally, five former legal residents. Aside from Mr Aamer, the UK is not considering accepting any further detainees from the Guantanamo Bay facility. More widely, we have facilitated engagement with countries that have agreed to accept former detainees, and shared experience and advice on managing the return process.

In conclusion, as hon. Members have highlighted, 14 February was the 13th anniversary of Mr Aamer’s arrival at the Guantanamo Bay facility. Along with his family and his many supporters, the UK Government would like this to be the last anniversary that Mr Aamer passes in detention. Since the Prime Minister’s meeting with President Obama on 16 January, my officials and Government colleagues have continued to work to make that a reality, and we will carry on raising his case at the highest levels and at every reasonable opportunity to impress further on our US counterparts that we are looking for an urgent resolution.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am pleased we are having this debate and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) on her initiative in applying for it through the Backbench Business Committee. I hope that it sets a precedent so that whenever a major treaty discussion is coming up the Government take part in a serious debate in the Chamber to set out their stall ahead of the conference and allow Members of the House to put their points of view.

To follow what was said by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), who spoke powerfully and effectively, let me say that there are massive dangers facing the world with nuclear weapons. There are dangers of proliferation, so we have a huge responsibility in the forthcoming NPT review conference to decide what we will do about it and what role we will take in the conference.

I have attended previous NPT review conferences and some of the preparatory committees, or PrepComs, which happen every year. There is a five-year review and an annual PrepCom. I remind the House that the initiative in setting up the nuclear non-proliferation treaty system came in part from a previous Labour Government led by Harold Wilson in an era when there was hope that the declared nuclear weapons states could, by their own actions and the actions of others, bring about overall disarmament in this world.

Although there are many cynics around, the NPT system has worked quite well. It has two important pillars. Let me take the second first, which is that the signatories to it that are not in possession of nuclear weapons must undertake not to develop them, use them or seek to have them in any way. By and large, that has been successful. Indeed, some former nuclear states, such as South Africa, have disavowed nuclear weapons and made themselves into non-nuclear states.

Crucially, the five permanent members of the NPT, which are the same as the five permanent members of the Security Council, must do the following under article VI:

“Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

Britain is committed to those words of the treaty and in the run-up to the review conference should therefore consider two points. The first is the good work that has been done by so many states to divest themselves of nuclear weapons and bring about nuclear weapon-free zones, such as in Africa and Latin America. Central Asia has achieved a great deal and should be congratulated on that. The second is the role we seek to play in that and how we bring about further nuclear disarmament around the world.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling was right to point out that previous review conferences, led by the late Robin Cook, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South and by others, consistently made a strong case for a weapons of mass destruction-free zone conference to be held for the middle east. It is crucial that that conference takes place. I have attended previous review conferences and PrepComs in which the inability of the secretariat to convene such a conference—the Finnish Government have been tasked with that—has led to threats and walk-outs from the review conference, although not from the treaty system, because people are concerned that that conference has not taken place. At the last review conference and the last PrepCom every single nation attending, including Iran—Israel is not a signatory to the NPT—agreed that the conference should take place and once again the Government of Finland and others were tasked with ensuring that that happened. So far, it has not.

If that conference does not take place and there is not some progress on general disarmament across the middle east, the consequences, as explained by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, are obvious. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and many other countries have the resources, whether they want these weapons or not. What about Egypt? We can think of many examples of very wealthy countries in the region that could either buy the nuclear technology or develop it in concert. If there is not a general agreement on disarmament across the region that includes Israel and Iran, we will see the start of a nuclear arms race with incalculable dangers to the rest of the world. I hope that when the Minister winds up he will say that the talks that have taken place with Iran and the Government’s close relationship with Israel will put a great deal of pressure on this year’s review conference to set the date when the middle east conference can take place so that we can begin that process. I do not underestimate the difficulties, but if it does not take place, the dangers will be huge. One should not run away with the idea that everyone in Israel or Iran wants nuclear weapons, or wants to use them, or believes that their security comes from nuclear weapons. There are substantial bodies of opinion in both countries that there is a different way forward in the region.

A parliamentary delegation from Iran are visiting the House this week; I met them earlier this evening. They are very welcome. We will have a discussion with them on Wednesday morning. I hope that talks with them will focus on the nuclear issue—I am sure that they will—and human rights in Iran; that ought to be part of the dialogue. We should have that dialogue with all countries.

The dangers are so obvious. I hope that in his speech the Minister will outline the view that the UK Government will take in New York. Now that we are apparently into fixed-term Parliaments, every time there is a non-proliferation treaty review it will coincide with the British general election. That is more than unfortunate, because clearly it means that Ministers cannot attend at least the early part of the conference. If there is a change of Government—most of us hope that there will be—only some time on will the new Minister, or newly appointed Minister, be able to attend. The coincidence in the dates is very unfortunate indeed.

The humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons have been referred to. Three conferences were held on this: one by the Norwegian Government in Oslo, a second in Mexico, and the third, more recently, in Vienna, hosted by the Austrian Government. I attended the conference in Vienna, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) and the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who is speaking for the Scottish National party tonight. We took part in a very interesting round-table discussion for parliamentarians on the humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons.

If anyone is ever in any doubt about the need to move on from a dry, strategic debate—from “Nuclear this, nuclear that” and “Threat here, threat there”—I ask them to read the documents that were presented to the conference, and to think of the videos that we saw, about what the effect would be of one nuclear explosion anywhere in the world. There is the effect on the local climate and local economy, and the death of very large numbers of the population living anywhere near the explosion. There are also the catastrophic effects of multiple explosions, including a nuclear winter that would damage the climate and life chances of the entire planet. We are dealing with not battlefield bombs, but weapons of total destruction; that is what a nuclear weapon is for.

The Austrian Government were very serious about the conference, organised it extremely well, and gave a great deal of time and space to scientists and others to speak, and then to Governments to speak on the second day. I was delighted when the British Government announced that they would attend, along with the US Government. I wish that China, France and Russia had also been there. I suspect that they were there in observer capacity, at least; there was certainly a very large number of people observing that conference.

I was quite disappointed by the British Government’s statement at the conference. I ask colleagues to think for a moment of the atmosphere when the South African representative outlined why South Africa gave up its nuclear weapons, and how the continent of Africa became a nuclear weapon-free zone, and to think of the moral strength that gave South Africa at the conference. That was followed by the British saying that we needed to keep nuclear weapons for our own security. If we need to keep weapons for our own security, we have to be very clear where the threat is coming from and what security the weapons bring us, given that they increase the danger of nuclear proliferation around the world.

Before I conclude, I will quote a very small part of the interesting Austrian pledge made at the conclusion of the conference:

“Austria calls on all states parties to the NPT to renew their commitment to the urgent and full implementation of existing obligations under Article VI, and to this end, to identify and pursue effective measures to fill the legal gap for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons and Austria pledges to cooperate with all stakeholders to achieve this goal”.

The pledge goes on to say that Austria

“calls on all nuclear weapons possessor states to take concrete interim measures to reduce the risk of nuclear weapon detonations, including reducing the operational status of nuclear weapons and moving nuclear weapons away from deployment into storage, diminishing the role of nuclear weapons in military doctrines and rapid reductions of all types of nuclear weapons”.

Thank you, Austria. Well done for that.

[Angus Robertson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and for stating the position of the Austrian Government and so many of the other countries that took part in the conference. Given where the UK’s nuclear deterrent is in relation to its lifespan, is it not possible for the UK to embrace the opportunity to follow the courageous moral lead of South Africa and say, “Rather than wasting £100 billion on a new generation of Trident submarines, why not play a positive role in the world towards disarmament by scrapping the Trident programme?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I agree that this would be an opportunity for us to say, “We have looked at the dangers of nuclear proliferation. We recognise our obligations under article VI and we are going to fulfil them this time.” If we go ahead with spending £100 billion, plus whatever the design and redesign costs are, we commit ourselves to a massive expenditure, and to flying in the face of the spirit and moral purpose of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

I do not suggest cutting the expenditure in order to throw large numbers of people out of work in this country. What I say is, “Cut the expenditure to invest in high quality engineering. Use those skills—they are brilliant skills—to make other things that do not destroy the world, but instead help to build the world, and we pledge ourselves in the direction of a nuclear-free future.” I believe these things are possible and we have a particular obligation to bring that about.

If the five permanent members refuse to move in the direction that they ought to, who are we to criticise India and Pakistan for not reaching an agreement? Who are we to criticise any other state that wants to develop nuclear weapons? If we want a nuclear weapons-free world, it is possible. We have a responsibility to play a role in that. I hope that when the Minister speaks, he will tell me that he and I will meet in New York. I will be there as an NGO representative. I do not expect to be a representative of any Government after the election. There is relief on the Front Bench. However, I will certainly be in New York because I want to see real progress on nuclear disarmament. It is possible if people have the courage to do it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I do not want to get caught up in the nomenclature, be it firing, launching or something else, but I understand the thrust of what my hon. Friend is trying to say.

Let me conclude on the conference. Our attendance in Vienna did not mean a deviation from our support for a step-by-step approach to multilateral disarmament. Some in the international community would like to force the pace of disarmament in a way that does not take into account wider security considerations, such as trying to set a fixed timetable for disarmament. We do not support that.

Fourthly, let me deal with the middle east weapons of mass destruction-free zone, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire said was an interesting description. The UK certainly resolutely supports the goal of the middle east zone free from weapons of mass destruction and the 1995 NPT resolution on the middle east. We also remained committed to convening a conference on such a zone, as was mandated in 2010 by the very conference that he attended.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Will the Minister assure the House that the UK delegation to New York will make real efforts to try to ensure that there are side meetings and so on to try to bring about this conference, because the dangers of it not happening are huge?

[Mr Ellwood]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. New York presents the next opportunity for us to ensure that we push these points forward. It is sad, as Members have said, that we have not been able to move on this matter. Many Members spoke passionately and with concern that, if we do not seek a resolution on this, we could see further proliferation, with nations deciding to turn their back and to seek to arm.

There has been real progress at the consultations over the past couple of years. Remaining differences can be bridged with political will on both sides. We regret that, to date, further consultations have not proved possible, and we accept, sadly, that a conference will not take place before the review conference. As the hon. Gentleman points out, New York might be the opportunity for us to reconvene on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

It is true, of course, that many of the members of the Human Rights Council, who have been elected by the membership of the United Nations generally, still have the death penalty. The United Kingdom, both at the UN Human Rights Council and in our bilateral and multilateral relationships of all kinds, continues to stress that we regard the death penalty as completely unacceptable.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister use the opportunity of the Human Rights Council to raise the human rights crisis in central America, in particular in Mexico? Will he also raise these matters with President Peña Nieto during his visit and tie any future trade developments with Mexico to improvements in its human rights record and dealing with those who killed, probably, the 43 students—but also thousands of others who have died—and the forces that have acted with impunity in that country?

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman will recall from the recent debate in Westminster Hall, in which he and I spoke, that we have a strong relationship with Mexico. We use that to seek improvements to Mexico’s human rights record and to give Mexico practical help in trying to improve its judicial and police systems in particular. That work will continue.

Ukraine

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I thank him for the important work his all-party group on Ukraine does to maintain Anglo-Ukrainian relations. He is right that Ukraine is going to need massive international support, but it cannot be delivered unconditionally. We cannot pour the money of our taxpayers and our international financial institutions into the sink of corruption that is, frankly, the Ukrainian economy at the moment. Ukraine has to make progress on sorting out the endemic corruption if we are to be able to support it towards a better economic future.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. I wish the summit well and hope some good comes out of it. May I take him back to the answer he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain)? There is an issue that goes back to the early 1990s, when there was an agreement that Ukraine would become independent and non-aligned—it would not join NATO. In return, Russia would respect its neutrality and divest itself of nuclear weapons. That was a very good statement and very good progress. Does he not think that there would be a better chance of reaching some kind of agreement with Russia if there was a clearer statement that NATO does not intend to expand into Ukraine, and that in return Russia should withdraw from its border regions, so that we do not build up to two huge armed forces meeting in central Europe yet again?

[Mr Hammond]

On that last point—two huge armed forces meeting in central Europe—the hon. Gentleman will know that NATO has refrained from stationing non-national NATO troops in the front-line new NATO member states precisely to avoid that build-up. It is part of the Russia-NATO agreement to avoid that build-up of forces in a confrontational way. I am personally rather reluctant to dictate to independent third countries what they can and cannot do. I think Ukraine is perfectly entitled to aspire to membership of the EU or NATO if it chooses to do so. However, it is very, very clear that membership of either organisation would be many, many years away. Ukraine would have a huge amount of work to do before it was ready for membership of either organisation.

Human Rights in Mexico

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) on securing this important debate. I am grateful to her and to the Minister for giving me a few minutes to say something.

I am chair of the all-party group on Mexico and vice-chair of the all-party human rights group. I have led a delegation of the Inter-Parliamentary Union to Mexico and visited the country on many occasions—most recently, last November. Furthermore, the all-party human rights group has convened a series of round-table meetings in which we involve Foreign Office officials, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Mexican embassy and the Mexican community in London, and we interact on human rights issues. We are trying to be positive and to make progress, and I hope that the Minister will tell us that this year of relations with Mexico will provide not simply a jamboree for trade and investment, but a serious look at the endemic, systemic human rights problems that exist in Mexico.

Since 2006, 100,000 people have been killed in Mexico in the supposed war on drugs. The number of people missing is difficult to quantify exactly, but is somewhere around 23,000, according to Amnesty, although many independent human rights groups in Mexico put the figure much higher than that. The disappearance of the 43 students at Ayotzinapa in Guerrero state was shocking because it was so brazen; it was shocking because they were taken off a bus and disappeared. The more the investigation goes on, the worse it gets. Every time the investigators look, they find another unmarked grave. Who is in those unmarked graves? Unaccompanied migrants from Guatemala trying to flee to the USA to gain a sustainable living, who have been killed by gangs, often in collusion with the local police. The police are, in turn, in collusion with local officials.

The sense of anger in Mexico is palpable. I was there in November, only a short time after the disappearances, and although I have been to Mexico many times, I have never seen so many people on the streets, so angry and so determined that there should be real political and judicial change. The President is under real pressure.

Among the problems in Mexico are the facts that there are 2,000 different police forces that do not talk to each other and 31 governors who do not talk to each other; disappearances are endemic in many states; and there is a close relationship between some of the politicians in some of those states with the gangs and the disappearances. There is also a problem with the virtual impunity of the armed forces. I hope that the Minister will address those issues in his response today and raise them in discussion with President Pena Nieto during the state visit at the beginning of March.

If there is to be a change in Mexico, it will, in part, be as a result of pressure from outside. I have some sympathy with Mexico, in that guns come south from the unregulated gun trade in Texas and other US states, while drugs produced in Colombia and other places come north. Mexico is therefore a bit of a transit place for all of that, so the issues must be dealt with in part from a wider perspective. I hope we will be able to put on some real pressure for improvements.

Changes have been proposed in the legal system, where British involvement and representation have introduced the idea of adversarial justice, rather than the Napoleonic form of magisterial justice. That is a step forward. However, there is also a need to listen more carefully to independent human rights groups in Mexico, rather than just to the Mexican Government and the Mexican human rights commission. In my experience, the independent human rights groups have much more of a finger on the button. They are prepared to prosecute cases, to take them to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and to bring about real change.

Mexico is a country of the most amazing history, contrasts and diversity, but it is also a place of great sadness. I conclude with this thought. One weekend, my wife and I were in Cuernavaca—a beautiful city not so far from Mexico City. As we arrived, we heard that 12 bodies had been suspended from a bridge and that the heads had been left by the side of the road. That was some kind of signal to somebody; that is the degree of human rights abuses, fear and threats in Mexico.

As a friend of Mexico, we should use our relationship with it to put on all the pressure we can for genuine human rights dialogue. We should also call Mexico to account when it comes to the UN Human Rights Council in March, so that the universal periodic review recommendations it said it was accepting are actually implemented and so that people in Mexico can develop their justice and human rights in their country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I completely agree. Wherever one looks in the world, changes to the structure and the organisation of institutions are important. We should not deride that sort of reform, but those sorts of administrative changes need to embody cultural change, too. That is a lesson I am well aware of from my ministerial work with Governments in parts of central and eastern Europe—I am thinking of some of the Balkan countries, in particular. Changes to an organisation’s structure are necessary to trigger cultural reform of the type the hon. Lady described.

We stand ready to support the Mexican Government in their efforts to strengthen processes and mechanisms so that those responsible for human rights abuses are brought to justice. In recent years, the FCO’s human rights work in Mexico has focused on tackling impunity in particular as a way of improving human rights across the country.

The hon. Lady asked how we propose to deal with the question of human rights in the context of the forthcoming state visit. We are keen to help Mexico to strengthen its capacity to uphold its human rights obligations—it is party to all those international conventions that proscribe torture and other abuses of human rights—as well as to tackle its security challenges. We see the state visit as an opportunity to strengthen our bilateral relationship. That, in turn, will allow for continued full and frank conversations, including about human rights.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the Minister for giving way; I know he has only a couple of minutes left. During the discussions, will he raise the impunity of the armed forces in relation to the decision taken by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on one of the cases there and whether the belief is that the new law in Mexico meets the requirements of that court?

[Mr Lidington]

I will make sure that that idea is drawn to the attention of both the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, and the Foreign Secretary.

The war on drugs featured as a case study in last year’s FCO human rights report, and the issue of Mexico and impunity will feature in this year’s report.

During 2013-14, our embassy in Mexico City helped to fund an initiative called Citizens in Support of Human Rights—or CADHAC, to use the Spanish acronym—to support efforts to strengthen criminal prosecution and judicial processes in the northern state of Nuevo Leon, where the majority of enforced disappearances are alleged to have happened. We believe that as a result of that project, the legal framework to address enforced disappearances has been strengthened and access to justice improved, but we are continuing efforts to build and strengthen links with human rights organisations in Mexico and to secure funding for similar grass-roots projects now and for the future.

In the coming months, we will be supporting a project to strengthen the judicial system in the state of Chiapas, and in the future we particularly hope to support charities and NGOs working to tackle enforced disappearances. We believe that regular constructive dialogue with Mexico will bring the best results for human rights defenders and victims of human rights abuses and violations.

The UK enjoys a strong bilateral relationship with Mexico that allows for full and frank conversation. We have well established co-operation on such matters as climate change, transparency, non-proliferation and international development. The 2015 year of the UK and Mexico and the state visit of President Pena Nieto in early March will provide further scope for such constructive engagement. One of the messages that we raise in our discussions with Mexican Ministers and officials is that greater respect for human rights and the rule of law and improved security will lead to a better environment for business and investment. The two should not be seen as in any way in opposition. Respect for the rule of law gives confidence to business in terms of trade and investment commitments in the future.

It is right that the international community, including the United Kingdom, should respond vigorously to allegations of human rights violations in Iguala and elsewhere. We recognise the human rights challenges that Mexico faces, and through constructive dialogue as part of a positive, bilateral relationship, we stand ready to support the Mexican Government in their efforts to deliver on their international human rights commitments and ensure that those responsible for human rights abuses are brought to justice and held accountable.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I want to make one last point to the Minister. Will he assure the House that the embassy will be fully staffed in Mexico City—I pay tribute to the staff there; I have met them many times and they are always extremely helpful—to ensure that there is a good, strong and effective human rights and legal affairs team there that can take part both in European monitoring as well as UN monitoring of what is going on in Mexico? We all need to take part to improve the human rights and life chances of many people in Mexico.

[Mr Lidington]

Our ambassador and his team see human rights as a very important part of their responsibilities, but again I shall make sure that that strong message from the House this afternoon is conveyed both to him and to the officials to whom he reports.

Yemen

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs for his question and the manner in which he asks it. He asks at what point we should evacuate the embassy. I will speak to the ambassador later today and evacuation plan is already in place, but it has not yet been activated. I will speak to the ambassador and ensure that the House is updated if the situation changes. He asked about the connections between al-Qaeda and the Charlie Hebdo attacks. It has been reported that there is a link and that the individuals were trained in Yemen. The French authorities are working on that and we are working closely with them to provide support in their endeavours.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question. Will he say something about the involvement of Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia’s military operations and any possible incursions into Yemen? Will he assure us that there is no possibility of any British armed forces being sent to the area, either?

[Mr Ellwood]

Saudi Arabia and many of the countries that neighbour Yemen have an interest in the country, particularly Saudi Arabia, which, as I have said, is co-chair of the Friends of Yemen. I will speak to the embassy in the next couple of days to take stock of the changes that are taking place. I will ask about any military engagement that might take place, but as I have said we call for all parties, whether they are in the country or not, to come together and return to the peace and national partnership agreement, to which the Saudi Arabians have also signed up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I go back to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore). It is not the Government’s policy that we should use restrictions on arms sales as a sanction against Governments whose policies we do not agree with. The restrictions on arms sales—the arms licensing regime—is designed to ensure that arms are not misused in their final destination.

With regard to the wider points my right hon. Friend makes about Saudi Arabia, of course the Government deplore the use of corporal punishment in the kinds of forms presented in Saudi Arabia. We have long understood that the best way to make effective representations to Saudi Arabia is through the many channels that we have with them at all levels, and we are actively doing so at the moment.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

In that case, will the Foreign Secretary please explain to the House why Britain has routinely supplied arms—anti-personnel equipment—to Bahrain that have been used to oppress and suppress demonstrations in Bahrain, and our reward is to provide yet more arms and a British military base there? Should we not really engage with Bahrain on solving the human rights issues and freeing the opposition leader, rather than have this hands-off approach on arms sales?

[Mr Hammond]

Let me make two responses to the hon. Gentleman. First, is the straightforward response: we apply the consolidated criteria to all arms exports, including arms exports to Bahrain, so we would not license for export any equipment where there was evidence it was likely to be used for internal repression purposes. But let me say something wider about the situation in Bahrain, because I have looked at the situation in Bahrain quite carefully. It is clearly the case that Bahrain is by no means perfect and that it has quite a long way to go in delivering on its human rights commitments, but it is a country that is travelling in the right direction. It is making significant reform. The Crown Prince, who is charged with this agenda, is directly engaged and has made significant progress even over the last few months. We continually remind the Bahrainis of their commitments and how much further they have to go, but I think we should support them to get there.

Nigeria

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

We would like to have seen a more robust attitude from the army and the military to what is going on in the northern states. However, it is an extraordinarily complicated question and it is extraordinarily difficult to find out what is going on. We read lots of stories about people changing sides and equipment being seized. The Nigerian army certainly needs better training to combat the incredibly violent terrorist organisation that is Boko Haram. It needs more assistance and training, but, as I have said, that cannot be done overnight.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The House owes a debt of thanks to the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) for ensuring that this question was asked today. Millions turned out across Europe yesterday, particularly in France, because of the atrocious killings in Paris; millions more need to turn out all over the world over the deaths of innocent people in Nigeria. Does the Minister not think that it is important for all Governments—and all Parliaments, for that matter—to send the message that a human life lost because of such atrocities is equally awful in France, Nigeria or anywhere else, and that every human life is a human life that should not be taken?

[Mr Swire]

Hear, hear to that! We estimate that in 2014, at least 4,000 people were killed in Boko Haram attacks. The insurgency is growing and it is a growing humanitarian issue. The UN estimates that more than 1.5 million people have been displaced and at least 3 million affected by the insurgency.

The hon. Gentleman will have noted the recent words of the Catholic Archbishop of Jos in Nigeria, who claimed that the west is not doing enough to support Nigeria in tackling Boko Haram and drew an unfavourable comparison with the international community’s response to the Paris terrorist attacks. I think that the United Kingdom is showing the way through leadership, financial assistance and training. Perhaps other countries should look at themselves and see what more they can do to join in with the attack on terrorists.

Palestine

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

On the fundamental principle of whose land it is, the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) is right. What is more, the world more widely is beginning to take that view, and opinion across the world is changing fast. Those who think that Palestine belongs to Israel or that it should not be a state must realise quickly and deeply that they are on the wrong side of the argument.

Look back 30 years and think about where those of the right were in looking at the fate of Nelson Mandela. Look at world opinion now, when no decent person thinks he should have remained in prison. However, there are some even in this House who think that Palestine belongs to Israel and that greater Israel is what it should be. They need to realise that opinion is changing.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I have never heard Israel declare what its final frontiers ought to be. In every negotiation, it refuses to say what its borders ought to be.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

We are all prepared to ask for and await that detail.

To return to the few points I wished to make, opinion is changing, and it should change. We have had our vote, our decision and our debate—the first such debate in this House—on the recognition of Palestine. The day after that, I made what I intended to be a balanced and principled speech at the Royal United Services Institute about settlements and their illegality. I have a wodge—a folder—of hundreds of responses, the vast majority of which were supportive. Those that were not were invariably very rude—they seem to think that I am enjoying sexual relations with camels—but most of the Jewish opinion, from both Israel and the United Kingdom, was supportive. The Jewish voice in Israel and the United Kingdom, as elsewhere, is changing significantly in favour of a Palestinian state.

The litmus test of value and principle and of the rights and wrongs of this situation is whether someone thinks that settlements are illegal or not. They are. That land does not belong to Israel, and anybody who thinks it does is in the wrong. Furthermore, those who regularly and unquestioningly support the unreasonable conduct of the Israeli state are not doing Israel any favours. The sort of expatriate, extreme, let us call it right-wing, opinion that says that everything Israel does is right and justified because of violent attacks is condemning the Israelis’ children and their children’s children to a worse and less safe Israeli state. Those who really support the interests of Israel, as I do—I believe I do—should realise that it is acceptable to criticise the unacceptable conduct of the Israeli state, which I fear will condemn that country to permanent conflict.

The world has a chance to put pressure on Israel, which at this very moment is contemplating legislation that will remove the rights of Palestinians living in that country. Every single claim of moral authority and decency will be eliminated for Israel in perpetuity if that law is passed. I want to see an Israel with the true democratic values it espouses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

I was appalled by what happened this summer, but despite all the difficulties, a two-state solution with a viable Palestinian state is the only option that reconciles the interests of Israelis and Palestinians. There is no alternative that will end the bloodshed and provide justice, dignity and self-determination for both peoples with universal human and political rights, a free press and economic opportunities for all. Despite all the difficulties, this is not the time for people who believe in peace to give up hope. Peace talks have produced results in the past and have come close to a breakthrough on several occasions, and they can do so again.

Of course, a two-state solution faces considerable challenges—the status of Jerusalem, security, refugees, and the growth of settlements—but they are not insurmountable, given a willingness on both sides to negotiate, compromise and make concessions. The failure of the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships to persuade their people to work together, to negotiate, to compromise and to eliminate the barriers to peace is a tragedy.

The biggest barrier to peace is Hamas. Its charter sets out its goals with an explicit rejection of Israel’s right to exist. It is an organisation that encouraged young people to strap bombs to their bodies and blow themselves and civilians to bits in Israel’s buses, bars and restaurants. It is an organisation that the UN says stored its rockets in schools hosting displaced people, that uses hospitals as command centres, that threatens the media, denies equal rights to its citizens, summarily executed 22 people outside mosques after Friday prayers, and that Mahmoud Abbas accuses of plotting to kill him. Whatever people think are the rights and wrongs on either side, we all have to concede that it is difficult to see how Israel can deal with that.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

There are two points. First, Israel fails to say what its final borders are. Secondly, Israel did deal with Hamas in the ceasefire negotiations in Egypt. There is a basis on which talks can take place. It has already happened.

[Ian Austin]

I want to see Hamas commit to peace, I want to see the demilitarisation of Gaza. I want to see everyone in the region committed to peace and coming together to negotiate compromise, so that we can have a two-state solution: a safe and secure Israel with a viable Palestinian state, living in peace side by side. That is the only way—whether it takes a year, 10 years or 100 years, in the end that is the only way the situation will be resolved.

There is an idea that the peace process can be advanced by boycotts, disinvestment, sanctions and other attempts to delegitimise Israel. I think that would hinder the development of dialogue on which prospects for future peace and security rely. Britain’s role is to do everything we can to bring people together, develop dialogue, promote negotiations and build trust. Boycotts would just drive people further apart. Britain’s role must be to develop closer links with Israel and the Palestinian Authority, promote economic development, trade and investment in the west bank, reconstruction and demilitarisation in Gaza.

I would like to hear from the Minister what more the UK can do to get DFID, the British Council, the Foreign Office and NGOs supporting projects such as Cherish, One Voice and the middle east education through technology project. The goal of peace depends on two sides, Israelis and Palestinians, working together with international support to develop a viable Palestinian state—the viable Palestinian state I have believed in all my life and for which I have campaigned, alongside a secure Israel with peace and justice for both peoples. Is it possible? It has to be. Is it easy? No, of course it is not. It is difficult, but it is possible. Israel and the Palestinians need brave leadership and renewed efforts to achieve it and Britain must do all it can to support that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I start my contribution by thanking all the people who signed this e-petition and other petitions to ensure that the debate would take place, and all the people who have campaigned not just for months but for years for the recognition of a Palestinian state and justice for the Palestinian people. Those who have stood on wet and windy high streets on a Saturday morning collecting signatures do matter in a democracy, and this debate is, in a sense, the product of that.

In the short time available to me, I want to draw attention to a few points. First, I was asked to give a talk last week to a group of students at City and Islington college about the history of the whole conflict in the middle east. It was a fascinating discussion, which ranged from the first world war right up to the current situation. The students had an incredible sense of the historical importance of the vote that took place in Parliament recently, when we voted finally for the recognition of Palestine, but I argue very strongly that that is only one very small step that we need to take. A settlement has to involve an awful lot more than just the recognition of the state of Palestine. People should cast their minds back to Sabra and Shatila in 1982 and to the Nakba in 1948. The victims of those processes are still living in refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria; the Palestinian diaspora across the world is huge. They also have rights—they also have the right to return home and a right to recognition. That is extremely important. They should never be forgotten.

Secondly, any peace process requires Israel to say what it wishes its final borders to be. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) made many points, as did others, about the Hamas charter and what it is supposed to say. The reality is that Hamas is involved in a unity Government, and that is what provoked Operation Protective Edge this summer.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend talks about Hamas’s charter, which refuses to recognise Israel, but the charter of Likud, the ruling party in the coalition, states:

“The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”

Is that not a fetter to progress on this issue?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Absolutely. The Likud charter, which is not talked about too much by those who support the Government of Israel, says that in those very specific terms, and there has to be some recognition that the Prime Minister of Israel is a member of Likud and is in power because of Likud support.

Another point—there are many—is that half a million people are now settlers all across the west bank. Travelling around the west bank is travelling through an occupied land where the best land and the best water are taken by the settlers, the red-roofed buildings are built increasingly over Palestinian land and the massive concrete wall snakes around the place. If it was unwrapped, so to speak, it would stretch all across Europe. That wall divides farmers from their land, divides people from their water, divides children from their schools and makes travelling impossible. There has to be not just an end to the settlement policy but an end to the settlements. They have to go; they have to be withdrawn if there is to be any peace settlement.

Another issue is, of course, trade. Britain is a trading partner of Israel. We sell arms to Israel; we buy arms from Israel. Although some licences have been suspended or withdrawn, the arms trade goes on. If we are making engines for drone aircraft in this country and those drones are used for surveillance over Gaza and used to bomb the people of Gaza, as they were during Operation Protective Edge, we are complicit in what goes on there. That is what provoked an awful lot of people to sign the petition and make their views heard recently.

Gaza is under siege and has been under siege for a very long time. It has been my pleasure to visit Gaza on nine separate occasions during the past 15 years or so, and there is a feeling of depression and anger there at the way in which the people of Gaza are denied the right to work, the right to travel, the right to trade and the right to develop. Now, Egypt is joining in with that by developing a cordon sanitaire along the border between Egypt and Gaza, so I hope that when the Minister replies, we will hear some fairly robust remarks about the policies being followed by Egypt at present, which are compounding the siege of Gaza already being undertaken by Israel. A powder keg is developing because of the lack of freedom to travel, the lack of supplies, the lack of water and the lack of food. The people are crying out for recognition, help and support.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

Given that I now have only 13 minutes left, I will write to my hon. Friend with more detail. However, I will say that the scheme I mentioned is working well and that supermarkets and others have adopted it so that customers themselves can have a better understanding of where produce comes from. I am pleased that has happened. The Government do not believe that boycotts would be helpful.

The hon. Member for Easington also mentioned export licences. He is aware that a judicial review is being undertaken on them, so I am afraid that I can say little more at this time.

My hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) spoke about the role of Hamas and its using its people as cover when firing missiles. At the peak of that firing, some 140 missiles were fired from Gaza into Israel. They were prevented from striking and causing deaths only because of the Iron Dome system, which I had the opportunity to visit when I was in the country two months ago.

The hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) stated that Gaza is occupied. It is not occupied in the sense that the west bank is. Gaza has its own pressures because of the restrictions placed on it, but we want to see the Palestinian Authority move into that space of governance, so it can push out the legitimacy and the authority that Hamas claims to have.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) spoke passionately about these issues. He gave an interesting speech at the Royal United Services Institute on this matter and has talked about being able to be a friend of Israel while also being able to be critical. He said that criticising Israel for its conduct neither questioned its right to exist nor was anti-Semitic and that, similarly, standing up for justice for Palestinians is not in any way anti-Semitic. I make it very clear that we need to be able to have frank discussions and debates with our friends without being seen to be polarised, and I am pleased to say that we have done that today.

The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) spoke about conditions in Gaza, as did the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas). I saw them for myself when I visited Shejaiya, where the situation is now compounded by the flooding that has taken place. I absolutely agree with the shadow Minister that more trade is required. Let us not just have the Erez crossing open; let us have Kerem Shalom and the Rafah crossings opened up. Indeed, on the maritime issue, I told Baroness Ashton and her successor, Federica Mogherini, what the EU could do—it could create a trade corridor from the maritime port to Cyprus where things could be checked to make sure they would not be used for tunnel systems and so on. That would allow trade to develop and goods to come out of Gaza, and it would allow the reconstruction requirements, which are absolutely necessary to support the 1.6 million people there, to come into the country.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. Will he undertake to contact the Egyptian Government and to raise seriously the question of the Rafah crossing and the clearing of all populations along the border between Egypt and Gaza so that we can reopen that whole area?

[Mr Ellwood]

That is something I discussed with Foreign Minister Shukri very recently. Egypt is concerned about the black market that was used in the tunnel systems, which was why it created the buffer zone. The Rafah crossing is a pedestrian crossing and is not designed for vehicles. The key for me is to be able to get Hamas and Palestinian Authority officials to the talks that are taking place in Cairo. That is critical, and that is why the crossing needs to be open. The hon. Gentleman’s point is well made.

The shadow Minister also talked about electricity and water, which are vital. I go on record as saying that this very densely populated space will become unliveable, and when it does it will increase the problems, and extremism could start to incubate there. A simple solution, which has been done before, would be to splice into the Israeli electricity systems and waterworks to alleviate the pressures on infrastructure that we are seeing at the moment.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) spoke about managing the issue rather than solving it. I agree with that. It is not right simply to say a ceasefire is enough. We should do more. We should press for a long-term solution.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) spoke about the domestic challenges in Israeli politics. We talk about some of the stresses and strains in the coalition Government here, but those who have visited Israel will be aware that it has a vibrant coalition, and a Government and Opposition structure.

During the Prime Minister’s visit in March, a lot was going on in Parliament, which was very noisy and rowdy. He said that he had learned the word “balagan”, which means chaos in Hebrew, because of what was happening there. That reflects the domestic dynamics that are part of the challenges facing us.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) spoke of Hamas’s role and its relationship to the Palestinian Authority. We must support the Palestinian Authority in taking full responsibility for Gaza. During my visit to Gaza a couple of months ago, its first Cabinet meeting was about to take place. That needs to continue, but unfortunately there are restrictions on movements, and I urge Israel to ensure that the goodness and influence that the Palestinian Authority can have in taking over responsibility from Hamas is allowed to happen. For that, it needs to get itself physically into the Gaza space.

The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) talked about previous initiatives such as the Camp David summit. Let us have some now. It is for the current generation and today’s leaders to find long-term solutions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) spoke about the importance of trade, and again I agree. The Oslo accords referred to a trade corridor between Gaza and the west bank. There is a train line there that could easily be expanded—I brought that point up with the Israelis when I was there—and indeed a road corridor. That would allow trade, which is what the people want. It would allow the economy to start to flourish and provide a vision of prosperity that people could buy into. I pose the hypothetical situation of what happens if we do not allow the economy to thrive and do not sort out the infrastructure. Hamas could easily be replaced by something worse, such as ISIL. Where would that leave the landscape in the area? Those are the challenges that we need to be aware of.

The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) spoke about Hamas’s tactics and what happened during the conflict. It was using hospitals and UN buildings to fire from, and using its own people as cannon fodder to stand in front of fire. That is simply unacceptable. We must support the Palestinian Authority to become the legitimate authority in Gaza. The hon. Gentleman also asked some questions about Department for International Development projects. That is obviously another Department, but I will write to him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) spoke about debates in other Parliaments. I understand that one is taking place in France tomorrow, and there have been debates in Australia and other places.

The world is watching. It is deeply concerned about what is happening and worried that the opportunity for peace, which has been diminishing over the years, may be missed yet again as John Kerry starts the process of getting people back to the table. We should not forget how close we came last April due to his work and that of the others involved—I made that point in our last debate. We must pick up that process as soon as possible.

President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu continue to say that they are committed to a two-state solution, but they must both show bold and decisive leadership and avoid steps that make peace more difficult. That includes in the occupied territories. I visited E1 and saw how it would divide up the north of Jerusalem and the Bethlehem conurbation. It would cause massive problems in governance once a two-state solution was agreed.

The hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) spoke about introducing sanctions. I do not believe that should be done when we are trying to get people back to the table. It would be a retrograde step bearing in mind where we are right now.

The hon. Members for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) spoke about the illegal settlements. I was saddened to go to a Bedouin camp where people have been told to move from one occupied area to another. They are goat herders, and they need space. They are being moved to a location that is clearly unacceptable for the lifestyle they lead. We ask Israel to recognise that that is unhelpful. When such decisions are made, it makes it more difficult for Israel’s friends to defend it against accusations that it is not serious about peace.

The hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan), for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) talked about the overall issue of recognising Palestine. Is it a tactical decision, a symbolic decision or a strategic decision? How does it fit into the plans that we are working on with the EU, the United States and the UN, and the resolutions that exist? We want to use recognition to assist the strategic process. As parties return to the table, now is not the right time to make that decision, because it would have consequences.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) spoke about the tensions surrounding Temple Mount and Haram al-Sharif. It is vital that the long-standing status quo is observed and that we value Jordan’s role as the custodian of those holy sites in Jerusalem.

I think I have managed to cover everyone’s points, but perhaps they will forgive me if I have not. I would be delighted to speak or write to Members afterwards if I have missed anything out.

To conclude, we certainly recognise the strong statement made by the vote in the House last month and by today’s debate. We agree that Palestinian people deserve a sovereign, independent, democratic, contiguous and viable Palestinian state living in peace and security side by side with Israel. However, I am afraid we continue to reserve the right to recognise Palestine when that is most likely to lead to a two-state solution, delivering peace for Israelis and Palestine.

Britain is committed to seeing an end to the occupation and the creation of an independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as a shared capital. However, urgent progress is needed—that has been reflected in this important debate—towards a two-state solution that delivers an end to the occupation. We will continue to engage with key partners to consider how best to support the parties in resuming serious dialogue.

I fully recognise the strength of feeling about the dispute among many people in Britain, and I am glad this debate has given me the opportunity not only to set out the Government’s position, but to listen to the concerns of constituents and hon. Members. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Easington for raising the issue, and I thank other hon. Members for their contributions.