China

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, some of the questions the noble Viscount poses are for the Chinese Administration to answer. We deeply regret the actions they have taken recently in Hong Kong. We have reacted as we said we would, with the various statements we have made on BNO status. On reassessing our relationship, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in the Statement he made on 20 July, China has undergone an extraordinary transformation and the UK Government recognise its success. It is a key partner when it comes to important issues such as climate change. Once again, we call upon the Chinese to recognise their international responsibilities, protect the “one country, two systems” in Hong Kong, and provide basic civil and human rights for its own citizens.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, the Foreign Secretary is correct about the importance and place of China in the world but China’s human rights record, especially as it concerns Uighurs, has been well known for some time. In the light of the recent US Uighurs human rights act, will Her Majesty’s Government consider similar measures and produce a list of Chinese companies involved in the construction and operation of the camps? Given the rising and publicly expressed concern in this country, including by the Board of Deputies, will the Minister now accept that it is high time we took firmer steps to counter Beijing’s harrowing human rights abuses against the Uighurs, and that such abuses should influence negotiations on any future trade deal with China?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I believe the Government have made their position on the deplorable situation faced by the Uighurs in Xinjiang very clear over a number of months—indeed, over years. This problem has been brought to our attention. We have strengthened the work on building alliances to call out the human rights abuses endured by the Uighurs in particular, and we will continue to work to ensure that human rights remain central to our discussions with China on all aspects of our relationship with it.

Israel and Palestine: United States’ Proposals for Peace

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, for securing this important debate. I also express my gratitude to the Minister and to his officials for the careful but clear Answers to my Parliamentary Written Questions relevant to this debate that he gave on 11 and 13 February.

Your Lordships’ House will be aware from my interventions in earlier debates that I am the only Anglican bishop who is a member of the Vatican-mandated Holy Land Co-ordination group, which visits Christian communities in Israel and Palestine every January. I also make at least one other visit to the region each year and will be on ecumenical pilgrimage there next week. Last year, I was also in Egypt with His Eminence Archbishop Angaelos, Coptic Archbishop of London, and other church leaders.

In his Answers to me of 13 February, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said that Her Majesty’s Government want to see

“a contiguous West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as part of a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders”,

and I wholly share the Government’s aspiration. However, in describing the plan published by the United States Government, Her Majesty’s Government’s statement that

“All serious proposals for peace deserve a fair hearing”


does, I believe, two things. The chairman of the Vatican Holy Land Co-ordination group, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Clifton, and I, wrote to the Minister of State for the Middle East and North Africa on 7 February contending that the analysis of the local churches in the Holy Land is that these are not a serious basis for peace but amount to a codification of the Government of Israel’s positions. Given that previous, serious attempts at peace, when they did not succeed, were followed by prolonged periods of bitter disillusionment, it can bring us no confidence when a plan such as this is published. I have to say that the manner of publication undermined any attempt to bring the Palestinian Authority to the negotiating table as an equal partner.

A second and related point is that, even if such arrangements as those proposed by the United States were begun to be enacted, including annexation of territory, I ask the House what peace—if peace it be—can be sustained on injustice? What agreement can there be when one party is not only absent but was not consulted substantively or proportionately in the first place?

My most recent visit to the West Bank, which included Gaza, Ramallah and East Jerusalem, brought home to me the worsening living conditions of the people. There is among the Christian communities a resilient faith and hope for a better tomorrow. But the initial imperative of security, which has created a narrative to justify intervention in more than 50 years of occupation, delivers—as all such unwanted rule does —barriers, confiscation, diversion of resources, curfews, and violence. It is hard not to conclude, as we would in any parallel scenario, that such occupation serves no good purpose.

There is much else one might say, including on what might legitimately offer the State of Israel security on its 1967 borders and its other concerns. One might lament the disappearance of the ancient Jewish communities from across the Middle East and the reasons why. One too might speak of the pressure on, indeed persecution of, the ancient Christian communities of the region. But today I ask again—in some sense I echo other contributors to this debate—whether it is now time for Her Majesty’s Government to heed the views of Parliament and extend full recognition to the Palestinian state?