Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

Indeed, and I think the hon. Gentleman is a perfect candidate to come with me to raise these matters personally with the ambassador in January. We are concerned about human rights defenders, as I have made clear, including when I was in Bogota. I hope that the Colombian Government will realise how keen an interest this House takes in both the peace process and the wider case for justice for all in Colombia.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Minister is aware that a number of Northern Ireland Members have engaged both with the Colombian Government and the FARC negotiators in Havana. Is he also aware that we are particularly concerned that the democratic opposition in Colombia, which is not represented at the negotiations, should have its position affirmed because it, along with civil society groups, has a key role to play in taking the peace process forward—a peace process for which it has fought so long?

[Mr Swire]

All have a role to play in gaining peace in that country, which has been ruined by the civil war with FARC. When I was recently in Cuba, as the first British Minister to visit in 10 years, I raised this matter with Cuba, which is playing host to the peace process. I say again that these negotiations with FARC are quite a long way through and what we need to see is a final settlement with FARC—we have just seen the release of the brigadier general and the others who were taken by FARC within the last month or so. That remains the big prize and everybody should have a say in the peace that will ensue from that.

Palestine

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

My constituents have been very animated about the prospect of this debate. They know about conflict and peace processes and they know all about excusery, whataboutery and blame games when peace processes stall and initiatives fail. They even know about when institutions fall.

My constituents also know outrage when they see it—as there was this summer, with the scale of the violence visited on the people of Gaza by Operation Protective Edge. They know that violence makes no contribution to upholding anyone’s rights, and violence on the part of any armed group in the name of any Palestinian interest will not advance the cause of Palestinian rights or a Palestinian state. Indeed, much of that violence is aimed against the very process that would lead to a two-state solution. Let us remember that the people carrying out the violence—with whom, according to Netanyahu, those of us who support Palestinian statehood are aligning ourselves—are doing it to undermine the two-state solution. They are totally opposed to that concept, just as some people in Israel are.

I have said before that if we are serious about a two-state solution, we need to create more of a semblance around a two-state process. That is why moving towards recognising Palestinian statehood is so important; it is the single biggest thing that those of us outside, representing the international democratic interest, can do. Doing that is not about a little token PR win for Palestine or about one in the eye for Israel; it is about trying to create a more equal process and trying to say that international standards will and do apply—not just to Israel, but to Palestine. Any Palestinian state that is created or recognised will have to adhere to all the legal instruments to which they wish to bring Israel.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful contribution. Does he not recognise from his own experience over recent decades that the heart of any successful negotiation is recognition of the legitimacy of the partner that someone is seeking to work with and legitimacy in the eyes of the international bodies? For that reason, we were right to back the vote on Palestinian recognition in October.

[Mark Durkan]

Absolutely, and our process shows that is true. It shows that if people are serious about negotiating a process, they have to recognise that it is not going to be a matter of them all converting others to their views. It will be a matter of convergence, so people, based on the integrity of their own position and knowing that their own interests and identity are going to be secured in the arrangements, can move forward to respect and accommodate each other.

In any situation of historic conflict, people need to recognise that they cannot be secure against each other; they can be truly secure only with each other. They cannot prosper against each other; they can truly prosper only with each other. That is why we need a two-state solution and why that needs strong international support. The issue is not about simply leaving things to the parties themselves and saying, “It is up to them to find enough will.” We cannot leave it to the parties themselves, any more than it was just left to the parties themselves in our process. International good will and interest has to find its standard. People also have to know that, whatever the outcome, the states created will fully adhere to human rights and conform to international law. They can hold each other to that and affirm those guarantees for all their citizens, whatever identities those citizens have.

Let us be very clear: Israel cannot go on believing that it can ignore all the world all the time and still buy arms and sell all the illegal settlement goods that it wants to sell. The public have got fed up; the international public are indignant at the failure of the diplomatic musings and all the excusery and ruses used to exercise a veto at the UN. That is why we have this petition and why people want to see us move forward on the basis of the vote that has already been held.

Palestine and Israel

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who, like other Members, touched on the human realities of people whose lives are afflicted in this conflict. The question for this House is: where do we stand on the basic, core question that constantly runs through this problem?

Every time there is violence and every time the attempts at a peace process fail, fall into a lull and are followed by more violence—whether it is from Hamas or the excessive efforts of the Israeli defence forces, as we have seen this summer—people ask what the western world is doing about it. Where does the international community stand when human rights are sacrificed again and again, and what is its will when international law is violated again and again? Of course, we hear from the Dispatch Box and elsewhere that the Israeli Government are told not to be disproportionate and warned against occupations, and yet the situation continues.

People are increasingly fed up with this screensaver politics, where shapes are thrown, images projected and impressions generated, but nothing real goes on in relation to the substantive issue. People in our constituencies find it frustrating, but the people for whom it must be most frustrating are those moderate people in the middle east, including those in Israel who know that their security will never come from drenching people in Gaza with bombs, and those in Palestine who know that their peace, rights and liberation will not come through lobbing rockets into Israel. They want a peace process and they know that at the heart of that peace process there has to be a two-state solution, and that two-state solution has a better chance of happening if there is at least a semblance of a two-state process. When there is no two-state process, we are wasting our time talking about a two-state solution.

The Minister told us today, once again, that the British Government will recognise the state of Palestine at a time when it is most beneficial to the peace process, but then he went on to say that a negotiated end of occupation is the most effective way of having the Palestinian aspiration for statehood realised on the ground. Is he telling us that the British Government will move on recognising the state of Palestine only when there is a negotiated end to the occupation, whenever that is? If he is, that is no argument against the motion, and nobody could accept it as a reason for voting against the motion or the amendment.

[Mrs Main]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my suspicion that we will not have a vote tonight? It looks suspiciously as though there is consensus. If we do not have a vote, the House will not speak with the grand voice in the way he hopes.

[Mark Durkan]

That may well be, and it may add to people’s frustrations. We will see whether it happens. We want to flush out a proper declaration, because there should be no obfuscation. There is a clear choice. One of the beauties of the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) is that it is clear—for the purposes of providing absolute clarity, there is the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw)—and the issues have been well distilled in a very good debate.

A couple of attempts have been made to cloud some of the issues, including by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). He tried to suggest that the experience of the Northern Ireland peace process somehow means that we should not recognise the state of Palestine now, but leave everybody to sort everything out and then recognise it. The truth is that he and his party opposed the peace process throughout and did so shrilly. They said that the sky would fall in. They opposed American involvement. They opposed what the British and Irish Governments did to create the framework for a solution, and they opposed building a solution based on three sets of relationships—institutions in Northern Ireland, institutions in Ireland and institutions between Ireland and Britain.

The point is that people outside a conflict sometimes have to help to create some of the givens in a process. In the give and take that we expect in a negotiated process, particularly in a historic conflict, it is not in the parties’ gift to do all the giving; that is where responsible international input can create some givens and new realities.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his role in the Northern Ireland process. Does he agree that the involvement of not only the United States but the European Union in the events of 1997, 1998 and 1999 was crucial in facilitating agreement?

[Mark Durkan]

Absolutely, and such involvement predated that period. People feared that it was just a gesture that might somehow lead to a dangerous outcome. In fact, the layers of understanding, initiative and input from the international community over several years helped to condition the context of the peace process and to give people a sense of reality about our problem and the absolute and unavoidable requirements of a solution. That was done in ways that made people comfortable with those requirements, because they did not have the burden of making concessions or compromises themselves, but could take them as things that were already givens in the process.

That is why the important step from the international community in doing more to recognise the state of Palestine is the creation of a sense that the process is more equal. Will recognition create a solution? No. Will detailed negotiations have to happen? Absolutely. People will have the huge task of trying to work out a solution, to work with the solution and to work with each other within the solution, but one thing the international community can do is to say, “We are not going to endorse anybody’s excesses by retailing their excuses.” That is why we should not endorse the violence of Israel by subscribing to its veto on the very process in the very basic question before the House tonight.

Ukraine, Middle East, North Africa and Security

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

One of the profound challenges facing the state of Israel is to recognise that in responding to its immediate security challenges in the region, it risks losing standing and authority in the international community. A younger generation of citizens in the United Kingdom have no memory of the experience of the Israeli state after 1948, when it was periodically threatened by invasion from powerful neighbours. Instead, they have seen in recent conflicts the overwhelming use of military force by the Israel defence forces, which shapes and affects their view of the conflict.

It is important for the Israeli Government to recognise that statehood for the Palestinians is not a gift to be given, but a right to be recognised. It is not simply that Israeli settlements on occupied territory lands are illegal under international law, it is that it is simply wrong to build on other people’s lands. That is why the most recent initiative is so wholly unacceptable, both because of the reality that Israel is building once more on other people’s land, with that land being occupied for military purposes, and because of the symbol that it sends about the seriousness of the Israeli Government to try to make meaningful progress on a negotiated solution. We must break the pattern of periodic conflict, permanent blockade, and episodic attempts at talks. In that sense, of course there is a heavy burden of responsibility on the Palestinians, but there is also a very heavy burden of responsibility on the Israeli Government. My genuine fear is that this latest step in settlement building will be interpreted as being far from positive as to the sincerity of the Israeli Government’s efforts in that regard.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

My right hon. Friend heard the Foreign Secretary say that simply wagging fingers would not contribute to meaningful peace in the middle east. Will he say what UK stance, either bilaterally or with our partners, could make any higher diplomatic or political case than wagging our finger?

[Mr Alexander]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. How does one effectively seek to influence the conduct of the Israeli Government? One truth that we in this House must confront is that Prime Minister Netanyahu—many of us have had concerns about specific actions he has taken—is probably more popular 10 years after taking office than when he first assumed it. The test for me is not, “Can we make headlines?”, but “Can we make a difference?”, and the test of that is whether actions taken in the United Kingdom, or at European level, strengthen the forces of progress in Israeli society, or strengthen the forces of reaction.

I fully understand the depth of feeling among many Opposition Members about the urgency of finding meaningful ways to influence Israel, and for it to adopt an approach that many of us believe better suited to its long-term interests. But in reality, if we were to take actions that strengthened a narrative in Israeli society that somehow the whole world is against them, that the only people they can trust to defend them are the IDF, and that they can have no security reliant on international agreements but must instead look only to themselves, I fear that far from that leading to the progress we all sincerely want, we would get a further reinforcement of the pattern of destruction and blockade that we have seen over recent years. I am conscious of the anger, urgency and frustration that so many people on both sides of this House feel about making progress, but our challenge is about what can make a difference given the discourse in Israeli society, the balance of forces in the Knesset, and the views previously taken by the Israeli Government.

Middle East and North Africa

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Like others, I commend the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for securing this debate and opening it with such a comprehensive look at the situation in the middle east and north Africa. I also want to take the opportunity to welcome the new Minister to his brief; I look forward to his response.

I too want to concentrate on the situation in Gaza and Israel. I come to the subject without interests to declare—I have no particular attachment—but with some experience of living and working somewhere that has known conflict and having been involved in practically all stages of a peace process. I am very conscious that in any situation of long-standing conflict, there needs to be a point at which people realise that they cannot be secure against each other; we can only truly be secure with each other. How that security is found, expressed and contained is different in different situations.

The two-state solution is obviously recommended for Palestine and Israel. We MPs repeat that constantly and we hear it repeated by Governments internationally. As someone with experience of a peace process, I must say that peace processes work well when the process itself starts to establish some of the givens that must be part of the solution. Just as our peace process ended up creating inclusion as a given of the process so that inclusion became a given of the outcome, we have to question why there cannot be more of a semblance of a two-state process in the middle east. That is why, along with other Members, I supported the bid for UN recognition on the behalf of the Palestinian Authority and others. That was not going to create an equal or real two-state situation, but it could have created some semblance of that.

In an intractable conflict situation, when we will all say from the outside that give and take is needed on both sides, the fact is that not all the givens can come from the people involved in the conflict. If external authorities and the international community are involved, they can intervene and use their status to create some of the givens, without surrender or compromise on the part of the parties concerned. That is where I believe the international community has been lax and remiss, not only in the context of the current onslaught that the people of Gaza are suffering, but in relation to the wider situation and our aspirations and support for a wider peace process in Palestine and the middle east.

I suppose it is fashionable for many of us to make the point about how one-sided America’s interest and involvement is, but we have to ask why so much of the other western interest or involvement at a wider level seems to amount to something like a screensaver stance. Images are projected, shapes are thrown and impressions are given, but nothing is really going on in terms of having any significant effect on what Israel is doing in respect of the Palestinian people.

I fully recognise and would defend and argue for the full right of the state of Israel to exist. I want to see that fully expressed by all others, not only in Palestine, but right across the region. That would be part of the prize available in the long-standing Arab peace initiative, which would set all the Arab states on the starting point of recognising the state of Israel and affirming its right to existence. However, despite being offered, that initiative has not been taken forward and used as a basis for anything.

I have listened to other right hon. and hon. Members speaking. I know from our situation in Northern Ireland that when people talk about the atrocities and outrages suffered in one community or territory, it is very easy for people to engage in “whataboutery” over what has been suffered and threatened in another community or territory. I hope we can all agree that we do not want to see civilians threatened, targeted or killed, whether they live in Israel or Gaza, or any other part of Palestine.

The word “terrorism” is bandied about, particularly in relation to Hamas. If “terrorism” means targeting and threatening civilians and civilian space to achieve or enforce a political end or to induce a change in someone else’s political thinking, it is a description that can as easily be attached to what the state of Israel is waging on the people of Gaza. That is precisely what Israel is doing—it is violence aimed at achieving a particular purpose and conditioning a change in political attitude.

I do not accept that there is any moral difference in the anti-civilian violence waged through Hamas rockets and that waged through the firepower of the Israeli defence forces against the people of Gaza. There is no moral difference in my book. Nor am I under any illusion that there is military equivalence between that violence, but that does not make the violence on either side right. There is no military equivalence. I am not trying to say that Hamas rockets are primitive and made out of bins—I am under no illusion about their sophistication—but there is no point pretending that there is military equivalence. People should not use such distracting and misplaced arguments to fail to answer the basic questions.

As other hon. Members have done, we all have to ask how long our moderation would last and survive if we were in the situation facing the people of Gaza. Any situation of repression sows the seeds of violence. When the basic conditions for living are denied, the basic conditions in which people strike out and kill are created. If Israel thinks that it will find security by waging destruction and potentially threatening invasion against the people of Gaza, there is no security there.

I am heartened to hear the number of Members who have referred to it being easy to talk about both sides but that there are people of peace and moderation living in Israel who do not support the current violence being waged by the Israeli defence forces and people of non-violence and moderation in Gaza who do not believe that Hamas’s violence will further their interests or rights, either.

Israeli Teenagers (Abduction and Murder)

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

May I start by associating myself with my hon. Friend’s expression of condolence? In answer to his question, I say yes, absolutely. Let me give him reassurance by saying that while I was there, it was abundantly clear to me that the technocratic Government were co-operating in security terms with the Israelis, as the Israelis acknowledged. If that Government have any information that they have not handed over that would help bring those responsible to justice, I urge them to hand it over now.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I commend both the weight and the balance of the Minister’s words. As well as condemning the dreadful murder of these three teenagers, in response to the terrible abduction I join other hon. Members in deploring the unjustified deaths of Palestinian youths in recent times. Does the Minister recognise that in any conflict there comes a point where both sides have to recognise that they cannot be secure against each other and that they can be truly secure only with each other? We hear about “both sides”, but does he accept that many people on both sides in the middle east do not see themselves in the violence of either side in the middle east? It is to those peace-minded people, Palestinians and Israelis alike, that we should offer solidarity today, as we offer sympathy to the mourning families?

[Hugh Robertson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He makes a key point about the importance of the peace process and what is needed to achieve it. It has often struck me when dealing with the politics of this region—this is not something that is confined to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories—that it is always easier for people to return to violence than it is to make the difficult compromises and decisions necessary to move the peace process forward. That is why, throughout history, those who have achieved peace processes are held in such high regard.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

As the Prime Minister made clear, he regards the CDU/CSU as a sister party with whom we continue to enjoy close and positive relations. In respect of the proposals for the new President of the European Commission, we are of the view that it is important that the Commission is led by a man or woman who has energy, drive and a determination to take through an agenda of economic and political reform to face the serious challenges that Europe confronts, not least getting back to work the millions of jobless youngsters in Europe.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Has the Secretary of State emphasised to the Israeli Government that travel restrictions or other constraints that would prevent Ministers in the technocratic Government from meeting will mean only that they are unable to meet their responsibilities not just to all Palestinians but to the peace process?

[Mr Hague]

Of course we want the technocratic Government of the Palestinian Authority to be able to function. They have committed themselves to the Quartet principles—that, to us, is a very important test—and so we want them to be able to function and to make decisions.

Political and Human Rights (African Great Lakes)

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I absolutely agree. The DRC has signed up to the extractive industries agreement, but it is clear to me that the effectiveness of that agreement is strictly limited and we need something much tougher. Indeed, we must ask questions of those mineral companies based in this country and Switzerland who import a lot of this stuff and are clearly making a lot of money out of that poverty.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does my hon. Friend note that the Catholic episcopal conference in Congo said that one of the best things that the international community could do is host a proper international conference on the extractive industries, asserting land and labour rights and addressing the false pretensions of those paramilitary groups who present themselves as somehow protecting those rights?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend raised that because I had an interesting meeting last night with a group of representatives, including Bishop Ambongo, Bishop Murekezi, Bishop Kambanda, Denise Malueki, Father Santedi and Consolate Baranyizigiye from Burundi. They represent the Church in the region and made a number of good demands, or hoped-for results, one of which is to bring together the Churches throughout the region. The second was, in the long term, to look for peace in the region with greater involvement of the international community in the UN in both respecting international accords and conventions and working to create a climate of confidence and co-operation at all levels in the Administration. They are on a visit to this country and will address a meeting upstairs in the House later today. They are very welcome, as are their efforts, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention

I want to draw attention to two other issues in respect of the Congo. The first is the need to understand the relationship with Rwanda, which is a relatively powerful and efficient country compared with the lack of governance in much of the DRC. Yet there is clear evidence of vast resources flowing into the conflict in the eastern DRC and an imbalance between the relative power and structure of the Congolese army compared with those of the rebels and the high level of suspicion of Rwandan involvement, which is hotly denied by the Rwandan Government but is an issue that we must address in relation to Rwanda because that conflict has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people through the consequences of that war.

There is also a renewed threat from and thirst for minerals in the region. The World Wide Fund for Nature sent an interesting briefing to us describing the problems facing the Virunga national park, which was the first national park to be established in Africa in 1925. It has extraordinary landscapes, high levels of biodiversity and is a world heritage site. It is also home to the internationally important Ramsar wetlands and to the only two populations in the world of critically endangered mountain gorillas as well as many other animals. All that is under threat as people eye up the possibility of exploiting oil and other resources in that national park. The chimera of short-term wealth from mineral and oil is attractive, but the reality is that sustainability of the forest and the planet depends not on destroying national parks, but protecting them. In the long run, there will be more wealth and better resources for people living in national parks of world importance than if they are allowed to be destroyed quickly for short-term mineral wealth. I hope the Minister will indicate Government support for that.

A question for the Home Office—the Minister is from the Foreign Office, but he may be able to help with this—is that I am deeply concerned about the safety of anyone who is returned to the DRC as an unsuccessful asylum applicant in this country. There is chaos at the airport in Kinshasa and elsewhere, and a considerable threat to the families of those who have sought asylum or returned having failed to gain it. There is a serious lack of co-ordinated governance and transparent democracy in the Congo. I have been there as an election observer, and the election I observed with my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and others was relatively well run compared with later elections in the DRC. There are big issues about democracy, human rights and minerals in the DRC.

I spoke about the legacy of genocide in Rwanda and the horrors that go with that. One can fully appreciate people’s anger and the need for every young person in Rwanda to understand what happens when a society completely breaks down and hundreds of thousands of people are killed with the most appalling brutality, and the feeling of immediacy. However, it is right to draw attention to the excesses of the Rwandan Government and their treatment of political dissent, the number of opponents of the President who have disappeared and the number of journalists who have been arrested or prevented from reporting what is going on in that country. There can be no justification for the abuse of human rights because of the horrors of Rwandan history. Surely the lessons of history are that the best protection against evil and excess such as happened in Nazi Germany or towards mainly the Tutsi people in Rwanda is a strong democratic society where there is freedom of expression and rights of representation.

Likewise, across the border in Burundi, there are serious problems with the new law on journalists and the way in which they are allowed to report and express what is going on. We must again raise those matters. I was part of an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Burundi some years ago when a number of the issues were discussed and raised.

The world is well aware of the laws that have been perpetrated in Uganda to make homosexuality a crime and the threat to those who have been caught allegedly committing acts of criminal activity—homosexual relations—who may face the death penalty as a result. Should we really have normal relations with the Ugandan Government while that is going on? Should we not be making much stronger representations and looking at the levels of human rights abuse that continue to take place in Uganda? The whole history of Uganda from Idi Amin onwards is one of terrible tragedy, with not just the anti-gay law but the behaviour of the Lord’s Resistance Army and excesses by the armed forces in trying to deal with that. Having met former child soldiers who were recruited into various militia forces in Uganda and other countries in the region, one must have some humanity and understanding.

My final point is that we are elected Members of Parliament and proud of that. Many concerns have been expressed by the IPU’s human rights committee about the treatment of Members of Parliament and other elected members who have become—how shall I put it?—unpopular with their Governments. The matter of Leonard Hitimana from Rwanda was brought to the IPU’s human rights committee. He disappeared in 2003 and it is believed that he was abducted by state forces.

There are a number of other cases, such as that of Hussein Radjabu in Burundi, who, likewise, apparently remains in jail as an elected parliamentarian. I do not believe that parliamentarians should be above the law or allowed to act with impunity, but it is important to recognise that one should not be arrested or imprisoned because of one’s political views—only for any criminal acts that may have taken place.

As we search for long-term peace in the region, we have to take up the issues of human rights and of conflict minerals and the profits that have been made from them. We should also become a force that tries to protect the environment, human rights and the populations of the area, rather than allowing the mineral companies of the world to do what the colonialists did in the 19th century, which was to destroy the pristine and beautiful environment for the short-term wealth that minerals can bring. We should look for something more sustainable in the future. I am delighted that we have the opportunity to debate the matter today and I look forward to the Minister’s response to my remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I am delighted to contribute to this debate, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I do not want to cover the same points that other Members have articulated so well, but I would like to make a few observations.

It is good that we have had a debate focusing on human rights across the great lakes region as a whole rather than looking only at specific countries. When we look at the great lakes region, and hear from many of the people trying to grapple with the human rights issues and to build towards peace and reconciliation in a sustainable way right across the region, we have to be conscious of what John Hume—who is from my part of the world—used to talk about, which is the framework of the problem being the framework of the solution, and to emphasise that if we are to solve conflicts we need to look at the totality of relationships and affirm the primacy of rights. Whether we look at the great lakes region on a country-specific basis or at how the conflicts there enmesh and affect each other, we see the importance of those aspects. It is important that the hon. Member for Islington North has focused so heavily on the human rights dimension in the region.

There have been other debates on countries in this region, including the debate in the Chamber last week on Rwanda, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to. Sometimes there is an understandable inclination for people here to look at what is happening in particular countries, at what particular regimes have done and at the progress that has been made in various transitions, and basically ask, “Do people pass the good egg test?” If they do, it is felt that we should not raise too many of the other concerns that exist. We hear that sometimes in relation to Rwanda and some of the other countries in the region, where people are trying to encourage progress and to recognise, support and uphold some of the positive developments that have taken place. However, at times people seem more relaxed or even complacent about the serious human rights issues that exist in a number of different regimes.

It is also important to reflect, as we have done already in this debate, that we must listen not only to the political voices from these countries but to the voices of human rights activists, of disparate civil society and indeed of pastoral leadership, right across the churches in these different countries. Those pastoral leaders are basically saying that there are standards and networks that could be asserted and built up, and they are asking the international community and the diplomatic community to reinforce their efforts. They also try to give the international community and the diplomatic community a context. Earlier, I referred to the request that has come from the episcopal conference in the Congo for an international conference on the extractive industries, which could create a context for dealing with quite a number of the issues we have discussed, including on a cross-border basis, and doing so to a full regional standard that deals with land rights, labour rights and all the issues of governance, while also promoting a strong anti-corruption agenda.

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) asked some questions about Burundi, and he talked about the progress that has taken place there. Of course, in Burundi there is a real danger of regression, which is why I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is regrettable that the Department for International Development took the decision about Burundi that it did some time ago, because it basically sent the signal that Burundi was in the “done” box and that everything there is okay, when it is quite clear that things in Burundi are teetering in a dangerous way. After her recent visit to Burundi, Samantha Power said:

“If you take a political crisis on the one hand and combine it with armaments on the other, those are precisely the ingredients for the kind of violence Burundi has managed to avoid now for a good few years”.

As the hon. Gentleman has said, the Minister who is here in Westminster Hall today was also in Burundi recently, and it would be interesting to hear him address that particular situation in the country.

Regarding Rwanda, the US State Department has at least moved now to being quite clear about its concern regarding the number of murders that have taken place of prominent Rwandan exiles, which appear to have been politically motivated. The US has also focused on human rights problems in the country, including the targeting of political opponents and human rights activists. There are questions to be asked about the rule of law, the security forces, the judiciary and the restrictions on civil liberties. At least it appears that some clarity is starting to emerge within the US Government in relation to some of these concerns. However, it is not clear that the same clarity is emerging within the UK Government.

In relation to Congo, I can understand that as we see the situation there changing, with the M23 receding, people now think that there is a more benign situation there. In the absence of the M23, however, what we are seeing in parts of eastern Congo is, of course, all sorts of disparate paramilitary elements breaking out there. At one level, those elements are too small to be of any real threat to the Kinshasa Government, but at another level they are visiting absolute havoc on the people in those areas. In terms of human rights concerns, those groups should be as big a concern to us as if we were talking about one single coherent paramilitary entity.

It is also important to recognise that at times there appears to be impotence and indifference in relation to the Congolese Government as far as diplomatic interests are concerned. For example, going back to some of the issues that were raised earlier about Congo and the issue of conditionality of aid—the recent EU report was cited—a question arises: is there really any conditionality attached to aid in the Congo whatsoever? When he replies to the debate, can the Minister tell us whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or DFID have any set of requirements regarding any change that they want to see the Democratic Republic of Congo’s Government implement? We hear the language about efforts “on increased donor co-ordination”, but what does that mean? What are the standards that apply, and what is the purpose of and what are the targets for those so-called efforts, and where are they getting to? Is a clear message being given to the Government of the DRC and, if so, is that message being taken?

In a recent article in Foreign Affairs magazine, Jason Stearns summed up what we know is the difficulty and the dilemma for the international community as it tries to have a positive influence in a situation such as that in Congo. He talked about the difficulty of

“the dueling imperatives of maintaining good relations with the government in Kinshasa and pushing back on issues of governance and human rights.”

He added that in those circumstances it was difficult to see the “political clout” being mustered that would

“coordinate policy, impose conditions on aid, and hold the Congolese government accountable.”

That is an authoritative observation and I hope that the Minister will assure us, when he responds to the debate, that there are some more positive aspects and that some more active good is being done by the international community, particularly by the UK Government.

Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Those of us who are not afraid to regard ourselves and publicly label ourselves as Christians should consider that to be an important and integral part of the faith that binds him and me, and many others in the Chamber, to the Christians who are suffering outside. That strength is the great value that Christianity brings not only to this country, but to the world as a whole. As we know, there have been examples of mass conversion elsewhere in the world. Reference has been made to Nigeria, and heaven knows what has befallen some of the young girls who were abducted recently in the north of that country.

It is important that the western powers, in seeking to bring peace to Syria and to deal with a vile regime in the form of the Assads, do not allow that regime to be replaced by one of the many others that are dominated by foreign jihadis who are determined to destroy a vulnerable community in one of its ancient heartlands.

Although we of course welcome the opportunity for democracy that the Arab spring has brought, we must accept that there is a real concern that it has also brought something of a winter of persecution for Christians throughout the wider middle east. Open Doors and Christian Solidarity Worldwide have done a lot of work in this area. They have discovered, for example, that some 200,000 Christians are thought to have fled Egypt—a country where I have personal connections and which I have visited—since the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak. He was not perfect, but I am afraid that the situation for Christians has deteriorated greatly since then. At the end of March, a Christian woman, Mary Sameh George, was beaten, stabbed and shot to death in Cairo, apparently because in her car—a car she used to deliver food and medicine to the elderly—there was a crucifix. As Bishop Kyrillos of the Coptic Church has said, when such things occur, there is no sense that even the present regime has a full commitment to tackling those issues. It is very important that Britain and our western allies use every available means of pressure to ensure that, if the new regimes in Egypt and elsewhere want to be accepted in the world community, religiously motivated sectarianism is bore down on wherever it comes from.

We have sought to do our bit. Many parliamentarians from this place and the other place are part of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, where we have the opportunity to debate these issues at length. However, we need that consistent approach from Her Majesty’s Government. Support for religious minorities is not tradeable against any other interest in the conduct of foreign policy.

The examples overseas are important, but I want to finish by saying a word or two about the situation at home. I am not afraid to define my political activity as influenced in part by my faith, as is that of many others, and we should not therefore allow a degree, which we sometimes see, of surprisingly illiberal secularism to drown out the mention of faith in our public space. I was genuinely saddened that the Prime Minister—indeed, it could have been the leader of any other major political party—was criticised for having raised the importance of faith in the public debate. That letter from a number of no doubt eminent intellectuals was the most illiberal exposition of liberalism that I have seen in many a long day, and we ought to say that clearly.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

On the miscasting of those who have a motivating faith in so much of what they do, does the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that this Government have removed the barrier to access to DFID match-funding schemes for faith-related groups such as Christian Aid, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and Trócaire? Those organisations are not proselytising when they are working in the developing world; they are supporting people of all faiths and of none in key development, motivated by their faith but not pushing it on anyone or threatening anyone.

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Like doubtless virtually every other hon. Member, I have seen constituency examples of the work done by faith-based charities from a range of faiths. I am thinking of the work of the Alawi community, for example, which has been mentioned, and of the work of an evangelical church—not my tradition within the Church—in St. Paul’s Cray, in my community. It is doing great work to change lives, deal with drug addiction and improve access to education. My constituent Shekhor Tarat, who is a trustee of a Hindu temple, is doing valuable work for the vulnerable members of a small community in east London. All those faiths are important, and it is critical that we recognise the integral part they play in our civic society.

This debate is timely, and it is time to stand up for the importance of faith and tolerance within these universal values. It is important that we recognise that we must always be vigilant about that, not only abroad but—albeit, happily, in a less stark context—at home.

Sri Harmandir Sahib

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

It seems to have been unique in the context of operations in the Punjab—this is the only such occurrence the Cabinet Secretary has discovered—but globally there will, of course, have been many other occasions in the 1980s when Governments of other countries asked the United Kingdom for military advice, and occasionally Ministers have to deal with that today, so it is not unusual for a foreign country with friendly relations with the UK to ask for military advice.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

According to the Heywood report, the recommendation and decision to agree to the request were based on advice from the British high commission that it would be good for the bilateral relationship, whereas refusal would not be understood by the Indian Prime Minister. However, the report does not tell us—perhaps the Foreign Secretary can—whether the high commission’s recommendation gave consideration to the special sensitivity and sacredness of the Golden Temple site or whether the British Government’s decision to accept the advice gave consideration to the special status of the site?

[Mr Hague]

Further documents, which the hon. Gentleman can study, have been published and attached to the report, and that is the information we have on the motivations and decisions of Ministers and diplomats at the time. Everyone can read the documents for themselves. It is evident from the UK military adviser’s report that he advised that military action in this—and presumably in any other—context should be taken only if negotiations failed. I imagine people would have been conscious of the great significance of the site and the delicacy of the situation, but we can only go for sure on the documents that are there and what they say, and he can read them like the rest of us.