Rohingya Community (Burma)

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Ashworth]

As I was saying, when I last secured a debate on this subject in Westminster Hall in September 2012, it was on the back of ugly sectarian violence in Rakhine between the Buddhist community and the Muslim Rohingya people. At that time, tens of thousands of the Rohingya community were being displaced. In Sittwe, for example, the Rohingya people were driven out of their homes, and there were reports at the time of mobs burning down houses. Indeed, various non-governmental organisations, such as Human Rights Watch, reported that the police and other paramilitary forces had opened fire with live ammunition on members of the Rohingya community.

I am sure that Members will recall that the tensions at that time were exacerbated by the suggestion by the Burmese President at the height of the crisis about handing over the Rohingya community to the UN high commissioner for refugees until they could be resettled in some third country.

As I remember, in that earlier debate all Members who contributed spoke out against the Burmese regime and we all would have hoped for some progress. However, today in Rakhine there are still 140,000 Rohingya living in squalid temporary camps, which are routinely described by agencies as being among the worst refugee camps in the world. Basic necessities such as food, clean water and health care are scarce; job opportunities for the Rohingya are virtually non-existent; and often the Rohingya are banned from leaving the camps by security services. Those Rohingya who leave those camps illegally often travel to Thailand and Malaysia, but they often end up as the victims of human traffickers. The Arakan Project found that in November alone, nearly 12,000 Rohingyas fled Rakhine state. Since 2012, a total of around 80,000 Rohingyas have fled Burma by boat.

The picture remains depressing for that part of the world. I will cite a few more statistics that I came across while doing my research for this debate. Today, 70% of the Rohingya still have no access to safe water or sanitation services; in some Rohingya districts, there is just one doctor per 160,000 people; only 2% of Rohingya women give birth in a hospital; and 44% of the population of Rakhine state live below the poverty line, which is almost 20% higher than the average figure in most parts of Burma.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what he is saying tallies with what Tomás Ojea Quintana of the UN said in April last year? He said that

“the deprivation of health care is deliberately targeting the Rohingya population, and…the increasingly permanent segregation of that population is taking place”,

and that

“human rights violations are connected to discriminatory and persecutory policies against the Rohingya Muslim population”

by the Burmese Government.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

My hon. Friend puts it well. I know that she has spoken out on these issues in the past and I am pleased that she has had the chance to put her views on the record again.

I have spoken to aid agencies that work in this part of the world. Very few of them want to be named for fear of what that would mean for the work they do, but they conclude that there is a systematic approach to oppressing the Rohingya people. International organisations are forced to sign a memorandum of understanding with the Burmese Government, which is more restrictive in that part of the world than in many other parts. The Burmese Government often use “security concerns” to block humanitarian access to certain places. Foreign staff working for aid agencies need special visas to enter Burma and only a limited number of visas are given. Indeed, aid workers are often denied visas. Travel authorisations are needed for Burmese humanitarian staff to go to remote areas.

In addition, staff working for international organisations, particularly Rohingya staff, face additional travel restrictions, which have become much stricter since 2012. Rohingya humanitarian aid workers working for organisations, including the UN, have been subject to arbitrary arrest and detention. Overall, obtaining access for humanitarian purposes has become more difficult, and more restrictions have been put in place since 2012. Aid organisations, including Médecins Sans Frontières, have faced threats of expulsion or have effectively been expelled permanently from Rakhine state.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention; she is absolutely right, as is Aung San Suu Kyi. As an aside, I say to my right hon. Friend that I am delighted that she is standing again at the next election, because she is an eloquent and persuasive voice on matters of international human rights.

The Burmese Government will often deny responsibility and claim that much of the anti-Rohingya sentiment exists at a local level. But of course we all know, as has been discussed in great detail in previous debates, that the flames of anti-Rohingya sentiment are very much fanned by the denial of Burmese citizenship to them. A nasty, bigoted piece of legislation—the 1982 citizenship law—stripped Rohingya Muslims of their legitimacy in the country and officially declared them foreigners. In effect, they ceased to exist legally and were denied any form of citizenship.

I have been very much influenced on this issue by Benedict Rogers of the Christian Solidarity Worldwide network. He writes persuasively and passionately about these matters. I know that in his spare time he is a Conservative activist, so the Conservatives would do well to encourage him to join us all in this place; I hope I have not ruined his chances by saying that. He writes that

“the Rohingyas face restriction in almost every sphere of life. To travel from one village to another, they are required to obtain permission from at least three local authorities...such permission can be difficult to obtain and often takes up to five days.”

He goes on to say that the Rohingya even need

“permission to marry, and approval can take several years”.

He also says:

“Rohingya are not permitted to be employed as government servants, either as teachers, nurses or in other public services”.

In addition, those Rohingya who succeed in education are often refused entry to higher education. Of course, it is the citizenship law that is fuelling much of this anti-Rohingya sentiment in Burma. I accept that there is great debate about how long the Rohingya have been in this part of the world, but I think all of us can agree that they have been there for generations.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

On the question of citizenship, does my hon. Friend agree that the new rules are harsher than in 2010? Rohingya people were able to cast their vote at the last election, but they cannot do so now because of the new rules.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and she is absolutely right. If she will bear with me, I will touch on that issue when I refer to the Rakhine state action plan.

I just wanted to put on the record that even though there is debate about how long the Rohingya people have been part of Burma, everyone can accept that they have been there for some generations; they have certainly been there since Burma gained independence. Indeed, it was the first President of Burma who said:

“Muslims of Arakan certainly belong to the indigenous races of Burma. If they do not belong to the indigenous races, we also cannot be taken as an indigenous race”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi]

The Minister said that he had been to some of the camps. The assistant secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, Kyung-wha Kang, said:

“I witnessed a level of human suffering in IDP camps that I have personally never seen before…appalling conditions…wholly inadequate access to basic services including health, education, water and sanitation.”

What has changed?

[Mr Swire]

As I said, I was the first western Minister to travel to Rakhine, but that was in 2012. From my conversations with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for International Development, who was there in August, I do not imagine that the situation has got better. If anything, it has got worse. I saw inadequate shelter, lack of access to food and much worse things, in a sense, than that, including a real feeling of fear. We insisted at the time that the Burmese Government should ensure that those people were properly secured. They looked as if they were surrounded by the military, but that was to protect themselves. There was also a feeling where new communities were being built that they were away from their traditional communities, and that that was going to entrench segregation, which is completely counter-productive in trying to bring both communities together.

Beyond tackling immediate needs, we are supporting Burma’s transition to a stable, prosperous and democratic country that can play a positive role in the international community. That is why human rights must remain at the heart of the British Government’s efforts to support Burma down the path of reform it embarked on in 2011, why we will continue to be an honest and critical friend to Burma, raising our concerns unapologetically, and why we are helping to create the conditions for credible elections in November this year. It is why we support the peace process in Burma, moving negotiations towards a nationwide ceasefire agreement and a framework for future political dialogue. We will continue to work closely with the Burmese Government, the opposition, civil society, businesses and communities, and the military, to achieve tangible progress.

Rakhine and Kachin State (Human Rights)

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to open this debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. The issues of human rights, equality and justice, and the plight of the persecuted people of Burma, are potent for Members of both Houses and have caused considerable concern to a number of my constituents in Bolton South East who have family and relatives living in Burma. Indeed, a number of them formed a small campaign group called the Burma Action group, which has organised two peaceful vigils in Bolton town centre. I thank both that group for its hard work in raising awareness of human rights abuses in Burma and the London-based charity, Burma Campaign, for its excellent work. I acknowledge and pay tribute to Members who have worked hard to raise the awareness of some of the issues, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali).

The Foreign Secretary once said that the Government of Burma must be judged by their actions and not their words, yet over the past 18 months the UK Government have reversed a decade-long policy of prioritising human rights in Burma and supported the lifting of all European sanctions on the country despite the fact that none of the human rights benchmarks of the European Union has been met. Even The Daily Telegraph described that decision as “deeply embarrassing”. Undoubtedly, there have been some changes in Burma over the past two years, but still more need to be encouraged. However, the policy must be carefully calibrated, taking into account the wide disparity between words and action. Burma still has one of the worst human rights records in the world. Since Thein Sein became president, human rights abuses, which violate international law, have increased.

In June 2011, the Burmese army in Kachin state broke a 17-year ceasefire with the Kachin Independence Organisation, and for the past two years it has pursued a brutal war against the Kachin people, targeting civilians and violating international law. The United Nations special rapporteur has documented widespread abuses, which constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity. Rape and gang rape, torture, executions, arson, mortar bombing of civilian villages, beatings and the use of child soldiers are commonplace. The UN Human Rights Council resolution on Burma, passed in March 2013, highlighted serious human rights abuses that violate international law, including arbitrary detention, forced displacement, land confiscations, rape and other forms of sexual violence, torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as well as other violations of international humanitarian law. None the less, the Government of Burma still deny that human rights abuses have taken place, and when asked about the abuses in a recent interview, Lieutenant General Myint Soe said:

“Don’t believe everything you hear.”

Perhaps one of the most disturbing elements of the conflict in Kachin has been the widespread use of rape by the Burmese army. It is reported that more than half the women raped or gang raped by soldiers were also tortured, mutilated and killed. Perhaps the Minister could explain why, in the G8 summit, the Prime Minister decided to leave Burma out of the preventing sexual violence initiative? I would have thought that highlighting the increased use of rape by the Burmese army was of more importance than promoting an inaccurate positive image of Burma, which is what we have seen in recent months. I urge the Minister to press the Burmese Government to enter proper political dialogue on Kachin state to ensure that they address the root causes of the violence instead of constantly delaying such talks.

In Rakhine state—or what is now known as Ankhar state—we see the heartbreaking plight of the Rohingya people, described by the UN as the

“most persecuted group in the world”.

They are a little publicised Muslim people, who are historically located in the coastal Rakhine state, dating their ethnic lineage in the region over centuries. When the military junta under General Ne Win, an ethnic Burmese, came to power in 1962, it implemented a policy of “Burmanisation”, which was based on a nationalist ideology of racial purity. It was a crude attempt to bolster the majority Burmese ethnic identity and to strip the Rohingya of any legitimacy. The Rohingya were declared foreigners in their own native land and labelled illegal Bengali immigrants. By stripping them of citizenship and denying them citizenship, the Government institutionalised discriminatory practices in Rakhine state.

The Rohingya have no rights to own land or property and are unable to travel outside their villages, repair their decaying places of worship, receive education, or even marry and have children without rarely granted Government permission. Although I am sure that hon. Members will recall the events of last summer, I will none the less run through them quickly. In June 2012, deadly violence erupted between the Buddhist Rakhine community and the Rohingya Muslims. Human Rights Watch, a respected and independent international body, reported that state security forces failed to intervene to stop the violence or protect civilians, and in some cases they directly participated. Rather than defuse the situation, President Thein Sein was highly provocative. He called for the “illegal” Rohingya to be sent to a third country. Since most Rohingya, even those whose families have resided in Burma for generations, lack formal legal status, his language implied that the great majority of Burma’s Rohingya did not belong in the country. His comments were eagerly seized on by those who favour the expulsion of all Rohingya from Burma.

In a recent Human Rights Watch report, a copy of which I have with me, it is documented that the violence that resumed in October was a co-ordinated campaign of ethnic cleansing that sought to remove or relocate the state’s Muslim population. The October attacks were organised and carried out by local Rakhine political party officials, Buddhist monks and ordinary Rakhines, often directly supported by state security forces.

The report says that Rohingya men, women and children were killed; some of them were secretly buried in mass graves, and their villages and neighbourhoods were razed. In the months since the violence, the Burmese Government have done little to investigate the killings and abuses or to hold people to account for such crimes.

Along with their complicity in crimes against humanity, the Burmese Government have contributed to the severe humanitarian crisis facing the displaced Rohingya and other Muslim communities. More than 125,000 people are now living in internally displaced persons camps in urgent need of humanitarian assistance, yet the Government have consistently obstructed the delivery of aid to them. The camps are overcrowded and lack adequate food, shelter, water and sanitation, as well as medical care. Unless there is a dramatic improvement in conditions in the camps, including unfettered access for international humanitarian organisations, the situation will almost certainly deteriorate further, especially with the coming monsoon season.

We are faced with considerable evidence of crimes against humanity; ethnic cleansing; mass graves; and the obstruction of humanitarian aid to displaced communities. Those claims should not be taken lightly. There has been a tendency to describe the violence in Rakhine state as communal and a reflection of deep-seated hatred between communities on the ground. However, the findings in the Human Rights Watch report tell a very different story—of extensive state involvement, and planned killings and destruction of property, as well as the forced displacement of a population.

Only last month, the Foreign Secretary congratulated the Burmese Government on their role in leading “remarkable changes” in the country. That upbeat assessment was premature, just as the EU was premature in its haste to lift economic sanctions on Burma. Human Rights Watch, an internationally respected non-governmental organisation, has carried out more work and it has found that ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity have been committed, and that Government forces were involved.

There are some questions that we naturally ask. Why have no steps been taken to hold to account for their actions those who are responsible for organising the violence? It is easy to call on the Burmese Government to investigate themselves when we are fully aware that they will not do so. The Burmese Government-organised Rakhine commission, which was set up to investigate the violence, did not even consider any issues relating to who was responsible.

There needs to be an international investigation into the violence. I urge the Minister to support the establishment of a UN commission of inquiry to examine the allegations of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. After all, we worked with the rest of the international community to set up the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, precisely because there had been ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity in those countries. I do not see why there should not be a similar inquiry in Burma; even if there is not a tribunal, at least in the first place there should be an independent inquiry led by the UN, which can investigate and deal with all the issues that have arisen. Obviously it must be an impartial international investigation. Then we will know the truth, and we will be able to hold to account the people responsible. Of course, such an investigation may also provide useful information and act as the basis for future reconciliation.

The Rohingya people have no place on earth to call home; they are a stateless people. The Burmese Government should face international pressure to repeal the discriminatory 1982 citizenship law. All the Rohingya people want is reinstatement of their citizenship in their own land, and the dignity, human rights and opportunities that come with it. Human rights must be the single most defining test for the Burmese Government’s commitment to democratic change and the rule of law. It is a test that they are failing.

I sincerely ask our Government to push for an independent inquiry into what is going on in Burma, because the evidence is clear. These are not just communal riots because different communities do not get on with each other. Since the 1960s, there has been a deliberate policy of effectively trying to drive out people who are not ethnic Burmese Buddhist.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this timely debate on a very important matter. Does she agree that, on occasions such as this, it is international pressure and the embarrassment and shame of the individual Government responsible for many of the actions that will bring the necessary change, and that we all have a part to play in applying pressure and bringing embarrassment and eventually shame to the Government responsible?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. That is why we are asking other Governments to put pressure on the Burmese Government. There have been suggestions that we are almost in haste to have negotiations and win contracts with the Burmese, to increase financial gains or financial stability. That is all very well, but the human rights issue is paramount, and the Burmese Government must be told that what they are doing is wrong.

As I was saying, the issue is not just that different communities are not getting on with each other, as it has been described. Those who have studied the history of Burma, particularly what has been going on since the 1960s, know that there is a deliberate, calculated policy effectively to get rid of people in Burma who are not ethnically Burmese Buddhist. In Kachin state, which I have talked about, most of the people who are persecuted are, in fact, Christians; they are treated badly. The Rohingya people are Muslims. In another state, the Karen people are treated just as badly because they happen to be neither Christian, Burmese Buddhist nor Muslim. It seems that there is a pattern. There is not just one group the Burmese Government are against; there is a very sinister and deep underlying issue. The motive behind most of these actions is to get rid of other communities and other religions in Burma, not only to leave the Burmese Buddhist community as the main community but perhaps to keep Burma almost ethnically pure Burmese and Buddhist.

That is why the state has been completely complicit, as has the army. Yes, Burma held elections last year, which we thought would bring progress, but everybody knows that all that happened was that most of the generals took off their uniforms and got into civilian clothes, and the majority of the people who are involved in Parliament are military people. There is still very much a military dictatorship in every form. The situation should not be seen as conflict between communities who are not getting on; a much worse and far more sinister agenda is being pursued by those in power at the moment in Burma.

In the past, other Governments have gone into various parts of the world on the basis that there were human rights violations. I am not for one minute suggesting a military intervention, but there should be robust sanctions and a robust programme against what the Burmese Government are doing. They should be held to account.

At the G8 summit that is taking place, rape will be looked at in different countries. Burma has been omitted from those countries, yet Burma is the place where most rapes are taking place. As the Minister may be aware, many years ago an international case held that rape is, in fact, a form of genocide, because the idea of carrying out rape—not to get graphic—is effectively to ensure that the women of the population being attacked are impregnated by members of other ethnic groups, and therefore rape is effectively about trying to get rid of that particular generation. There is a high level of rape in Burma, and it is an indicator of what I described earlier, which was not scaremongering or exaggeration; it seems to be part of a ploy to make Burma a Buddhist Burmese country. Surely that cannot be right, when there have been communities made up of different ethnic or religious groups living in Burma for hundreds of years.

I thank the Minister for listening to my speech, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will be able to take this matter further.

Shaker Aamer

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Westminster Hall

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) on securing this debate. Shaker Aamer is not one of my constituents, but his case has been followed by many people over the years, as has what is happening in Guantanamo Bay. I will try not to repeat points already made by the hon. Lady, but I will deal with some other issues.

When there is an incident such as 11 September, one can understand that, to protect its citizens, the natural reaction of the state is to scoop up everyone, put them in prisons or detention camps, and then search for the evidence to prosecute them or do whatever needs to be done. In this case, it seems that for 11 years—that is a long time—someone has been kept in detention, with no charges brought against them and no trial carried out, which cannot be right.

The European convention on human rights says that in times of conflict, countries can derogate from certain articles, even from the right to a fair trial. Cases of people imprisoned for four to five years have gone to the European Court of Human Rights, which has said that such treatment is not unlawful because of the individual circumstances, but all those cases involved people who had actually been charged with an offence and were awaiting trial, although delays had occurred for whatever reasons. In this case, the person has not even been charged, which is the really important point.

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

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for the tone in which she is continuing this debate. She is making some powerful points. Does she not go to the heart of the question when she says that we understand that situations will always emerge that are in some way murky, but that an important part of the process is normalising relationships back to what they were? This case serves only to show how little we have advanced in the past 11 years.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we should try to normalise and humanise all such situations, and to resolve the conflict. At the end of the day, America is one of the greatest democracies in the world, under the rule of law, for which we admire it. The situation has been a big stain on its reputation internationally, and dealing with all this—resolving the issue of Guantanamo Bay and, of course, the case of Shaker Aamer—would help its reputation in the world. That would give it back its credibility and respect, which it is losing as it continues the Guantanamo Bay detentions, including of Shaker Aamer.

As I have said, there have been cases in the European Court of people who have been in custody for a long time, but no charge has been made in the case we are discussing. As a former prosecutor, I know that international criminal laws are so wide that if people have committed an offence—they do not actually have to have set off a bomb or to have shot someone, but all jurisdictions in the world have the concept of attempting to commit a crime, where people try but do not manage to complete the offence—they can be charged. However, that is not relevant to this case. There is also what is called aiding and abetting, which means that if people counsel, aid, procure, encourage or in any form or shape assist in the commission of an offence, they can be prosecuted. In virtually all jurisdictions, such people are treated as though they were the main participator—although sentences tend to vary—so individuals can be caught even under those provisions.

The fact that that has not happened in relation to Mr Shaker Aamer and others in Guantanamo Bay, who have still not been charged with anything and still languish in prison, is, legally, fundamentally wrong. Eleven years later, it cannot be right that people are being detained in custody apparently for eternity—there seems to be no foreseeable release.

I am grateful to our Government for making efforts to get Shaker Aamer released. The Foreign Secretary has said that he is anxious to get him back, so that we can repair some of the damage done to him. Britain has of course said that it will not charge him with any offence. That again shows that we cannot just have people in indefinite detention, perhaps for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In this case, he was there legitimately, teaching—as he has said—and, because of the bombing, he tried to leave the country where he was working, but was then detained.

Fundamentally, this all boils down to the fact that either someone is prosecuted or they are not. The American Government say that Shaker Aamer is an unlawful combatant and does not therefore come within the parameters of the ordinary criminal law. However, international conventions state that somebody cannot just be held for ever; they must be prosecuted or released.

In relation to the frequently used term “unlawful combatant”, a soldier serving a country in an armed conflict who is arrested by another country would be a “lawful combatant”, meaning that they might be treated as a prisoner of war, and only if they were not part of the armed services of a particular state but were involved in some kind of illicit fighting or wrongdoing would they be an unlawful combatant. Even so, they are entitled to rights, including to a proper trial by an independent tribunal.

Many international organisations have found that the trial system in American military courts has no transparency and contravenes all principles of natural justice and fairness of trial. I would therefore say that even a trial in the American military courts would be wrong, but even that has not happened. No legal process is being carried on. I know that that has been emphasised, but why this is happening is beyond understanding.

It has been suggested, certainly by his lawyer, that one reason Shaker Aamer has not been released is that he has stood up for his rights in prison. He certainly did so when he was arrested. There is also the fact that he is now on hunger strike. He has not seen his children or wife; in fact, one of his sons was born soon after he was detained and he has not even seen him.

I therefore ask the Minister what discussions there have been with the Americans about their having breached international laws, which is clearly happening in this case. I could stand here and give chapter and verse on all the cases, but I do not want to bore everybody stiff with the legal niceties. As someone who specialises in human rights law and is a former prosecutor, I can honestly say of this case and the law in this area that what is happening to Shaker Aamer is completely illegal, fundamentally flawed and against all principles of justice.

Before I sit down, I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who has campaigned vigorously about the case of Shaker Aamer in particular—as well, of course, about the issue of Guantanamo Bay generally—for several years. He raised it with the previous Lord Chancellor and other people, and has campaigned tirelessly on behalf of Shaker Aamer and his family. Unfortunately, as he is shadow Lord Chancellor, he is not able to participate in this debate today, although he is present in the Chamber, and has been here from the start of the debate. I want to thank him and pay tribute to him for his hard work over a number of years. I also want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Battersea for securing this debate.

The Minister is an honourable and good man, and the Foreign Secretary is of the same calibre as well. I urge them to carry on with the negotiations so that we can please have the return of Shaker Aamer, as his detention is a blot on the reputation of America for upholding freedom and rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Robertson, for calling me to speak. As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I, too, join colleagues in congratulating the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) on securing this debate on behalf of Shaker Aamer and his family. His case is a cause of great concern to MPs of all parties, as demonstrated by the turnout in Westminster Hall today and, of course, by the number of signatures—more than 117,000—on the e-petition site. I know that the hon. Lady has already done a great deal to push for Mr Aamer’s return to his family, who live in her constituency. As others have done, I also want to mention the role played by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). I know that it is very frustrating for him not to be able to speak in the debate today, given his previous work—during his time not only in the House, but as a human rights lawyer—on this and related issues. However, he is obviously with us in spirit, if in silence.

First, although I am sure that it does not need restating, I want to place on the record that Labour is completely opposed to Guantanamo Bay. We removed all British citizens and all but one British resident from Guantanamo Bay through our diplomatic efforts when we were in government. Indeed, we were the first country to ensure that all its citizens were removed from Guantanamo Bay. We are now left in a position whereby Mr Aamer is the sole remaining British resident there, and every effort should be made to end his detention without trial.

As we have heard, although Mr Aamer is a Saudi citizen he is a British resident, married to a British national and the father of four British citizens, the youngest of whom he has never had the chance to meet, as he was actually airlifted to Guantanamo Bay on the day that his youngest son was born.

I understand that the Minister is responding to this debate as his portfolio includes counter-terrorism. Although national security is, of course, a paramount concern for both the US and UK Governments, the continued existence of Guantanamo Bay is also a fundamental human rights issue, which, many have argued—indeed, it has been said by Members in Westminster Hall today—is more likely to have jeopardised than safeguarded American security.

After Mr Aamer’s arrest in November 2001 in Afghanistan, he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay on 14 February 2002; as I said, that was the day that his youngest son was born. Mr Aamer’s legal representatives at Reprieve claim that his treatment at Bagram airfield, allegedly including sleep deprivation and physical abuse, led him to make a false confession, which has since been used to justify his detention without trial for more than 11 years. Mr Aamer denies all accusations of involvement with al-Qaeda, but has not had the opportunity to answer any of these charges in a trial.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Does my hon. Friend also accept that, apart from sleep deprivation and everything else, Mr Aamer’s head was banged against the wall quite a few times when all these things were happening?

[Kerry McCarthy]

These suggestions have been put forward by Mr Aamer and his lawyers. Obviously, there would be grave concerns if that were the case. We also know that defamation cases are going on in terms of other suggestions that have been made against him.

Mr Aamer not been charged; that has come out during the debate. Perhaps we could understand it if he were being held without charge just while investigations were proceeding, and there were reasons that could not be revealed to anyone for why he was being held without trial, but he has been cleared for release. That is what people find baffling. It is estimated that 86 of the remaining prisoners have been cleared for release. Mr Aamer was first cleared under the Bush presidency in 2007 and subsequently by President Obama’s Administration in 2009.

The fact that Guantanamo detainees are held indefinitely, without the right to a fair trial, is itself a serious affront to international human rights standards. Indeed, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has condemned Guantanamo Bay, asserting:

“The continuing indefinite incarceration of many of the detainees amounts to arbitrary detention and is in clear breach of international law”.

She also referred to,

“the systematic abuse of individuals’ human rights”.

It is not only prisoners’ detention that is of such concern to human rights campaigners, but the reports of their treatment, which Mr Aamer’s lawyer has described as “gratuitous torture”. We have heard accounts of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

Let me deal with that when I respond to the remarks and questions from the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on that subject. There is a limited amount I can say, because, ultimately, it is the United States that is holding Mr Aamer, not us. There is only so much we know about the reasons, but I will say a little more about that later.

I reiterate that the Government continue to support President Obama’s commitment to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. We understand the requirement for detainee transfers and releases to satisfy US legislation. Previous legislation passed by the United States Congress—namely, the 2011 National Defence Authorisation Act—all but precluded transfers out of Guantanamo Bay. That legislation was renewed by the US Government for 2012 in largely the same terms, but it allowed for the US Secretary of Defence to exercise a waiver should stringent conditions be met.

Despite our best endeavours, Mr Aamer was not released in 2012. Indeed, no detainees were released from Guantanamo Bay in 2012. The National Defence Authorisation Act was renewed in January 2013. All Guantanamo Bay detainees cleared for transfer or release now require a waiver under the Act before they can be transferred or released from the detention facility, regardless of their destination country. The Government continue to work with US counterparts to consider the implications of the NDAA 2013 for Mr Aamer’s release. Notwithstanding that, any decision regarding Mr Aamer’s release ultimately remains in the hands of the United States Government. I will have a little more to say about that in a moment.

Let me deal briefly with welfare issues and then return to some of the questions colleagues raised in the debate. We continue to take concerns about Mr Aamer’s welfare very seriously. The US Department of Defence has confirmed to us that Mr Aamer is participating in the current hunger strike at Guantanamo Bay. Notwithstanding that, the US authorities have assured us that he is in a stable condition, that he is not in solitary confinement and that he is being offered medical treatment. In addition, the FCO has asked the US Department of Defence substantively to respond to specific allegations that have been made. We have no reason not to believe the welfare assurances we have been given by United States authorities. I should add that the International Committee of the Red Cross has access to Guantanamo detainees.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Has anybody from the Foreign Office actually visited Guantanamo Bay and seen for themselves the condition of Shaker Aamer? If they saw him, there would be independent evidence to say that he was fine and that he was being treated properly, and we would not worry so much. If it is being said he is being treated well, has any effort been made to go to see him? If not, has permission been refused?

[Alistair Burt]

The reason is that we cannot offer a non-British national, which is Mr Aamer’s status, consular assistance. Consular access and responsibilities are afforded to states only in respect of their nationals. Our consular policy towards 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. However, although we are not able to visit him in Guantanamo Bay, we routinely inquire about Mr Aamer’s welfare, and we always follow up allegations of poor health, as a matter of priority. We are confident that the assurances that we receive from the US are accurate and credible, and have no reason to believe otherwise.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I appreciate that because Mr Aamer is not a British national he cannot technically or legally speaking be given consular assistance, but bearing in mind the fact that the British Government are making representations on his behalf for him to be released back here it would not be that difficult for someone independently to go and speak to him, and then come back and say, “He’s okay; the suggestion that he is being tortured or treated badly is all wrong.” That would shut people up if they are wrong in saying he has been treated badly. That is all. It is just common sense.

[Alistair Burt]

As far as I am aware, there is independent access to Guantanamo detainees through the ICRC. That provides exactly the independent reference that the hon. Lady would look for. Our consular policy is clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

In all fairness, we are getting into the same sort of area. I do not make light of this. Plainly, I have a supposition about why the United States might want to retain Mr Aamer. It is inconsequential in terms of the United Kingdom’s position on his release from detention, and whether we think the detention is wrong. We do. It is clear we have a difference of opinion with the United States in relation to this; but going into the detail of what we think and what they think is part of the confidential discussion we need to have on his behalf, in order to seek his release. Going into that detail here is not something I can do, understandable though it would be to Parliament, as it is an intelligence matter, which a previous Government would understand well, and would deal with in exactly the same terms.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I understand that the Minister cannot tell us the details of the discussions that have been happening, but when he next has a chance to discuss the matter, can he raise something with the US authorities? Mr Aamer’s lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, has said that he has access to classified material from MI6, which he cannot share—a bit like the Minister— even with his client. However, he is able to give some information from the documents, and he can say that the British security services are actively misleading their US counterparts to ensure that he is never allowed to return to Britain; and that they have gone round bad-mouthing Mr Aamer and saying things that are simply false. Not only were they part of his abuse, but they falsified evidence against him.

[Alistair Burt]

I understand the point fully, and, again, the answer is partly the same that I would have given a moment ago, in terms of allegations made against British security forces and the like. However, I will say two things in response. I can say clearly that we are using, and will continue to use, our best endeavours to secure Shaker Aamer’s release. I am aware of the allegations that have been made, and want to make it clear that all parts of Government are pulling in the same direction, for Mr Shaker Aamer’s release.

Also, as to the Government’s response to allegations of wrongdoing in the past by British security services, and our attempts to open things up and to give compensation where things have been wrong, the Prime Minister has said explicitly that torture and rendition are not part of British security activity, whether or not they have been in the past. We have opened that up and offered compensation where things have been wrong. I think that the hon. Lady will appreciate that it is not in our interest, having gone so far in relation to other cases, to seek to do something contrary now. I give an assurance that all parts of the British Government system are pulling in the same direction, for the return of Mr Shaker Aamer.

West Bank (Area C)

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke.

We have talked about the context, and I want to go back to that. When the state of Israel was created, the Jewish population was given 55% of the land, even though three quarters of the population of the then state of Palestine was Palestinian. In 1948, after the war of independence, Israel managed to obtain 78% of the land, and the Palestinians were given 22%, which is what we call Gaza and the west bank. More than 3 million Palestinians were expelled by the Israelis during those times.

One part of the Oslo agreement related to the west bank, and it was divided into three sectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) has talked about that, and I want to talk about Area C, which is now controlled by the Israelis. As a result of various actions in the past few years, it appears that a further percentage will be absorbed, and that Area C will probably end up as part of Israel, leaving Palestine with only 12% of the land.

I am not overly fond of statistics, but they show the stark contrast in the picture. In 1972 the number of Israeli settlers in Area C was 1,200; in 1993 it was 110,000; and in 2010 it was 310,000. That does not include the 200,000 living in East Jerusalem. The number of Palestinians, as of now, is only 150,000. The illegal settlers often live in the 124 formal and about 100 informal settlements, both of which have been declared illegal under international law and, as been mentioned, under Israeli law as well.

If people doubt the sources of my information, what I am referring to comes from the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs. A fact-file from January states:

“The forced displacement of Palestinian families and the destruction of civilian homes and other property by Israeli forces in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, have a serious humanitarian impact. Demolitions deprive people of their homes, often their main source of physical and economic security. They also disrupt their livelihoods”.

The psychological effects on families are distressing. The fact file adds that the Israeli authorities say that often

“demolitions are carried out because structures lack the required building permits. In reality, it is almost impossible for Palestinians to obtain permits. The zoning and planning regime”—

[Annette Brooke (in the Chair)]

Order.

Human Rights on the Indian Subcontinent

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I have only two minutes left, so I am going to speak very fast. I wish to refer to an article written by Dr Angana Chatterji, the associate professor of social and cultural anthropology at the California Institute of Integral Studies. Along with her cameraman and a number of other people, she went to Jammu and occupied Kashmir. Her article states:

“Dirt, rubble, thick grass, hillside and flatland, crowded with graves. Signifiers of military and paramilitary terror, masked from the world. Constructed by institutions of state to conceal massacre. Placed next to homes, fields, schools, an army practice range. Unknown, unmarked. Over 940 graves in a segment of Baramulla district alone. Some containing more than one cadaver. Dug by locals, coerced by the police, on village land. Bodies dragged through the night, some tortured, burnt, desecrated. Circulating mythology claims these graves uniformly house ‘foreign militants’. Exhumation and identification have not occurred in most cases. When undertaken”—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Sadly, we have to start the wind-ups now, and I apologise to the hon. Lady.

Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I have no doubt that the forces of the Gaddafi regime were being very brutal to people in Benghazi, just as the forces in Tunisia and Egypt were brutal to people in those countries. If the west was serious about bringing about a diplomatic solution in Libya, the Secretary-General of the UN and Heads of State would have gone there and there would have been a real effort, but the subtext the whole time, by Sarkozy particularly, was that they wanted military intervention and a no-fly zone. I voted against it because I do not believe that the intervention was as high-minded as my hon. Friend suggests it may have been, and many Members who voted for the motion on that day are having some doubts about what went on on that occasion.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I will not give way any more as I have had my allotted injury time, if the House understands what I mean.

I want to mention two other topics. I believe that there are double standards at work. The west has intervened in Libya, where there are large amounts of oil and where, under Tony Blair, a deal was done with the Government and arms were sold. They were being sold right up to the point when NATO was preparing to go in there. Interestingly, the arms sales there and in every other country in the region are, yes, planes, missiles and radar systems, but in every case they include anti-personnel equipment for crowd control, to deal with civil disorder and control populations.

That is what is now happening in Bahrain, with the support of Saudi Arabia. Other Members have drawn attention to what is going on there. I was with the Bahraini opposition groups in London last week. I first met Bahraini opposition groups at a UN human rights conference in Copenhagen in 1986, when they were complaining about British support for the regime, the suspension of the constitution and the lack of democracy in Bahrain. That has not stopped this country doing a lot of business with Bahrain. It has not stopped arms exports and oil imports from Bahrain. I would like condemnation of the violence of the Bahrain and the Saudi regimes equal to the condemnation of the Libyan regime and, rightly, of the Syrian regime for what it is doing.

My last point concerns Palestine. Yesterday, on the anniversary of Nakba, the day on which the Palestinian people were driven out of what is now the state of Israel to become that vast diaspora, was the occasion for demonstrations outside the Kalandia crossing. Thirteen Palestinians were shot dead. Last year or the year before, Operation Cast Lead over Gaza brought about the deaths of nearly 1,500 people in that bombardment. Routine operations by Israeli forces over Gaza result in deaths. Rocket attacks and suicide attacks also result in deaths.

However, there seems almost to be an approval of Israel and its perceptions of its own security needs to the exclusion of all understanding of just how brutal the regime has been towards Palestinians. If someone tries to travel through the west bank and sees the settlements, the settler-only roads, the checkpoints and the abuse that Palestinians receive every day from Israeli border guards, they will understand why people feel so angry. They will see the walls being built, the wells being taken away and the opportunity for economic life being removed. The people in Gaza are living in an open prison and young people are growing up living their lives vicariously through TV and computer screens because they cannot work and they cannot travel—they cannot do anything. They get very angry. There must be a recognition of the rights and needs of Palestinian people.

Likewise, the huge Palestinian diaspora, largely living in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, but also all over the world, feels very angry. On a visit to Lebanon earlier this year my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who led the delegation, and I met an old man living in Shatila refugee camp—hon. Members will remember the Sabra and Shatila massacres in 1982. A man in his mid-80s could remember with absolute precision every tree, house and well of his Palestinian village, which he was driven out of when the state of Israel was established. Is he determined to go back? Yes. Does he think he has a right to go back? Absolutely. Do the people in that camp think they have a right to return? They absolutely do. This anger among Palestinian people is a cause that will go on for a very long time.

The result of 1948 might have been seen as a reasonable diplomatic solution to the massive and awful experience that Jewish people experienced before and during the second world war, but the residue of the ill-treatment of the Palestinian people lives on. The state of Palestine needs to be supported and the Palestinian people need to be recognised. If we do not do so, the cause will go on for a very long time. We cannot just sell arms to Israel and pretend that what is happening to the Palestinians is nothing to do with us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

When the tragedy of 11 September occurred, I was working for the United Nations mission in Kosovo. I was in the region of Mitrovica, which is divided by a bridge. Across the bridge, I could see Serbian Orthodox Christians burning American flags in jubilation at the events unfolding in America. On 2 May, I saw similar signs of jubilation in America after the death of Osama bin Laden. It is important not to confuse the desire for retribution with the desire to defeat an enemy. Because terrorism partakes of both crime and war, it is perfectly natural, and perhaps legitimate, to have both these attitudes towards Osama bin Laden—to think that we had to disable him, and to think that he deserved to die. However, Milosevic, who killed 100,000 Bosnians, was tried at The Hague.

His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Williams, has said:

“I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling, because it doesn’t look as if justice is seen to be done in those circumstances”.

It is deeply troubling if we are moving to a global assassination policy for our enemies. Surely, the norm must be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest and trial. Such a trial would have had the benefit of laying out before the world the evil of terrorism. It would have peeled away the mystique of bin Laden and shown al-Qaeda to be banal and ridiculous.

In recent weeks, a blizzard of questions and fingers have been pointed at the legitimacy of Pakistan as an ally. I was disappointed by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who seemed to suggest that more questions should be asked of Pakistan, although I was pleased that the Foreign Secretary mentioned Pakistan’s commitment to the international coalition against terrorism since 9/11. Pakistan has become the victim of an almost daily onslaught of suicide bombings in the very heart of its country. Just yesterday a suicide bomb killed 18 people. The US-led drone attacks continue to take civilian lives, resulting in a breeding ground for al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Pakistan’s efforts since 2002 have cost it 30,000 civilian casualties, 5,000 security personnel casualties, and the devastation of property and infrastructure. Over the past nine years, its economy has borne the loss of more than $35 billion. The war on terror and the rehabilitation of internally displaced people has consumed a huge amount of the Government’s financial resources and halted economic growth. Unemployment is high, which is triggering other social problems and putting pressures on successive Governments.

The obligation to focus on security has contributed to a continuing failure to invest in key areas of public provision, such as education and health, and assisted the military and intelligence sectors in retaining power and influence in Pakistan’s political system. There may be some rogue elements in Inter-Services Intelligence, but to tarnish the whole of the ISI, the army and the Government of Pakistan by suggesting that they are not trustworthy is an insult to the people of Pakistan, including the civilian population, who suffer on a daily basis from atrocities that those of us sitting in this country cannot even imagine.

Many have mentioned the aid given to Pakistan over the past 12 years, which amounts to about $10 billion. However, the USA has spent $146 billion on this war on terror. In terms of loss—and, indeed, the near-destruction of Pakistan—$10 billion is chickenfeed. It does not even start to compensate Pakistan for the breadth of destruction that it has suffered. Let us remember that until the Soviets invaded Afghanistan—then we had 11 September—Pakistan had no quarrels or squabbles with Afghanistan. It got involved in the war in Afghanistan only because historically it was a US ally. Therefore, it is completely wrong for everyone to start pointing the finger at Pakistan, a country that is suffering the most.

[Nick Boles]

I am enjoying the hon. Lady’s speech so much that I want to give her a bit of injury time. Will she please continue?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.

I was also a little disappointed that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove talked about Pakistan’s supposedly imagined problems with India. At the end of the day, each nation state is interested in its own interests. However, when two countries have gone to war on two occasions, as Pakistan and India have, when India supported the breakaway of East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh, and when every year it releases flood waters from dams, causing flooding in Pakistan, it is naive to say that Pakistan’s perceived security problem is an apparition. Rather, it is real. Indeed, Bishop Nazir-Ali, who is not normally pro-Pakistan, touched on Pakistan’s security in an article last week.

In all these wars that are taking place across the world, we lost the plot in the graveyard of empires, turning the hunt for the now largely irrelevant inventor of global jihad into a war against tens of thousands of Taliban insurgents who have little interest in al-Qaeda, but much enthusiasm for driving western armies out of their country. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who is no longer in the Chamber, referred to the ferengi, and that is exactly what is going on. The fact is that we are interfering in Afghanistan, while Pakistan, as an ally of the west, is having to pay the price for our war on terror.

Future Diplomatic Network

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The work that we are doing in Yemen is conflict prevention. In particular, the very active work undertaken by the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development in Sudan during the referendum there earlier this year has so far made a material difference in preventing new conflict. That is part of the rationale for establishing a new embassy promptly in South Sudan. Conflict prevention saves many lives, and it is much cheaper and much more effective than having to intervene in conflicts when they arise. That will remain an important plank of our policies.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement about additional diplomatic staff. I have visited a few British embassies around the world, and I recently visited our embassy in Pakistan and met the staff there, including the high commissioner, Adam Thomson. I was incredibly impressed by the work that they, and our diplomatic service in general, do. In extending the number of posts and members of staff, will the Foreign Secretary consider sending people from different backgrounds out to those missions? There is still a tendency for many of the people who work for the Foreign Office and the diplomatic service to come from certain backgrounds and certain universities. Is it perhaps time to open this up and to allow a much wider variety of people to serve as our diplomats?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Lady is right about the outstanding work of our high commissioner and his staff in Pakistan, and I will relay what she said to him. I agree that our staff should come from many backgrounds, speaking as a Foreign Secretary who went to a comprehensive school—and there have not been many of those before.

North Africa and the Middle East

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I, like all other Members of the House, am pleased at events in Tunisia and Egypt, and I welcome the desire of the people of the Arab world to bring about change in their countries. That certainly puts paid to the myth peddled by some in this House and the media that democracy is somehow incompatible with Islam. We should now provide humanitarian assistance, and help the people of the Arab world to set up a good system of civic governance and capacity-building. I know that the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office are supportive of that.

Today and in the past, we in this House have talked about the hypocrisy of various countries around the world, and Iran has been mentioned many times, but is it fair to single out one country as hypocritical? Have we not at many—or, indeed, all—times applied double standards in our dealings with different countries? As the senior American politician, Senator Lindsey Graham, observed last month:

“There are regimes we want to change, and those we don’t.”

Let me give some examples of our double standards. We talk of democracy, yet there was a democratic movement in Egypt in the ’50s, and we quelled it. We did the same in Iran in the ’50s: we opposed democracy there, and supported the Shah on the throne. As we see on our television screens, there are many parts of the world where there has been systematic genocide, ethnic cleansing and humanitarian disasters, with hundreds of thousands of deaths, yet we did nothing. Countries we could mention include Bosnia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. To those who say, “Well, those are past conflicts,” I refer to current conflicts in countries including Zimbabwe, Sudan, Palestine and Sri Lanka, with the Tamil Tigers’ rebellion. Thousands and thousands of people died in that war, so why did we not intervene there? Why do we choose where we want to intervene?

[Bob Stewart]

The answer to the hon. Lady’s rhetorical question is that we can do only what we can do. We would like to go into some of these countries, but we cannot possibly do so because we just do not have the means or the local support—we have got to have that.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

But that is not right, because if the test is whether a humanitarian disaster is taking place or whether human rights are being violated, we should not be cherry-picking which fights we want to have; we should be prepared to go for all of them or stay out of all of them.

[Martin Horwood]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I just want to deal with my next point.

I was not planning to talk about Palestine, but I shall do so because so many hon. Members have referred to it and it is an interesting case. The undisputed facts of the history of Palestine are that before the creation of the state of Israel 9% of the land belonged to the Jewish people and 91% belonged to the Palestinians; the Nakba resulted in 75% of Palestinians being forced out of their homeland; 4 million people have since been left displaced—they are living in Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere—and many thousands have died; and the massacres at Shatila and Sabra refugee camps killed more than 20,000 people.

The UN has passed a number of resolutions regarding the illegal settlements, but they have not been dismantled and continue to be built. As the Prime Minister said on Monday, if Israel carries on in this way there will be no land for a two-state solution. The people of Gaza have been collectively punished, with some 1.5 million people living on 3 km of land. That situation has been declared illegal by the UN, and when visiting Turkey our Prime Minister described Gaza as a “prison camp.” I went to Gaza last year and I was appalled by the conditions in which people are living there. If that is not an abuse of human rights, what is? The segregation wall has also been declared illegal. Again, land and livelihoods have been taken but nothing happens. We do not do military intervention there. I am not asking for military intervention there, but I am saying that we need to be careful when we start invading other countries.

We have heard about the concept of so-called “liberal interventions.” If we really want to undertake those, the United Nations should set up a special international army representing all the different nations. All the nations would make a contribution and it could then go to all the various hot spots of the world to sort the problems out. However, I know that that is unrealistic and it is not going to happen. We cherry-pick the disputes we want to have and decide that we do not want to bother with others, perhaps because the regime has been sympathetic to us in the past or perhaps because we have economic trade with the regime and we conveniently forget about whatever else it might have done. That has been the problem for our international policy, because perhaps we have not been an honest broker in a lot of these world disputes—perhaps it is about time we became one. This is not a party political point, because successive Governments have been carrying on with these policies. However, in some respects there has been no genuine honest brokering of the peace.

I recall hearing the speech that Robin Cook made in this Chamber setting out in a very analytical way the reasons not to go into Iraq. He mentioned a number of things, including the lack of information, the fact that the need for the war might have been pumped up and the fact that drumbeating for the war had risen sharply. He urged caution and said that we should not go into the war. Many people did not accept or heed what he said and now, with the benefit of hindsight, most people say, “Oh yes, what Robin Cook said was right.” We now hear that we had the wrong information.

On Libya, the situation is bad and I do not condone the death of anyone. I was sad to hear about the Fogel family in Israel. I do not believe in killing people and do not think that it can be justified. On those grounds, I am one of those people who do not believe that we should go into a sovereign nation and invade it. If we want to do that, we should invade all other nations where there have been even bigger problems. For example, in Sudan, 100,000 people have died—Libya is nothing in comparison.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that wars are awful, invasion is awful and occupation is awful and that at the end every war has to be settled politically in some way? Does she join me in regretting that far greater efforts were not made at the beginning of the Libyan crisis to emote some sort of political settlement despite all the obvious obstacles?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I agree entirely. We do not have to look far afield—we need merely to look to Ireland, with all its history and violence. In the end, a political settlement was reached. That has been the way forward. We need to try that with all the countries in the world.

Hon. Members can call me cynical, but the difference is that Sudan, Zimbabwe, Kashmir, Palestine, Sri Lanka and all those other countries do not have oil. Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo do not have oil. Libya does. Is that our motivation? Do we want to ensure that we control that country?

[Mr MacShane]

My hon. Friend mentioned Robin Cook and I served with him as a Parliamentary Private Secretary for a number of years. I remember how bitterly he was criticised by some hon. Members who are now present in the Chamber for authorising and supporting the intervention in Kosovo without UN sanction and, indeed, the bombing raids on Iraq, some of which were without UN sanction. Kosovo had no oil—the intervention was illegal and did not have UN authority. My hon. Friend was not in the House at that time, but where did she stand on that particular armed intervention?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I happened to spend two years working in Kosovo after the armed conflict and after the Serbian bombing. Having seen the situation, I can say that that was an immediate international humanitarian disaster that followed the massacre of 100,000 Muslim Bosnians. It was very much an effort by the United Nations to do with that particular war.

As has been mentioned, one cannot compare two things as though they are the same. Libya is a very different ball game to Kosovo and Serbia. Everybody knows what happened in the former Yugoslavia—hundreds of thousands of people were massacred and something had to be done. That is not the situation that we are talking about here.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

I think the point being made by the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) was that there was not a British commercial interest in going into Kosovo—we did it to save lives and because it was the right thing to do. That is the comparison that we are seeking to draw here.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

A number of people in this country, even at that time, did not want to go into Kosovo. One might say that there was no economic rationale for going into Kosovo, but there was certainly an American strategic reason. The listening post in Cyprus was soon coming to an end and they wanted an additional listening post in the area of Kosovo. I spent two years in Kosovo and I saw the Americans’ Camp Bastion, which was a solid construction while most other countries had NATO flat-pack constructions, so there was certainly a strategic reason for the Americans to go in there. I agree that Robin Cook was able to persuade the then Government regarding Kosovo, but that has been the only honourable exception in all the disputes of the past 30 to 40 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the answer is that I do not know. I would like to think that we would have some form of answer. I would also like the Arabs to come forward with assistance for their brothers in arms, which brings me on to my next point. We have good Arab League support although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) stressed, it might not be speaking for its members’ Governments, even though it should be.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

rose—

[Bob Stewart]

I shall give way to the hon. Lady because she gave way to me.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

And everyone else as well.

I was interested that the hon. Gentleman said, “I don’t know,” when my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) asked what would happen if the rebels asked for more help. The hon. Gentleman talked about the hope that other Arab countries would intervene, but surely we cannot plan a war without knowing what we are ultimately prepared to do.

[Bob Stewart]

We are not planning a war; we are trying to stop Libyans dying. My mission in Bosnia was to stop people dying.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

rose—

[Bob Stewart]

I shall not take another intervention from the hon. Lady. I was generous because she gave way to me.

Europe must participate, too. France is doing its best, but I would like to know where Italy would stand, given that Libya was one of its colonies—until, of course, the Eighth Army kicked them out in 1943. Finally, we must consider our own British public, who need to be fully on side. I suspect that they would be on side if the conditions that the Prime Minister and other hon. Members have laid down came into play. I do not think that we could do it unilaterally, and certainly not without a Security Council resolution.

I agree with the no-fly zone, but it must be effective. It cannot just be words. We must be able to strike on the ground if necessary. I am sorry about that, but that is what a no-fly zone means. I was underneath Bosnian Serb jets in 1993; there was supposed to be a no-fly zone, but they were 200 feet above me. A no-fly zone requires a lot of organisation and, of course, it requires the Americans to help. I happen to agree with the idea of arming the rebels, but when we arm people we must also train them.

There is an embargo in place on Gaddafi. My long-standing right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) has made a plea that we should somehow get around that embargo for the rebels, and I support that idea. Military ground intervention, which is another option, is extremely unlikely on the part of the west. Some have suggested that Egypt might do something, but I think that that, too, is unlikely. If we have time we can establish a no-fly zone. We could even start to arm the rebels in Benghazi.

In conclusion, I am prepared to support a no-fly zone and the arming of rebels, particularly if the substantial conditions I have outlined are in place. The Libyans are crying out for our help. They are pleading for help.

Libya and the Middle East

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

As I said earlier, the measures for which we are making contingency plans require demonstrable need, a clear legal basis and clear support from the region for them to be implemented. UK diplomats have done an amazing job. For example, the people in our rapid deployment team who went to Tripoli airport the week before last worked day and night for four to five days, assisting British nationals to be evacuated. They did an outstanding job, which has not always been widely recognised in the commentary on those matters. I pay tribute to them today.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Will the Foreign Secretary now apologise for the fiasco over the weekend?

[Mr Hague]

I think that I have made my position on all that clear.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

8. What his policy priorities are for the overseas territories in 2011; and if he will make a statement.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

12. What his policy priorities are for the overseas territories in 2011; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are passionate about the overseas territories, as they are an important part of the British family. We are developing a new strategy for them involving the whole UK Government, with the aim of bringing renewed focus to our relationship with them. We have a particular responsibility to ensure the security and good governance of the overseas territories, as well as to support their economic well-being.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), will the Minister tell the House how much money the UK Government have given to the Turks and Caicos Islands for the maintenance of their Government and public services?

[Mr Bellingham]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question on the Turks and Caicos Islands. In a written statement in July, the Secretary of State for International Development announced plans for the provision of a temporary package of financial support. Work to put the package in place is currently under way. To address the immediate shortfall, the Department for International Development provided a loan of £9.7 million to the Turks and Caicos Islands between June and August, and provided a further loan of up to £10 million to cover the period from September to November. We are determined to get the territory back on a firm financial footing and to ensure that its finances are in order, and then we can announce elections. Hopefully, I will be able to make a statement on that later this year or early next year.