International Human Rights Abuses: UK Response

Zarah Sultana Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Maria. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) on securing this important debate.

I would like to talk about the Government’s response to Israel’s violations of international law in Gaza and about revelations that I believe should be a major news story but that, as far as I am aware, have been covered by only one mainstream outlet. They relate to recently released court documents that reveal that, from very early on in the war, the Foreign Office had major doubts about Israel’s compliance with international law—a fact the Government have hidden.

The documents show that, on 10 November, just a month into the war, the Foreign Office had made an internal assessment of Israel’s compliance with international law and judged that

“the volume of strikes, total death toll as proportion of those who are children, raise serious concerns.”

It went on to say that His Majesty’s Government’s

“inability to come to a clear assessment on Israel’s record of compliance with IHL poses significant policy risks.”

However, those serious concerns were kept secret from Parliament and the public.

Instead, Ministers continued to give reassurances about Israel’s commitment to international law. For example, just four days after that assessment was made, I asked the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, in the main Chamber whether Israel had used British-made weapons for war crimes in Gaza. He replied that

“the President of Israel…has made it clear that his country will abide by international humanitarian law.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2023; Vol. 740, c. 523.]

That was despite the fact that, as shown by these documents, his Department doubted the Israeli President’s words.

The documents reveal that another assessment was made by the Foreign Office on 8 December, expressing “concerns regarding” Israel’s

“commitment to comply with the obligation not to arbitrarily deny access to humanitarian assistance”

and saying that it was “possible Israel’s actions” in relation to the provision of humanitarian relief

“were a breach of International Humanitarian Law.”

Those damning judgments were, again, not made public. Instead, Government Ministers continued to reassure the public about Israel’s commitment to international law, and they continue to do that.

The documents show that, a few days after that assessment, the Foreign Secretary

“decided he was satisfied there was good evidence to support a judgment that Israel is committed to comply with International Humanitarian Law.”

On that basis, he continued allowing arms sales to Israel, despite the fact that, according to our Government’s policy and international law, arms export licences should not be granted if there is a clear risk that they could be used in violation of international law. That recommendation was accepted by the Business Secretary on 18 December, and arms sales to Israel were allowed to continue.

When questioned about these matters at the Foreign Affairs Committee this month, the Foreign Secretary failed to disclose the fact that his Department had carried out a formal review of Israel’s compliance with international law, and he denied that he had made a ministerial decision about allowing arms sales to continue. Members will be unsurprised to learn that the Chair of that Committee is writing to the Foreign Secretary to ask him to clarify his comments.

What does this tell us? First, it tells us that, early on in the war, the Foreign Office had serious concerns about Israel’s breaches of international law. Secondly, it tells us that Ministers hid that fact, pretending in Parliament and in the media that they had confidence in Israel’s commitment to international law. Thirdly, it tells us that we should have absolutely no confidence in the Government’s arms export licensing regime, which Ministers boast consists of

“the toughest regulations anywhere in the world”—[Official Report, 27 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 565.]

but which are clearly grossly inadequate.

To finish, I would like to ask some questions of the Minister. Why did Foreign Office Ministers not reveal that their Department had serious concerns about Israel’s behaviour from as early as 10 November? Was that because they wanted to give Israel the green light for its bombardment of Gaza and they thought that revealing this assessment would simply make that too hard? Why did the Foreign Secretary recommend continuing with arms sales to Israel even though his Department had those concerns? Was it because this Government are too cowardly to stand up for international law, or is it because they do not care about international law when it does not suit them? Finally, will the Government comply with their own rules and with international law and the basic humanity at the heart of it and stop arming Israeli war crimes?

[Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

I call Alyn Smith.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)]

It is an honour to see you in the Chair, Dame Maria. We have known each other a long time, but I do not think I have had the chance to say “Dame Maria” in public, so that made me feel good.

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), and I congratulate her on securing this really important debate. Some who have participated have recognised the important contribution of Tony Lloyd on this subject and many others. His passing is a very sad loss.

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government on these very important issues, which have been raised with passion and conviction. That was very clear. I will seek to respond to as many points I can, but I cannot promise to respond to every single one. This is probably one of the most wide-ranging debates I have ever been involved in, for understandable reasons, and that in itself is a concern.

The Government believe, as the House believes, that human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. This was clearly enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights 75 years ago. The UK has long championed its importance, and as we marked its anniversary last month, we renewed our steadfast commitment to protect and promote the rights that it enshrines. We demonstrated the depth of our commitment to that around the world by making five human rights pledges, which we submitted to the United Nations as part of its anniversary celebrations in December. We used the opportunity to highlight our long-standing and ongoing support for human rights defenders, and for equal rights for women and girls, disabled people and LGBT+ persons. We also cemented our commitment to defending freedom of religion or belief, combating modern slavery, and raising the standards of public and private security organisations.

My noble Friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who is the Minister responsible for human rights, also hosted an event last month to celebrate Human Rights Day, where the Foreign Secretary outlined three ways in which we can help deliver those five pledges. First, the UK will continue to stand up for the rights of all, including by holding human rights abusers and violators to account, offering support and sanctuary to victims, and defending the open international order. Secondly, we will champion the open societies that guarantee those rights in the first place. Thirdly, we will stand together with allies, friends and partners—old and new—to realise the universal declaration of human rights.

As the Foreign Secretary underlined, if we show international strength and unity, there is no reason why we cannot prevail in the fight for human rights around the world. That theme has resonated across both sides of this debate. I heard it from the hon. Members for West Ham (Ms Brown) and for Stirling (Alyn Smith), who both made important contributions to the debate.

As we strive towards that aim, we must overcome horrific global challenges, including humanitarian crises, conflicts and fierce opposition to human rights. They have all been catalogued today. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) mentioned Colombia. In my brief, the Americas, I have seen at first hand the devastating impact that human rights abuses and violations can have on individuals, particularly women, in times of conflict, and on communities, democracy and freedom. These cruel injustices serve only to strengthen the UK’s resolve to promote and protect human rights in every corner of the world.

One theme that has come out of this debate loud and clear is freedom of religion or belief. I will not spend a huge amount of time on that because we will cover it in a three-hour debate tomorrow, but I will just highlight the excellent report and presentation last week from Open Doors UK about the plight of Christians in Nigeria and Pakistan, which has been touched on today. We have also heard about the persecution of Muslims, Buddhists, the Baha’is—the list goes on. There must be more tolerance in the world, and we need to work hard for that. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about the importance of freedom of expression and a free press. I will not go on; he is no longer in his place, but I think we all understand the importance of that.

The UK will remain one of the most active and influential states on the international stage when it comes to human rights, including within the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. At the UN Human Rights Council last October, the UK led resolutions on Sudan—a point that was raised earlier—Somalia, and the importance of girls’ education. We also strongly supported resolutions to renew the mandate of the special rapporteurs on Russia and on Afghanistan.

We have also made important strides on sanctions. In December, linked to the 75th anniversary and the five pledges that I talked about, we announced 46 sanctions, including asset freezes and travel bans, against individuals and entities linked to human rights abuses around the world. We targeted individuals linked to authorities in Belarus, Haiti, Iran and Syria for their repressive activity against civilian populations.

I pay tribute to a brave individual I met in Peru, Quinto Inuma Alvarado, who was tragically murdered after I had the honour of meeting him and other human rights defenders in that country. He talked passionately about his work to protect the Amazon, but he was not allowed to continue taking those views forward, and his life was tragically cut short. My thoughts and prayers continue to be with him and his family. There is too much of this violence in the world.

[Zarah Sultana]

The Minister has yet to come to the topic of what is happening in Gaza, but I repeat the question that I asked: why did Foreign Office Ministers not reveal the fact that their Government had concerns about Israel’s compliance with international law as early as 10 November? I want to hear a response to that specific question.

[David Rutley]

I will come on to Israel and Gaza, and I will not be long. I will get there very quickly.

The issue of Ukraine is important for all of us, and I am grateful for the support across the House on it. We are nearly two years on from the illegal invasion, and Ukraine’s Office of the Prosecutor General has recorded more than 120,000 incidents of alleged war crimes, murder, rape and the deportation of children. Those are matters of international humanitarian law, which is separate and distinct from the legal obligations that regulate armed conflict. We will continue to hold Russia to account. I want also to mention some of the persecution that goes on within Russia, including the imprisonment of Vladimir Kara-Murza for his opposition to Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine. We have constantly called for his release since his initial arrest and will regularly raise his imprisonment with Russian authorities and in multilateral fora.

Gaza is a hot subject, and I am not going to duck the issue. There are strong opinions on both sides. My hon. Friend—I will call her that, but I should probably call her the hon. Member for West Ham—talked about the need for a ceasefire. We want a sustainable ceasefire, and we are working hard towards it.

The hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) raised important points. What I can say at this point—she will probably not be happy with the answer—is that Ministers review the advice they receive carefully and act consistently with that advice. We work hard and continue to call for international humanitarian law to be respected and for civilians to be protected. As the Foreign Secretary outlined, we assess that Israel has the capability and commitment to comply with international humanitarian law, but we are also deeply concerned about the impact on the civilian population in Gaza. Too many civilians have been killed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zarah Sultana]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[David Rutley]

I will give way one more time on that point.

[Zarah Sultana]

The Minister is being very generous with his time. If there are concerns in the Foreign Office, as per the internal assessment, why did the Foreign Secretary recommend continuing to allow arms sales to Israel? That goes against our current policy, which is that where there is a risk that human rights violations will take place, we should not continue selling arms licences to countries.

[David Rutley]

The Foreign Secretary outlined on 8 January that he has not received advice that Israel has breached international humanitarian law. On export licences, the UK supports Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself and take action against terrorism, provided that it is within the bounds of international humanitarian law. All our export licences are kept under careful and continual review, and we can amend, suspend or revoke extant licences or refuse new licence applications where they are inconsistent with the UK’s strategic export licensing criteria. It is important to note that, as I think hon. Members are aware, the regime is among the most rigorous and transparent in the world.

On the topic of Israel and Gaza, a number of people talked about South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice. The Government believe that this development is not helpful, and we do not support it. As previously stated, we recognise that Israel has a right to defend itself against Hamas, and we do not believe that calling that genocide is the right approach. Ultimately, it is for the courts, not states, to decide on matters of genocide, and of course we will respect the role and independence of the ICJ.

Many other subjects were talked about, including Kashmir. Our long-standing position on Kashmir is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution to the long-standing and ongoing dispute. The UK recognises that there are human rights concerns in both India-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.