Author: Julie Jones

On 2 December 2015, an 80 year old Ahmadi Muslim optician and bookseller Mr Abdul Shakoor (Shakoor Bhai), was arrested for stocking the Holy Quran and other books on peace published by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Mr Mazhar Abbas, a Shia Muslim who was working as a shop assistant, was also arrested.

Punjab’s Counter Terrorism Department accompanied by Pakistan’s Elite Force raided the bookshop in Rabwah, Pakistan. Officers seized books, magazines, cash and even gift vouchers from the bookstore. Publications included translated copies of the Holy Quran, the biography of the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and the Ahmadiyya Muslim community’s Daily Al-Fazl newspaper. Both Shakoor Bhai and his assistant were arrested and taken to an unknown location where they were denied the right to contact their respective families.

On 2 January 2016 Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Court sentenced Shakoor Bhai to 8 years imprisonment, comprising 5 years imprisonment under Pakistan’s anti-terrorism legislation and 3 years imprisonment under anti-Ahmadi legislation. Shakoor Bhai was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 600,000.

His assistant, Mazhar Abbas was imprisoned for 5 years under anti-terror laws and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 100,000.

Both defendants were denied the right to a fair trial as the case was rushed through the courts, with no time for a proper defence to be prepared and presented. Moreover, the only witnesses to testify at trial were for the prosecution which only included the officers who raided the bookstore.

Stop the Persecution are campaigning for Shakoor Bhai with a petition directed to the Pakistan High Commissioner and the Prime Minister.

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the current treatment of the Rohingya in Burma.

My Lords, I declare my interest as a board member of the Burma Campaign UK and co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Democracy in Burma.

In November 2015, Burma had its first free and fair elections, after over two decades of remorselessly oppressive military rule. Supporters of liberty across the world, including many in this House, rejoiced. It ​seemed that the resilient bravery of Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy had triumphed and another cruel dictatorship had been ended.

Thirteen months after that election result, the reality in Burma is, I am afraid, tragically different—so different that two weeks ago 14 of Aung San Suu Kyi’s fellow Nobel Peace Prize laureates and nine other distinguished internationalists issued an open letter to the UN Security Council, saying that,

“a human tragedy amounting to ethnic cleansing … is unfolding in Myanmar”.

They went on to detail the well-documented reality, supported by satellite images, of multiple killings, huge mass displacements of people, destruction of villages, torture, arbitrary arrests and murder of children in the Rohingya communities of Rakhine state.

These atrocities were ostensibly an armed response to the killing of nine Burmese policemen in October. As the laureates have clearly said:

“The truth about who carried out the attack … is yet to be established, but the Myanmar military accuse”,

Rohingya groups. They continue:

“Even if that is true, the … response has been grossly disproportionate”.

The laureates say that it is,

“one thing to round up suspects, interrogate them and put them on trial. It is quite another to unleash helicopter gunships on thousands of ordinary civilians and to rape women and throw babies into a fire”.

Together with denial of access of humanitarian aid to areas that have been devastatingly poor for many years, these atrocities have created an appalling humanitarian tragedy. UNHCR estimates that more than 43,000 have fled to Bangladesh, only to be sent back. Some international experts are warning that there is a real potential for genocide. The Bangladesh head of UNHCR has accused Myanmar’s Government of ethnic cleansing, saying:

“It has all the hallmarks of recent past tragedies – Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia, Kosovo”.

In an unprecedented passage that conveyed their deep concern and sense of urgency, the laureates said:

“Despite repeated appeals to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi we are frustrated that she has not taken any initiative to ensure full and equal citizenship rights of the Rohingyas”.

Daw Suu Kyi, they say, is surely the leader who has the,

“primary responsibility to lead … with courage, humanity and compassion”.

Instead of such leadership, the Myanmar Government’s response to the outrages taking place in Rakhine has been to establish a manifestly sham presidential commission of inquiry. It simply sustained the deceitful propaganda of “no human rights violations”, “no malnutrition” and “free access” for the media. All of it is, so far as we know, endorsed by Aung San Suu Kyi. Last week, Anna Roberts of the Burma Campaign UK called the commission’s report a “farce” and said that,

“it is time for the UK to support the establishment of a genuinely independent UN Commission of Inquiry to look into the totality of the situation in Rakhine State”.

It is also essential that the UN Secretary-General leads in negotiating access for humanitarian aid.​
Those demands echo the concluding paragraphs of the powerful letter of the Nobel laureates, who want the UN Secretary-General to visit Myanmar within weeks:

“It is time for the international community as a whole to speak out … more strongly. After Rwanda, world leaders said ‘never again’. If we fail to take action, people may starve to death if they are not killed with bullets, and we may end up being the passive observers of crimes against humanity”,

wringing our hands “belatedly”,

“and say ‘never again’ all over again”.

In November, in an Answer following evidence of malnutrition among Rohingya children and reports that the Burmese forces were restricting humanitarian aid to Rakhine state, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, listed the detail of UK assistance to Burma and Rakhine and said:

“We will continue to monitor and support the delivery”,

of the Burmese Government’s commitment “to restoring humanitarian access”. I ask the Minister first for the results of the monitoring and any action taken, especially when the presidential commission makes the derisory claim that access to Rakhine for media has been unimpeded. Secondly, will the Government give urgent and insistent support to the calls for strong action by the UN Security Council and the Secretary-General made by the Nobel laureates?

When the UNHCR speaks of “ethnic cleansing”, and Prime Minister Razak of Malaysia, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and Dr Azeem Ibrahim of the US Center for Global Policy all speak in measured, well-informed terms of impending genocide of the Rohingya people, there is surely a grave reason for sounding the alarm. We act now to safeguard those whose ethnicity makes them victims of this most terrible persecution.

Baroness Berridge (Con)

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for securing this debate, which, due to the events she outlined from late last year in Rakhine state, is very timely. No one underestimates the progress that has been made in Myanmar and the challenges that lie ahead, especially as the military finds its proper constitutional place. Change will not come overnight for Myanmar, but there should be red lines for Her Majesty’s Government and the international community. Transition will not always suffice as a reason for Myanmar’s problems.

The UK taxpayer is funding development and democracy-building work. DfID’s budget is nearly £100 million this year alone. Will Her Majesty’s Government provide details on how much of the £19.2 million allocated for humanitarian assistance to Rakhine has been delivered? Relief NGOs have to deliver aid regardless of race, gender, ethnicity or religion and so do Her Majesty’s Government, so I look forward to the update on whether the aid blockade has been lifted so we can comply with these international standards.

Also, will my noble friend the Minister say why Her Majesty’s Government were not alongside 14 countries, including Canada, the USA and Turkey, that released a joint statement on 9 December demanding humanitarian access to north Rakhine state? I have raised before in ​the House the need to ensure that UK visas to Myanmar citizens should also be issued on a non-discriminatory basis, so will she please contact the Home Office to investigate the numbers and types of visas issued and whether any have been issued to the Rohingya Muslim community?

DfID’s programme for democratic change in Myanmar has a fund of £25 million, so I wonder how we can evaluate this project when the Rohingya are disenfranchised and the situation has gone backwards. A Rohingya Muslim, Shwe Maung, was elected as an MP in 2010, but then the Government removed temporary identification cards so the community—his voters—were disfranchised. He is seeking asylum in the United States. In addition to DfID, there is FCO funding for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy’s work. In fact, Parliament’s Library and research facility services are being offered to support the new parliament. Will my noble friend outline how, without an independent inquiry into the allegations of potential crimes against humanity being conducted, we can possibly assess the situation, which should help us inquire as to whether we should give the further support to Myanmar that I have outlined?

The UK has a role in many multilateral institutions. On 29 December the Nobel laureates that the noble Baroness mentioned, including Malala, asked the UN to put the issue on the Security Council agenda. Have Her Majesty’s Government put this on the agenda, and is it on the agenda for the Human Rights Council meeting next month at the UN? A week today, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, under the auspices of the OIC, will hold a meeting relating to the situation of the Rohingya Muslims. Will Her Majesty’s Government send a representative to observe that meeting in the light of the forthcoming Human Rights Council meeting? The Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, led by the Kofi Annan Foundation, will report in the second half of this year. Will my noble friend please extend an invitation to him to come to the United Kingdom Parliament so we can ask questions of him once the report is published?

Finally, as our noble friend Lady Anelay is Minister for the Commonwealth, and as Bangladesh as well as Malaysia is being significantly affected by the displacement of the Rohingya Muslim community in the region, will she speak to the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth? Perhaps her engagement might assist. Should DfID money for Rohingya, rather than being given for humanitarian assistance in Rakhine state, be redirected to Bangladesh, so that it might be able to accommodate some of the 43,000 people who have fled over the border?

In four minutes it is not possible to ask all the questions that, in light of recent developments, noble Lords need to ask, so will my noble friend Lady Goldie arrange a meeting with our noble friends Lady Anelay and Lord Bates so that interested Peers can get a full briefing on all aspects of this issue and where and when red lines will be drawn? A democracy that is religiously, ethnically and racially discriminatory will at some point become something that the UK taxpayer can no longer support.​

Lord Williams of Baglan (CB)

My Lords, I, too, commend the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, on securing this important debate. I first visited Myanmar nearly 30 years ago, in 1988, shortly after the putsch that brought the military to power. At the time I was a correspondent for BBC World Service, which to this day has a reach in Burma unequalled by any in the contemporary world. In the past few years there have been many changes in the country, especially after the 2015 elections, the first democratic elections in decades, which brought Aung San Suu Kyi to power as Prime Minister. There is a freedom of the press now which would have been unimaginable only a few years ago.

In September 2015 I chaired a conference for Chatham House in Rangoon, the first held by any international think tank there. But substantial and wide ranging though the reform programme has been, there is still much to be done, nowhere more so than in the treatment of minorities, especially the Rohingya. Historically, minorities have always found difficulties in south-east Asia, as states too often have been defined by majority faiths, whether Buddhist, Islamic or Christian. An exception in that regard is Indonesia, whose 1945 constitution guarantees all faiths. It is fair to say that none of these minorities in recent years have faced problems as great as the Rohingya of Rakhine state have faced.

The present Government have taken some steps, notably the commission headed by my former boss, Kofi Annan. The suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, of inviting Mr Annan here when his report is concluded is helpful. The establishment of that commission was a step forward, but I remind the House that it is an advisory commission and is not scheduled to report for six months. I am not sure we have that much time and the danger of a new exodus of boat people from Rakhine state is all too real.

With the appointment of António Guterres as UN Secretary-General on 1 January I believe we have a new opportunity. No one has come to the post of Secretary-General of the UN as well qualified as he, not least because he is a former UN High Commissioner for Refugees. He has visited Burma/Myanmar several times. In his address to the Security Council on 10 January he asked the Council to make greater use of chapter 6 of the charter, which allows the body to investigate and recommend procedures to resolve disputes that could endanger international peace and security. I urge the Minister to look at those possibilities. As a permanent member of the Security Council and as the former colonial Government in Burma, we have a particular duty and responsibility on our shoulders. Rakhine state is an issue that threatens not only regional peace but potentially international peace. It is a threat to peace that could all too easily feed into the mythology and ideology of global jihad. That is the last thing we need to see.

Finally, we are a substantial aid donor to Burma. Can the Minister clarify how much aid is actually going to Rakhine state—if she cannot say now, perhaps she will write to me—and whether some of our aid is specifically earmarked to bolster the fragile peace process there? An escalation of present tensions, which ​is all too possible, could pose very substantial dangers to the wider achievements that have taken place in Burma in recent years.

The Lord Bishop of St Albans

My Lords, the plight of the Rohingya Muslims is indeed desperate and the emergence in 2016 of an organised militant insurgency has only deepened the severity of that crisis. But such an escalation is hardly surprising. As the excellent report into the situation in Rakhine state by Crisis Group puts it:

“People pushed to desperation and anger, with no hope for the future, are more likely to embrace extremist responses, however counterproductive”.

The systematic persecution of the Rohingya people by the Burmese Government, most obviously manifested in the denial of citizenship to Rohingya Muslims, has created a fertile recruiting ground for militants. It is a simple human truth that people who have no say in their future and no means to participate in the democratic life of their country are liable to resort to extremism in order to achieve those means. The violence of the recent Government crackdown, with reports of mass killings, rape and the destruction of villages by the Burmese military, will only further stoke anger in the Muslim community at both a domestic and an international level and increase the threat of a spiralling cycle of radicalisation.

Yet the Rohingya community is not, for the most part, a radicalised community. According to Crisis Group, community elders and religious leaders have repeatedly eschewed violence as harmful to their ultimate goal of democratic participation in the life of their country. While that remains the case, there is still hope that progress can be made towards reconciliation, but the longer progress remains stalled, the greater the danger that Rakhine will plunge into ethnic cleansing and civil war. The situation is delicate. The fledgling civilian government of Burma still sits in a perilous position. The path to community reconciliation and full citizenship for the Rohingya people will inevitably be tempered by the very real threat that Burma could slide back into military rule.

However, progress towards those goals remains a real possibility. There are parliamentarians in Burma who are committed to defending religious freedom, and every effort should be made to equip and support them. The Rakhine commission, set up in August at the request of Aung San Suu Kyi and chaired by Kofi Annan, is also a positive development and it is vital that the international community support its work. Of course, little can be achieved if the violence in Rakhine escalates further. If reconciliation is to remain a real possibility, the military must cease its heavy-handed response to recent violence. I hope that Her Majesty’s Government are making that message clear to the Burmese authorities.

It would be helpful to know what Her Majesty’s Government are doing to push for independent monitors to be granted access to northern Rakhine and what can be done to encourage the Burmese Government to move towards full citizenship and rights for the Rohingya community in the medium term. Without cause for ​hope that the situation can and will improve through peaceful, democratic means, more angry young people will turn to extremism and militancy and the cycle of violence will only deepen.

Baroness Nye (Lab)

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Kinnock for initiating this debate. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Burma Campaign UK. The Amnesty International report on the situation in Rakhine quotes a Rohingya farmer, whose home was burned down by the military. He said:

“There is no one in Wa Peik now. All the houses are destroyed. We are in very difficult times, no food, no clothes, we are just sleeping in the fields … we are at breaking point”.

The Rohingya have been described as the world’s most persecuted people. They are not welcome in Burma or in neighbouring countries. As we have heard, this most recent attack on the Rohingya started with the October killing of police officers—an act that cannot be condoned. However, the security forces have retaliated with such violence that many innocent Rohingya have suffered. According to Human Rights Watch, credible reports of killings, rapes, burning of villages and forced relocations have occurred. Humanitarian access has been denied by the Burmese Government to the thousands of Rohingya who are reliant on that aid and healthcare.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, said, in early December, the diplomatic missions of 14 countries—allies from Europe, Scandinavia, the US and Canada, but not the UK—joined to issue a statement as friends of Myanmar. It said that they were “concerned by delays” and urged,

“all Myanmar authorities to overcome the obstacles that have so far prevented a full resumption … tens of thousands of people who need humanitarian aid, including children with acute malnutrition, have been without it now for nearly two months”.

That has not happened.

The Foreign Office Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made a visit to Burma in November while the violence was taking place. According to the press release before her visit, she was going to discuss civil and political rights as well as the situation in Rakhine and have discussions on sexual violence. I hope the Minister today will give a report of that visit including whether the violence—including sexual violence—against the Rohingya that was taking place during that visit was raised and whether she called for humanitarian access to be reinstated. Can she also explain why the UK did not sign up to the joint statement? Surely only concerted international action and pressure has any hope of achieving a change of approach by the Burmese army.

Aung San Suu Kyi has been rightly criticised for her approach to the current crisis but we must be clear that the Burmese army is committing these human rights violations. The army still has a block on constitutional change and retains control of the key ministries that command the police and security forces. The military is operating with impunity at home while being welcomed with open arms abroad. As far as the army is concerned, it has no need to go further down the road to more democracy. That is why I think the British Government must reconsider their programme ​of free training of the Burmese army. The atrocities against the ethnic groups, most especially the Rohingya, that were happening before the elections are continuing even after the election of the NLD Government. We have no idea if the soldiers we have trained have gone on to commit sexual violence and human rights violations in Rakhine or elsewhere in Burma. How long are we prepared to let this situation continue? That is why the international community and the British Government’s attitude to Burma should be reappraised.

In September, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office wrote a blog celebrating success with Aung San Suu Kyi. He said:

“A big focus for us will be the UK’s ongoing commitment to supporting the peace process and promoting inter-communal harmony”.

I commend that commitment but we need to change our approach. We should provide assistance and support in the areas where progress is being made but maintain or even increase pressure in other areas mainly where the army is involved. That is why I hope the Government will support the establishment of a UN commission of inquiry into the situation in Rakhine state.

I believe that we best support Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD Government by putting pressure on her to speak out over human rights violations She has the ability to mobilise international opinion which is the only hope of getting the army and the country to change. As friends of Burma, being critical may be the best way forward.

Baroness Barker (LD)

My Lords, the election of the NLD Government was an event from which the whole world took hope. The election of “the Lady”, who is a remarkable person, not least because she is probably the world’s most famous supporter of Cowdenbeath football club, was something from which the world took hope.

That hope was perhaps overestimated because she was taking over some powers in a country which is largely Buddhist. We have a perception of Buddhism as a religion which is peaceful, and for the most part it is. However, as people who work around the world in countries such as Sri Lanka will tell you, there are some quite fanatical people within the Buddhist religion. I have friends who work in an LGBT organisation in Sri Lanka, Equal Ground. They face appalling intimidation and threats of violence from Buddhists. The situation into which the NLD Government came was more complex than we recognise.

We have perhaps also underestimated the extent to which the Burmese army remains a powerful force within that country. Whichever Government had been elected democratically was always going to have to calibrate and judge which battles they would pick with the Burmese army. None of that defends what is happening in Rakhine. It is unfair that those people who have the worst public provision, the worst poverty, are not being supported by their Government.

Given that we are a former colonial power and we have connections with Burma in ways that other countries do not, are the British Government going to use their unique power and influence with the Government in ​Burma? For example, there is a document in our briefing pack which others may have passed by. It is a document from UKTI about the opportunities for British companies to sell health services to Burma. I agree that that is right. The health services in Burma are some of the worst in the world. The Burmese economy is growing and the NLD has come to power on a promise of developing a universal health network throughout Burma. I hope that some of the best of the NHS and the private health companies in this country would be there helping Burma to develop those health services. However, will they do so on the basis of the values to which we subscribe in our NHS: universal access to healthcare according to need and not according to ethnicity or ability to pay?

It is only by the UK as an international player with a unique relationship in Burma being able to bring influence which the NLD Government cannot that we are going to hasten the access to universal justice in Burma.

My noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie is unable to speak today because he had to get a plane. He has visited Burma on a number of occasions with the Speaker of the House of Commons. It has been clear for many years that the relationships between the rest of Burma and the Muslim community in Rakhine are not good. It is for us as outsiders to try to ensure that this situation does not escalate to the point at which the military can seize another opportunity to intervene. It is also for us to hold the NLD Government to universal standards which we believe to be necessary for them to be considered an acceptable Government.

Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)

My Lords, even as we meet today for this important debate, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on human rights in Burma, Yanghee Lee, is there. When the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, comes to reply, I would be grateful for her assessment of that visit and the contribution the UK Government are able to make to it. What is her response to the well-documented reports which detail the plight of the Rohingyas and, as we have heard in the debate, point to mass rape, mass displacement and the murder of men, women and children; the burning of houses; and crucially, the denial of access to the affected areas for humanitarian aid.

In a letter to the Guardian on 28 November a number of us, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Kinnock and Lady Nye, and my noble friend Lady Cox, called for the international inquiry which has been referred to during the debate. We said:

“The international community cannot stand idly by while peaceful civilians are mown down by helicopter guns, women are raped and tens of thousands left without homes”.

When I raised these atrocities in a Parliamentary Question, the Minister referred me to the Rakhine Investigation Commission. That commission’s interim report said that there were,

“no cases of malnutrition, due to the area’s favourable fishing and farming conditions … and … no cases of religious persecution”.

That is palpably risible. Human Rights Watch has described the investigation as little more than a “Myanmar government whitewash mechanism”. Can the Minister ​tell us whether the Government will support the calls that she has heard throughout this debate for the establishment of a United Nations commission of inquiry so that the truth may come out? Let us recall what the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, said to us about 23 of the world’s most prominent human rights voices, including a dozen Nobel Laureates, calling on the Security Council to end,

“ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”,

in the Rakhine state.

Just as the emergency in Rakhine requires an urgent response, so does the conflict in Kachin state and the northern Shan states. Kachin camps for initially displaced people have been bombed. On Christmas Eve, following the bombing of a church at Mongkoe, two Kachin Christians, Dumdaw Nawng Lat and Langjaw Gam Seng, simply disappeared, believed to have been abducted as a reprisal for taking journalists to see the bombed church. Have Her Majesty’s Government raised this case and taken action to secure their safe return to their families? How does the Minister respond to Christian Solidarity Worldwide’s campaign to end restrictions on humanitarian aid to Rakhine, Kachin and the northern Shan states, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Nye, referred earlier?

Burma’s courageous cardinal, Charles Bo, whom I had the privilege of hosting in this place last year, said in his Christmas message:

“Just sixty years of history—more than 22 to wars and now three wars going on. In the last sixty years, we have buried thousands in these wars of mutual hatred, displaced millions … Wars have exported our girls to modern forms of slavery … At this very moment, thousands are refugees—they have no home”.

We all have a responsibility to ensure that Burma’s history and present are not its future, and that the hopes of a democratic, federal and peaceful Burma, in which people of all ethnicities and religions have an equal stake, are realised and not dashed. Along with others, I pay tribute to the extraordinary and phenomenal work that the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, does with the Burma campaign and with the all-party group here in the House, and thank her for giving us the opportunity to raise these important questions on the Floor of your Lordships’ House today.

Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Kinnock for raising this vital issue today. Since 2012, following communal violence, tens of thousands of Rohingya remain in camps. Hundreds of thousands had already left for Bangladesh, and since the October crackdown, an estimated further 43,000 have fled across the border. But even fleeing across the border is not the end of the story. Amnesty International says hundreds been detained and forcibly returned, with an uncertain fate. The UN refugee agency says Myanmar’s neighbours should keep their borders open if we are to avoid the desperate scenes we saw in 2015 of thousands dying at sea. What representations have the Government made to the Bangladeshi authorities on the status of fleeing Rohingya people?​

In the historic election campaign that has already been referred to in this debate, Daw Suu Kyi said she wanted to improve relations between the two communities. But as we have also heard, the question is whether she has much leverage over the military, which still wields great power and controls the most powerful ministries. At the end of December last year, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said in Written Answer HL4205 that when she visited Burma from 9 to 12 November, she,

“urged Burmese Government Ministers to set up a full and independent investigation into all reports of human rights violations”.

As we have heard, the presidential commission, which is headed by a general and includes the head of police, has presented an interim report saying that there have been no human rights abuses. Does the Minister believe that the commission’s membership meets the criteria set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay? What is the Government’s response to the interim report published on 4 January?

As we have heard, separately, Kofi Annan is heading another advisory commission, looking into the general situation in Rakhine state, after being asked to in August by Daw Suu Kyi. A problem with Kofi Annan’s commission is that its mandate focuses on broader development issues and building the relationships between the two communities. That is an important job, but it is not investigating the human rights violations which we have heard so much evidence about. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, indicated in the same Written Answer:

“Any judgment on whether crimes such as war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide have been committed is a matter for competent national or international courts”.

That is of course the case, as we have heard in other debates. Nobody challenges that, but the key concern that we have heard from Members of this House is to ensure that evidence is gathered and that any investigation is independent and effective.

I conclude by asking the noble Baroness whether she will respond to the call from my noble friend and other noble Lords and at least acknowledge that it is now time for the UN to step in.

Baroness Goldie (Con)

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, for initiating this timely debate. As the debate has indicated beyond doubt, we are very fortunate to have in the House a wealth of expertise on Burma, and I am indebted to colleagues for their valuable contributions.

Indeed, there are Members of this Chamber who have done much over many years to encourage the political transition to democracy in Burma. We welcomed the election last year of a Government who are more accountable and democratic and have less military influence than has been the case in many years. However, we should be under no illusions. Members have consistently referred to the anxiety about this, and political transition in Burma still has a long way to go before it can be regarded as being completed.

Let me make it clear to Members who expressed justifiable concerns about events in Rakhine state that this Government share the deep concerns that have been articulated about the situation in that area. It is a ​region with a long history of intercommunal violence. Both the Rakhine and Rohingya communities have been marginalised, but the Rohingya have suffered particularly bad discrimination and periodic waves of violence. British Ministers have raised this issue many times, both in this House and in direct discussions with the Government of Burma. We fully support the Burmese/international Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, headed by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, which aims to provide independent advice on resolving intercommunal tensions.

I turn to the recent escalation, which has naturally featured prominently this afternoon. We condemned the attacks on police posts in October that triggered the latest wave of violence, and we also have grave concerns about the security response to them. The media blackout means that it has been hard to ascertain exactly what has been happening. Nevertheless, a substantial body of reporting from credible sources, including human rights organisations, witness testimonies and satellite images, suggests the military is carrying out serious human rights violations, including arson, sexual violence, extrajudicial killings, torture and arbitrary arrest. The noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, quite rightly and very eloquently referred to these concerns.

The latest assessment from our embassy in Rangoon is that some areas outside the main area of security operations have received limited and partial humanitarian assistance, with improvements in December. Within the area of operations in Maungdaw township, some localised humanitarian access has been resumed since December, but this remains patchy and changeable, and the majority continues to be denied.

We are deeply concerned about the lack of humanitarian access to the 160,000 Rohingya who remain dependent on food aid. We are especially concerned for the 5,000 children and the pregnant women who were being treated for severe and acute malnutrition before the latest wave of violence. Organisations working on the ground estimate that more than 27,000 refugees have fled to Bangladesh since October. We are grateful to the Government of Bangladesh for giving them sanctuary. The UK is also the largest provider of food aid to the 34,000 Rohingya refugees already living in official camps in Bangladesh. Since 2014 we have provided nearly £8 million to address the humanitarian suffering of Rohingya refugees and the vulnerable Bangladeshi communities that host them. UK-funded humanitarian programmes have benefited 82,000 people in the south-east of Bangladesh.

The noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised the question of United Kingdom Government action and our particular response to Rakhine state. I reassure the noble Lord that the UK has long been one of the biggest bilateral humanitarian donors to Burma and to Rakhine state. Since 2012, we have provided over £23 million in humanitarian assistance, including food and sanitation for over 126,000 people.

Over the last three months, this Government have intensified work behind the scenes to respond to the escalating crisis. I understand and sympathise with the sentiment almost universally expressed across the Chamber about who is doing what, who is saying what and what is happening. I reassure noble Lords that the Minister ​of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my noble Friend, Baroness Anelay of St Johns, visited Burma in November and raised our concerns directly with the Minister of Defence and the military-appointed Minister of Home Affairs. She met Rohingya leaders and called explicitly on the Government of Burma to allow full and immediate humanitarian access to the affected areas in northern Rakhine. She also pressed for a thorough and independent investigation into all reports of human rights violations. I emphasise that these messages have been reiterated by our ambassador in Burma to State Counsellor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and five different Cabinet-level Ministers. The messages were repeated by our Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development to the Burmese Minister of Commerce when he visited London in November. We also expressed our concerns in the UN Security Council. I noted the call by my noble friend Baroness Berridge for a meeting between my noble friends Baroness Anelay and Lord Bates, and her view that an invitation might be extended to Mr Kofi Annan. I am sure that these interesting suggestions will be reflected upon. I reassure noble Lords that there is already a liaison between my noble friends Baroness Anelay and Lord Bates—a “liaison” in the most respectable sense, I hasten to add.

The Government of Burma have responded by committing to resume humanitarian access and to conduct an investigation into allegations of human rights violations. Some aid has begun to return. As of 27 December, the United Nations World Food Programme reported that it was able to reach 28,000 beneficiaries in 169 villages in northern Rakhine state. However, much of the aid is still being blocked by local authorities reporting to the military, especially in the area where security operations continue.

As noble Lords have indicated, the Burmese Government have established a Rakhine Investigation Commission headed by the military-appointed Vice-President Myint Swe to investigate both the October police post attacks and the subsequent security response. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred specifically to this. However, the commission’s interim report largely denies the accusations of human rights violations. We do not find this assessment credible. The noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, articulated such concerns in a very cogent manner. We urge the commission, when it issues its final report at the end of January, to abide by its stated mandate to conduct an independent investigation. That is the key: it should be independent.

I will try to cover some of the issues raised by noble Lords in the course of the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, raised the role of the United Nations and to some extent I have covered what has been happening there. The new United Nations Secretary-General has been in office for only a few days, but as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, rightly pointed out, this is a person with impressive experience and he will have a definite desire to use his office to good effect. The United Nations is already actively engaged on Burma.

My noble friend Lady Berridge raised the matter of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. This is a multilateral negotiation with concerned international ​partners and Ministers are currently considering our position and how we should engage with that. She also brought up the issue of support to the nascent Parliament in Burma. We are proud to be supporting that Parliament in putting through the secondment of two members of staff of the House of Commons. Making this support dependent on the actions of the military could perhaps impede Burma’s legitimate democratic development. This is a very delicate situation, to which some noble Lords alluded, and I will deal with that in further detail in a moment.

An issue that particularly exercised my noble friend Lady Berridge and the noble Baroness, Lady Nye, was the ambassador’s statement on 9 December. I would not want any confusion or misunderstanding to arise about that. Well before that statement was issued, the British Government, through the diplomatic reach of our Ministers and our ambassadorial presence in Rangoon, had been engaging with all levels of the Government of Burma to urge an immediate resumption of humanitarian aid and access. We have also discussed the issue in the United Nations Security Council. On 12 October our embassy made a very clear statement about its views on what had been happening. We have not only expressed our views on the record, but have been trying to engage with diplomatic initiatives and endeavours that will produce a tangible consequence. That is why we have proceeded as we have.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans reflected with great sensitivity and wisdom on the delicate political balance in Burma. That is at the heart of how the international community responds. This is a nascent democracy, and though others may have their individual views on how that democracy is functioning, in my opinion it is immeasurably better than the regime that has ruled Burma for decades. We have to be very careful and recognise that under international law Burma is an independent state. The international community wants to support, provide help where it can or, indeed, challenge when events seem to be taking place that raise huge concerns, but at the same time we must be respectful of the status of that embryonic and very young democracy. Nevertheless, Her Majesty’s Government are pressing for openness and respect for human rights.

A number of other matters were raised, but I am running out of time to deal with them. There were some specific questions: the noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the case of a journalist, but I will have to write to him because I do not have the information that he requires. My noble friend Lord Collins raised a number of issues, but I hope that I have been able to deal with those in my general remarks.

In conclusion, it is clear that a solution must be found to the enduring problem of intercommunal tension in Rakhine. In order to reach that solution, all parties must work constructively with the democratically elected Government to de-escalate tensions and identify ways to build intercommunal harmony. More immediately, this Government are deeply concerned about the current situation in Rakhine. We continue to express our concern to the Government of Burma at every possible opportunity. We continue to impress upon them the urgent need to facilitate humanitarian access and to ​investigate allegations of human rights abuses. We will continue to do all we can, working with our key international partners, to encourage progress and to alleviate humanitarian suffering.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, for bringing this very important debate to the Chamber.

The 2017 Open Doors World Watch List was launched in Parliament this afternoon. The new list shows that global persecution of Christians is greater than ever before.

The full report

The Guardian coverage

The meeting was hosted by Rt Hon Theresa Villiers MP, who emphasised her concern about global freedom of religion or belief and the persecution of Christians in particular, noting that the report indicated that over 200 million Christians in the 50 countries where it is most difficult to be a Christian experience high levels of persecution because of their faith.

The meeting was also addressed by Pastor Aminu from Nigeria, who has seen his congregation decimated by attacks from Boko Haram: he said he had lost count of the numbers of his church members he had buried. He himself had received texts from Boko Haram threatening him with death.

The report highlights the displacement caused by persecution. “Conflict produces refugees. Persecution produces refugees. Conflict and persecution together combine to produce even more refugees. Never before have so many Christians been on the move. Nearly 34,000 people are forcibly displaced every day as a result of conflict or persecution… it is impossible not to conclude that persecution is both a major – and dangerously underestimated – factor in making the fraught and dangerous decision to leave home.”

Nigeria was highlighted in one case study in displacement: Last year the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre estimated the total number of Internally Displaced People (IDPs) in Nigeria as more than 1.5 million. There are many drivers of the violence from Boko Haram and the Hausa-Fulani conflict, the key triggers of displacement, but religious identity is clearly a significant component… Thus many of the displaced are Christians: 178 of the kidnapped Chibok schoolgirls are members of the Church of the Brethren, or Ekkliziyar Yan’uwa a Nigeria (EYN), which has over one million members and has seen about 700,000 of them displaced and scattered in places like Jos, Abuja, Kaduna and Yola. Some 15,000 others have sought refuge in neighbouring Cameroon. The experience of the IDPs is desperate. Some walk hundreds of miles, crossing the border into neighbouring Chad, Niger or Cameroon. The majority remain in Nigeria, reliant on the kindness of friends or extended family to get by, or crowded into schools converted into unsanitary camps. Now many Christian IDPs are gathering in informal camps as a result of the discrimination they have faced in official camps. Bishop Naga says, “When the care of the camps was handed over to other organisations, the discrimination started. They will give food to the refugees, but if you are a Christian they will not give you food. They will even openly tell you that the relief is not for Christians. There is an open discrimination.”

THE KEY FINDINGS

• Christians are forced to leave their homes: religious persecution is a significant factor in the global phenomenon of displacement
• Religious nationalism in Asia is a significant and accelerating source of persecution
• Islamic radicalisation in sub-Saharan Africa is increasingly mainstream
• Islamic extremism is the main engine of persecution in 14 out of the most hostile 20 countries in the World Watch List, and 35 of the top 50
• In the Middle East Christians face pressure under both radical and autocratic regimes
• Christians are being killed for their faith in more countries than ever before; the global persecution of Christians is still increasing
• Over 200 million Christians in the 50 countries where it is most difficult to be a Christian experience high levels of persecution because of their faith
• Somalia, Sudan, Mali and Mauritania are countries of special concern
• North Korea is still the most difficult place in the world to be a Christian.

The key changes in this year’s World Watch List are:

• Somalia has become the second most dangerous place to be a Christian – only one point behind North Korea
• Yemen has moved into the top ten on the list
• Afghanistan (3), Pakistan (4), Sudan (5), and Iran (8) each rose in the rankings among the top ten
• Increasing negative changes in Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, the Palestinian Territories, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates have made a significant contribution to the rise in global persecution
• Kenya is the largest Christian-majority country in the World Watch List top 20.

THE REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

In the face of increasing worldwide displacement…
Religious persecution is a key driver of enforced migration and asylum-seeking, and the UK government should develop a strategy for positive action in support of the right to freedom of religion and belief (FoRB). This should target nations and areas where there is violent persecution, as well as those where the consistent denial of FoRB and/or the persistent refusal to protect religious minorities is creating the conditions for violence and subsequent displacement in the future.

With the growing threat of religious nationalism…
The UK government should actively champion the full observance of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to increase global security and combat terrorism. It should encourage international bodies such as the United Nations and the Commonwealth to speak out strongly against equating ethnic and/or national identity with an exclusive religion or belief system.
We urge it to discourage casual references to the UK as a ‘Christian country’ while at the same time celebrating the UK’s Christian heritage and the roles that people of many faiths, and no faith, have played in shaping our country.

Following the European Union (EU) referendum…
The UK government should take the opportunity presented by future trade negotiations to champion and defend human rights; in particular the right to FoRB. This is especially pertinent to countries such as China, India, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Indonesia and Turkey, all of which have featured in discussions about trade post-Brexit and rank on the 2017 World Watch List. We echo the Select Committee on Human Rights, which has stated that the human rights clauses currently included in EU trade agreements must be maintained or furthered in any future trade negotiation pursued by the UK.

When combatting the increasing level of persecution against Christians…
The Home Office (HO) should continue revising its country guidance to take full account of the vulnerabilities of Christians and other religious minorities. We urge the HO to increase the religious literacy of its staff so that those processing asylum applications are well-equipped to recognise and handle cases of religious persecution. Finally, we would urge the HO not to restrict visas for clergy and other religious leaders invited to the UK to share about the suffering in their own countries.

While the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s (FCO) 2016 conference on FoRB and preventing violent extremism was commendable, further mainstreaming of FoRB is now needed. This should promote understanding about how FoRB intersects with issues such as extremism, gender and displacement, while not losing sight of FoRB as an important right in and of itself. Ministers should commit to FoRB being raised and acted upon in diplomatic interactions with other countries and at international fora, recognising that FoRB can contribute to countering extremism, encouraging economic development, assisting the poorest and building resilience within communities.

It is vital that the UK government recognises the multifaceted nature of persecution, and conducts research at an inter-governmental level to assess not only the violent aspect of persecution, but also legal, social and political oppression. This more
subtle, and sometimes less visible, persecution creates a breeding ground for violent and radical groups. Working to limit social, legal and political persecution can greatly reduce violent attacks in the long term.

We urge the Department for International Development (DfID) to recognise the role of religious leaders as advocates for peace and reconciliation. DfID should work with the FCO and other governments and agencies to identify and equip religious leaders in conflict transformation and reconciliation. Robust checks and balances that are fully integrated into government, UN and partner organisations’ programmes are needed to monitor and guarantee equal access to aid and development.

We welcome the increasing interaction between constituents and Members of Parliament on FoRB. Parliamentarians should continue to hold the government to account through oral and written questions on FoRB. Particular attention should be given to cross-border issues, for example the evidence of Christian persecution in a number of European refugee camps.

The Prince of Wales has delivered an outspoken attack against religious hatred and pleaded for a welcoming attitude to those fleeing persecution. He was speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Thought for the Day,

Here is the script in full:

In London recently I met a Jesuit priest from Syria. He gave me a graphic account of what life is like for those Christians he was forced to leave behind. He told me of mass kidnappings in parts of Syria and Iraq and how he feared that Christians will be driven en masse out of lands described in the Bible. He thought it quite possible there will be no Christians in Iraq within five years. Clearly, for such people, religious freedom is a daily, stark choice between life and death.

The scale of religious persecution around the world is not widely appreciated. Nor is it limited to Christians in the troubled regions of the Middle East. A recent report suggests that attacks are increasing on Yazidis, Jews, Ahmadis, Baha’is and many other minority faiths. And in some countries even more insidious forms of extremism have recently surfaced, which aim to eliminate all types of religious diversity.

We are also struggling to capture the immensity of the ripple effect of such persecution. According to the United Nations, 5.8 million MORE people abandoned their homes in 2015 than the year before, bringing the annual total to a staggering 65.3 million. That is almost equivalent to the entire population of the United Kingdom.

And the suffering doesn’t end when they arrive seeking refuge in a foreign land. We are now seeing the rise of many populist groups across the world that are increasingly aggressive towards those who adhere to a minority faith.

All of this has deeply disturbing echoes of the dark days of the 1930s. I was born in 1948 – just after the end of World War II in which my parents’ generation had fought, and died, in a battle against intolerance, monstrous extremism and an inhuman attempt to exterminate the Jewish population of Europe. That, nearly seventy years later, we should still be seeing such evil persecution is, to me, beyond all belief. We owe it to those who suffered and died so horribly not to repeat the horrors of the past.

Normally, at Christmas, we think of the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ. I wonder, though, if this year we might remember how the story of the Nativity unfolds – with the fleeing of the Holy Family to escape violent persecution. And we might also remember that when the Prophet Mohammed migrated from Mecca to Medina, he did so because he, too, was seeking the freedom for himself and his followers to worship.

Whichever religious path we follow, the destination is the same – to value and respect the other person, accepting their right to live out their peaceful response to the love of God.

That’s what I saw when attending the consecration of the Syriac Orthodox Cathedral in London recently. Here were a people persecuted for their religion in their own country, but finding refuge in another land and freedom to practice their faith according to their conscience.

It is an example to inspire us all this Christmastime.

Watch the Thought for the Day in full

President Barack Obama has signed a law amending the international religious freedom act to extend protections against persecution to people with non-religious beliefs. The religious freedom act, which originally provided protection from persecution to people holding religious beliefs, now provides protection against persecution to people with non-religious beliefs, such as agnosticism, atheism, and humanism.

Religion News Service reports that the act is being heralded by some legal scholars as a different milestone: “The new law has some really interesting language in it,” said Caroline Mala Corbin, professor of law at the University of Miami. “It takes an expansive view of religious liberty, saying freedom of religion is not just about the right to practice religion. It is also about the right to have your own views about religion including being agnostic and atheistic.”

The law, called the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act — IFRA for short — has been in place since 1998. The original version established the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a religious freedom watchdog that has charted abuses against Christians, Jews, Baha’is and other religious minorities in countries that include Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria, and Vietnam.

The new version of the law, named for a former Virginia congressman who championed its original version, specifically extends protection to atheists as well.

“(T)he freedom of thought, conscience, and religion is understood to protect theistic and non-theistic beliefs,” the act states for the first time, “and the right not to profess or practice any religion.”

It also condemns “specific targeting of non-theists, humanists, and atheists because of their beliefs,” and enables the State Department to target “non-state actors” against religious freedom, like the Islamic State group, Boko Haram and other extra-government groups.

The new law has been heralded by both Christians and atheists. Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, called the legislation “a vital step toward protecting conscience freedom for millions of the world’s most vulnerable, most oppressed people,” while Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, called it “a significant step toward full acceptance and inclusion for non-religious individuals.”

Getting the atheist language into the law was a four-year process, said Maggie Ardiente, communications director for AHA. In 2012, Ardiente and other atheist advocates met with members of the State Department to raise awareness of the persecution of nonbelievers. AHA legislative director Matthew Bulger took a seat — the first occupied by a representative from an nontheist organization — on the International Religious Freedom Roundtable, an informal group of religious leaders that consults with the State Department on religious liberty issues.

The AHA and other nontheist groups like American Atheists and Center for Inquiry have lobbied Congress on behalf of imprisoned and persecuted atheists in Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Pakistan and elsewhere for several years.

Atheists in those countries have faced imprisonment, lashings and execution, sometimes at the hands of violent mobs. In September, a Saudi man was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 2,000 lashes for professing his atheism via Twitter.

The new version of the bill will strengthen the existing law in several ways:

• It directs the president to sanction individuals who carry out or order religious restrictions.
• It instructs the U.S. ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom to report directly to the U.S. secretary of state
• It requires all foreign service officers to be trained in the “strategic value of international religious freedom.”

Corbin said the new language in the IRFA could influence how U.S. courts regard atheists at home. All Americans are protected by the First Amendment, she said, but “there has always been controversy about the degree to which they (atheists) should be protected. This law makes clear they are to be protected to the same extent” as religious believers.

 

Today the European Parliament adopted the Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the world 2015 and the European Union’s policy on the matter.

FoRB Intergroup co-Chair Dennis de Jong MEP said: “The resolution gives extra weight to our dialogue with the EEAS on the implementation of the EU Guidelines on the Promotion and Protection of Freedom of Religion or Belief. As we as intergroup demonstrated in our own Annual Report, persecution based on religion or belief is increasing in many parts of the world. It is important for the EU and its Member States to do their utmost to support religious and belief communities who are facing discrimination, violence and persecution. This holds, in particular, for those professing a non-religious belief, as their rights are frequently completely ignored, especially in States where the government identifies itself with a dominant religion.”

FoRB Intergroup co-Chair Peter van Dalen MEP stated “I am pleased that the European Parliament took almost all of the Intergroup’s amendments for freedom of religion or belief on board. The cross-party support proves that FoRB must continue to be prioritised. We have a duty to protect religious or belief groups and these amendments provide us with the tool to advocate just that.”

Intergroup Bureau Members from 5 political Groups submitted amendments to this report, relating to freedom of religion or belief. These include Intergroup co-Chairs Dennis de Jong (GUE/NGL), Peter van Dalen (ECR), and Bureau Members Lars Adaktusson (EPP), Miltiadis Kyrkos (S&D) and Hannu Takkula (ALDE).

Please see the full FoRB section from the report below, largely based on the Intergroup’s amendments over the last two years.

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief

The Parliament

142. Condemns, in line with Article 10 TFEU, all acts of violence and persecution, intolerance and discrimination on the basis of ideology, religion or belief; expresses its serious concern over the continued reports of violence and persecution, intolerance and discrimination against religious and belief minorities around the world; stresses that the rights to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief are fundamental rights, interrelated with other human rights and fundamental freedoms, and encompassing the right to believe or not to believe, the right to manifest or not to manifest any religion or belief, and the right to adopt, change and abandon or return to a belief of one’s choice, as enshrined in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in Article 9 of the European Convention of Human rights; calls on the EU and its Member States to engage in political discussions to repeal blasphemy laws; calls on the EU and its Member States to ensure that minorities are respected and protected worldwide, including in the Middle East, where Yazidis, Christians, Muslim minorities and atheists are being persecuted by Daesh and other terrorist groups; deplores the abuse of religion or belief for terrorist purposes;

143. Supports the EU’s commitment to promote the right to freedom of religion or belief within international and regional forums including the UN, the OSCE, the Council of Europe and other regional mechanisms, and encourages the EU to continue tabling its yearly resolution on freedom of religion or belief at the UN and supporting the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief; encourages the VP/HR and the EEAS to engage in a permanent dialogue with NGOs, religious or belief groups and religious leaders;

144. Fully supports the EU practice of taking the lead on thematic resolutions at the UNHRC and at the UNGA on freedom of religion and belief, encourages the EU to support the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and urges countries not currently accepting requests for visits from the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief to do so;

145. Calls on the EU to reinforce its existing instruments, and to adopt any other within its mandate, to ensure that the protection of religious minorities is effective worldwide;

146. Calls for concrete action to ensure the effective implementation of the EU Guidelines on the Promotion and Protection of Freedom of Religion or Belief, including: systematic and consistent training of EU staff at Headquarters and in Delegations; reporting on country and local situations; and engaging in close cooperation with local actors, especially leaders of religious or belief groups;

147. Is deeply concerned that in some parts of the world the position of religion or belief communities is endangered, with entire religious communities disappearing or fleeing;

148. Highlights the fact that Christians are currently the religious group most harassed and intimidated in countries throughout the world, including in Europe, where Christian refugees routinely suffer religiously motivated persecution, and that some of the oldest Christian communities are in danger of disappearing, especially in North Africa and the Middle East;

149. Encourages the international community and the EU to provide protection for minorities and to install safe zones; calls for the recognition, self-administration and protection of ethnic and religious minorities living in areas where they have historically had a strong presence and lived peacefully alongside each other – for example in the Sinjar mountains (Yazidis) and the Nineveh plains (Chaldean-Syrian-Assyrian peoples); calls for special assistance in efforts to preserve (mass) graves in areas of current or recent conflicts, with the aim of exhuming and forensically analysing the human remains therein, in order to allow for decent burial, or release to the family, of the victims’ remains; calls for the establishment of a dedicated fund that can help finance initiatives to preserve evidence, in order to enable investigation and prosecution of suspected crimes against humanity; calls for actions from the EU and its Member States to set up, as a matter of urgency, a group of experts tasked with collecting all evidence of any on-going international crime, including genocide, against religious and ethnic minorities, wherever they may happen, including the preservation of mass graves in areas of current or recent conflicts, with the aim of preparing international prosecution of those responsible;

The APPG for International Freedom of Religion or Belief has stated that it is deeply concerned by the latest targeting of Ahmadi Muslims when a mob of around 1,000 people reportedly besieged an Ahmadi Muslim mosque in Chakwal, Pakistan on Monday 12 December 2016.

The APPG has called on the UK and Pakistani Governments to work together to take action against hate materials which incite hate and violence against the Ahmadiyya Muslim community and other minorities. In addition, it states that it is important that Pakistani authorities should provide adequate security to protect Ahmadis and prosecute individuals responsible for crimes of this nature.

The attackers deliberately stormed the Ahmadi Mosque which has left a least one Ahmadi dead, while authorities are sealing the mosque after contents within were set ablaze by the mob.

Nearly 1,000 people attacked the mosque which is located in the limits of the Chowas Saidan Shah police station area in Chakwal’s Dhalmial district. The mob threw stones and fired on the premises. While reports suggest the mob was armed with batons and weapons to besiege the Ahmadi place of worship.

After gaining control of the mosque, the attackers allegedly burnt articles inside the building, including carpets. Furthermore, a Jamaat-i-Ahmaddiya Pakistan Spokesperson has said that the mob began raising anti-Ahmadi slogans upon reaching the site, demonstrating the prevalent level of hate speech towards Ahmadis in Pakistan.

Fareed Ahmad, National Secretary External Affairs for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community UK said that: “This development is deeply disturbing given that we have had that mosque for many decades and no protection has been offered from the authorities.”

This attack comes only a week after four Ahmadi Muslims were arrested without evidence in Rabwah while their headquarters was also raided without a warrant.

The APPG for International Freedom of Religion or Belief has issued a statement expressing great sadness and offering its deepest condolences to the Coptic Christian community following the bombing at St Peter’s Coptic Orthodox Church in Cairo. The explosion, on 11 December 2016, which occurred at the chapel adjacent to Egypt’s main Coptic Christian Cathedral killed at least 25 people and wounded another 49.

The APPG said that it deplores this reprehensible and unjustifiable attack which has left dozens dead and many others wounded, with woman and children thought to be among the victims.

The statement continues “Our hearts are with all those affected by this bombing especially the Coptic Orthodox Community in the UK led by HG Bishop Angaelos. During this difficult time we offer our support to the families and communities whose loved ones may have fallen victim to this senseless attack.”

Bishop Angaelos interviewed on BBC TV News

Read more on the attack from World Watch Monitor

 

The APPG for International Freedom of Religion or Belief, has urgently tabled questions to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to press the Pakistani Government to immediately release three Ahmadi Muslims arrested without any warrant on Monday 5 December 2016.

Sixteen masked and armed counter-terror police targeted the publications department and office of an internal magazine, Terikh-Jadeed, distributed overseas at the Ahmadiyya community in Rabwah, without any warrants. During the 30-minute raid, three Ahmadis were arrested – Malik Sabah ul Zafar, Amir Ahmad Faheem and Zahid Mehmood Majeed – one of which was beaten so severely that he required hospital treatment.

Police seized laptops, computers, mobile phones, and several books. After raiding the Zia-ul_Islam press, seizing Tehrik-Jadeed magazine printing plates and assaulting the foreman, the police forced entry into the security office of the compound and disabled the CCTV equipment.

This raid comes as the latest incident in the ongoing persecution of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan. The banning of Ahmadi literature continues to be used by hard-liners to target Ahmadis. The APPG is concerned about the potential use of anti-terror charges against the three men arrested, as precedented by the case of 81 year old Mr Abdul Shakoor who was sentenced under anti-terror laws to 8 years in January 2016 for possessing copies of the Holy Quran.

Fareed Ahmad, National Secretary External Affairs for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community UK said: “This is a baseless raid as there is no evidence of our community or any of its publications promoting hate, let alone terrorism. It reflects the Pakistan authorities’ relentless targeting of our community simply on grounds of our faith.”

The APPG urged the UK and Pakistani Governments to work together to end discriminatory laws and to take action against hate rallies and material, including overseas, which incites hate and violence against the Ahmadiyya community.

Jim Shannon MP, Chair of the APPG, has tabled these three written Parliamentary Questions:

• To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what information he holds on the raid of the publications office of the Ahmadi Muslim community headquarters in Rabwah, Pakistan on 5 December 2016.
• To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what discussions he has had with his counterpart in Pakistan on the detention of three Ahmadi Muslims arrested in Rabwah, Pakistan on 5 December 2016.
• To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has raised the issue of freedom of religion for Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan with the Government of Pakistan and what assurances he has received on this matter.

There was a similar response from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF):

“USCIRF condemns the brutal raid on the Ahmadiyya offices, the first such raid since Pakistan amended its constitution 42 years ago, declaring that Ahmadis are ‘non-Muslims,’” said USCIRF Chair Rev. Thomas J. Reese, S.J. “These actions flow out of Pakistan’s constitution and penal code, both of which impede religious freedom as they prevent Ahmadis from exercising their faith and even calling themselves Muslim.  Pakistan’s anti-terrorism law should not be applied to the peaceful Ahmadiyya community simply because they are Ahmadis.”

Christian Solidarity Worldwide reported

Four Ahmadis were arrested on 5 December on charges of “hate speech” related to the publication of their community magazine, while five were charged under anti-Ahmadi laws and anti-terrorism laws, after the headquarters of the Ahmadiyya community in Rabwah, near Lahore, was raided by the Punjab Counter Terrorism Department.

During the 30-minute raid, up to 16 armed policemen and 12 plain clothed officers forced their way through the main entrance of the Ahmadiyya headquarters and into the office of the Directorate of Literature and Publications. Staff were ordered to sit down or lie on the ground and a laptop belonging to the Director of Publications was seized along with two mobile phones, five computers, a printer, another laptop and some books, despite the police not having a warrant

Three employees were arrested; Mr Malik Sabah ul Zafar and Mr Amir Faheem, who are missionaries, and Mr Zahid Majeed, a computer operator. The police disabled the CCTV system and assaulted a worker called Mr Rana Irfan Ahmad, who was taken to hospital for treatment. At Zia-ul-Islam press offices, employee Mr Idrees Ahmad was assaulted and arrested, while paper, ink, film and other materials were seized. The offices were then sealed.

Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) has learned that the Ahmadiyya monthly magazine, Tehrek-e-Jadid, which is only distributed among the Ahmadiyya community, was banned in December 2014. The Lahore High Court had granted a stay order on June 2015.

The Ahmadiyya community is one of the most widely persecuted religious minority groups in Pakistan. The Ahmadis were declared as non-Muslims by an amendment to the constitution in 1974. In 1984, Ordinance XX (20) was introduced to the Pakistan Penal Code, which criminalises Ahmadi Muslims for practicing Islam or ‘posing as a Muslim’.

On 5 December, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif announced that the National Centre for Physics at the Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad would be renamed after an Ahmadi, Professor Abdus Salam, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1979, in a rare acknowledgement of the contribution of the Ahmadiyya community to the nation.

Mervyn Thomas, Chief Executive of Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW), said, “This shocking, violent raid on the Ahmadiyya headquarters highlights the extent of harassment that the Ahmadiyya community is subjected to at the hands of state authorities. We note with concern that increasingly, anti-terrorism laws are being used in cases which have no links to terrorist activity. We urge the government of Pakistan to drop the charges against these men without condition or delay and we further call on for the repeal of anti-Ahmadiyya legislation and for Ahmadis to be granted their rights to fully practice and propagate their faith, as guaranteed in the constitution of Pakistan.”

Extracts from yesterday’s debate:

Lord Alton: …Think, too, about the massive violations of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: the right to believe, not to believe or to change your belief. On 30 November, a group of 19 human rights organisations called on the international community and United Nations to particularly protect the rights of Christians in Iran. This reinforces the findings of the Westminster all-party inquiry into Article 18 issues in Iran, in which I participated last year. After taking evidence and witness statements, the committee concluded:

“Sadly, we have been disappointed that”,

Hassan Rouhani’s,

“positive promises and moderate language have not translated into any meaningful improvement”.

Many of the report’s recommendations apply to Iran’s other suffering religious minorities, such as the Baha’is, Sufi dervishes and Sunni Muslims.

That the situation has not improved in the intervening 12 months is illustrated by the cases of Ramiel Bet Tamraz, Mohamad Dehnay, Amin Nader Afshar, Hadi Askary and Amir Sina Dasht. During the summer they went fishing and to have a picnic with their wives and friends. Security officials from the Ministry of Intelligence and Security raided the picnic and arrested the five men, detaining them in the notorious Evin prison. One is an ethnic Assyrian but the other men are Iranian converts from Islam, and it is believed that their arrest and detention relates to their Christian faith. Vast sums of money are required for bail and two of them remain incarcerated awaiting trial, unable to raise the bail money.

Take also the case of Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani and three others, all arrested on charges of action against national security. Three of them face charges related to consumption of alcohol for drinking wine during a communion service. After a court hearing on 10 September, they were each sentenced to 80 lashes—a barbaric and inhumane punishment. Their appeal hearing is scheduled for 9 February.

Take, too, the position of Baha’is. Repression against them has accelerated in the past few months, not least during the celebration of their religious festivals. The Iranian state has recalibrated its long-standing tactics in pursuit of its ideological goal of extirpating a viable Baha’i community in the land of its birth through economic means. Can the Minister comment when she comes to reply on the closure of Baha’i businesses and on the hate crimes that led in September, in an appalling act of violence, to Farhang Amiri, aged 63, being murdered outside his home. A Baha’i, he was stabbed to death by two men, who admitted they had attacked him because of his religious beliefs.​..

To conclude, contrary to promises of reforms and a more open society made by Hassan Rouhani when he took over the presidency almost four years ago, the human rights situation in Iran continues to deteriorate on very many fronts. Britain has restored diplomatic relations with Iran. My noble friend’s question enables us to ask today: how are we using that leverage, and what priority are we giving, to promote human rights in this deeply repressive country?

Lord Ahmed: I am neither a Shia nor a Persian but I speak as a friend of Iran, who has visited this beautiful country on many occasions. During my visits to Iran, I had the pleasure of meeting many senior politicians in recent years, and I must be one of the very few British parliamentarians who has met with the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. His eminence very warmly welcomed me to Iran, acknowledging the fact that I am a British parliamentarian of Muslim heritage and he extended his greetings.

I will touch upon the subject of human rights violations and the imprisonment of human rights activists in Iran, and the question of how we address some of these problems and deal with specific issues. However, it is important to have an understanding of Iranian culture and the country’s proud history. Sadly, there are human rights violations and problems around the world, and Iran is not the only country where Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the Committee to Protect Journalists have campaigned in relation to individuals and groups.

The human rights situation in some other parts of the world, including Middle Eastern countries, is growing worse day by day. We can see brutality from Indian forces in Kashmir, where the UNHCR has been refused entry to investigate human rights violations, and where there have been court cases against Amnesty International, which has been ordered to close its offices in India. We have seen children being bombed by their own Government in Syria, and children in Yemen being bombed by Saudi Arabia. On Tuesday just this week, 15 people were sentenced to death for espionage in Saudi Arabia, allegedly for spying for Iran, and 15 others were sentenced to long prison sentences.​

In the United States, Dr Aafia Siddiqui, a Harvard University graduate of Pakistani heritage, was sentenced to 86 years in prison for allegedly being involved with a terrorist organisation and with non-state actors working against the US in Afghanistan. She is not mentally fit to undergo this sentence and has been under a psychiatrist for many years. We are aware that President-elect Donald Trump is openly supporting waterboarding and other forms of torture. We also know that political opponents have been badly treated in central Asian republics, as well as in many other parts of the world, under the guise of “terrorism”.

I recently agreed to sign a letter in relation to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe—the wife of Richard Ratcliffe, whom I had the pleasure of meeting yesterday in Parliament—Mr Kamal Foroughi and Ms Roya Nobakht. This letter has been signed by 160 parliamentarians so far. I have raised the issue of Mr Kamal Foroughi at the request of his son, who asked me to make representations on his behalf. My friends in Iran had assured me that Mr Foroughi would be released, and I am confused as to why this has not happened. He is an old man and all his family live in the UK. There is no evidence of spying or of being in breach of any Iranian law.

The noble Lady Baroness, Lady Afshar, has a much better understanding of Persian culture and the political situation in Iran than do many of us. We are aware that the Iranian Government do not like any criticism or open campaigning against the state and its laws, and therefore there are sensitivities in relation to some of our concerns. I am aware that many in the Iranian Government believe that sanctions are like a blockade and that a blockade is like a declaration of war. They believe that for the last 10 years Iran has been in a state of war. Reporting anything about certain issues is seen as sharing information and hence as espionage. We can all disagree with them but that is the situation.

I am sure that threats of abandoning the nuclear deals or imposing new sanctions and continued pressure on the Iranian authorities could have the opposite effect and cause relations in certain quarters to worsen. We have already seen co-operation between Iran and Russia in Syria, with Iranian airbases being used by Russia to bomb the Syrian Opposition. A new regional alliance emerging between Turkey, Russia, Iran and Pakistan could create new challenges.

We have to accept the importance of Iran as a growing regional player and a country that has huge influence on Shia Muslims around the world. We can try to improve our relations with Iran in order to find solutions for Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen and Afghanistan. We also need to help reconcile the two major regional Islamic powers, Saudi Arabia and Iran, to find peace and prosperity in the region and in those countries that are under their influence. I held these views long before Boris Johnson’s recent speech, reported in the Guardian this morning.

In conclusion, I want to pay tribute to our diplomats around the world, who work hard to free human rights defenders and raise the difficult issue of human rights. However, will Her Majesty’s Government review their policy of not representing dual nationals in countries such as Iran, where that country does not recognise the dual nationality and individuals cannot abandon ​their nationality of heritage because it would be very difficult for them to obtain a visit visa and claim property rights from their family? Can the Minister say whether there has been any dialogue between the Iranian authorities and Her Majesty’s Government to secure release for our citizens, and whether there is a dialogue with the Iranian authorities on long-term solutions for Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Bahrain?

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: In the light of the speech made by my noble friend Lord Ahmed, I start by saying that those of us who are committed to creating a world that adheres to human rights standards and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights do not pick and choose. We have to be absolutely clear that we are criticising abuses wherever we see them. I know that everyone who has spoken tonight does that without regard for who is involved. Where we see abuses, it is our responsibility to speak out. That is why we have got to our feet today. We should not pussyfoot around the horrors that we see, even when we are trying to draw some nations in to a greater proximity around peacekeeping.

I greatly support the nuclear negotiation and am very glad to see that we have re-established a connection with Iran. I believe it is very important that we are involved in closer dialogue, because Iran’s role in this region is vital. However, it is also imperative that in our discussions with Iran, we talk about the responsibilities that adherence to the rule of law brings. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Alton, describe the circumstances in which people end up in Evin prison, without having had a proper trial or access to lawyers and so on, and that is something that we must not allow to go unremarked upon in our discussions about ending sanctions.

I remind this House that we have a duty to speak out. That is one thing that we can do during the course of these negotiations about sanctions.

Lord Collins: …We all know, especially after hearing the secret recordings of the Foreign Secretary, that any solution in Syria will involve Iran. There is no doubt that this will also apply to tackling the long-term problems of Daesh and al-Qaeda. Have the improved diplomatic relations with Iran strengthened the UK’s approach to tackling security concerns around al-Qaeda and Daesh? I also emphasise what the noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, said: whatever the gains of such an improved relationship, they must not be at the expense of our responsibility to challenge Iran’s obligations under international law on human rights. As we have heard, sadly, the truth is that since July 2015, opponents of the regime have continued to be executed. Religious minorities continue to be persecuted. LGBT people have been victimised and murdered with impunity.

The Leader of the Commons, David Lidington, acknowledged in the other place the appalling human rights record of the Iranian Government. He took the ​view that, generally, it is sensible, even when we have the most profound disagreements with the Government of another country, to have diplomatic channels so that there is a means by which to communicate with that Government. We also have the assurance from the Foreign Secretary that he is determined to ensure that human rights remains a key element in the United Kingdom’s foreign policy. This debate is absolutely about that. We need to hear from the Minister the steps the Government are taking in our improved relationship constantly to highlight abuses of human rights. That is vital.

As we have heard, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has given a damning assessment of human rights in Iran, highlighting the “alarming rate” of executions and saying that little progress has been made under President Rouhani. In spite of the President’s achievement in reaching the 2015 nuclear deal, his promises of domestic improvements do not seem to have occurred. They seem to have stalled in the face of resistance from the hardliners in Iran. As we have heard, members of the Baha’i community, described as,

“the most severely persecuted religious minority”,

in the country, face discrimination in various areas, including access to higher education or simply to work.

We need to understand what steps the Government will take to ensure the Secretary-General and special rapporteurs on freedom of religion and human rights in Iran will be able to monitor effectively and report extensively on these violations of freedom of religious belief for the people in Iran, and to work in accordance with their mandates before the United Nations. We need constantly to expose these violations and make sure people understand what is going on.

 

Baroness Goldie: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, for tabling today’s important debate and welcome the contributions of noble Lords from all sides of the House. The Government welcome the re-engagement with Iran following the nuclear deal and the lifting of sanctions. The deal was a major achievement and we are committed to ensuring that Iran sees the benefit of sanctions relief. However, we are not complacent, and we remain focused on the issue of human rights. It is crucial that we continue to hold the Iranian Government to account for their human rights record, a point made repeatedly by your Lordships. This is why sanctions relating to human rights remain in place. Continued engagement with the Government of Iran by the UK and our international partners is key to achieving change on this agenda.

On a bilateral level, that means developing stronger diplomatic ties and trade links. I want to be very clear about one point, because the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, alluded to it: we do not pursue trade to the exclusion of human rights; they can and should be complementary. The noble Baroness expressed legitimate concerns about the significance of law, the rights of women in law and the consequences for women of upholding these freedoms. Those sentiments were strongly echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Collins.

Since we reopened our embassy in Tehran last year and upgraded our diplomatic ties to ambassador level, we have seen the relationship grow stronger, but we want more progress on human rights—let me make that crystal clear. That is why the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has designated Iran one of its human rights priority countries. There is now a diplomatic conduit which did not exist previously. We use it as best we can to urge respect for human rights. The ​noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised the important issue of the impact of this improved communication with reference to terrorism. All that I would say in response is that we now have a line of communication which we did not have before. That can only be regarded as an improvement. We continue to monitor closely the threats to which he referred. Interestingly, the noble Lord also raised the prospect and consequence of a Trump presidency. I do not have before me a crystal ball; I am not a prophet. We will have to wait and see how the presidency unfolds, but we hope that it would be an influence for recognition that regard must be had by the international community to that fundamental issue of respect for and enforcement of human rights.

Our effort to improve human rights is not limited to our bilateral relationship; we also continue to take action multilaterally. I welcome the United Nations General Assembly’s adoption of the resolution on human rights in Iran last month. The resolution passed with an increased number of votes compared to last year, in large part due to United Kingdom lobbying efforts. Likewise, at the last Human Rights Council, in March, the UK strongly supported the renewal of the mandate of the United Nations special rapporteur. I am pleased that the mandate was renewed and I strongly urge Iran to allow the rapporteur to visit.

The special rapporteur’s latest report highlights the causes for concern. From freedom of religion or belief to freedom of expression and women’s rights, it is clear that Iranian citizens do not enjoy all the rights and freedoms to which they are entitled. Progress has been slow—as noble Lords highlighted—and in some areas, tragically, the situation has actually deteriorated. The noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, addressed in her early remarks the worrying issue of torture. We take such issues very seriously, at both bilateral and multilateral levels. We endeavour to ensure that these issues are kept very much before everyone and are prominent in demanding attention.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised specifically the persecution of the Baha’i community and referred to the closure of businesses. We are deeply concerned because the Baha’i faith in Iran is subject to mounting persecution. We are also concerned by state efforts to identify, monitor and arbitrarily detain Baha’is. We have repeatedly expressed concern about the treatment of that community. That is what we continue to do. It is all we can continue to do. I reassure the noble Lord that it is a matter of which we are acutely aware.

 

 

The human rights situation in Iran remains dire, and that is an adjective one hesitates to use. Upholding their citizens’ human rights is not only the basic duty of the Government of Iran but an essential part of their engagement with the wider world. The Iranian Government’s willingness to engage internationally is, in turn, linked directly to the country’s future security and prosperity. It is therefore vital that the Iranian Government make progress on human rights. It is likely to be slow, but we will continue to encourage progress, to improve the rights and freedoms of all Iran’s citizens.