Lord Ahmed of Rotherham Asks Questions
on Rohingya Refugees At the House of Lords
Dr. Mozammel Haque
I am fortunate enough on Monday, the 17th of
December 2018 that I attend the Lords’ Chamber as guest of Lord Nazir Ahmed of
Rotherham and listened to the two issues, one question was asked by Lord Ahmed
on Rohingya refugees and another question was asked by Baroness Tonge on the
businesses on the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Followings are the question
and reply on Rohingya refugees at the House of Lords chamber on 17 December,
2018;
Situation
of Rohingya Refugees
and their safe return
Lord Ahmed of Rotherham (Non-Afl) asked Her Majesty’s
Government what assessment they have made of the situation of Rohingya refugees
and the likelihood of their safe return to Burma.
Lord Ahmad of
Wimbledon: The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Conservative Party) replied, “My Lords,
conditions in the camps in Bangladesh have improved but remain difficult for
the Rohingya community. The United Kingdom has provided £129 million of
assistance since August 2017. We welcome Bangladesh’s continuing generosity in
hosting the Rohingya community and its commitment to the principle of
voluntariness on repatriations. I agree with the UN Refugee Agency’s assessment
that conditions are not in place for safe and sustainable returns, and I assure
the noble Lord that the UK will continue to press for independent monitoring by
all UN agencies.”
Indictment of Burmese generals
and civilian leaders for
genocide
Lord Ahmed
(Non-Afl) : Lord Ahmed (Non-Afl) said, “My Lords, I thank the
Minister for his reply. Will he join me in thanking the Department for
International Development for providing support to the most oppressed people in
the world? Is he aware that last Thursday the US House of Representatives
passed a non-binding resolution, by 394 votes to one, identifying crimes
against the Rohingya in Myanmar as genocide? Will Her Majesty’s Government
support the indictment of the Burmese generals and civilian leaders responsible
for this genocide in the International Criminal Court?”
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon replied, “My Lords, on the earlier
point, I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. It is true that we can all be
proud of the role that the Department for International Development has played
over many years on behalf of those people who are suffering the worst crises,
including humanitarian crises and the ethnic cleansing that we have seen of the
Rohingya community in Burma. On the issue of Congress, I am aware of that
vote—but, as the noble Lord will know, it is a long-standing position that we
regard attributing genocide as an issue for judicial authorities. However, the
United Kingdom is playing a key role in gathering evidence to ensure that the
perpetrators of these crimes can be brought to justice.”
Resolution in the Security
Council calling
for a global arms embargo on
the Burmese Army
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) joined in this debate and
said, “My Lords, 700,000 Rohingya have now fled to Bangladesh and there are
reports of villages being burned and horrific human rights violations including
the burning of homes, schools and mosques; the deliberate burning of people to
death inside their homes; mass rape; torture; execution without trial; the
blocking of aid; and similar offences being conducted against the Shan and the
Kachin as well. So is the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, not right to call for this,
regardless of the vote in the American Congress, to be referred to the
International Criminal Court? Why is the United Kingdom not laying a resolution
before the Security Council calling for a global arms embargo on the Burmese
Army, with targeted sanctions against Senior General Min Aung Hlaing and
calling for Daw Suu, Aung San Suu Kyi, to speak out forcefully against these
horrific offences?”
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon replied to the above questions, “My
Lords, the noble Lord has raised various issues. First, he is quite right to
point out that, as your Lordships’ House may be aware, there has not yet been a
UN resolution. However, I assure him that we are speaking to all international
partners, including those on the Security Council, to find a way forward on
this. He will be aware that there are particular perspectives, most notably
from the Chinese, which would, in our view, result in any ICC referral being
blocked. We believe in the institution of the International Criminal Court and
in its reforms, but any referral to it should carry full support. Looking at
what has been debated and agreed in the Security Council over the last 12 months;
thus far we have kept unanimity. That remains a primary objective, but I assure
the noble Lord that we keep in mind the issue of all persecuted minorities—in
Kachin and Shan provinces as well. We will ensure that evidence is collected
and the perpetrators ultimately brought to justice in a local or international
court.”
Two issues to be resolved – Citizenship and
referral to the International Criminal Court
Lord Dholakia (Liberal Democrat) joined in this debate and
said, “My Lords, there seems to be no prospect of the safe return of Rohingya
refugees to Burma. This will remain so until we accept the full findings and
recommendations of the United Nations fact-finding mission. Why are we so
reluctant to do so? Does the Minister accept that two issues need to be
resolved? The first and central issue is citizenship being denied to Rohingya
refugees. Their citizenship is objected to by Aung San Suu Kyi, who should know
better. The second is the attempt to secure referral to the International
Criminal Court, which has so far stalled. Surely we cannot accept refugees
being returned to Burma until those who have perpetrated such vile crimes
against them are brought to justice.”
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon replied: “I totally agree with the
noble Lord. On the issue of the fact-finding mission, he will know that we were
one of the co-sponsors of that resolution in March 2017, and we agree with many
of the mission’s findings. On the issue of safe return, I assure the noble Lord
that there was talk of an agreement having been reached between Burma and
Bangladesh in November this year for returns to start. However, we are very
clear that they cannot start until certain conditions are met. First and
foremost, they must be voluntary. The safety and security of the refugees is
paramount. We have raised that, and I met with the Information Minister of
Bangladesh on Thursday and again gained that very reassurance.”
Rohingya refugees be given
entry to the United Kingdom?
Baroness Nicholson
of Winterbourne (Conservative) joined in the debate and asked: “Does the
Minister agree that, given the extreme unlikelihood of all the world’s 62
million refugees and IDPs being able to return home, once the United Kingdom
has left the European Union we will be in a far better position to decide who
to have here? I ask particularly that some of the Rohingya refugees, as well as
some others globally, should be given entry into the United Kingdom once we are
in in a better position to make our own decisions.”
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon replied: “My Lords, the history of
the United Kingdom as a place which grants support to refugees from all over
the world predates our membership of the European Union and will remain after
Brexit. I pride myself on being in the Government of a country which over the
years has stood up in support of refugees, internationally and in the UK. This
continues today and will continue tomorrow.”
Safety
and Security return of refugees?
The Lord Bishop of Winchester joined in the debate and
asked: “My Lords, the diocese of Winchester has had a link with Burma/Myanmar
since the late 19th century. This gateway state to Asia is therefore of great
interest to the praying Christians of the diocese. Will the Minister confirm
what action Her Majesty’s Government have taken to ensure the guaranteed
security of existing internally displaced persons in Rakhine state and of any
refugees who voluntarily return to Myanmar?”
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon replied: “The right reverend Prelate
raises an important issue about ensuring the security and safety of those who
are in Burma. We continue to raise this directly with the civilian and military
authorities. He will be aware that one of the first visits that the Foreign
Secretary made on his appointment was to Burma to raise the very concerns that
the right reverend Prelate highlighted. On the safe return of refugees, I made
it clear in answer to the previous question that the United Kingdom stands by
the Rohingya community and supports their needs in Bangladesh. They should not
return until we can guarantee their safety and security—and, above all, their
return should be voluntary.”
No comments:
Post a Comment