Combating Atrocity Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords participating in today’s debate, along with the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, Protection Approaches, and the Coalition for Genocide Response—of which I am a patron—Dr Ewelina Ochab, and the House of Lords Library for its invaluable background papers. My thanks also to the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, who in 2021, from the Opposition Front Bench, was such an outstanding supporter of the genocide amendments to the Trade Bill—about which I shall say a little more at the conclusion and a lot more on 17 July, when my new Genocide Determination Bill, introduced earlier today, receives its Second Reading. It is particularly apposite that we are debating this topic today, as we mark the 37th anniversary of the horrific Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing—and indeed across China—on 4 June 1989, graphically symbolised by the heroism of “Tank Man”, who stood against the dictatorship’s might. It was moving from me to attend earlier today the unveiling of a new statue to “Tank Man” and to hear Kate Adie describe the horrors that unfolded in the square that day, where she was as a young journalist. We recall the many brave advocates for democracy and human rights incarcerated today by the Chinese Communist Party, including Hong Kong’s Jimmy Lai. All over the world, it is patently obvious that we need more of the steely resolve of “Tank Man” in demanding justice for victims and an end to impunity. Let me give the House some examples of our wholly inadequate, inconsistent and sometimes craven approach. In 2015, I raised the plight of the Yazidis and other minorities, which the House of Commons declared to be a genocide. In response, the Foreign Office said that Parliament had no right to declare a genocide. In the case of the Yazidis, seven years elapsed until a German court used universal jurisdiction to convict an IS insurgent of Yazidi genocide. Perversely, two years later, in 2023, having blocked attempts to enable our own High Court to make a genocide declaration, the FCDO said that the German court’s findings would enable it to formally recognise a genocide. In a report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the honour to chair, looking at the Yazidi genocide committed by British members of ISIS, we highlighted the more than 400 returnees to the UK, not one of whom has been prosecuted for the crime of genocide or crimes against humanity. Is that still the case? When will we act on the JCHR’s recommendation to extend universal jurisdiction? Let us contrast that decision to finally recognise the Yazidi genocide with the FCDO’s almost simultaneous removal of its recognition of what the ICC had declared to be a genocide in Darfur—this, despite speeches from Ministers, still extant online, describing atrocities in Darfur as genocide. While the FCDO airbrushed Darfur out of its list of genocides, several organisations were ringing the alarm of an impending new genocide. In April 2023, I chaired an inquiry by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sudan and published a report entitled Genocide: All Over Again in Darfur? It warned of systematic atrocities against non-Arab ethnic groups and urged immediate international intervention to prevent another genocide. Removing the previous determination inevitably affected our response to the events that were unfolding. By 2026, a UN mechanism confirmed that at El Fasher all the hallmarks of genocide were indeed present. This was predictable—it was preventable. In what is the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe, tens of thousands have died, including at Darfur’s El-Daein Teaching Hospital, where 70 people were killed, including 13 children and three medical workers. Why is it important to call out atrocities such as this for what they are? Under the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide, such determinations require us to take decisive steps; our obligations are to prevent, protect and punish, and they are crucial in understanding early warning signs of future atrocities. What of our duty to hold perpetrators to account? Why is Omar al-Bashir, charged by the International Criminal Court with the 2003-08 genocide in Darfur—a systematic campaign of mass killings, rape and forced displacement, which I saw myself at first hand—still at large? Will his early arrest be part of the Foreign Secretary’s welcome decision to create the international coalition to prevent further atrocities in Sudan? Staying with Africa for a moment, which I know is close to the Minister’s heart and where he did great work as the Africa Minister, can he update us on action to bring the perpetrators of wicked crimes in Tigray—especially the targeting of women—to justice? Are we acting on the admirable proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, for a permanent mechanism focused on conflict-related sexual violence? In Nigeria, what assessment has been made of the recent statement of Caleb Mutfwang, governor of Plateau state, that over 60 entire villages have been eradicated by jihadist militias? He said: “I cannot find any explanation other than genocide sponsored by terrorists”. Is the FCDO at least conducting a joint analysis of conflict and stability assessment in Nigeria? In the DRC, the Ebola crisis is happening against the perfect storm of endless atrocities by jihadists and terror groups which include massacres, beheadings and abductions across the eastern provinces of North Kivu and Ituri. On 12 May 2025, when I raised the execution of Christians by jihadists, the Minister wrote telling me that: “We are alarmed and saddened by the attacks by IS-affiliated Allied Democratic Forces … all those who have committed human rights violations and abuses must be held accountable”. A year has passed. Has anyone been held to account? With gross impunity in so many situations, is it any wonder that genocide happens over and over again? What of that other theatre of war, in Ukraine? As we recall appalling atrocities committed in Mariupol, Bucha, Izyum, Olenivka and elsewhere, what progress are we making in holding Vladimir Putin’s regime to account for his atrocity crimes, including abduction of children and recent reports of forced recruitment and trafficking of foreigners to fight in the Russian armed forces in Ukraine? This has been documented by Fortify Rights, on whose leadership council I serve, and Truth Hounds, which later this month will be publishing a ground-breaking report on the use of sexual violence by Russian military against Ukrainian men. What are we doing to support the efforts to ensure justice and accountability for such crimes? Where war crimes occur, whether they are committed by our foes or our friends, we must uphold the conventions, especially the Geneva convention. As is clear in Gaza, even wars must be governed by laws. I refer to my Question answered on 29 April concerning reports of the deaths of more than 38,000 women and children in Gaza. The conventions set the standards for international humanitarian law, and we ignore or abandon them at our peril. Elsewhere, in Burma such war crimes occur daily. During several visits, both legally and illegally, I have walked through the smouldering villages of Karen state and interviewed survivors of the military’s attacks. I visited a burned-out village near the capital, Naypyidaw, in the aftermath of attacks on the Muslim community. Will the Minister examine the reports by Fortify Rights about airstrikes and related atrocity crimes across Myanmar, and its call to bring the military, the Arakan Army and Ata Ullah—the leader of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army—to justice for their atrocities? Can the Minister update us on progress in the case brought by the Gambia at the International Court of Justice—supported, I was glad to see, by the United Kingdom—on charges of genocide against the Rohingya? What progress is being made in achieving the request by the ICC prosecutor for an arrest warrant for Myanmar’s dictator, Min Aung Hlaing? With Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP, I co-chair the APPG on North Korea, where human rights violations have been described in a UN commission of inquiry report, chaired by the Australian Justice Michael Kirby, as “a state without parallel”. I have been in North Korea on four occasions, met many escapees and chaired numerous hearings here in Parliament—including one just two weeks ago with Thae Yong-ho, former North Korean deputy ambassador to the UK and one of the highest-level defectors. Thae told us that, when the commission of inquiry reported, senior figures in the North Korean regime were initially very nervous reading the commission’s call for the leadership to be tried by the ICC for crimes against humanity. However, he said that, when it became clear that the international community were not going to act upon the call by the ICC, the regime in Pyongyang regained its confidence. What does this say about the international community’s effectiveness in addressing atrocity crimes? Do we have any intention of ever following through on the recommendations of the commission of inquiry, and what stops us as a country from leading those efforts? North Korea, like Iran, routinely imprisons, tortures and executes people, even for listening to banned music or watching banned movies, and 300,000 people are incarcerated in its gulags and prison camps. North Korea, Iran, Russia and China are part of what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, calls “a deadly quartet”. In noting that all four have sanctioned me, the House will not be surprised that I am deeply disappointed by the response we have made to the CCP’s atrocities in China. What practical actions have we taken in response to the two independent tribunals chaired by the eminent lawyer, Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, who prosecuted Milosevic, and which found evidence of genocide against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, a view again endorsed as such by the House of Commons, and forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China? On China, what practical response are the Government making to two other inquiries by the Joint Committee on Human Rights? Last year, we heard evidence of CCP transnational repression in the UK, including the imposition of a bounty on the head of a young woman, Chloe Cheung. The committee unanimously identified the CCP regime as the worst TNR offender and said it should be placed in the top tier of the foreign influence registration scheme—when will that happen? In a second unanimous report, the JCHR also found that state-imposed, coercive, forced labour in Xinjiang is widespread and deeply entrenched in global supply chains of everything from cotton to solar panels. Is it reasonable to simply do business as usual with the CCP regime, which Sir Geoffrey says is “interacting with a criminal state”. Are we simply turning a blind eye or, rather, ravenously eyeing up the next trade deal? The duty to prevent genocide in Article 1 of the convention is triggered the moment a state learns or should have learned that there is a serious risk of genocide. In 2021, the all-party genocide determination amendments to the then Trade Bill were passed here in this House with substantial majorities, including with eloquent support from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who moved amendments linking trade to human rights violations and called for Magnitsky sanctions on perpetrators; some of those things are still waiting to happen. Crafted with the wise assistance of the former Supreme Court judge, my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead, and supported by two former Lord Chancellors, the genocide amendment was opposed by the Foreign Office and Trade Ministers and ultimately was wrecked by an amendment—now Section 3 of the Trade Act 2021—that is not worth the paper on which it was printed and which does nothing for victims survivors of genocide. Successive Governments were lamely repeating the Foreign Office mantra that “only a court” can decide whether grievous criminality constitutes genocide while disingenuously blocking every attempt to empower our own UK courts to do so. The failure to provide judicial architecture has a further undesirable effect. It allows the word genocide to be misappropriated and turned into a slogan. Preventing the High Court from making a determination plays into that sloganeering. The noble Lord may have been encouraged to repeat the FCDO’s contention that failure to formally recognise a genocide does not hamper our ability to act. However, as I explained in the case of Darfur, this is far from empirical reality. There is also recommendation 7 of the Truro review on genocide and atrocity prevention and the future of the mass atrocity prevention hub, on which I hope we will hear more when the Minister comes to reply. Atrocity crimes come at great cost. They are linked to identity-based persecution, collective punishment, sexual violence, a culture of impunity, endless repetition and a deficit of accountability, playing into security and humanitarian challenges, including the mass displacement of over 120 million people. Instead of obfuscation about the future of the hub, we need clarity and transparency, and we must have JACS assessments that are not kept secret but published, so that we know why and what action is being taken. What is not acceptable is a continuation of the illusion that we have a clear and effective strategy for combating atrocity crimes. In so many respects, today’s debate puts atrocity crimes back on to the House of Lords’ agenda, and I am incredibly grateful to all noble Lords who are ensuring that that will happen. I thank all noble Lords who are going to speak. I beg to move.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this timely debate. “Never again” was the promise made after the Holocaust. Since then, the world has witnessed Cambodia, Rwanda, Srebrenica, Kashmir, Myanmar and more recent mass atrocities in South Sudan and Sudan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere. The promise has been broken too often. Prevention is not a technical footnote to foreign policy. It is the central test of whether the post-1945 international system works. Once mass killing begins, stopping it costs more lives, money and credibility than preventing it. We must get better at early warning and early action. Atrocities do not erupt without signs. Hate speech that dehumanises a group, systematic discrimination, the build-up of militias, attacks on journalists and civil society, the manipulation of elections and identity politics are patterns that UN offices and NGOs have documented for decades. The UK helped create the UN Office on Genocide Prevention, but early warning is useless without early action. The UN Security Council must shift from crisis response to crisis prevention. That means using the UN General Assembly’s uniting for peace procedure more often when a veto paralyses the UN Security Council. The General Assembly cannot authorise force but it can mandate fact-finding, sanctions and diplomatic initiatives. We must fund the UN’s prevention architecture properly. What should the British Government do? The UK has unique tools: it is a P5 seat holder with strong intelligence capacity, a global diplomatic network and the FCDO’s atrocity prevention department. But we need to use these tools more consistently by making atrocity prevention a core objective of all UK country strategies, not just in obvious conflict zones. Trade, aid and security partnerships should all be screened for risk. The UK-India FTA had no human rights clause. That sends the wrong signal. Every agreement should have clear benchmarks and consequences. The UK must lead on accountability. It should support the ICC, politically and financially, and use sanctions against individuals inciting genocide or crimes against humanity faster. We must protect those who sound the alarm. Journalists, human rights defenders and local civil society groups are the first to document atrocity risks, yet they are often the first targets. Our aid and diplomatic protection must prioritise them. The UK must address the drivers at home. Genocide does not start with killing; it starts with rhetoric that divides “us” from “them”. The UK must enforce laws against incitement to hatred and disinformation that targets ethnic or religious groups, including online. Prevention begins in our own public discourse. We must be honest about inconsistency. The credibility of “never again” depends on applying it everywhere. When international law is enforced selectively, with some victims getting UN Security Council resolutions and others silence, the whole framework weakens. Civilians in Sudan, Palestine, Ukraine, Myanmar and Kashmir deserve the same standards of protection. Prevention is political, not just humanitarian. It means being willing to have difficult conversations with allies and partners. It means accepting that short-term stability brought about by ignoring repression usually collapses into long-term conflict. It means the UK using its P5 voice to push for mediation before the killing starts, not after. I believe that genocide is not a natural disaster. It is a political crime with political causes. It can be prevented if we choose to see the warning signs and act early. The British Government should make atrocity prevention a standing priority across the FCDO, the MoD and trade policy. The UN should resource prevention, use the General Assembly when the Security Council is blocked and protect those documenting risk on the ground. “Never again” cannot be a slogan we dust off after mass graves are found. It must be the calculation we make when the first warning sign appears. With that in mind, what is the Government’s assessment of the latest report of the renowned international human rights organisation, Genocide Watch, which indicates that India has reached stage 7—preparation—of genocide? What steps are the British Government taking to stop that genocide taking place? Finally, will the Government publish the annual atrocity risk assessment and table a UN General Assembly resolution strengthening early warning and prevention mechanisms when the Security Council is unable to act?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, my great friend, for securing this debate and congratulate him on introducing his Genocide Determination Bill this morning. I will of course be supporting him. Only a few years ago, I, too, promoted a genocide prevention and response Bill. It completed all its stages in this House and it was meant to proceed to the other place, but we then had an election. I remind the House that, at the time, when in opposition, my great friend the Minister supported my Bill. He said: “The solution in the Bill is absolutely vital. It is to put on a statutory footing this special hub within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which will monitor and evaluate processes and keep in touch with developments taking place and research being done ”.—[Official Report, 22/3/24; col. 456.] As I said, my Bill did not go through. That is a warning to all who come up well in the Private Members’ Bills ballot. I hope that the Government have not lost that support and that it has not dissolved, because a lot has changed in our world over the past two years, unfortunately for the worse. We witness not only the highest number of conflicts and atrocity crimes since World War II but a global unravelling of the international rules-based order—a dismantling that will cost us dearly in the long run. I start with the United States. I am going to mention the inspiration from Elie Wiesel that shaped some of the approaches that were taken by the US before the current Administration. The late Elie Wiesel, who I had the good fortune of getting to know and to meet several times, was a survivor of the Holocaust and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and he understood better than most the consequences of indifference. His warning was simple but profound: “Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim”. That principle inspired the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act in the United States. The Act recognised that genocide and mass atrocities do not happen overnight. They are preceded by warning signs that slowly but surely progress into full-blown atrocities. For many years, the United States played a leading role in building international mechanisms for atrocity prevention. The Elie Wiesel Act was the cornerstone of it. The US invested in expertise, early-warning systems and dedicated structures within government capable of identifying risks before they became catastrophes. I had the good fortune of working with many of the lawyers who were involved in that. These structures inside the State Department were not perfect but were far more advanced than anywhere else in the world. Today, however, many of these structures have, I am afraid, been dismantled. As conflicts are multiplying and international norms are under strain, institutional capacity for atrocity prevention is being reduced. In the long term, the price we will pay for this is much higher than anything that can be saved in the short term. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is undergoing restructuring again in the name of cutting costs. There are concerns that the atrocity prevention hub—which already exists but is small—and the expertise that it contains may disappear or be absorbed into broader structures. That would be a serious mistake that we would feel for decades to come. For now, we are being told that those reports are incorrect. I hope that is true, but we are not provided with any information in relation to these changes and how they will affect the UK’s work on atrocity prevention and responses. What risk assessment was done before any of the proposed changes? How are the changes going to affect our ability to prevent and respond to atrocity crimes? How are they going to affect victims? Atrocity prevention requires dedicated expertise and it requires people engaged with identifying risks, analysing warning signs and ensuring that His Majesty’s Government act before the early warning signs turn into atrocities. Without a clear and comprehensive mechanism for atrocity prevention and responses, we will be more prone to the mistake of politicising genocide. Our responses will depend not on the suffering of victims but on the identity of perpetrators, our strategic alliances—where we soft-pedal on whom we may be witnessing committing terrible crimes—or geopolitical interests. The result is a system marked by double standards. When genocide becomes a political label deployed selectively, its power is diminished. Victims notice the inconsistency and, even worse, perpetrators notice it too and feel empowered. This challenge is particularly visible in the example, already given by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, of China. The evidence relating to the persecution and genocide of the Uyghurs has been extensively documented by human rights organisations, yet too often our willingness to confront these abuses is constrained by economic dependence and trade relationships. I do not resile from my view that trade is important and prosperity matters, but economic interests cannot be an excuse for silence in the face of atrocity crimes. Another warning sign that is too often ignored is the growing attack on journalists. Across numerous conflicts and atrocity situations, journalists are increasingly targeted, intimidated or killed. We have seen restrictions on reporting and attacks on independent media in places such as Gaza. Journalists from outside were not allowed in and still are not. In India, we get no coverage now of what is happening in Kashmir or Assam. Then there are Ethiopia and Afghanistan—the list goes on. This matters because atrocities thrive in darkness. Over 200 journalists in Gaza have been killed. Protecting journalists is therefore an essential component of atrocity prevention and accountability. Throughout these crises, one reality remains painfully constant: children continue to be among the primary victims. We have spoken—this is close to my heart—about what happens to women, with the weaponising of sexual violence in conflict, but children too continue to bear the consequences of our collective failures. We see it in Gaza and in Russia in the war on Ukraine, with the abduction of children for forced adoptions. We are seeing serious war crimes across all conflicts, with children being a significant percentage of victims of conflict-related sexual violence and many other atrocities. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned Sudan, and sexual violence towards children has been one of the signatures of that terrible conflict. I end by emphasising that we know more than ever before about how atrocities develop. We know the warning signs and we know that institutions can help to prevent them. We know the importance of independent journalism, strong diplomacy, international co-operation and political courage. The United Kingdom has the expertise, diplomatic reach and moral authority to lead. Are we prepared to show that leadership?

My Lords, I express my sincere thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing today’s debate and for his tireless and principled leadership on atrocity prevention. His work, including the Genocide Determination Bill and the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill, both of which I have previously supported, has been indispensable in ensuring that this House continues to confront these issues with the seriousness that they deserve. I declare my relevant interests as set out in the register and support provided by the Coalition for Global Prosperity, in the form of a parliamentary researcher for one day a week. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and other noble Lords speaking in this debate, I am a member of the advisory board for the Standing Group on Atrocity Crimes, which is chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. The standing group is conducting an independent review into the UK’s approach to atrocity prevention and response, and I hope the Minister will commit to considering the findings of the group carefully. The—as ever—excellent House of Lords Library briefing on protecting populations from atrocity crimes provides a sobering reminder of the scale of the challenge. It also sets out the evolution of UK policy across successive Governments, and it is right that we acknowledge this record. Between 2010 and 2024, the previous Conservative Government introduced several significant initiatives. These included the creation of the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, which incorporated atrocity prevention objectives; leadership on the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative and the declaration of humanity; the adoption of recommendation 7 of the Bishop of Truro review and the establishment of the mass atrocity prevention hub within the FCDO, designed to improve early warning and cross government co-ordination; and continued support for international accountability mechanisms, including the work establishing UNITAD to promote accountability for crimes committed by Daesh and ISIL, and support for the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group for Ukraine. These were meaningful steps that strengthened the UK’s institutional capacity to identify and respond to atrocity risks. Since 2024, the Labour Government have expressed a commitment to reinvigorating atrocity prevention policy, including a renewed emphasis on multilateral engagement. These steps are welcome, but they must be matched with clarity, resourcing and urgency. Despite all these efforts, we continue to see what can only be described as a circular failure of responsibility. National Governments point to international institutions, insisting that bodies such as the UN or the ICC must act. Meanwhile, those institutions rely on national Governments to raise alarms, provide evidence and push forward prosecutions. The result is inertia, and in that inertia atrocities take root. If we are serious about prevention, we must break that cycle. Another structural weakness is our tendency to view atrocity prevention solely through the prism of armed conflict. Yet some of the gravest crimes of our time have occurred outside traditional conflict scenarios: the persecution of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, the systematic violence against the Rohingya in Myanmar, and the atrocities against Muslims and Christians in India—these are all reminders that atrocity crimes can be perpetrated by states against their own populations, often behind a facade of stability. Our frameworks really must evolve to reflect this reality. Nowhere is the urgency of reform clearer than in Sudan. The conflict that erupted in April 2023 has produced one of the world’s worst humanitarian and human rights catastrophes. We have seen widespread and systematic attacks on civilians, including ethnically targeted killings; mass displacement on a scale now exceeding that of Syria or Ukraine; sexual violence used as a weapon of war, including against children; and the near total collapse of legal protections, with no functioning justice system capable of investigating or prosecuting atrocity crimes. There is a growing risk of further genocidal violence, particularly in Darfur, where communities already scarred by past atrocities are once again being targeted. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has mentioned, this is after a UN mechanism already identified hallmarks of genocide in the brutal takeover of El Fasher. International mechanisms have failed to respond with the urgency required, and the international system remains paralysed. Sudan is not simply a humanitarian crisis; it is an atrocity crime crisis and an impunity crisis. It is precisely the kind of crisis our policies are meant to anticipate and prevent. We often hear and say, “never again”, but this is becoming an eerie refrain, and the evidence suggests otherwise. The International Development Committee has shown that, between 2000 and 2020, at least 37 countries experienced mass atrocities or were at serious risk of them. Today is the International Day of Innocent Children Victims of Aggression. Nowhere is the need for a renewed commitment clearer than in the protection of children affected by armed conflict. The UK has long been a global leader on the children and armed conflict mandate, yet we still lack a dedicated strategy. Such a strategy is needed, especially in the context of significant aid reductions, which risk weakening the very systems designed to protect the most vulnerable. I am grateful to the Minister, Chris Elmore, for his recent reply to the letter from Save the Children that I cosigned, and his indication that the Government are considering a new dedicated toolkit for officials is welcome. But, with the ongoing restructuring of the FCDO, we need clarity on whether the CAAC team will be protected from the ODA cuts, and with it the department’s expertise on CAAC, PSVI and atrocity prevention more broadly. My current understanding is that the restructure has been pushed back and will likely conclude by late summer. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that in his response. Ending impunity remains the single most effective deterrent to atrocity crimes. This requires action on two fronts. We must lead by example. That means passing the Genocide Determination Bill—I look forward to supporting the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in that in the coming weeks and months. It means safeguarding funding for children and armed conflict teams and specialist expertise. It means closing loopholes in our universal jurisdiction framework, as proposed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and cross-party amendments tabled in the previous Session. It also means continuing to support mechanisms such as the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group for Ukraine.