Some Recent Parliamentary Replies On North Korea and details of three forthcoming meetings in Parliament about North Korea. Also, October Questions and Answers about Sudan.


north-korean-refugeesSome Recent Parliamentary Replies On North Korea

north-korea-imagesnorth korea executions

 

Also See

https://davidalton.net/2016/09/09/parliamentary-debate-on-freedom-of-religion-or-belief-september-8-full-text-and-link-to-tv-recording-syria-iraq-north-korea-sudan-iran-pakistan-saudi-arabia-china-india-burma/

 

Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2542):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports about the reflagging of North Korean ships in Tanzania; and whether they have raised that issue at the UN Security Council. (HL2542)

Tabled on: 24 October 2016

Answer:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns:

The Government is aware of such reports and have raised concerns this year with the Tanzanian Government about their shipping register. We continue to have discussions with partner states, and the UN Panel of Experts on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), regarding the misuse of country flags by ships connected to the DPRK. We take such misuse seriously and urge all countries to abide by UN Security Council resolutions. UN Security Council Resolution 2270 calls upon Member States to de-register any vessel that is owned, operated or crewed by the DPRK, and not to register any such vessels that have been de-registered by another Member State.

Date and time of answer: 03 Nov 2016 at 15:33

Baroness Williams of Trafford, the Home Office, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2084):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that UK-owned companies do not facilitate the forced labour of North Korean nationals. (HL2084)

Tabled on: 10 October 2016

Answer:
Baroness Williams of Trafford:

Current trade between the UK and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is minimal and covered by an overarching provision that any activities should satisfy existing UN and EU sanctions. These refer to restriction in the export of goods and financial assistance, which may contribute to the development of the DPRK’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.

The Modern Slavery Act 2015 introduced a landmark transparency in supply chains provision. This requires all commercial organisations operating in the UK with a turnover of £36m or more to set out what steps they have taken to prevent modern slavery in their business and supply chains each year. This mandatory reporting will allow consumers, investors, campaigners and others to scrutinise the activities of businesses and call businesses to account if they are not doing enough, including in relation to North Korean nationals.

Date and time of answer: 24 Oct 2016 at 14:29.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2192):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Baroness Anelay of St Johns on 8 June (HL359) and 16 June (HL388) on the subject of violence against women and girls, whether the British Embassy in Pyongyang or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have raised the issue of rape and sexual violence of women and girls by North Korean public officials with North Korea since June 2016. (HL2192)

Tabled on: 11 October 2016

Answer:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns:

We have not raised this specific issue since the previous answers (HL359 and HL388) in June 2016. However, we continue to raise our concerns on human rights directly with the regime of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). Most recently, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office my Honourable Friend the member for Reading West (Mr Sharma), summoned the Ambassador for the DPRK to the Foreign Commonwealth Office, where Mr Sharma made clear our concerns that the regime was prioritising its nuclear and ballistic missile programme ahead of the welfare of its people. In addition, we are currently working with partners at the UN General Assembly Third Committee on a strong resolution to maintain international attention on the human rights situation in the DPRK.

Date and time of answer: 21 Oct 2016 at 14:54.

 

Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2193):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Anelay of St Johns on 16 June (HL392), whether the British Embassy in North Korea had presented a copy of the report of the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to North Korean officials by 10 October. (HL2193)

Tabled on: 11 October 2016

Answer:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns:

As stated in answer HL392, the British Embassy in Pyongyang presented the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) with a statement supporting the UN Commission of Inquiry’s (COI) findings from the former Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my Rt Hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire). This statement was rejected by the MFA. The DPRK is fully aware of the COI report’s findings, but refuses to substantively engage on human rights issues and regularly denounces the UN COI report as a politically motivated fabrication.

Date and time of answer: 21 Oct 2016 at 14:54.

 

Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2194):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their reasons for not imposing human rights sanctions against designated North Korean persons suspected of mass human rights violations and crimes against humanity. (HL2194)

Tabled on: 11 October 2016

Answer:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns:

We continue to have discussions with international partners about ways to increase the pressure on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) to improve its appalling human rights record. We are currently discussing a response to the DPRK’s nuclear and ballistic missile programme at the UN Security Council. We are also discussing a further resolution on DPRK human rights at the UN General Assembly Third Committee to maintain the focus of international attention on their appalling human rights record.

We will always consider the full range of measures at our disposal and carefully consider the impact and benefits of sanctions measures before they are imposed. These considerations include our ability to defend the legality of the sanctions should they be challenged under EU law and the likelihood of achieving our objective of a denuclearised DPRK which abides by international norms and respects the human rights of its citizens.

Date and time of answer: 20 Oct 2016 at 15:15.

 

 

 

Lord Young of Cookham, HM Treasury, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2086):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the government of North Korea, or any of its state-owned companies, has access to the London Stock Exchange or holds financial interests in the UK. (HL2086)

Tabled on: 10 October 2016

Answer:
Lord Young of Cookham:

As part of UN and EU sanctions, banks are required to close existing branches, subsidiaries or accounts in North Korea where it has been determined that they contribute to North Korea’s ballistic missile programmes. The sanctions also prohibit any commercial activity by the Government of North Korea (including legal persons, entities or bodies owned or controlled by them).

Assets owned or controlled in the EU by designated DPRK persons, entities or bodies, including government bodies, are subject to an asset freeze and cannot be traded on the London Stock Exchange. A list of designations which has been placed in the Library includes a number of DPRK government and state-owned bodies. HM Treasury implements these financial sanctions in the UK. Non-compliance with financial sanctions is a criminal offence and HM Treasury works closely with law enforcement to ensure sanctions breaches are dealt with appropriately. For reasons of confidentiality, the Treasury does not make public the details of individual reports of frozen assets.

Date and time of answer: 24 Oct 2016 at 14:49.

Lord Price, Department for International Trade, provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2087):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the number of companies owned by UK nationals or headquartered in the UK which conduct business with the government of North Korea or any of its state-owned companies. (HL2087)

Tabled on: 10 October 2016

Answer:
Lord Price:

The Government does not have data on the number of companies owned by UK nationals or headquartered in the UK which conduct business with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

Data on the value of trade between the UK and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is published by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). In 2015 the total bilateral trade in goods between the UK and the DPRK was $814,700.

Date and time of answer: 24 Oct 2016 at 15:47.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2192):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Baroness Anelay of St Johns on 8 June (HL359) and 16 June (HL388) on the subject of violence against women and girls, whether the British Embassy in Pyongyang or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have raised the issue of rape and sexual violence of women and girls by North Korean public officials with North Korea since June 2016. (HL2192)

Tabled on: 11 October 2016

Answer:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns:

We have not raised this specific issue since the previous answers (HL359 and HL388) in June 2016. However, we continue to raise our concerns on human rights directly with the regime of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). Most recently, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office my Honourable Friend the member for Reading West (Mr Sharma), summoned the Ambassador for the DPRK to the Foreign Commonwealth Office, where Mr Sharma made clear our concerns that the regime was prioritising its nuclear and ballistic missile programme ahead of the welfare of its people. In addition, we are currently working with partners at the UN General Assembly Third Committee on a strong resolution to maintain international attention on the human rights situation in the DPRK.

Date and time of answer: 21 Oct 2016 at 14:54.

 

Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2193):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Anelay of St Johns on 16 June (HL392), whether the British Embassy in North Korea had presented a copy of the report of the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to North Korean officials by 10 October. (HL2193)

Tabled on: 11 October 2016

Answer:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns:

As stated in answer HL392, the British Embassy in Pyongyang presented the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) with a statement supporting the UN Commission of Inquiry’s (COI) findings from the former Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my Rt Hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire). This statement was rejected by the MFA. The DPRK is fully aware of the COI report’s findings, but refuses to substantively engage on human rights issues and regularly denounces the UN COI report as a politically motivated fabrication.

Date and time of answer: 21 Oct 2016 at 14:54.

 

Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2194):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their reasons for not imposing human rights sanctions against designated North Korean persons suspected of mass human rights violations and crimes against humanity. (HL2194)

Tabled on: 11 October 2016

Answer:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns:

We continue to have discussions with international partners about ways to increase the pressure on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) to improve its appalling human rights record. We are currently discussing a response to the DPRK’s nuclear and ballistic missile programme at the UN Security Council. We are also discussing a further resolution on DPRK human rights at the UN General Assembly Third Committee to maintain the focus of international attention on their appalling human rights record.

We will always consider the full range of measures at our disposal and carefully consider the impact and benefits of sanctions measures before they are imposed. These considerations include our ability to defend the legality of the sanctions should they be challenged under EU law and the likelihood of achieving our objective of a denuclearised DPRK which abides by international norms and respects the human rights of its citizens.

Date and time of answer: 20 Oct 2016 at 15:15.

 

 

 

 

Department for International Trade

North Korea: Sanctions

Lords

HL2088

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the effect of the United States’ North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016 (H.R. 757) on UK-owned businesses and UK nationals which conduct business with the government of North Korea or its state-owned companies.

A

Answered by: Lord Price

Answered on: 20 October 2016

The Government has made no such assessment.

 

 

Q

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool

Asked on: 10 October 2016

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

North Korea: Refugees

Lords

HL2085

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports that the government of China has recently breached the United Nations Refugee Convention by refouling 30 North Koreans without giving them an opportunity to claim asylum nor to meet representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

A

Answered by: Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Answered on: 19 October 2016

We are aware of reports of thirty North Koreans being sent back to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) after a period of detention in China.

Despite claims by the DPRK authorities that forcibly repatriated refugees are well treated and reintegrated into DPRK society, reports suggest that they are often mistreated by the authorities.

We will raise the issue of non -refoulement at the next UK-China Human rights Dialogue, scheduled to take place this month.

 

 

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool

Asked on: 10 October 2016

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

North Korea: Overseas Aid

Lords

HL2089

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they ensure that funds spent by the British Embassy in Pyongyang or funds dispersed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for North Korea activities are not diverted by the government of North Korea for use in its nuclear programme or human rights abuses.

A

Answered by: Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Answered on: 19 October 2016

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) projects in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) are usually delivered through international Non-Governmental Organisations who operate in-country and are aimed at assisting some of the most vulnerable groups in North Korean society. Before selecting an implementing partner relevant due diligence checks are carried out which include, but are not limited to, obtaining assurances about: training provided to staff in relation to reporting bribery and corruption; how those concerns are shared with donors; and what policies, principles and procedures the organisation has in place to regulate its own conduct.

In line with standard FCO project requirements detailed budgets are required for all projects and these are carefully checked to ensure both in-country and other costs are reasonable. Project implementers are required to provide financial reports and originals or copies of all invoices and receipts, as well as a Project Completion Report containing a detailed breakdown of all expenditure during the project period. The final payment on any project is only released after submission of a satisfactory Project Completion Report.

 

 

Q

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool

Asked on: 11 October 2016

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

North Korea: Refugees

Lords

HL2195

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to raise the issue of stateless North Koreans with the government of China; and what steps they plan to take to aid stateless North Koreans in need if the government of China is unwilling to assist them.

A

Answered by: Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Answered on: 19 October 2016

We are aware of reports of thirty North Koreans being sent back to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) after a period of detention in China.

Despite claims by the DPRK authorities that forcibly repatriated refugees are well treated and reintegrated into DPRK society, reports suggest that they are often mistreated by the authorities.

We will raise the issue of non-refoulement at the next UK-China Human rights Dialogue, scheduled to take place this month.

 

 

AWAITING REPLY

Q

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool

Asked on: 11 October 2016

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

North Korea: Sexual Offences

Lords

HL2192

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Baroness Anelay of St Johns on 8 June (HL359) and 16 June (HL388) on the subject of violence against women and girls, whether the British Embassy in Pyongyang or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have raised the issue of rape and sexual violence of women and girls by North Korean public officials with North Korea since June 2016.

 

Q

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool

Asked on: 11 October 2016

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

North Korea: Human Rights

Lords

HL2193

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Anelay of St Johns on 16 June (HL392), whether the British Embassy in North Korea had presented a copy of the report of the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to North Korean officials by 10 October.

 

Q

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool

Asked on: 11 October 2016

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

North Korea: Human Rights

Lords

HL2194

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their reasons for not imposing human rights sanctions against designated North Korean persons suspected of mass human rights violations and crimes against humanity.

 

Q

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool

Asked on: 11 October 2016

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

North Korea: Embassies

Lords

HL2196

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the direct costs of the British Embassy in Pyongyang, broken down into (1) locally employed staff, (2) estate expenditure, (3) security, (4) vehicle costs, (5) travel, (6) subsistence and (7) allowances; and what is the cost of Foreign and Commonwealth Office funded activities broken down by individual projects in North Korea for 2016.

 

Q

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool

Asked on: 10 October 2016

Home Office

Forced Labour: North Korea

Lords

HL2084

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that UK-owned companies do not facilitate the forced labour of North Korean nationals.

 

Q

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool

Asked on: 10 October 2016

HM Treasury

Financial Services: North Korea

Lords

HL2086

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the government of North Korea, or any of its state-owned companies, has access to the London Stock Exchange or holds financial interests in the UK.

 

Q

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool

Asked on: 10 October 2016

Department for International Trade

Overseas Trade: North Korea

Lords

HL2087

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the number of companies owned by UK nationals or headquartered in the UK which conduct business with the government of North Korea or any of its state-owned companies.

 

 

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

North Korea: Nuclear Weapons

Lords

HL1899

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by Siegfried Hecker, published on 12 September, concluding that North Korea will have enough material for about 20 nuclear bombs by the end of this year, that it has expanded uranium enrichment facilities, and that it has stockpiled plutonium.

A

Answered by: Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Answered on: 28 September 2016

We have made clear our deep concern at and condemnation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) nuclear programme. We take into account all sources of information when assessing it. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my Hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) made clear in his remarks to the UN Security Council on 23 September, that the United Kingdom condemns the recent nuclear test conducted by the DPRK, which is a direct violation of binding Security Council Resolutions. The DPRK must comply with its obligations under all relevant UN Security Council Resolutions, including abandoning all nuclear weapons and nuclear programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner.

Department for International Development

North Korea: Floods

Lords

HL1900

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what humanitarian aid they are providing to injured and displaced persons in North Korea following the recent flooding in that country.

A

Answered by: Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Answered on: 27 September 2016

The UK supports organisations such as the UN through core contributions. UN agencies are delivering humanitarian assistance to people affected.

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool

Asked on: 05 September 2016

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

North Korea: Guided Weapons

Lords

HL1544

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, following North Korea’s launch of three ballistic missiles on 5 September, the UN Security Council will be convened to consider the implications of that launch and an international response.

A

Answered by: Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Answered on: 15 September 2016

The UN Security Council (UNSC) met on 6 September to discuss a response to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) ballistic missiles launches on 5 September. The UNSC subsequently issued a statement condemning these launches as a flagrant violation of UN Security Council Resolutions. The UK strongly supports this statement, as we have with previous UNSC statements condemning DPRK provocations in 2016. We will continue to discuss at the UNSC, and with close partners, further measures in response to the DPRK’s destabilising and provocative actions.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

North Korea: Guided Weapons

Lords

HL1543

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of North Korea’s launch of three ballistic missiles on 5 September.

A

Answered by: Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Answered on: 12 September 2016

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) ballistic missile launches of 5 September are a clear violation of multiple UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs). The DPRK’s repeated provocations in 2016 are a threat to regional stability and international security. The UN Security Council statement of 6 September, which the UK fully supports, clearly demonstrates that the international community is united and will not tolerate this destabilising behaviour. We urge the DPRK to abide by UNSCRs and return to credible and authentic discussions on its nuclear and ballistic missile programme.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

North Korea: Sanctions

Lords

HL1077

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the US Treasury decision to impose sanctions on North Korean senior officials in the light of reported human rights abuses; and whether they plan to impose similar sanctions.

A

Answered by: Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Answered on: 26 July 2016

The US decision to designate senior members of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) regime follows its decision to introduce the US North Korea Sanctions Policy Enhancement Act in February 2016. The British Government shares the objective of maintaining pressure on the DPRK to fulfil its international human rights obligations and is deeply concerned by the human rights situation in the DPRK. It regularly consults with partners such as the US, the EU and regional partners on the best way to achieve this.

 

Latest

  • Forthcoming Meetings On North Korea
  •  north-korea-human-rightsnorth korea executions
    • Fiona Bruce MP will chair a meeting on November 2nd at 17:00 in Committee Room 20, the Houses of Parliament: Jieun Baek, a Ph.D. candidate in Public Policy at the University of Oxford, will address the All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea on how North Korea’s information underground — the network of citizens who take extraordinary risks by circulating illicit content such as foreign films, television shows, soap operas, books, and encyclopedias — have fostered an awareness of life outside North Korea and affected the social and political consciousness of North Koreans.

     

    • Lord Alton of Liverpool will chair a meeting on November 8th at 17:00 in Committee Room 21, the Houses of Parliament — This event will contain two presentations:
    • First, College Student’s Alliance for North Korean Human Rights (also known as YoungNK — a South Korean-based not-for-profit organisation which seeks to engage young people on North Korean human rights), in partnership with the European Alliance for Human Rights in North Korea, will speak about their programmes that creatively engage South Koreans on North Korean human rights.
    • Second, Seung Hoon Chae, a Ph.D. candidate in Politics at Nuffield College, University of Oxford, will speak on the causes behind the activism of North Korean refugees, especially those based in the UK. Seung Hoon will present a case study of North Korean refugees in the UK and suggest that the voices of North Korean refugees are determined more by who a person is today than who that person was at the point of exiting North Korea.

     

    • Geoffrey Clifton-Brown will chair a meeting on  November 17th at 17:00 in Committee Room 17, the Houses of Parliament: A screening of the film ‘While They Watched’, a retrospectively-styled documentary that looks back at the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Government of North Korea. Reflecting on a famous assertion concerning the Nazi regime of ‘Never Again’, the film will draw on interviews with social scientists, North Korean exiles, NGOs and governmental bodies to ask the question: How have the atrocities of North Korea been allowed to happen?
  • Details from James Burt jamesburtappg@gmail.comWebsite: www.appgnk.orgTwitter: @APPGNorthKoreaFacebook: facebook.com/appg.nkVisit the All Party Group on North Korea Web Site for Details of forthcoming events:

    http://appgnk.org/gallery/

    and visit:

    https://davidalton.net/2016/02/27/parliamentary-debate-on-the-security-and-human-rights-challenges-on-the-korean-peninsula-following-north-koreas-recent-nuclear-test

north-korea-human-rights2north-korea-human-rights

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sudan Questions And  Answers – October 2016

chemical-weapons-attacks

 

sudan stop the genocidedarfur

 

Question for Short Debate

Lord Alton of Liverpool to ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in securing peace, progress, human rights and good governance in Sudan. (25 October)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2613):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the percentage of the gross domestic product of Sudan which is used on (1) its army and security sector; and (2) developing basic infrastructure. (HL2613)

Tabled on: 25 October 2016

Answer:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns:

It is not possible to estimate with a high degree of certainty the percentage of Sudan’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) spent on security and development as the Government of Sudan does not publish the national budget. From figures provided by the World Bank in 2014, we are aware that 5 per cent of Sudan’s GDP was spent on pro-poor expenditures, which includes spending on infrastructure.

Date and time of answer: 03 Nov 2016 at 15:44.

 

Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2616):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support the international Criminal Court and its work in Sudan. (HL2616)

Tabled on: 25 October 2016

Answer:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns:

The UK supports UN Security Council Resolution 1593, which urges all States to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its Prosecutor with regards to the situation in Darfur. The UK fully respects the ICC as an independent organisation; it is the responsibility of the Office of the Prosecutor of the Court to take forward the investigation.

Date and time of answer: 03 Nov 2016 at 15:44.

 

 

Baroness Williams of Trafford, the Home Office, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2617):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether it is their policy to repatriate non-Arab Darfuri asylum seekers from the UK to Khartoum; and what account is taken when making such decisions, of the needs of those who believe that their human rights, especially the right to freedom of religion or belief, will be violated. (HL2617)

Tabled on: 25 October 2016

Answer:
Baroness Williams of Trafford:

All protection claims, including claims based on the right to freedom of religion or belief, are carefully considered on their individual facts and merits, in accordance with our obligations under the Refugee Convention and European Convention on Human Rights. They are assessed against available country of origin information, which is obtained from a range of reliable sources, including reputable media outlets; local, national and international organisations, including human rights organisations; and information from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Where people establish a genuine need for protection, we will grant it. If they are found not to need our protection, we expect them to leave the country voluntarily. Where they do not, we will seek to enforce their departure. Enforced removals are carried out in the most sensitive way possible, treating those being removed with respect and courtesy.

Date and time of answer: 04 Nov 2016 at 09:33.

 

 

Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2541):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports that ammunition used by Boko Haram in Nigeria is manufactured in Sudan; that Boko Haram buys its weapons from Al-Geneina City, Darfur; and that Boko Haram uses Sudan as a transit country to link with Saudi Arabia. (HL2541)

Tabled on: 24 October 2016

Answer:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns:

We are not aware of any specific reports that Boko Haram uses Sudanese-manufactured ammunition; that Boko Haram buys weapons from Al-Geneina City; or that Boko Haram uses Sudan as a transit country to link with Saudi Arabia.

We fully support the EU arms embargo on Sudan and the UN arms embargo on Darfur, and we are fully committed to supporting Nigeria and its neighbours in the fight against Boko Haram.

Date and time of answer: 02 Nov 2016 at 17:03.

 

 

Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2625):

Question:
Baroness Cox to ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the risk of the government of Sudan becoming a secondary or tertiary beneficiary of funding dedicated to the Better Migration Management Fund. (HL2625)

Tabled on: 25 October 2016

Answer:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns:

All EU funds committed to the Better Migration Management project are managed by Member States’ Development Agencies or International Organisations. No funding will be channelled through the beneficiary countries’ government structures, directly or indirectly. The EU and the consortium of EU Member States will retain responsibility for the implementation of the project and activities will be carried out by experts from EU Member States, international organisations and non-governmental organisations.

Date and time of answer: 02 Nov 2016 at 17:11.

 

 

Lord Bates, the Department for International Development, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2380):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the risks and potential human rights infringements arising from the repatriation of refugees from Sudan to Eritrea. (HL2380)

Tabled on: 18 October 2016

Answer:
Lord Bates:

Refugees and irregular migrants in the Horn of Africa are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation not only by people smugglers and traffickers but also by government authorities. The UK is using its position as current chair of The Khartoum Process to push for international agreement around improving the conditions of migrants in the Horn of Africa.

The Khartoum Process is a regional initiative bringing together the Governments of Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Sudan and Libya and the EU, the UK, Italy, France, Germany and Malta to better manage migration in the region, including the protection of irregular migrants. The Khartoum Process has a strong emphasis on the protection of migrant rights and is at the centre of a plan of action agreed between African nations, the EU and EU member states.

The UK Government has voiced concern for the wellbeing of refugees returned to Eritrea from Sudan with both governments will continue to press them to treat refugees and asylum seekers according to international law.

 

 

Lord Bates, the Department for International Development, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2379):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many (1) internally displaced persons, and (2) refugees from other countries, there are in Sudan. (HL2379)

Tabled on: 18 October 2016

Answer:
Lord Bates:

According to figures from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), there are a total of 3.2 million internally displaced people in Sudan, of which 2.6 million are long term displaced in Darfur alone (as stated in the attached).

OCHA also estimates that Sudan hosts a total of 386,283 refugees from neighbouring countries.

The following documents were submitted as part of the answer and are appended to this email:

  1. File name: PQHL2379 attachment.pdf
    Description: PQHL2379 attachment

Date and time of answer: 31 Oct 2016 at 16:56.

 

Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2612):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the role of Iran and North Korea in the building of factories for the production of munitions and weapons in Sudan. (HL2612)

Tabled on: 25 October 2016

Answer:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns:

We are aware of claims that these countries may have previously cooperated with Sudan in the manufacture and trade of weapons. We continue to fully support the EU arms embargo on Sudan as well as the UN arms embargo specifically on Darfur.

Date and time of answer: 03 Nov 2016 at 15:45.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2381):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the indictment of Omar al Bashir for genocide and human rights abuses in Sudan, what is the current level of engagement with the Sudanese regime and whether that level of engagement has increased, or is planned to increase. (HL2381)

Tabled on: 18 October 2016

Answer:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns:

In order to maximise our ability to persuade all parties to the conflicts in Sudan to end the fighting and allow the Sudanese people the security and development they deserve, we need to have a greater level of direct engagement with the government of Sudan. For that reason, we have started a Strategic Dialogue with the government of Sudan, which provides a necessary platform for us to raise issues of concern, including human rights, and at the same time explore possibilities for cooperation on a wide range of UK interests. The Strategic Dialogue process does not change our position of maintaining only‘essential contact’ with President Bashir, given his outstanding arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC). The UK remains a firm supporter of the ICC and encourages all States to act on its indictment.

Date and time of answer: 31 Oct 2016 at 13:46.

 

Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2382):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the priority given to the promotion of democracy and human rights within the UK–Sudanese strategic dialogue; and what assessment they have made of (1) the reliability of the Sudanese regime as a reliable partner with a shared agenda, and (2) the extent to which the strategic dialogue will embolden the regime in Sudan to continue with their current policies. (HL2382)

Tabled on: 18 October 2016

Answer:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns:

Improving human rights remains one of our policy priorities in Sudan, and therefore discussions of human rights issues are a key part of the UK-Sudan Strategic Dialogue. At the last round of talks on 10/11 October, a representative from the Sudan Advisory Council for Human Rights accompanied the Sudanese delegation.

In a number of areas we fundamentally disagree with the government of Sudan; however, in others our interests are much more closely aligned. We assess that direct engagement through the Strategic Dialogue process provides better opportunities to raise issues of bilateral concern, as well as to look at strategic questions such as the resolution of internal conflicts, regional security and migration. We keep this policy under regular review.

Date and time of answer: 31 Oct 2016 at 14:09.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2383):

Question: To ask Her Majesty’s Government why, in the last year, there has been a reduction in the number of UK and EU statements on human rights violations in Sudan. (HL2383)

Tabled on: 18 October 2016

Answer: Baroness Anelay of St Johns:

Sudan remains a Human Rights Priority Country for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as outlined in the FCO’s last annual Human Rights and Democracy Report published in July 2016. We regularly raise our human rights concerns directly with the government of Sudan in London, Khartoum and New York as part of our ongoing dialogue. Most recently, human rights issues were a key theme of the Strategic Dialogue that took place in London in on 10/11 October.

We consider our response to all reports of human rights violations carefully, in consultation with our EU and troika partners and with human rights organisations on the ground, and respond in the way we judge to be the most effective in conveying our concerns to the government of Sudan. We also support the established UN mechanisms in their efforts to improve the situation in Sudan.

Date and time of answer: 31 Oct 2016 at 14:42.

 

Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2339):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what role armed militias play in enforcing Sudan’s commitments under the Khartoum Process; whether they are being used to enforce border controls and to capture migrants; and what action the regime took, under its commitments in the Doha Document for Peace, 2012, to disarm militias. (HL2339)

Tabled on: 17 October 2016

Answer:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns:

We are concerned by the reported use of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) to tackle migration in Sudan and have raised these concerns with the government of Sudan, most recently during the visit of the UK Special Representative to Sudan and South Sudan in September. We have also made clear that our cooperation on migration will necessarily be guided by our human rights principles. The EU has also raised the role of the RSF with the government of Sudan and has made absolutely clear that no funding aligned with the Khartoum Process will be provided to them.

The government of Sudan has undertaken some of its disarmament commitments under the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur (DDPD), but together with our international partners we continue to urge them to do more. The UK is a member of the DDPD’s Implementation Follow-Up Commission (IFC), which we use to press for progress on disarmament and other areas of the DDPD’s implementation. The most recent meeting of the IFC was in May 2016.

Date and time of answer: 26 Oct 2016 at 16:01.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2338):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what procedures have been put in place to ensure that EU funds committed to the Khartoum Process are not embezzled by corrupt officials; and whether they have investigated whether there has been collusion between Sudanese security officials and human traffickers. (HL2338)

Tabled on: 17 October 2016

Answer:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns:

All EU funds committed to the Khartoum Process are managed by Member States’ Development Agencies or International Organisations. No funding will be channelled through the beneficiary countries’ government structures.

We are deeply concerned by the reports of collusion between Sudanese security officials and human traffickers, and have raised this issue directly with the government of Sudan as part of our wider engagement on migration. The UK is supporting the Sudanese judiciary to implement new anti-trafficking legislation by helping them improve their understanding of both this and the UN Trafficking in Persons Protocol.

Date and time of answer: 26 Oct 2016 at 16:00.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2336):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports that ammunition used by Boko Haram in Nigeria is manufactured in Sudan. (HL2336)

Tabled on: 17 October 2016

Answer:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns:

We are not aware of any reports that Sudanese-manufactured ammunition has been used by Boko Haram. We fully support the EU arms embargo on Sudan as well as the UN arms embargo on Darfur.

Date and time of answer: 26 Oct 2016 at 15:53.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2337):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they intend to evaluate the use of €46 million earmarked for the Khartoum Process; what benchmarks and agreed criteria have been developed to guide the Process; and what procedures have been put in place to monitor, audit, and review the efficacy of the Process. (HL2337)

Tabled on: 17 October 2016

Answer:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns:

The Khartoum Process does not have a defined single fund, but draws from several different sources of EU funding; including the Better Migration Management Fund and the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa.

The UK, as the current Chair of the Khartoum Process, works closely with the Secretariat to maintain a map of current and proposed projects, and ensure effective coordination and monitoring. The European Commission has responsibility for assessing implementation against the Valetta benchmarks and outcomes, and conducting the full audit and review of the EU funding programmes.

Date and time of answer: 26 Oct 2016 at 15:53.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL2335):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Sudan Unit and the British Ambassador to the Republic of Sudan last engaged with opposition groups in Sudan, in particular those members of the Sudan Call alliance; and, following the signing of the Sudan Roadmap Agreement, whether a delegation from the Sudan Call alliance will be invited to London in order to deepen political engagement with that group. (HL2335)

Tabled on: 17 October 2016

Answer:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns:

Both the UK Special Representative to Sudan and South Sudan and Her Majesty’s Ambassador to Sudan engage with opposition groups regularly, most recently at a joint meeting with the Sudan Call alliance of opposition groups in Khartoum in September. The UK Special Representative also met with representatives of the National Umma Party, including Sadiq El Mahdi, in Addis Ababa on 23 September. We will continue to develop our relations with these groups both in Sudan and elsewhere.

Date and time of answer: 26 Oct 2016 at 15:52.

 

 darfur

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements