Benedict Rogers: We must not forget the people of Myanmar, living under military rule

1 Feb

Benedict Rogers is co-founder and Chief Executive of Hong Kong Watch, Senior Analyst for East Asia at the international human rights organisation CSW, co-founder and Deputy Chair of the UK Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, a member of the advisory group of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) and a board member of the Stop Uyghur Genocide Campaign.

Today is the start of the Lunar New Year, Year of the Tiger. It is also the first anniversary of the bloody coup in Myanmar (Burma). A year ago today, the Commander-in-Chief of Myanmar’s military, Min Aung Hlaing, overthrew Aung San Suu Kyi’s elected government, unravelling a decade of fragile democratisation and plunging that beautiful but benighted country back into the nightmare of brutal military dictatorship.

As we mark these two dates, we should reflect on the tragedy in Myanmar, and our response. We should also consider the role of the Chinese Communist Party regime in repressing its people, propping up other dictatorships and increasingly threatening freedom around the world. And we should resolve to develop the characteristics of the Tiger – fearlessness and courage.

It is said that this Year of the Tiger symbolises recovery and growth, both much needed following two years of Covid-19. But let this be a year of recovery and growth not only economically, but also for democracy, human rights and the international rules-based order, all increasingly threatened.

Myanmar is facing a dire humanitarian, human rights and economic crisis. The military, known as the ‘Tatmadaw’, has conducted over 7,000 attacks on civilians. Villages have been subjected to heavy artillery shelling and air strikes. In a country that, even during the past decade of quasi-democracy, still faced civil war – as it has for 70 years – this represents a shocking 664% increase over the previous year. Almost 1,500 people have been killed, including 100 children. Over 330,600 people have been displaced since the coup, according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

The Tatmadaw’s bombardment of civilians has been accompanied by gruesome atrocity crimes. In one township on 7 December last year, soldiers tied up 11 civilians, tortured them, then burned them alive. Among the victims were five teenagers. On Christmas Eve, in a village in Karenni State, at least 37 people, including women and 10 children, were massacred. Again, their hands were tied and they were burned to death. They included two Save the Children aid workers.

Ten years ago, political prisoners were being released in Myanmar. But since the coup, the junta has arrested at least 11,776 people. Aung San Suu Kyi and President Win Myint remain in jail, likely to be locked up indefinitely. At least 432 members of their party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), are in prison. Twelve have died in custody, some from Covid-19, others from torture.

At least 114 journalists have been arrested, and 43 remain behind bars. Before the coup, there were no journalists imprisoned, but today, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Myanmar ranks second only to China for jailing the most journalists.

The coup and the conflict have led to a humanitarian crisis in a country already suffering from Covid-19. The military has compounded the crisis by blocking or stealing humanitarian aid. The UN Development Programme (UNDP) has warned that 46.3% of the population will be living in poverty and 14.4 million people – including five million children – will need humanitarian assistance this year.

In the face of this tragedy, what has the world done? The United States, United Kingdom, European Union and Canada have imposed some targeted sanctions on the military, which is welcome. But apart from that, there have been strong statements and much handwringing, but little else. There is a need to do much more.

The goal should be two-fold: to cut the lifeline to the Generals and provide a lifeline to the people. That means more sanctions, and – crucially – enforcing an arms embargo. Russia and China – already major challenges to the free world – are the key providers of arms to the junta. We should explore every avenue to expose and penalise them for their complicity with Myanmar’s mass murderers.

The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres – whose response has been low-key and lacklustre – needs to step up. He should mobilise a diplomatic effort and a humanitarian coalition to provide aid along the borders. Britain and others should increase aid, and fund cross-border delivery.

Crucially, pressure should be put on China to stop keeping this junta alive. China is the junta’s primary provider of diplomatic cover and financial support. China is no friend of human rights, obviously, but it does not like instability on its doorstep, so we should try to persuade Beijing to help prevent a humanitarian disaster in Myanmar. Sustaining the Generals in power while Myanmar’s economy collapses, is in no one’s interests.

In three days, Beijing will host the Winter Olympics. A regime accused of genocide, dismantling Hong Kong’s freedoms in breach of an international treaty, repression in Tibet, persecution of Christians and Falun Gong, forced organ harvesting and an all-out assault on freedom at home and abroad, is not one that should have been accorded this honour.

It is right that several countries, including the United Kingdom, have imposed a diplomatic boycott. It is now right that we use the Games to spotlight the atrocities in China – and the regime’s complicity with crimes against humanity in Myanmar – and shame the butchers of Beijing.

In this Year of the Tiger, let us rediscover the courage of our convictions. Even as we face the most immediate challenge to freedom in Ukraine, let us not forget Myanmar. Indeed, let us stand up for the peoples of Myanmar – and China – and for freedom everywhere.

Jon Moynihan and Christopher Howarth: In an age of global insecurity, Truss’s appointment could mark a watershed in foreign policy

23 Sep

Jon Moynihan was the CEO and Chairman of PA Consulting Group, as well as a member of the board of Vote Leave. Christopher Howarth is a former accountant, lawyer and TA soldier.

The promotion of Liz Truss to Foreign Secretary has the potential to mark a watershed in British foreign policy. Creative, iconoclastic, and bullet resistant, Truss has, as Trade Secretary, made multiple trade breakthroughs by combining pragmatism and optimism.

Recognising as she does the great geopolitical changes around the world during just this past decade, she has the opportunity to make her mark on our history by formulating, with the Prime Minister, a new foreign policy approach for the UK, one that cashes the Brexit Dividend while recognising the dramatic changes in the world that have occurred over the past decade.

There has never been a golden age of global peace and prosperity, but the world has definitely worsened recently. The EU, not yet reconciled to UK departure and torn between an anxiety to contain Russia and a desire for Russia’s energy, is an always unreliable partner, with the France/AUKUS row showing that the EU and its member countries often act in opposite directions.

The botched withdrawal from Afghanistan threatens to recreate a safe haven for arms and terrorism exports. Biden’s fumbles and abandonment of Trump’s Middle East gains give Iran a renewed chance to further its nuclear and regional ambitions within the Shiite Arc and beyond, destabilising states from Yemen to Iraq and threatening Israel.

In Africa, South Africa’s continued implosion has accelerated. Further north, the arena around east Congo contains Hieronymus Bosch-like scenes of civil and interregional war, rape, slavery, and economic exploitation. Across Africa, an old tradition, the military coup, has re-emerged; both military and civil autocrats bolster themselves with Russian mercenaries.

The Indian subcontinent is now a more dangerous place because of Afghanistan’s implosion. Myanmar has taken a huge step backward. Thailand is repressive. South and Central America are the least concerning areas, but only by comparison; democratisations that followed the Falkland Islands war in the 1980s have steadily drifted leftwards, with Venezuela a stark yet apparently unheeded warning.

This brings us, finally, to the two greatest problems: Russia and China. Russia, even in its position of weakness, creates instability, threatens invasion, in its near abroad – Ukraine and Baltics in particular. In further-away countries, the Wagner Group spearheads a new colonialism.

The group of thugs and oligarchs around Putin maintain a steely extractive grip on their own country. Russia has a formidable cyber hacking arm which makes money (through ransomware) and disrupts the West.

Russia opportunistically allies itself with the far stronger China, whose intelligent and to date successful long-term policy, starting with the Belt-and-Road initiative, is quite clearly that of world domination.

In its near abroad, China extends its reach bit by bit, building roads into Pakistan and Afghanistan and railways toward Europe; building illegal villages in Bhutan and pushing Indian soldiers off Himalayan precipices. It refuses to bring North Korea to heel even as that country becomes an ever-greater nuclear and cyber menace (even as large numbers of North Koreans starve to death).

Despite the West’s long-held concern, that led to Obama’s “pivot to Asia”, China continues with its long-term maritime strategy, building piece-by-piece what is eventually likely to become the most formidable Navy in the world.

It builds ports in Sri Lanka, Djibouti, Gwadar and on; it fortifies islands and atolls across the vast expanses of China’s 9-dash-line claim; it threatens Taiwan. In the meantime, China extracts every last ounce of the West’s technological capability via legal and illegal routes; buying, spying, hacking, sending its students in waves to the west so as to learn and return.

The spectacle of China building a F-35 clone 10 years before expected was a wakeup. It highlighted that the role of science – in weapons development, cyber defence and offence, intelligence, and industry – is key, yet in the UK, as in most of the West, we are falling behind and are increasingly unable to protect even what IP we have.

These are some of the strategic challenges facing the UK. What should the UK response be?

In short, our new foreign policy doctrine should first, realise the Brexit dividend, and second, respond to the new bifurcated hegemonic structure: The US (no longer the global hegemon) with its allies, versus China and Russia with their satrapies.

The Brexit Dividend: The UK has not been a super-power for 100 years, but it is a significant power, one with a unique ability to be at the centre of alliances addressing current and future threats. Now we’re a fully sovereign power, we can forge our own policy based on our own interests, with full control of defence, trade and development.

The EU, built around a single market and customs union, always lacked a coherent foreign policy. The UK as a member was saddled with a trade policy serving the interests of others, not us, and a foreign policy unaligned even with the EU’s own trade agreements – the German or Cypriot veto, for example, preventing any serious criticism of Russia or China.

The Bifurcated Hegemony: things are going to get tougher. We will have to tighten our uses of trade and subordinate it and Aid to new geopolitical imperatives; anticorruption and cementing new treaties will have to take precedence over softer fashionable favourites.

Our new ability to focus on our own (and global) security came good in the recent AUKUS negotiations. The UK played to its strengths; a trading partner, trusted and with unique technology (more Brexit dividend: as an EU member the UK could not have discussed trade policy; would have had to support French interests; and would have been pressured to be more accommodating to China).

Promoting specific UK interests becomes central; no more need to outsource our development money (and trade deficit) to Brussels. A sovereign UK can use its aid and trade policy as twin tools to improve stability and growth in Africa, helping countries trade their way out of poverty –win-win for the UK in prosperity and influence.

In the Middle East we can work better with historic partners on security and trade. Joining CPTPP (the pacific trade partnership), and the hinted deemphasis of Canada and NZ from the 5eyes network, points to a more complex future, awash with interlocking networks and relationships of different strength.

We can also now push our objectives in global councils – protecting intellectual property, combating cyber espionage and theft, resisting authoritarian states seeking to subvert international organisations and our values. The UK now has the opportunity to work flexibly with different models to meet differing and emerging threats and opportunities. It’s an exciting new chapter in UK foreign policy.

Such an approach has the makings of a distinctly Conservative foreign policy; pragmatic but optimistic, believing in Britain, British values and a global role; with loyalty to old allies and friends and an instinctive belief that global engagement is good for both us and the world.

As Margaret Thatcher always clearly said: a decrease in British (and American) global influence would be very bad for the world. Fortunately, Truss, being a Thatcherite, recognises the opportunities the UK has. She brings to the Foreign Office unique insights into how to further UK interests and global stability. A new Johnson/Truss doctrine can put them into action.

Lettice Bromovsky: Now that the UK has a firm place within the ASEAN bloc, it must stand up to China’s aggressive antics

27 Aug

Lettice Bromovsky is a political commentator and contributor to Young Voices UK.

The UK has become the first country to join the ASEAN (the Association of South-East Asian Nations) as a dialogue partner in 25 years, bolstering its post-Brexit vision of “Global Britain” and further integrating itself into one of the fastest growing trade areas in the world.

Nevertheless, entering into this region comes with significant difficulties, and to put it bluntly, the UK will have its work cut out for it. The disparity of the countries within the ASEAN means that consensus agreements are difficult if not impossible to reach, and the encroaching red fog of China into the ASEAN region wields with it the growing concern of Chinese expansionism.

Deepening economic ties with the 10 member state organisation will be hugely beneficial for Britain. Boasting an annual GDP of £2.3 trillion, the ASEAN is now four and a half times larger than it was in 2000. Total trade between the UK and the 10 member nations of the ASEAN amounted to $45.5 billion at the end of Q3 in 2020.

Although there are substantial economic benefits for the UK joining, the region is plagued with an array of differing political systems and vast economic disparities. For example, Brunei and Cambodia are considered authoritarian regimes, whereas the Philippines and Thailand are deemed democracies. And while Singapore maintains a high median annual income of $59,590 in 2021, Laos’ median income remains low at $2570.

Unsurprisingly this often makes it difficult for the organisation to reach unanimous agreements. Indeed, a regular criticism of the ASEAN is its poor consensus-driven decision making approach. One particularly out-dated piece of legislation is the principle of non-interference, which prevents member-states from intervening in each other’s domestic affairs.

During the Myanmar Coup in February 2021 the shortcomings of this principle became obvious. When the UN tried to vote on an arms embargo to condone Myanmar for their clear violation of human rights, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Brunei abstained. This principle is warping the moral fabric of countries, over fears that it could lead to greater economic instability.

As a dialogue member the UK now has access to the high-level ASEAN summits and other top-level discussions. During these discussions, Britain can encourage deeper reform and further political stability.

Another hurdle for Britain in the region is the ever growing dominance of Chinese influence. In 2010 at the ASEAN Regional Forum, China’s then foreign minister remarked “China is a big country and other countries are small countries, and that is just a fact”. This brasen comment perfectly portrays China’s ingrained belief that small countries must adhere to the will of larger ones.

China has used the looming threat of sanctions or reduced Chinese investment as a way to control the ASEAN members and to further its own expansionist policy into the South China Sea, an essential trade route for all Asian economies.

Chinese abuse of power is not uncommon to hear or read about in the media. In fact, its growing regularity should be of great concern to western democracies. In 2012, the Philippines challenged China on its entitlements in the South China Sea. The dispute was brought before the international tribunal in the Hague. The Philippines won the case, but China refused to accept the ruling. Five years on, China still stands vehemently opposed to this ruling and has only asserted itself more aggressively in the region.

China has sunk Vietnamese fishing boats that were in contested waters between the two countries. It has occupied an exclusive economic zone owned mutually by the Philippines and Vietnam, with around 220 Chinese militia vessels. In 2020, a Chinese ship harassed Malaysian and Vietnamese gas exploits in their own economic zones. This is all on top of increasing military and naval exercises in the South China Sea as a flashy display of strength.

China’s inability to engage on a geopolitical level almost reached breaking point in recent foreign affairs. Last month a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson met with the Taliban, not only recognising the violent and oppressive organisation, but going one step further to reiterate that they were ‘ready for friendly relations’.

Even today the Chinese embassy is one of the very few that remains operational after the fall of Kabul this week. At first glance this could be interpreted as China losing allies and therefore reaching for those equally desperate, but the reality is China is only interested in its own economic stability. If the disruption in Afghanistan manages to overflow into Pakistan or Central Asia, then China’s economic interests and supply chains will be most affected.

Britain cannot allow this blatant abuse of economic power and bullying to continue. China’s strength and confidence to punish countries is growing, it was only last year after Australia called for an inquiry into the coronavirus outbreak, that China both verbally threatened, stating that Australia was treading a “dangerous path” and then economically punished the country by imposing tariffs of 80 per cent of Australian barley and completely banning beef from Australia’s four biggest abattoirs.

The only way we will be able to combat this kind of playground politics is from a unified front. Britain needs to encourage less economic reliance on China in the region. This can be done by solidifying free trade agreements with the countries in the ASEAN. The UK has already successfully achieved this with Singapore and Vietnam, but it is imperative that we begin to forge new ones with the remaining eight members.

A diversification of supply chains will also weaken China’s hold on the region as with greater economic diversification it will be increasingly hard for China to economically coerce the ASEAN.

If, or more likely when, China next attempts to use its size and might to further its own foreign policy, an unified process of imposing offsetting measures, such as tariffs will be essential in combating this type of bullying.

Chinese aggression cannot and should not be tolerated. A unified approach against this authoritarian power is the only way to combat Chinese influence and expansion. Now that the UK has asserted its place in the region, it must begin work encouraging the tenets of a free and democratic society.

Benedict Rogers: It seems plausible that this brazen assault on democracy in Myanmar is driven by one man’s ambition

1 Feb

Benedict Rogers is a human rights activist and writer. He is Senior Analyst for East Asia at CSW, co-founder and deputy chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, author of three books on Myanmar (Burma), including “Burma: A Nation at the Crossroads”, and a former parliamentary candidate.

Today’s coup in Myanmar (Burma) is a devastating blow to a decade of fragile democratization, and a major setback for a beautiful but benighted country that has already suffered decades of war, poverty and repression.

Although Myanmar has a long history of military rule, this latest move comes as a surprise. Despite a transition to a civilian-led democratic government under Aung San Suu Kyi five years ago, the military has in any case retained real power.

Under the constitution which it wrote, Myanmar’s military has direct control of three key government ministries – Home Affairs, Border Affairs and Defence – as well as a quarter of parliamentary seats reserved for the armed forces. It controls its budget, and many enterprises. Aung San Suu Kyi has bent over backwards to compromise with the military, even defending them in The Hague on charges of genocide. So why would the army move against her now?

One theory is that the military is driven by power and is incapable of relinquishing it. Ever since General Ne Win’s first takeover in 1958, the military has been the dominant political force in Myanmar. His caretaker regime handed over to a democratically elected government in 1960, only to seize power in a coup in 1962.

For over 50 years the army ruled Myanmar directly, rejected Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD)’s first election victory in 1990 and transitioned to a ‘civilian’ government led by former generals dressed in suits rather than military uniforms in 2010. Only after the NLD’s overwhelming win in 2015 did the military move from centre stage to the wings of politics, but even then it continued to exercise overwhelming influence. But perhaps it wasn’t satisfied with that, and wanted to play a starring role again.

Another theory, however, is more plausible, and it is that this coup is not so much driven by the military as a whole, but by the personal ambitions of one man – the Commander-in-Chief General Min Aung Hlaing.

He wants to be President and was dissatisfied that the military-backed party, the Union Solidarity Development Party (USDP), did not do well in last November’s election. Knowing that he has to retire from his current post in June this year, he appears to have decided that if he can’t be President using legitimate, constitutional means, he would seize power anyway.

The pretext for the coup – the army’s claim of voter fraud in last year’s election – is risible. An institution that for decades has defrauded the electorate has no right to make such an allegation. While there are concerns that some of the country’s ethnic minorities were disenfranchised in the election, there is no evidence of voter fraud at the ballot box and no legitimate reason to doubt the NLD’s victory.

Aung San Suu Kyi, the President Win Myint, government ministers, regional chief ministers and a number of pro-democracy activists have been arrested, and a state of emergency imposed for a year. This is truly an outrage, and the international community must not stand for it. Britain, the United States, the European Union and others invested significantly in the reform period that began a decade ago, and so cannot allow this coup to pass without consequences.

Reaction has been swift – but so far only rhetorical. Anthony Blinken, the new US Secretary of State, called on the military to reverse their actions “immediately” and “to release all government officials and civil society leaders and respect the will of the people of Burma as expressed in democratic elections on November 8.”

The UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, issued a statement in which he described the developments as “a serious blow to democratic reforms in Myanmar.”

The President of the European Council, Charles Michel, condemned the coup in a tweet, calling for the military to release all those who have been detained unlawfully and for the restoration of the democratic process.

And Boris Johnson condemned the coup and the unlawful imprisonment of civilians.

Now the free world must set out what it will do if the military do not back down – and the United Kingdom should take a lead. We should impose co-ordinated, targeted sanctions – not broad-based sanctions against the country, which would hurt the people, but sanctions specifically against the military’s enterprises and assets.

In July 2020, the United Kingdom announced sanctions against two high ranking members of the Burmese military under the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime – otherwise known as “Magnitsky” sanctions – for human rights violations, but what is needed now is measures against military companies and the economic interests of the military as a whole.

The United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, the European Union, Japan and other allies must work together on this, though if a unified approach cannot be reached, those that are willing to go down the sanctions path should do so anyway, and work with allies on other measures they can agree on.

If it is the case that this coup is more about Min Aung Hlaing’s personal ambitions, then it may be possible to cause a split in the military if international pressure is perceived to hit its economic interests. If that happens, perhaps wiser, cooler heads in the military may prevail and force the Commander-in-Chief to back down.

Certainly one thing is clear: if the Myanmar army is allowed to get away with this brazen assault on a fragile democracy, not only will Myanmar’s development and progress be set back, but it will send an unwelcome green light to others in South-East Asia and beyond, that unconstitutional seizures of power will be allowed to go unchecked. And that – in a world where the cause of freedom and democracy is already on the back foot – would be devastating.

Chris Whitehouse: Raab delivers on Magnitsky sanctions

7 Jul

Chris Whitehouse leads the team at his public affairs agency, The Whitehouse Consultancy.

Dominic Raab’s publication of the details of his new Magnitsky-style sanctions regime has been long awaited, but was worth that wait. The new scheme is another means of deploying Britain’s soft power around the world – a stick to balance the carrots of diplomacy and overseas aid.

No longer can individuals who benefit from corruption and egregious human rights breaches expect to live comfortably, free from repercussions, avoiding any unpleasant consequences of their actions. That leaving the EU means, for the first time, that the United Kingdom can act alone in bringing forward such sanctions is a further leap forward in our nation stepping up to fulfil its global potential, to play its full role on the world’s stage.

As Bill Browder, the man acknowledged by Raab in his statement as being behind the global campaign for Magnitsky sanctions, following the death in Russian custody of his business colleague, Sergei Magnitsky, told this column: “Although the UK is a relatively small country, it has an outsized role in the world, because this is where everyone from the developed world wants to buy property, keep their families safe and store their money.”

Without this sanctions regime, Browder explains: “In the past, whenever a dictator perpetrated an atrocity, the most the British government and many others did was to issue statements of condemnation, at which the perpetrators simply laughed. This Magnitsky sanctions regime creates real world consequences of which they’re rightly terrified.”

Raab, to be fair, has consistently, since 2012, declared that he was “passionate” about the introduction of a sanctions regime, believing that it would have real impact, particularly when used alongside those of other sympathetic nations.

There were some who feared that Foreign Office officials would water down his plans, this column included, and leave us with a regime that was not fit for purpose and did not strike the necessary fear into the hearts of those targeted by its restrictions on financial assets and freedom of movement. Maybe we should have had more faith, because the scheme now published puts considerable power into the hands of Ministers, provided, of course, due process is followed, to stop kleptocrats “laundering their blood money”, as Raab put it, in the United Kingdom

That we had the first designations, the historic early targets of this tough new regime and the very day it was presented to Parliament is a clear indication of the planning, the preparation and the determination on the part of Raab and his team. Rightly, some (though by no means all) of those complicit in Russia of the violent death in custody of Magnitsky, and of the state-sanctioned theft of assets from Bowder’s Hermitage investment fund are among the first to be hit. Let’s hope that others from that benighted kleptocracy follow in the future.

Rightly do we see targeted some (but again far from all) of those Saudis responsible for the shocking murder of tell-it-like-it-is journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, and the subsequent beheading, dismemberment and disposal of his body inside the Saudi Embassy in Istanbul.

Others announced include against some of those responsible for the worst aspects of the systematic mistreatment of the Rohingya people of Myanmar, and those responsible for the sending to the Gulags of North Korea hundreds of thousands of innocent people in that country.

But now that the regime is published and the criteria for inclusion within it is known, we can hopefully expect a gradual extension of the lists of not only the perpetrators of the atrocities against Magnitsky and Khashoggi, but also the inclusion of others implicated directly in the genocide of millions of Uighurs in China, imprisoned in concentration camps to wipe out their sense of religious and cultural identity. We also need to see movement against the senior Chinese Communist Party officials responsible for the now internationally recognised harvesting of human organs from members of the Falun Gong community, among others.

And closer to home, with the threat to the basic freedoms of speech, thought, association and protest of 350,000 British National (Overseas) passport holders, and the wider people of Hong Kong to whom we owe a particular moral and historic duty, should we not be bringing forward in the immediate future sanctions against that city’s puppet of the Chinese Community Party, as identified in the Commons debate by Iain Duncan Smith, namely its Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, and her head of police, the latter of whom is directly, personally and professionally responsible for the sustained campaign of brutal police violence against protestors.

When it comes to eating a large slice of humble pie for suggesting that Raab risked not meeting the Conservative manifesto commitment to introduce a regime that delivered a truly effective Magnitsky sanctions regime, this column could not be more delighted than to have to ask, Oliver Twist-like: please sir, can I have some more!

In introducing the sanctions regime that he has, Raab has made a bold and decisive leap in the right direction. There is further to go, particularly into widening the scope of the regime to include a wider range, in particular, of human rights abuses, and we can only welcome his commitment to make further progress in that regard; but we can be proud as a party of what Raab has already delivered.