The UK government failed on 18 January to amend its Trade Deal with a measure narrowly defeated in the House of Commons by 319 to 308. Now known as the ‘genocide amendment’, it would have prevented the government from creating trade deals with countries found guilty of genocide by the High Court. The measure will be subjected to another vote in the Commons this week, however, following a reversal by the House of Lords.

The amendment was heavily endorsed by the opposition: a variety of lords, many religious groups, a powerful cross-party alliance of MPs, Tory backbenchers and several high profile politicians, including ex-Tory leader Ian Duncan Smith and Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee Tom Tugendhat. In fact, the rebellion, which whittled down the usual Conservative majority from 80 to just 11, has been the largest upheaval under Boris Johnson on an issue not related to COVID-19. 

Independent peer Lord Alton devised the amendment to allow British courts to decide whether a genocide has taken place. In particular, the amendment is a response to accusations that China is engaging in genocide against the Uighur people in the Xinjiang province. Reports of genocidal actions against the Uighurs are widespread, including forced sterilisations, destruction of mosques, and forced labour. Indeed, President Joe Biden termed the Uighurs’ persecution as genocide back in August 2020. 

International agreement on the characterization of ‘genocide’ is an issue left to the jurisdiction of the international courts. There is currently an impasse on when international courts are able to make such rulings as China can use its UN Security Council veto to block access to the the International Criminal Court (ICC). After the ICC refused to take investigative action against China in December 2020, it became clear the international courts offer no solution. And with such a close vote and a significant rebellion, the government is aware of growing discontent with current policy. 

One of the government’s main objectives post-Brexit was to pursue an independent trade policy. Politically, therefore, the amendment was an opportunity for Britain to set a precedent for their post-Brexit trading standards. Morally, however, it was an opportunity for Britain to set a precedent for prioritising human rights. 

Instead, the government focused on opposing the amendment, maintaining that it would be a fundamental denial of parliamentary sovereignty. According to Greg Hands, the Minister of State for Trade Policy, the amendment was “completely unprecedented and (an) unacceptable erosion of the royal prerogative and not something the government could support.” Ministers insist it should be the job of elected governments, not judges, to determine trade policy. However, some MPs have suggested that the sovereignty argument masked the government’s real reason for opposition: fear of Beijing’s reaction. 

Hands instead suggested that the government could commit to ensure parliament considers human rights records before trade deals are made. Nevertheless, there are two issues with this lacklustre hint of a concession. Firstly, it is an admission that human rights violations of states are currently not considered in the process of trade deals. Secondly, another measure requiring ministers to make a formal assessment of a country’s human rights record before striking a deal was heavily defeated by 364 to 267. Therefore, not only did the government vote against outright blocking deals with states who have committed genocide, but it also failed to even commit to making a formal assessment of human rights records before entering into trade agreements.

These failures are shamefully unsurprising. The UK does not have a glowing record regarding the morality of many of its trade deals. For example, reports have shown that the UK has licensed at least £4.7 billion of arms exports to Saudi Arabia and £860 million to its coalition partners since the beginning of the Yemen civil war in 2015. Indeed, we should already be concerned about the recently struck trade continuity deals the UK has rushed to make with Egypt, Turkey, and Cameroon—all states with questionable human rights records. 

Hope that the amendment may finally make its way into UK law does remain. A vote in the House of Lords defeated the amendment’s rejection for the second time last week. Voting on a cross-party basis by 359 to 188, the Lords forced the issue back to the Commons this week, where ministers are still opposing the measure. Lord Alton has highlighted how he adjusted the amendment to curb the government’s concerns around parliamentary sovereignty. The revised amendment seeks to allow the court to reach a determination of genocide before then allowing parliament to vote on the revocation of a trade deal with the concerned country. 

When the Commons again considers the proposal, hopefully MPs will vote to consider the UK’s new trade-making freedom not only as a chance to profit but also as an opportunity to demonstrate to the international community that a post-Brexit UK will seek to champion human rights.