INTRODUCTION
1. On 31 July 1997 the Foreign Affairs Committee
decided to hold an inquiry with the following terms of reference:
"To
examine how the Government implements its human rights objectives
when formulating and executing foreign policy, both bilaterally
and multilaterally, and to assess the extent to which such policy
can be effective in preventing or remedying human rights abuses."
2. The subject was chosen because the new Government
had stated that it proposed to enhance the emphasis on human rights
in foreign policy formulation and implementation. Indeed, the
1997 Gracious Speech included the statement:
"The
promotion of human rights worldwide will be our priority . . ."[1]
3. On 12 May 1997, the incoming Government produced
a statement on foreign affairs intended to form the foundation
of the foreign policy to be pursued over the lifetime of the Parliament.
This was called the Mission Statement. It set out four main benefits
to be achieved through the Government's
foreign policy: security, prosperity, quality of life and mutual
respect. This last benefit was defined as spreading "the
values of human rights, civil liberties and democracy which we
demand for ourselves."
These benefits were to be obtained over the life of this Parliament
by pursuing a number of strategic foreign policy aims, which included
the active promotion of arms control and the use of the United
Kingdom's
status at the United Nations to secure more effective international
action towards global peace. The Foreign Secretary, the Rt Hon
Robin Cook MP, also set out a number of immediate foreign policy
priorities to be addressed over the coming twelve months. None
of these priorities contained an explicit commitment to human
rights objectives, although they concentrated on building dialogue
and good relationships with "key
and emerging partners".
4. The ethical dimension of the Government's
foreign policy was elaborated in subsequent speeches and policy
statements. On 21 May 1997 the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary
of State for Defence announced that the United Kingdom would "ban
the import, export, transfer and manufacture of all forms of anti-personnel
landmines."[2]
On 9 June the Minister of State with responsibilities for human
rights issues, Mr Tony Lloyd MP, set out the Government's
commitment to an ethical dimension to its policy on the arms trade,[3]
and on 3 July he announced a review of the United Kingdom's
policy towards the major international human rights instruments.[4]
On 17 July the Foreign Secretary made a major policy speech, entitled
"Human
Rights into a New Century",
in which he elaborated further on the policies which were to be
implemented as part of the "ethical
dimension",
and listed twelve specific policies designed to meet the Government's
objectives in this regard.[5]
On 23 July Mr Lloyd stated that it was the Government's
policy to help to tackle the problems caused by illicit arms transfers,
and that it would be supporting an EU programme to prevent and
combat the illicit trafficking in conventional arms agreed in
June 1997 with a view to taking it further forward during the
United Kingdom's
Presidency of the EU in the first half of 1998.[6]
On 28 July the Foreign Secretary announced to the House the new
criteria which would apply to all applications for licences to
export arms.[7]
He also announced a ban on the export of certain electro-shock
equipment and other devices designed for use in torture, and stated
that it was the Government's
policy "to
prevent British companies from manufacturing, selling or procuring
equipment designed primarily for torture"
and to press for a global ban on such equipment.[8]
5. This new emphasis on ethics in foreign policy
was met with some scepticism. Some commentators observed that
for the Government to pursue a foreign policy which openly acknowledged
an ethical dimension was either undesirable—as
foreign policy would always be driven by a narrowly-defined concept
of the national interest—or
impossible to achieve in practical and consistent terms.[9]
It was also argued that the new emphasis was a misleading one:
the previous Administration had maintained an ethical dimension
in its foreign policy, but had not trumpeted its virtue in doing
so.[10]
So we decided in the first session of this Parliament to assess
how the new Government was implementing its human rights objectives
in its foreign policy, and to see what changes had been made in
London and in overseas Posts as a result.
6. It is of course unrealistic to seek at present
to provide a definitive assessment of the extent to which the
Government's
foreign policy is effective in preventing or remedying human rights
abuses overseas. Given the deep-seated causes of many of these,
a far longer timescale than the eighteen months the present Government
has been in power will be necessary. It will therefore be possible
to consider individual themes and countries in the light of the
policy. In this report we concentrate more on the structures and
mechanisms the Government has put in place and seek to assess
their likely success in delivering the Government's
stated aims.
7. The Committee took oral evidence from the Foreign
Secretary, from Mr Lloyd and from the head of the Human Rights
Policy Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We were
very pleased to welcome two of the Foreign Secretary's
distinguished predecessors, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff and Lord
Hurd of Westwell. Oral evidence was also taken from experienced
political commentators and from academic experts in the political
and legal aspects of human rights theory. The Committee heard
from representatives of a number of leading non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) with general and specific interests in the field of human
rights, from representatives of the trade union movement and from
senior executives from several leading multinational corporations.[11]
The Committee also received numerous memoranda from a range of
interested organisations in the human rights field. We are most
grateful to all those who appeared before us or supplied written
evidence.
8. The Committee recognises that the inquiry has
ranged across issues which, while falling within an area of policy
for which the Foreign Secretary has lead responsibility, are nevertheless
the principal concern of other Secretaries of State. We have not
taken written or oral evidence from any other Department in the
course of this inquiry. We recognise that the Secretary of State
for International Development in particular has responsibility
for the implementation of a significant proportion of the Government's
overall policy on human rights issues. On our country visits,
however, we met a number of officials from the Department for
International Development who worked in close collaboration with
their Foreign Office colleagues in the delivery of Government
policy. We also note the responsibilities of the Secretary of
State for Trade and Industry in the area of strategic arms export
licensing.
9. We made a number of overseas visits in pursuit
of the objectives of this inquiry. In March 1998 we visited the
United Kingdom representations to the United Nations and other
international organisations in New York: in addition to witnessing
the operation of the Post, we had most productive meetings with,
among others, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and
the Permanent Representatives of Malaysia and of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria to the United Nations. We also visited Washington,
where we met officials of the Bureau of Human Rights, Democracy
and Labor in the United States Department of State, leading members
of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and senior representatives
of a number of leading US-based non-governmental organisations.
10. In May 1998 we paid a brief visit to Geneva,
where we saw the work of the United Kingdom Permanent Representation
to the United Nations and had valuable discussions with Mrs Mary
Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,
Mr Michel Hansenne, Director-General of the International Labour
Office, and representatives of the International Committee of
the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
11. In June 1998 the Committee divided into three
groups in order to visit East Africa, the Middle East and South-East
Asia respectively. During their week-long visits the three groups
between them visited Kenya, Uganda, Thailand, the Philippines,
Kuwait, Qatar, Israel and the Occupied Territories. We are most
grateful to all whom we met for the generosity they showed in
the time which they spent with us, and the expertise which they
were willing to share with us. We are grateful to all the relevant
Heads of Mission and their staff for the hospitality they showed
us and the arrangements they made on our behalf. A list of our
principal interlocutors in the course of all our visits is given
at Annex I.
12. We should note that our intention to visit Myanmar,
Nigeria and Indonesia was frustrated by the refusal of the government
of Myanmar to nominate any time or date when a visit by the Committee
would be convenient, by the failure of the then Nigerian government
to reply officially to our request for visas, and by the advice
given to the Committee that conditions in Indonesia at that time
would not allow for a satisfactory visit.
13. We have been assisted in the latter stages of
this inquiry by Mr Howard Gilbert of the Law Department and the
Human Rights Centre of the University of Essex. We are most grateful
to him for his help.
1 
