The role of the United Kingdom
in promoting human rights and good governance
116. Our witnesses in general welcomed the emphasis
which the FCO had given to issues of human rights and good governance.
The FCO told us that the Government "lobb[ies] frequently
on human rights issues, often with [its] EU partners and the US."[274]
During our visits we were impressed by the contacts built up by
British embassies with local human rights NGOs, and heard that
the "open door" approach of embassies was greatly appreciated,
especially in countries such as Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan where
human rights NGOs unrecognised by the government found it difficult
to operate. The protective effect of this approach in Azerbaijan
meant that those NGO representatives who were known to have regular
meetings with the Ambassador had less trouble from the authorities.
An opposition leader in Turkmenistan, released from two years'
detention in a psychiatric hospital after attempting to found
an independent political party, went straight to the British Embassy
in Ashgabat: as the Independent Power Corporation told us, "in
his judgment, that was the most natural thing to do."[275]
117. Several witnesses emphasised the difficulties
facing the Government in the monitoring and promotion of human
rights issues in the region. Cecil Ballantine, of Amnesty International
UK, believed that a major problem in the FCO's effort in monitoring
human rights issues was one of resources:
"When you have vast
countries of enormous size with limited populations and a large
rural hinterland, staffed by an ambassador and two or three other
officers, it is very difficult, given the best will in the world,
to ensure that a full monitoring programme of human rights takes
place."[276]
It is evidently difficult for posts with small staffs
to undertake to monitor and report thoroughly on human rights
issues, even in the relatively small countries of the South Caucasus.
This difficulty may be alleviated by maintaining productive exchanges
with local and international human rights NGOs, as well as with
embassies of other EU member states and the United States.
118. Witnesses told us of the diplomatic obstacles
to the delivery of a clear and consistent human rights message
to the states of the region. Anthony Hyman told us that "on
the politically-sensitive issue of promoting democratic rights
and civil liberties in Uzbekistan . . . the British embassy has
repeatedly failed to get any backing from its European partners."[277]
We refer below to an instance of common EU action in Uzbekistan
which appears to have been the exception from the norm.[278]
While Mr Ballantine welcomed the openness of the Government on
human rights issues, he said that "a culture of human rights
within the diplomatic community", within which he included
multilateral organisations such as the EU, the Council of Europe
and the OSCE, was "only at the beginning."[279]
Mr Hyman said that the United States had shifted its policy in
Central Asia towards the support of authoritarian regimes, "which
unfortunately appears to have left the UK Government without any
firm policy vis-à-vis democratisation."[280]
Jonathan Goodhand of INTRAC told us that the Government had "very
limited" room for manoeuvre in this area: its priorities
should be to "keep dialogue and engagement going [in a] long-term
perspective."[281]
There are clearly difficulties involved in working in this environment,
and we are concerned that some of our EU partners, and the United
States, are not fully committed to making genuine advances in
this area. However, given the real significance and importance
of establishing human rights and civil society in the region,
we recommend that the Government, working on its own, and in
co-ordination with its EU partners and with the United States,
should act to give a fresh impetus to the monitoring and promotion
of human rights in the South Caucasus and Central Asia.
119. Mr Sammut believed that a subtle and nuanced
approach to human rights issues by Western governments, particularly
in the states of the South Caucasus, was of only limited value:
"the message needs to be hammered in forcefully, clearly
and loudly."[282]
We agree. We recommend that the Government continue to emphasise
that the achievement of high human rights standards is an essential
element of any true partnership between the United Kingdom and
the countries of the region.
Practical assistance from the
United Kingdom
120. Dr John Anderson said that "whilst it is
easy to offer pious declarations about human rights and democratisation,
it is difficult to find practical ways of making a difference."[283]
He suggested that contributions might be made in the areas of
civic education and the rule of law, "areas with no immediate
financial benefits for Britain but areas where investment may
reap benefits for both the West and the citizens of Central Asia."[284]
We agree that the provision of practical assistance in these areas
is one way in which the United Kingdom can actively assist in
the development of good governance.
121. We commented in our recent report on Foreign
Policy and Human Rights[285]
on the value of the Human Rights Projects Fund, a dedicated central
fund to which Posts make bids to support local human rights projects.
The budget for the fund in the present financial year is £5.13
million.[286]
Six projects were supported by the Fund in the financial year
1998-99, in Georgia, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, although in
the current financial year no projects have yet been approved.[287]
Funding for human rights projects is available from a number of
other Government sources: within the FCO, Eastern Department and
individual Posts can draw on the Wider Europe Command programme
budget and the East West Contacts Fund, while Heads of Mission
can apply for allocations from the small grants scheme administered
by the Know How Fund (KHF). The FCO gave us details of grants
made from these funds to support human rights-related activities,
including participation in human rights-related courses, publication
of reports by local NGOs, the raising of awareness of electoral
issues and the sharing of experiences of parliamentary practice:[288]
for example, two delegations of MPs from Azerbaijan have visited
Westminster since 1997 under KHF auspices.
122. The FCO also provides military and police training
and assistance through its ASSIST[289]
programme, established in 1998 to replace UKMTAS (United Kingdom
Military Training and Assistance). The programme's objective is
"to promote respect for civilian democratic government and
practices, the rule of law, international human rights standards
and humanitarian law within overseas military and police forces."[290]
Funding for ASSIST in the region is administered through Wider
Europe Command, which has an overall budget of £1.4 million
to allocate to thirty countries. In 1996-97, UKMTAS provided assistance
for all states in the region save Tajikistan: in the past and
present financial years ASSIST has only supported military training
projects in Georgia. An associated budget for English-language
training (ELT) has funded small ELT programmes in a number of
states, under the auspices of the British Council, and a substantial
ELT consultancy in Turkmenistan which is now funded by the Ministry
of Defence.[291]
123. It is unclear to us why this potentially valuable
programme has been cut back. There are serious concerns, indicated
above, about the behaviour of the military and the police in a
number of states of the region. It is vital to train police and
security forces to avoid abuses of civil rights. ASSIST-funded
programmes may be able to make a positive contribution to changing
the culture of certain security forces. We believe that urgent
consideration should be given to the establishment and development
of ASSIST programmes with states of the region wherever practicable.
TABLE 4
UKMTAS and ASSIST actual expenditure,
from 1996-97 to 1999-2000 (in £)*
| 1996-97 (UKMTAS)
| 1997-98 (UKMTAS)
| 1998-99 (ASSIST)
| 1999-2000 (ASSIST)
|
| MB
| ELT
| MB
| ELT
| MB
| ELT
| MB
| ELT
|
ARMENIA | 60,075
|
|
| 4,000 |
16,680+ |
|
|
|
AZERBAIJAN | 57,675
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GEORGIA | 38,805
| 4,696 |
61,742 |
4,000 | 42,054+
|
| 137,144
|
|
KAZAKHSTAN | 51,139
| 5,391 |
904 | 2,000
|
|
|
|
|
KYRGYZ REPUBLIC | 46,880
| 1,582 |
|
4,000 |
| 7,392 |
|
|
TAJIKISTAN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TURKMENISTAN | 718
| 4,348 |
|
28,588 |
|
30,923 |
|
|
UZBEKISTAN | 46,880
|
|
| 2,000 |
|
|
|
|
TOTALS | 302,172
| 16,017
| 62,646
| 44,558
| 58,734
| 38,315
| 137,144
|
|
* MB = Main UKMTAS/ASSIST Budget
| ELT = UKMTAS/ASSIST English-language Training Budget
| POLOT = Police and other Training Budget
|
|
| |
+ Includes £16,680 (Armenia) and £8,266 (Georgia) from POLOT Budget, now incorporated into ASSIST
|
|
| |
Source: FCO: Appendix 34, Evidence p. 216; Appendix 40, Evidence p. 230
|
124. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy has
a significant role to play in the promotion of good governance.
Its Chief Executive, Ms Alexandra Jones, told us that she was
determined to intensify the Foundation's activity in the region,
and said that its work has increased in Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz
Republic, Uzbekistan, Armenia and Georgia.[292]
She noted that no funding bodies were active in Tajikistan, because
of the dangerous security situation, nor in Turkmenistan, because
of the strength of its dictatorship. The projects outlined in
the Foundation's memorandum cover a wide range of good governance
activities in the countries concerned, from seminars on political
and civic education in Armenia to legal advice to the mass media
in Kazakhstan. The recent 33 per cent increase in the Foundation's
budget, from £2 million in 1998-99 to £4 million in
1999-2000, is extremely welcome.
235 Evidence p. 79. Back
236 Appendix
7, Evidence p. 128. Back
237
Appendix 29, Evidence p. 193. Back
238
Evidence pp. 28-45. Back
239
Appendix 33, Evidence p. 202. Back
240
Evidence p. 82. Back
241
Appendix 29, Evidence p. 194. Back
242
Evidence p. 31. Back
243
Appendix 9, Evidence p. 132. Back
244
Evidence p. 82. Back
245
Council of Europe document As/Bur/AKArm(1999)2. Back
246
Preliminary Statement of the OSCE Election Observation Mission,
Yerevan, 31 May 1999, available on ODIHR website: www.odihr.org. Back
247
Evidence p. 83. Back
248
Appendix 29, Evidence p. 193. Back
249
Evidence p. 29. Back
250
Appendix 9, Evidence p. 136. Back
251
Evidence p. 85. Back
252
Appendix 29, Evidence p. 194. Back
253
Evidence p. 29. Back
254
Appendix 9, Evidence p. 139. Back
255
Q75. Back
256
Evidence p. 87. Back
257
Appendix 29, Evidence p. 193. Back
258
Evidence p. 30. Back
259
Evidence p. 88. Back
260
Evidence p. 30. Back
261
Evidence p. 89. Back
262
Appendix 29, Evidence p. 193. Back
263
Evidence p. 30. Back
264
The title means "Father of all the Turkmen", and was
conferred upon the President by the Turkmen Medjlis in 1993. Back
265
Evidence p. 90. Back
266
Appendix 29, Evidence p. 193. Back
267
Evidence p. 30. Back
268
Evidence p. 92. Back
269
Evidence p. 92. Back
270
Appendix 29, Evidence p. 193. Back
271
Evidence pp. 30-31. Back
272
Appendix 9, Evidence p. 142. Back
273
Report distributed by Human Rights Watch, 25 June 1999. Back
274
Evidence p. 81. Back
275
Appendix 30, Evidence p. 196. Back
276
Q64. Back
277
Evidence p. 4. Back
278
See below, paragraph 138. Back
279
Q64. Back
280
Evidence p. 4. Back
281
Q65. Back
282
Evidence p. 25. Back
283
Appendix 5, Evidence p. 124. Back
284
ibid. Back
285
First Report of the Committee, Session 1998-99, HC 100. Back
286
Appendix 34, Evidence p. 216. Back
287
HC Deb, 11 May 1999, cols. 110-117w, and 8 July 1999, col. 597w. Back
288
Details of these disbursements are contained in Appendix 34, Evidence
pp. 216-218. Back
289
Assistance to Support Stability with In-Service Training. Back
290
Appendix 34, Evidence pp. 215-216. New ASSIST criteria were reported
to the House on 15 June 1999: HC Deb, cols. 117-18w. Back
291
Appendix 40, Evidence p. 231. Table overleaf gives details of
expenditure to date. Back
292
Appendix 35, Evidence p. 222. Back