APPENDIX 14
Memorandum submitted by Amnesty International
UK
This submission has been prepared and submitted
by the United Kingdom section of Amnesty International. Amnesty
International has over 147,000 members in the United Kingdom and
more than a million members worldwide.
The organisation works to promote the rights
contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It campaigns
throughout the world to:
— free all prisoners of conscience;
— ensure prompt and fair trials for
political prisoners;
— abolish the death penalty, torture
and other cruel treatment of prisoners;
— end extrajudicial executions;
— stop abuses by armed opposition groups.
Amnesty International UK seeks to inform the
UK Government and Parliament on human rights issues and monitors
the development and execution of UK external relations policies.
Amnesty International is independent of any
government, political persuasion or religious creed. It does not
support or oppose any government or political system. It does
not support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it
seeks to protect.
The organisation welcomes any opportunity to
further the work of parliamentary select committees with written
and oral evidence on any subject that falls within its mandate
and expertise.
SUMMARY
Amnesty International UK welcomes the publication
of the second joint FCO/DFID human rights annual report and regards
it as a significant improvement on last year's initial report.
Wider and deeper understanding of how the Government applies human
rights principles enhances the quality of public debate. This
in turn leads to better policies. The human rights annual report
is an important component of the Government's initiatives to make
relevant information available.
It is important that the FCO and DFID jointly
prepare the Human Rights Annual Report. Both departments play
a role in the promotion and protection of all human rights and
presentation of the work of two departments within a single document
helps public analysis of Government performance. It might also
be the case that joint preparation of the report assists policy
coherence a unity of message. However, other departments of state
also have an important effect on human rights. Consequently, there
may be a case for finding a way to include their perspectives.
This is particularly important, as UK's record
has been poor in some areas. Although policy and practice in the
past 12 months reveals the Government's active and genuine commitment
to human rights, deficiencies remain. Human rights considerations
have failed to penetrate certain areas of activity and parts of
government.
RIGHTS IN
THE UK
Aspects of current UK asylum policy undermine
the ability of the FCO and DFID to work for human rights. Elements
of the Immigration and Asylum Bill appear to be incompatible with
major international human rights standards.
We regard it is a serious omission that the
report does not provide the outcome of a Home Office review of
the UK's position towards certain optional provisions of international
human rights standards. Regrettably, the Home Secretary chose
not to ratify, at present, those optional protocols that provide
a right of individual petition to UN bodies. This undermines the
FCO's ability to persuade other governments of the need to allow
their citizens direct access to human rights bodies.
CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT
We welcome the report's explanation of constructive
engagement. Nevertheless, we have growing concerns that the pursuit
of a "human rights dialogue" is accompanied by Government
reluctance to highlight human rights concerns in public. We do
not believe that meaningful dialogue can be limited to the private
offices of ministers or civil servants. The Government must resist
temptations. Amnesty International also recalls the Foreign Affairs
Committee's suggestion "that the Government establishes and
maintains clear and consistent principles for the implementation
of construction engagement policies". In the absence of such
principles and honest assessments of progress, a potentially useful
policy approach risks being brought into disrepute.
COUNTRIES
The report contains several summaries of the
Government's concerns in specific countries. Some of these summaries
provide a good indication of the scale and nature of the human
rights challenges. Regrettably, the discussion of human rights
in Indonesia and China is inadequate. We are concerned that this
reflects an inconsistency in the approach to human rights problems
in countries where the UK has strong commercial interests.
RIGHTS AND
CONFLICT
Amnesty International does not take sides in
wars, nor do we take any position on the use of force to resolve
international disputes. During the course of NATO action in Kosovo,
Amnesty International was concerned that the organisation's forces
may have breached international humanitarian law on a number of
occasions. Unfortunately, NATO has not provided substantive answers
to our questions. We currently have concerns about the respect
for humanitarian law of Russian forces in Chechnya.
CONTROL OF
MILITARY, SECURITY
AND POLICE
TRANSFERS
We remain concerned about the scope, transparency
and effectiveness of UK and EU controls of military, security
and policy equipment exports. Serious questions continue to surround
the efficacy of UK "end-use" controls, the Government's
Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls still fails to deliver
the transparency necessary for effective public or parliamentary
scrutiny. The DTI has failed to introduce legislation on strategic
export controls and has not addressed the need to control the
brokering of arms.
IMPUNITY AND
INTERNATIONAL LAW
The UK was the only permanent member of the
UN Security Council to take an active and positive role in preparing
the statute for an International Criminal Court. However, it has
been nearly 12 months since the Government signed the statute
and there is still no clear indication of when the necessary ratification
legislation is to be introduced. This is deeply regrettable.
THE DEATH
PENALTY
The Government's policy on the death penalty
is a credit to the "ethical dimension" of foreign policy.
It has proved willing to raise its concerns with a range of different
countries, including the USA and other important trading partners
or allies. At this year's UN Commission on Human Rights, the EU
was highly effective in gaining support for a resolution on the
death penalty.
UN COMMISSION ON
HUMAN RIGHTS
(CHR)
The report claims that at the CHR "a defeated
resolution may provide a propaganda victory to governments that
violate human rights, and thus may be worse than no action at
all". This is a contentious view. One must question whether
a greater propaganda victory is achieved by successfully opposing
a critical draft resolution debated in public, or escaping criticism
altogether.
Since human rights in China have deteriorated
so significantly over the past 12 months, we hope the EU will
reverse its policy of not introducing or co-sponsoring a resolution
at next year's CHR. Amnesty International has concerns about the
CHR's use of the confidential "1503 procedure".
THE EUROPEAN
UNION
During the period under review, the Treaty of
Amsterdam came into effect. It would have been useful for the
FCO/DFID report to contain an analysis of its reforms and their
potential contribution to human rights.
RIGHTS AND
CHILDREN
In June 1999, the International Labour Organisation
agreed a Convention for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of
Child Labour. The UK played a significant role in the negotiations
for the Convention, which seeks to protect children under 18 from
the most hazardous and exploitative forms of child labour. However,
the Government also lobbied to weaken the new Convention on the
issue of child soldiering.
Amnesty International UK is profoundly disappointed
that this year's FCO/DFID report ignores completely the debate
surrounding the minimum age for recruitment and/or deployment
of soldiers. In the tenth anniversary year of the Convention on
the Rights of the Child, the UK's position is deeply regrettable
and devastates the message it seeks to convey through its practical
assistance for child combatants.
SUMMARY OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
The publication of a Human Rights Annual Report
is an important contribution to public debate and should be regarded
as standard practice.
The FCO and DFID should continue to collaborate
in the production of the annual report.
The report should incorporate the perspectives,
policies and activities of other departments of state that contribute
to external relations.
Where UN Committees or special mechanisms have
reported on aspects of domestic policy in the UK, the FCO/DFID
report should provide a short summary of their findings, together
with a summary of any Government response.
The Home Secretary should review his decision
to deny UK citizens the right to individually petition UN human
rights bodies. Next year's Human Rights Annual Report should include
the results of that review.
Human rights dialogues with foreign governments
must not be accompanied by open or tacit restrictions on publicly
expressing concerns. In the next annual report, it would be useful
for the Government to list those countries with which it has a
formalised human rights dialogue. Achievements over the previous
12 months should be listed together with an appraisal of how the
general human rights situation has changed. Constructive engagement
policies must be guided by clear and consistent principles, subject
to rigorous assessment and open to adaptation in the light of
changing circumstances.
Although the Human Rights Annual Report is not
intended to be a country based report, providing a summary of
human rights concerns in several countries is a useful indication
of how the Government analyses different situations. Next year's
human rights report should also contain a number of summaries
of human rights challenges in specific countries. Amongst these
country summaries, the FCO and DFID should include a more detailed
appraisal of the situation in China and Indonesia.
The authors of next year's report should adopt
consistency of style and approach in their summaries of country
concerns.
Where the Human Rights Annual Report draws attention
to military action by UK or NATO forces, it should highlight the
standards of humanitarian law that govern our forces and respond
to any questions or concerns that have been raised.
The Government should introduce legislation
to ratify the Statute of the International Criminal Court during
the forthcoming parliamentary session.
Next year's report might usefully include an
analysis of the issues surrounding the inclusion of general amnesty
clauses in peace agreements, such as the one in Sierra Leone.
This should include an examination of compatibility with international
law and the Government's policy in this area.
Next year's report should include more information
on the achievements, lessons learned and best practice conclusions
from the projects supported by the FCO and DFID.
The FCO should continue its work on the death
penalty, including through seeking the adoption of resolutions
or declarations at multilateral meetings and through approaching
the Government of any country where it has concerns.
The Government should regard the protection
and support of human rights defenders as a foreign policy priority,
through demonstration of solidarity, political, financial and
other forms of support and by seeking to enhance international
standards and mechanisms for the protection of human rights defenders.
At next year's UN Commission on Human Rights,
the EU should propose a resolution on the human rights situation
in China.
The Government should seek to have the human
rights record of Saudi Arabia discussed in public session.
Next year's report should contain an examination
of the 1503 procedure, including an outline of the Government's
views on the procedure's use.
Next year's annual report should include a description
of the Amsterdam Treaty reforms and their contribution to human
rights.
The United Kingdom shoud raise the minimum age
for recruitment and deployment of soldiers to 18 and should support
the development of international standards to that effect.
When the FCO and DFID produce an annual report,
the authors should seek to highlight the main points of any relevant,
major international debate and should explain the UK's position
within that debate.
THE HUMAN RIGHTS ANNUAL REPORT 1999
INTRODUCTION
The FCO/DFID report roughly covers a period
of 12 months up to July 1999. Policy and practice during that
time reveals the Government's active and genuine commitment to
human rights. We welcome that commitment. However, deficiencies
remain and human rights considerations have failed to penetrate
certain areas of activity and parts of government.
This submission highlights the response of Amnesty
International UK to the Human Rights Annual Report 1999. However,
the Committee may wish to note that the organisation has published
its own audit of UK foreign and asylum policy. We have sent copies
of this audit to the Clerk of the Committee and the House of Commons
library.
THE IMPORTANCE
OF THE
REPORT
Amensty International UK welcomes the publication
of the second joint FCO/DFID human rights annual report. Human
rights should be at the heart of foreign and development policy
and it is essential that the Government should regularly provide
information on its activities to protect and promote human rights
around the world.
Wider and deeper understanding of how the Government
applies human rights principles to policy enhances the quality
of public debate. This debate leads to better policies. In the
past two years, the debate has been particularly vibrant. Consequently,
foreign policy is now more routinely judged by ethical standards.
The human rights annual report is an important component of the
Government's initiatives to make relevant information available.
It is important that the FCO and DFID jointly
prepare the Human Rights Annual Report. Civil and political rights,
and social, economic and cultural rights and interdependent but
the two sets of rights are often played off against one another.
Both departments should play a pivotal role in the promotion and
protection of all human rights and the joint departmental nature
of the report to underscore government recognition of that fact.
Presentation of the work of two departments
within a single document assists public analysis of Government
performance. It might also be the case that joint preparation
of the report assists policy coherence and unity of message across
the two departments.
However, promoting and protecting human rights
in other countries is not the responsibility of the FCO and DFID
alone. Other departments of state also contribute to the UK's
external relations policies and can have an important effect on
human rights. In the past two years, the joint annual human rights
report has become a key publication that the public would wish
to consider when assessing Government policy in this area. Consequently,
there may be a case for finding a way to include perspectives
from the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry,
the Treasury and the Home Office.
This is particlarly important as UK's record
has been poor in some areas. For example, in its execution of
strategic export policy it does not appear that the Department
for Trade and Industry has yet fully recognised the need to place
human rights considerations at the heart of its activities.
Recommendations
The practice of producing a Human Rights Annual
Report is an important contribution to public debate and should
be continued.
The FCO and DFID should continue to collaborate
in the production of the annual report.
A method should be found for incorporating the
perspectives, policies and activities of other departments of
state that contribute to external relations.
THE CONTENT
OF THE
REPORT
Amnesty International UK regards the FCO/DFID
Human Rights Annual Report 1999 as a significant improvement on
last year's initial report. It contains more detail on policy
and practice, and it avoids the temptation to rely on statistics
and lists of projects. Although there are some weaknesses and
omissions, it marks a genuine contribution to the debate on human
rights policy.
The authors have structured the report in a
way that facilitates an explanation of the Government's sectoral,
rather than bilateral, policy approach. The index of country references
is therefore a useful tool, since a single country can be mentioned
on up to 19 pages in different sections of the report. Given the
length of the publication though, analysis would be assisted by
a full index, as well as an index of country references.
PROMOTING THE
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION
OF HUMAN
RIGHTS
Since this year's report covers the period during
which the world celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the publication of the Declaration
in the opening pages is welcome. It serves as a reminder that
the UK committed itself to promoting and securing human rights,
nationally and internationally, long before the present government.
Amnesty International would wish to acknowledge the Government's
promotional activities during the anniversary year, some of which
are detailed on page 11. We hope that these activities are a starting
point for initiatives to build awareness of the rights contained
in the Declaration during the 21st century.
RIGHTS IN
THE UK
On page 11, the report notes that "if we
are to command credibility when we talk to other governments about
human rights, we must command respect for our own human rights
record". The point is well illustrated by the work undertaken
on the death penalty over the past two years. The full abolition
of capital punishment in the UK has provided the FCO and DFID
with the credibility they need to mount an effective worldwide
campaign on the death penalty. This campaign is a credit to the
"ethical dimension" of foreign policy.
By contrast, aspects of current UK asylum policy
undermine the ability of the FCO and DFID to work for human rights.
In a number of documents, we have highlighted our concerns that
the Immigration and Asylum Bill is incompatible with major international
human rights standards. For example, restrictions or barriers
to entry that may obstruct an individual's flight to safety breach
Articles 31 and 33 of the Refugee Convention. Serious questions
also exist around the Bill's compliance with Article 5 of the
European Convention on Human Rights (right to liberty).
These concerns are important. The UK receives
only a very small proportion of the world's refugees and asylum
seekers. Most are located in poor countries that can ill-afford
to play host to large numbers of people. The message that this
Government sends out in terms of its fairness, generosity and
adherence to international standards is therefore crucial.
On page 13, the report notes the visit of the
UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in 1998 and the inclusion
of Northern Ireland in this year's report of the UN Special Rapporteur
on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers. Although a criticism
of the latter is noted and responded to, we feel that more information
should be provided on the findings of UN special mechanisms and
hope that this deficiency will be remedied in future.
In last year's report (page 11), the FCO and
DFID noted that the government was "reviewing whether the
UK should accede to certain optional provisions under UN and Council
of Europe human rights agreements, particularly those allowing
individual petition". We regard it as a serious omission
that this section does not provide the outcome of that review.
In fact, the review led to a decision to ratify
a number of important standards, including death penalty instruments
and ILO Convention 111 (on discrimination in employment). However,
the Home Secretary chose not to ratify, at present, those optional
protocols that provide a right of individual petition to UN bodies.
This undermines the FCO's ability to persuade other governments
of the need to allow their citizens direct access to human rights
bodies. It is also important for UK citizens. The UN Human Rights
Committe noted during its consideration of Britain's 1995 report
that the UK legal system did not provide an effective remedy for
all violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.
The Human Rights Annual Report refers to the
Government's publication of a draft Freedom of Information Bill.
Amnesty International would welcome any legislation that enhances
our ability to make representations based on full and accurate
data. However, the current proposals contain well-publicised and
serious weaknesses that the Home Secretary must address. The access
rights provided in the draft Bill are not sufficiently robust
to ensure that authorities do not improperly, unreasonably or
unnecessarily withhold information.
Recommendations
Where UN Committees or special mechanisms have
reported on aspects of domestic policy in the UK, we feel that
the FCO/DFID report should provide a short summary of their findings,
together with a summary of any Government response.
The Home Secretary should review his decision
to deny UK citizens the right to individually petition UN human
rights bodies. Next year's Human Rights Annual Report should include
the results of that review.
ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL RIGHTS
Economic, social and cultural rights, and civil
and political rights are indivisible and interdependent. Chapter
2 of the report notes this fact and claims that both sets of rights
are equally important to the UK Government. The joint departmental
nature of the report helps support this claim. In many places
throughout the report, the text also underlines the interdependence
of rights. For example, Chapter 5 usefully highlights the ways
that poverty can undermine access to civil and political rights
within the criminal justice system. Amnesty International UK welcomes
such coherence of analysis and regards it as a first step towards
coherence of policy.
We welcome DFID's advocacy of a "rights-based
approach to development" and its emphasis on seeking the
views of civil society organisations. The report provides a useful
explanation of what the policy means in practice. It is also encouraging
that the department is beginning to undertake conflict appraisals
when preparing country development assistance programmes.
CHALLENGES
Constructive engagement
It is easy for policies to become sloganised.
The Human Rights Annual Report is therefore commendable because
it attempts to explain some of the policy content of phrases such
as "rights-based approach to development" or "constructive
engagement".
We have repeatedly sought an explanation of
constructive engagement and greater clarity on what it means in
practice. We therefore welcome the treatment of this policy on
pages 20-23 and believe that it conveys some of the necessary
complexity of decision making. Nevertheless some concerns remain.
We have growing concerns that the pursuit of
a "human rights dialogues" is accompanied by Government
reluctance to highlight human rights concerns in public. We do
not believe that meaningful dialogue can be limited to the private
offices of ministers or civil servants. There is a danger of "pigeon-holing"
human rights concerns into specific, formal and private meetings
that are held on the margins of bilateral relations. The Government
must resist such temptations and we hope that the Foreign Affairs
Committee will carefully monitor the Government's policy in this
area.
The report fails to allay our concerns that
the FCO has an effective way of measuring progress, accompanied
by a willingness to adapt constructive engagement policies to
changing circumstances. On page 20, the annual report states that
is "impossible to treat human rights issues as columns on
a balance sheet", a comment attributed to the Select Committee
on Foreign Affairs. However, Amnesty International also recalls
that committee's suggestion "that the Government establishes
and maintains clear and consistent principles for the implementation
of constructive engagement policies". In the absence of such
principles and honest assessments of progress, a potentially useful
policy approach risks being brought into disrepute.
Recommendations
Human rights dialogues with foreign governments
must not be accompanied by open or tacit restrictions on publicly
expressing concerns. In the next annual report, it would be useful
for the Government to list those countries with which it has a
formalised human rights dialogue. Achievements over the previous
12 months should be listed together with an appraisal of how the
general human rights situation has changed.
Constructive engagement policies must be guided
by clear and consistent principles, subject to rigorous assessment
and open to adaptation in the light of changing circumstances.
COUNTRIES
On page 11, the report states that it "does
not describe in detail the human rights situation in every part
of the world. Many other organisations do that already".
We accept that the primary purpose of the report is to illuminate
government sectoral policy and to highlight the practical methods
that the FCO and DFID use in promoting human rights. Despite the
sectoral approach however, the Human Rights Annual Report 1999
does contain reference to 118 countries. Although most of these
references are in passing and illustrate the projects or initiatives
supported by the UK, the report does contain several summaries
of the Government's concerns in specific countries. Some of these
summaries provide a good indication of the scale and nature of
the human rights challenges.
The entry for Burma points to "widespread
violations of human rights", cites Amnesty International's
estimate of 1,500 political prisoners in the country and the detention
of over 800 democracy activists (pages 23-4).
The report notes the Iraqi government's "appalling
record of human rights violations against its own citizens",
the "systematic abuse of human rights" and the "stark
picture" presented by the report of the UN Special Rapporteur
for Human Rights in Iraq (pages 24-5).
The section on Algeria recognises the allegations
"that elements in the Government have colluded with terrorists
carrying out massacres, and accusations that the security forces
have not defended vulnerable civilians effectively from attacks
by armed opposition groups". It notes that alleged human
rights violations by civil and military authorities include extrajudicial
executions, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrest, lack of
due process and torture (pages 26-7).
Chapter 3 is not the only place in the report
where specific countries records are highlighted.
The box on Russia (page 49) notes anti-Semitic
comments by Duma members, the murder of Galina Starovoitova and
Larissa Yudina (including a statement that the latter "was
probably murdered for her criticism of the regime in the region
of Kalmykia"), the cases of Aleksandr Nikitin and Grigoriy
Pasko, the failure to fully abolish the death penalty and worsening
treatment of suspects and prisoners.
The box on Belarus (page 59) notes "considerable"
restrictions on freedom of expression, physical attacks, harassment,
arrest and detention of government opponents. It notes that the
independence of lawyers is "seriously undermined".
Such references are welcome since they convey
the gravity of the situation in these countries and are an acknowledgement
that the Government understands the seriousness of the situation.
In particular, the entry for Algeria is indicative of a more sophisticated
bilateral policy response to that country's human rights challenges.
The Government has combined private discussions and public statements.
It has also quietly sought to move EU initiatives forward, whilst
at the same time displaying a willingness to adopt a tougher and
more realistic public position than that which emerges from discussions
in the Council of Ministers.
Regrettably, the discussion of human rights
in Indonesia and China is rather more muted. We are concerned
that this reflects an inconsistency in the approach to human rights
problems in countries where we have strong commercial interests.
Although the various references to Indonesia
do acknowledge "serious sporadic human rights" and concerns
about arbitrary detention, the references concentrate mostly on
generalities, positive signs of progress and specific projects
or initiatives. Whilst we understand that the Government might
wish to accentuate the positive developments that took place over
the previous year, we regard it as a serious failure that the
report fails to draw attention to mounting concerns in East Timor.
From the time that the East Timor ballot was announced in April
1999, Amnesty International and other organisations repeatedly
drew attention to escalating human rights abuses by pro-integration
militias with the support of the Indonesian security forces. Some
time before the FCO/DFID report was published, it was already
clear that these abuses were part of a well-organised campaign
to intimidate the population and to disrupt pro-independence groups
ahead of the ballot. The report failed to reflect this, and subsequent
events must again call into question the Government's policy towards
Indonesia and East Timor.
A trawl through the various references to China
reveals government concern about reproductive abuses, the jailing
of "several" peaceful campaigners in December 1998 and
a continuing clampdown on dissent (Amnesty International recorded
that 29 dissidents were sentenced to lengthy terms in jail in
the last few weeks of 1998 alone, others were sent to "re-education
through labour" camps). The report notes that there is "still
some way to go" in consolidating the rule of law and improvements
in individual legal rights. It states that concerns relating to
torture, the death penalty, religious freedom, arbitrary detention
and Tibet are raised within the UK and EU human rights dialogue.
However, there is a lack of detail on the extent
of Government concerns. No figures are cited for political prisoners
in China, unlike the entry for Burma. No individual cases are
mentioned, as in the case of Russia and other countries. This
is in spite of the fact that the report probably devotes more
attention to China than to any other country, with the possible
exception of Kosovo. Given that the FCO and DFID published their
Human Rights Annual Report 1999 shortly after the tenth anniversary
of the Tiananmen Square massacre, we would have welcomed a reference
to the continued plight of at least 241 people who remain in jail
or on medical parole following their convictions in the clampdown
which followed the events of 4 June 1989.
Although the Government appears to set great
store in its human rights dialogue with the Chinese authorities,
it is clear that the dialogue has failed to prevent a serious
deterioration in human rights. The current situation in China
is perhaps worse than at any time since the post-Tiananmen clampdown.
Commendably, the Government does at least now acknowledge the
positive steps as being "limited". A number of the positive
steps listed in the 1999 annual report were also detailed in the
1998 report. In the next annual report, we would wish to see a
year on year appraisal of any progress achieved in the human rights
dialogue with China, together with a more detailed discussion
of how the human rights situation has changed in the previous
12 months.
Recommendations
Although the Human Rights Annual Report is not
intended to be a country based report, providing a summary of
human rights concerns in several countries is a useful indication
of how the Government analyses different situations. Next year's
human rights report should also contain a number of summaries
of human rights challenges in specific countries. Amongst these
country summaries, the FCO and DFID should include a more detailed
appraisal of the situation in China and Indonesia.
The authors of next year's report should adopt
consistency of style and approach in their treatment of summaries
of country concerns.
RIGHTS AND
CONFLICT
Kosovo and Chechnya
The Human Rights Annual Report draws attention
to the NATO action in Kosovo following an increase in human rights
violations against ethnic Albanians by Yugoslav and Serbian forces
and a failure to agree the peace deal negotiated at Rambouillet.
Amnesty International does not take sides in wars, nor do we take
any position on the use of force to resolve international disputes.
However, we are concerned to ensure the protection of civilians
and other non-combatants in war and the observance of the Geneva
Conventions and other sources of international humanitarian law.
For over 10 years, Amnesty International has
recorded and campaigned against escalating violations of ethnic
Albanians' rights in Kosovo. We condemned the appalling atrocities
committed by Yugoslav and Serbian forces in 1998 and 1999, as
well as abuses perpetrated by the Kosovo Liberation Army.
During the course of NATO action, Amnesty International
was concerned that the organisation's forces may have breached
international humanitarian on a number of occasions. We wrote
to NATO repeatedly to express our concern and to ask specific
questions about the adherence of NATO forces to fundamental rules
of humanitarian law. Unfortunately, the organisation did not provide
us with relevant details of the rules of engagement or substantive
answers to our questions.
Our organisation currently has similar concerns
about the Russian action in Chechnya. We are concerned that military
forces are failing to adhere to humanitarian law, including the
prohibition of direct attacks on civilians or civilian targets,
or action against military targets which may be expected to cause
a disproportionate loss of civilian life.
Where the Human Rights Annual Report draws attention
to military action by UK or NATO forces, it should highlight the
standards of humanitarian law that govern our forces and respond
to any questions or concerns that have been raised.
Control of military, security and police transfers
The report draws attention to Government initiatives
to prevent the flow of military, security and police (MSP) equipment
where it may be used for internal repression or external aggression.
It highlights the UK's own export criteria, the EU Code of Conduct
on Arms Exports, the annual report on strategic export controls,
prospective controls on arms trafficking and brokering and anti-personnel
mines.
Amnesty International welcomes the entry into
force of the Ottawa Convention within the UK on 1 March 1999 and
the diplomatic work to encourage other countries to sign up to
the Convention. We are also pleased that DFID intends to double
its spending on demining operations.
However, we remain concerned about the scope,
transparency and effectiveness of MSP controls. We have commented
in detail and provided recommendations to a number of House of
Commons committees on this area. In summary, we have the following
concerns:
— Reports of the use of Hawk aircraft
over East Timor again highlight serious questions surrounding
the efficacy of UK "end-use" controls.
— Although the Government's Annual
Report on Strategic Export Controls is one of the most detailed
reports of any European country, it still fails to deliver the
transparency necessary for effective public or parliamentary scrutiny.
— The DTI has failed to introduce legislation
on strategic export controls, as recomended by the Scott Report.
— The UK has failed to introduce controls
on brokering of arms by UK or UK-based individuals and companies
and has failed to address the exploitation of loopholes in domestic
and EU arms export controls through the use of licensed production
overseas.
We hope that next year's annual report will
highlight progress in all these areas.
Impunity and International Law
In the concluding chapter of the 1998 Human
Rights Annual Report, the FCO and DFID identified the need for
a permanent and effective International Criminal Court (ICC) as
a challenge for the forthcoming year. This year's report highlights
the achievements of the Rome Diplomatic conference of June-July
1998 (pages 41-42). The UK government showed its commitment to
the establishment of an ICC. Indeed, it was the only permanent
member of the UN Security Council to take an active and positive
role in preparing the ICC statute. This was very welcome, since
with sufficient political determination, the court will contribute
significantly to ending impunity for war crimes and crimes against
humanity.
Before the Court can be up and running however,
60 states must ratify the statute. The government has stated its
intention to be among the first 60 states. However, it has been
nearly 12 months since the Government signed the statute and there
is still no clear indication of when the necessary ratification
legislation is to be introduced. This is deeply regrettable. The
FCO/DFID report notes that the Government is "continuing
to lobby for support for the Court with individual governments
and in multilateral forums". The effectiveness of such lobbying
would be greatly enhanced if the UK were clearly able to demonstrate
that establishing the Court is a legislative as well as a foreign
policy priority. We hope that next year's annual report will draw
attention to a successful UK ratification process.
In the absence of a working ICC, the world has
to rely on ad hoc tribunals to bring the perpetrators of war crimes
and crimes against humanity to justice. At present two ad hoc
tribunals exist, for former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda. As this
year's report makes clear, the UK has a record of support for
these tribunals, in terms of funding, provision of expertise,
collection of evidence and apprehension of suspects. This support
must be maintained.
However, in many parts of the world, the perpetrators
of war crimes, crimes against humanity and serious human rights
violations continue to act with inpunity. In Sierra Leone, a peace
agreement between the goverment and rebels provided a general
amnesty, allowing the perpetrators of the gross human rights abuses
that characterised the conflict to go unpunished. When signing
the peace agreement on behalf of the United Nations, the UN Secretary-General's
Special Representative added a disclaimer that the UN does not
recognise the amnesty as applying to international crimes of genocide,
crimes against humanity, war crimes and other serious violations
of international humanitarian law.
The amnesty in Sierra Leone contradicts fundamental
human rights standards and seriously undermines the obligations
of the international community to bring to justice those who commit
gross human rights abuses and grave breaches of international
law. It would have been useful if the FCO/DFID report had discussed,
in its section on impunity and international law (pages 40-42),
its policy toward the Sierra Leone amnesty in particular and amnesty
provisions in peace agreements in general. We hope that next year's
report might explore this difficult area in detail.
Recommendations
The Government should introduce legislation
to ratify the Statute of the International Criminal Court during
the forthcoming parliamentary session. Next year's report might
usefully include an analysis of the issues surrounding the inclusion
of general amnesty clauses in peace agreements, such as the one
in Sierra Leone. This should include an examination of compatibility
with international law and the Government's policy in this area.
RIGHTS AND
JUSTICE
Chapter 5 of the Human Rights Annual Report
provides a good explanation of the Government's approach to promoting
the rule of law and supporting the protection of human rights
within the criminal justice system. We welcome the Government's
more comprehensive approach of looking at law and order and justice
systems as a whole, rather than addressing its particular components
in isolation.
It is also clear that the FCO and DFID are supporting
a large number and wide range of projects in this sector. We welcome
this activity but hope that the Government has in place the necessary
project assessment mechanisms and will be able to identify and
disseminate lessons learned and best practice.
Recommendation
Next year's report should include more information
on the achievements, lessons learned and best practice conclusions
from the projects supported by the FCO and DFID.
The death penalty
As we have stated already in this submission,
we view the Government's policy on the death penalty as a credit
to the "ethical dimension" of foreign policy. We are
particularly pleased that the FCO took the initiative of establishing
a death penalty panel to provide insight and advice in support
of its activities on this issue. It is also encouraging that the
Government has proved willing to raise its concerns, bilaterally
and with EU partners, with a range of different countries, including
the USA and other important trading partners or allies. At this
year's UN Commission on Human Rights (see below), the EU was highly
effective in gaining widespread support for a resolution on the
death penalty, one of the few highlights of an otherwise discouraging
session. The Committee may wish to note that a resolution on the
death penalty is currently subject to tense negotiations at the
UN General Assembly. We hope that the Government's representatives
are being as purposeful in those negotiations as they have been
at other times in the past 12 months.
Recommendation
The FCO should continue its work on the death
penalty, including through seeking the adoption of resolutions
or declarations at multilateral meetings and through approaching
the Government of any country where it has concerns.
Human rights defenders
The individuals and organisations that draw
attention to human rights violations or represent victims whose
rights have been violated are crucial to the fulfilment of the
Universal Declaration and other international standards agreed
by Governments. As the report notes, in many countries human rights
defenders face serious problems including threats, intimidation,
forced "disappearance" or extrajudicial execution.
We believe that all governments should work
hard to protect and support human rights defenders. We are therefore
pleased that the Foreign Secretary visited Akin Birdal, the Chairman
of the Turkish Human Rights Association, when he was in hospital
after his attempted assassination in May 1998. The visit demonstrates
solidarity with individuals who defend human rights in difficult
circumstances and provides encouragement to them.
Recommendation
The Government should regard the protection
and support of human rights defenders as a foreign policy priority,
through demonstration of solidarity, political, financial and
other forms of support and by seeking to enhance international
standards and mechanisms for the protection of human rights defenders.
RIGHTS AND
MULTILATERAL ACTION
UN Commission on Human Rights (CHR)
The report's treatment of the UN Commission
on Human Rights goes some way towards identifying the difficulties
of negotiation at that body. The Commission is deeply political
and, all too often, human rights concerns are watered down in
anodyne statements.
Certain countries escape attention altogether.
This year, the EU General Affairs Council again decided not to
propose or co-sponsor a resolution at the CHR. However, the US
did table a resolution that was subsequently defeated by a procedural
motion. The EU has stated that it will keep its policy under regular
review in the light of developments in China. Since human rights
have deteriorated so significantly over the past twelve months,
we await with interest the outcome of the review before next year's
CHR.
The report claims that at the CHR "a defeated
resolution may provide a propaganda victory to governments that
violate human rights, and thus may be worse than no action at
all" (page 71). This is a contentious view. One must question
whether a greater propaganda victory is achieved by successfully
opposing a critical draft resolution debated in public, or escaping
criticism altogether.
Amnesty International has concerns about the
CHR's use of the "1503 procedure", which allows consideration
of certain countries' records behind closed doors. The FCO/DFID
report notes on page 70 that Saudi Arabia had responded adequately
to the specific complaints received. However, public observers
are unable to ascertain what those responses were. Given the seriousness
of human rights violations in Saudi Arabia and the failure of
confidential discussion to yield any concrete improvements, we
believe that the human rights situation in that country must now
be discussed under the public procedure. We also hope that the
next annual report will provide an opportunity for the Government
to explain the 1503 procedure in greater depth, including the
reasons that certain countries are discussed in private and highlighting
the Government's views on the procedure's use.
Recommendations
At next year's UN Commission on Human Rights,
the EU should propose a resolution on the human rights situation
in China.
The Government should seek to have the human
rights record of Saudi Arabia discussed in public session.
Next year's report should contain an examination
of the 1503 procedure, including an outline of the Government's
views on the procedure's used.
The European Union
As the FCO/DFID report notes, "the EU plays
a key role in our efforts to promote human rights worldwide, particularly
through the Common Foreign and Security Policy" (page 74).
During the period under review, the Treaty of Amsterdam came into
effect. Included in its provisions were the establishment of the
post of High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security
Policy (CFSP) and the creation of a Policy Planning and Early
Warning Unit (PPEWU). Governments have touted these innovations
as a means of making CFSP more proactive and credible. It would
have been useful for the FCO/DFID report to contain an analysis
of their expectations of the High Representative and the PPEWU,
including the ways it proposes to ensure that both are able to
identify, analyse and respond to situations of human rights concern
in a credible manner.
A further innovation of the Amsterdam Treaty
was the creation of a new CFSP instrument, the "common strategy".
Again, the FCO and DFID might have examined the potential of this
instrument and we would expect them to report back next year on
the human rights components of any common strategies agreed by
the EU in the coming year (in addition to the common strategy
already agreed for Russia).
One successful initiative that this year's report
did refer to was gaining support for an annual EU report on human
rights. Amnesty International welcomes this initiative and acknowledges
that the UK and Germany were primary advocates of the EU report.
Recommendations
Next year's annual report should include a description
of the Amsterdam Treaty reforms and their contribution to human
rights.
RIGHTS AND
CHILDREN
In June 1999, the International Labour Organisation
agreed a Convention for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of
Child Labour. The UK played a significant role in the negotiations
for the Convention, which seeks to protect children under 18 from
the most hazardous and exploitative forms of child labour.
However, the UK Government also lobbied to weaken
the new Convention on the issue of child soldiering. A proposal
for an outright ban on the use of child combatants was supported
by all African governments and many others from Europe and the
Americas. The USA, the UK and the Netherlands blocked the proposal
by seeking and gaining a reference only to the forced participation
of under 18s.
Amnesty International UK is also profoundly
disappointed that this year's FCO/DFID report does not just fail
to justify the UK's stance, it ignores the debate completely.
A reading of pages 83 and 84 would indicate that 15 years old
is the only age being considered as a minimum for recruitment
into armed forces or deployment in conflict. This is not the case
and in the tenth anniversary year of the Convention on the Rights
of the Child, the UK's position is deeply regrettable. By opposing
the outright ban on child soldiers that was supported by African
governments at the ILO, the UK undermines the message it seeks
to convey through its practical assistance for child combatants.
Recommendation
The United Kingdom should raise the minimum
age for recruitment and deployment of soldiers to 18 and should
support the development of international standards to that effect.
When the FCO and DFID produce an annual report,
the authors should seek to highlight the main points of any relevant,
major international debate and should explain the UK's position
within that debate.
| 
