Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
TUESDAY 23 NOVEMBER 1999
MR PETER
HAIN MP, MR
TONY BRENTON,
AND DR
CAROLYN BROWNE
20. But you do not know what the Government's
response was to that? The UN Security Council's Humanitarian Panel
proposed this in March of this year. Are you able to tell me what
Her Majesty's Government's response was to that?
(Mr Hain) We are doing a number of things.
21. No: the response to that, Minister.
(Mr Hain) I understand the point you are asking and
I am trying to respond to it. We want to see food and essential
medical supplies get straight through to the people of Iraq, as
is provided for under UN provisions through the oil-for-food programme
as straightforwardly and as quickly possible. That specific question
you ask helps address the issue. We are also, in parallel, seeking
to get through at this moment, and are making considerable progress,
extra humanitarian relief for the people of Iraq through the Security
Council's resolution in which Britain is playing a leading role
in seeking agreement on. We are very near a consensus in the Security
Council on that. That would provide for extra humanitarian relief
and that we want to see.
22. I would be grateful if you would write to
the Committee and tell me what was the Government's response to
the Security Council's Humanitarian Panel proposals in March of
this year, because obviously the Government's response would shed
some light on where the Government is moving on this matter.
(Mr Hain) I think that I need to come back to the
Committee on that. I was not in post at that time. It is a fair
question and I will give you a proper written answer to that when
I am able to do so. Can I say that I understand that Iraq has
today suspended the oil-for-food programme which I think is another
example of how Saddam Hussein does not actually want the provisions
which lie in the programme to reach the people who are suffering
so badly as a result of his policies.
23. You will be aware, Minister, that much of
the monies obtained under the oil-for-food programme cannot go
directly on the food. They have to go in other payments.
(Mr Hain) But a lot of it is diverted by him from
the people it is supposed to help.
Sir David Madel
24. From what you said, Minister, about wanting
to make progress (which I fully understand) on food distribution,
is it impossible to imagine progress as long as Saddam Hussein
is there?
(Mr Hain) It is very difficult to make progress. Indeed,
the people of Iraq who have suffered massively well before the
whole issue of sanctions applied under his rule. It is very difficult
to make progress.
25. If the Security Council came up with another
resolution on this matter, would you look to see the Secretary-General
of the United Nations going back to Baghdad, discussing and pointing
out to Saddam Hussein that a further resolution has gone through
on this matter and that he, as Secretary-General, is looking to
see Iraq comply?
(Mr Hain) That is obviously a possibility, but the
most important thing is to get unanimity in the Security Council.
We have been working very hard for a number of months on this.
We are very close to it, and that would provide extra humanitarian
relief, a much more effective inspection regime for weapons of
mass destruction, and the prospect also of sanctions being suspended,
triggered by a verification of weapons of mass destruction removal
and destruction.
Ms Abbott
26. You will be aware that Amnesty International
have said that current aspects of Her Majesty's Government's asylum
policy undermine the ability of the FCO and DfID to work for human
rights and that the Immigration and Asylum Bill is incompatible
with major international human rights standards. For instance,
restrictions or barriers to entry that may obstruct an individual's
flight to safety breach Articles 31 and 33 of the Refugee Convention,
and they cite other examples. Do you agree with Amnesty International
on that?
(Mr Hain) The Home Secretary of course is responsible
for asylum policy.
27. But you are responsible for human rights.
(Mr Hain) Indeed.
28. And Amnesty International are making a human
points point.
(Mr Hain) Indeed, but you asked me specifically about
the application of asylum policy and I think that question should
be directed to the Home Secretary.
29. For the avoidance of doubt, Minister, you
do not have a view on asylum policy as it relates to human rights?
(Mr Hain) The Government, of which I am a member,
has a very clear view on asylum policy, but detailed questions
on that issue should be directed at the Home Secretary, because
he is responsible for its application.
30. Even as it relates to human rights?
(Mr Hain) I have said what I have to say on that.
Chairman
31. You will recall that Senator Gareth Edwards
in Australia said that the strength of Australia's human rights
policy could be blunted by their policy towards the Aborigines.
In the same way do you find that any of what we are trying to
do overseas on human rights is blunted by deficiencies in our
domestic programmes?
(Mr Hain) Nobody is perfect on human rights, least
of all Britain. I have not, in the visits I have made, for example,
last week to Mozambique or India or to the Gulf States or to African
countries, found any criticism of Britain's human rights policy.
I have found concerns about the activity here of dissidents from
those countries, but I have not found any concerns about human
rights. I am not saying there are not any, but I have not come
across any.
Dr Starkey
32. Minister, one of the mechanisms by which
we try to influence the human rights behaviour of other governments
is by inserting human rights clauses in agreements between us
and them. This Committee, in its previous report on the South
Caucasus, drew attention to the partnership and co-operation agreements
and human rights clauses there and what I think we felt was the
lack of rigour in actually enforcing those once the agreements
had been put into effect. I want to explore that issue further
in relation to our trade agreements with Israel and our monitoring
of human rights violations in the occupied territories and indeed
the Palestinian Authority. The European Union makes regular monitoring
reports on human rights violations in the Occupied Territories.
What action do we or the European Union take to follow up those
reports?
(Mr Hain) Can I first of all welcome the recommendations
that the Committee made on the South Caucasus, and we have followed
many of them up and are doing so with the European Union in the
partnership and co-operation agreements which contain specific
elements and important elements in my view of human rights. We
will progress those, particularly with some of the worst offenders,
such as Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. In terms of the Occupied
Territories, I think that is an important area for us to take
forward. We continue to express bilaterally with the Israeli Government
our concerns on human rights violations, for example my predecessor,
the current Secretary of State for Defence, when he visited in
July raised the question of Budeiri, who is a British National,
who had his ID permanently withdrawn, and as a result of those
representations he had it restored. There are still many identification
card abuses in Jerusalem and elsewhere, and when we have the opportunity
to take those up we take them up very rigorously.
33. That example was of a person who is a British
citizen and one would hope that we would be looking after his
interests. But in the report itself it says that we regularly
raise with the Israeli Government human rights issues arising
from their policies in the Occupied Territories. It is obviously
important to raise them, but it would be more important if it
actually affected the Israeli Government behaviour. I would like
to draw your attention to what has been happening since the election
of the new Labour Government. There have been improvements in
human rights, but on the key issue of expropriation of Arab land
and building of illegal settlements, there appears to be no improvement
whatsoever, apart from the odd cosmetic demolition of 12 caravans
which, in a written question, you admitted included absolutely
no housing units. Twelve have been dismantled. The remaining 30
illegal colonies that were established immediately after the election
have been left and are likely to be incorporated into existing
settlements and the Israeli Government has issued permits for
the construction of 1798 housing units on expropriated Arab land.
That does not seem to me that they are taking any notice whatsoever
of our representations. When are we actually going to act?
(Mr Hain) Chairman, I am not sure what my honourable
friend means by "acting", but we do act as vigorously
as we can, both in our bilateral relations with Israel and also
in terms of pointing out that of course settlements are illegal
under the 4th Geneva Convention, and do not assist certainly any
progress on settlements, that is to say, any further settlements
do not assist the resolution of the Israeli/Palestine conflict
which we are actively supporting through the Middle East peace
process. Although some settlements have been illegal settlements
in the Israeli Government's eyes have been withdrawn, as a result
of the recent Sharm El Sheikh agreement, we want to see much more
progress and quickly on that. It is a key issue for peace and
stability to come to the area.
34. With respect, Minister, the human rights
clauses are within a preferential trade agreement between the
European Union and Israel, which is of enormous financial benefit
to Israel. That is an obvious lever. We have had those human rights
clauses within that trade agreement for years. All that seems
to happen is that reports are made, everybody says "tut,
tut", and that is it and we go on giving that preferential
trade access regardless of the fact that those human rights clauses
have been violated. That is what I meant: when are we going to
act? Otherwise, what is the point of putting clauses in trade
agreements if we are never going to activate them?
(Mr Hain) I agree that if you have a clause in a trade
agreement and you never activate it then there is not much point
in having it. I would want to see, and we have made it clear in
our discussions ministerially from the Prime Minister through
to my level in Government with the Israelis, that we want to see
an end to settlements. We do not think that Palestinian rights
will be addressed unless that issue is tackled, and we want to
see it addressed as a matter of priority within the wider Middle
East peace process.
35. How many more settlements will you allow
before we actually activate the trade agreement?
(Mr Hain) There is a very complicated process of negotiation
now between the Palestinians and the Israelis, which I know we
both agree, my honourable friend and I, should proceed and should
reach a satisfactory conclusion to the two parties. Settlements
is an absolutely critical issue in that, as are refugees, the
future of Jerusalem and other matters.
36. Can I raise a different but related issue
which is to do with the publicity given to these human rights
violations? We did make this point previously to the Foreign Secretary
that we wished to see the full texts of EU reports in the field
of human rights released, and the response from the Foreign Secretary
was essentially that the reports are confidential intergovernmental,
political reporting, and that there would be a possible danger
of releasing some of this information since it had been passed
to our posts in confidence. I have read all the detailed reports
and actually information that they include, which we do not get
until a good six months after the event anyway, is readily and
publicly available through the websites of Israeli and Palestinian
human rights organisations. I have got here a whole load of information
from a charity which is active in the West Bank, information which
I believe will appear within the next EU report when it is eventually
compiled. The information is public. The Israeli Government and
the Palestinian Authority know all about it anyway because they
are perpetrating the abuses. It does not come as a surprise to
them when the details come out. It is publicity for human rights
abuses which is the best defence against those abuses, so why
are we persisting in not publishing this information, which effectively
gives succour to the governments who are perpetrating the human
rights abuses and act against the organisations within Israel
and the Occupied Territories who are trying to get those into
the open?
(Mr Hain) I respect my honourable friend's concern
about this and I share them. The facts involved are often not
in dispute. If it is a question of facts being made public, that
is often not in dispute, publicly even. The issue is, and that
is the point that has been raised by the Committee which she is
pressing, the publication, the release in unexpurgated fashion,
of the reporting that we have received by way of telegram and
other means. I do not think that is a good idea because we often
get advice, comments, in fact we almost always do in these reports,
which I think would compromise, as I am sure you will appreciate,
Chairman, the position of our representatives in our missions
in post, just as putting our reports on the Internet would defeat
the whole objective of getting private reports from our missions
across the world.
Chairman
37. Essentially we are among the governments
which block the publication of those reports in unexpurgated form?
(Mr Hain) We are amongst the governments that want
to retain the kind of private communication from our ambassadors
and high commissioners in our posts around the world that enables
them to speak very frankly and openly about sometimes confidential
information that they receive in their contacts with the government
and others in the countries in which they serve. That is the important
point. The facts, which my honourable friend rightly wants publicly
exposed, are often not the problem. The real problem is the comment
and advice which are contained in these reports.
Dr Starkey: Then can we ask you to go back again
to the request we made before and to look at whether the texts
of the EU reports cannot be published with those particularly
confidential bits taken out but so that the full record of the
human rights abuses is in the public domain?
Chairman
38. Are you prepared to look at that, Minister?
(Mr Hain) I will certainly look at it, and if we can
help we will. Can I say briefly that it is not in our interests,
it is certainly not part of my objective, to in any way suppress
information of abuse of human rights. I want it ventilated and
shouted from the rooftops. I have a strong commitment in this
area, but the specific vehicle for that I do not think is the
correct one.
Chairman: Sir John was actually on that mission.
Sir John Stanley
39. Minister, I think you may wish to look carefully
at the text of your answer to Dr Starkey. My understanding is
that the full EU reports do not contain any advice from ambassadors,
whether the British ambassador or any other EU ambassadors. They
are basically a very much fuller factual statement of the various
EU Member States' embassies as to what is happening in terms of
human rights violations, both in Israel and in the area covered
by the Palestinian Authority. It is not, I think, acceptable to
suggest to the Committee that there are grounds for withholding
publication of the full reports because they contain advice to
ministers. You may wish to correct your evidence on that particular
point. The issue is simply whether the very much more detailed
reports can be put into the public domain. You may agree that
what is currently put into the public domain is extremely skimpy,
scanty version of what is available in the full report. The Committee
is asking you as to whether the British Government in this very
key area would give further consideration to publishing the full
factual report.
(Mr Hain) And I have said I will give further consideration
to that. I do not want to see anything other than full transparency,
but it is my understanding and my advice that all such reports
contain comment and analysis, so I do not think I want to correct
my evidence in that respect. If the question is of ventilating
and getting out before the public eye every single bit of evidence
of human rights abuses discovered through this route or others,
I am all for that.
|
