Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 99)
TUESDAY 23 NOVEMBER 1999
MR PETER
HAIN MP, MR
TONY BRENTON,
AND DR
CAROLYN BROWNE
80. In respect of Saudi Arabia, for example,
there have been suggestions that we have been extremely supine
even in matters affecting our own personnel in, I believe, agreeing
last Christmas not to have Christian services at the embassy.
Is that still the policy of the Government?
(Mr Hain) I am sorry, Mr Chairman, I am not aware
of that particular incident but I will write to you about it.
Mr Rowlands
81. Can I ask your officials? Is that so?
(Mr Brenton) I honestly do not know. It sounds unlikely,
I have to say, but I will check it.
82. Finally on Saudi Arabia, on page 70 in one
of the claims of the achievement of constructive engagement, it
is said that the Saudis intend to accede to two major conventions,
including the International Convention on Civil and Political
Rights. Acceding to them is one thing, implementing them is another.
If Saudi Arabia accede to the International Convention on Civil
and Political Rights, what in practical terms will that mean for
people who oppose or wish to observe a different religion within
Saudi Arabia?
(Mr Hain) First of all, we have actually offered the
Saudi Government assistance with ensuring that that can be practically
implemented and to have a dialogue and a discussion about the
practicalities of that. If we found that that was getting nowhere,
obviously I would be very worried about it.
Sir John Stanley
83. Minister, for the record, could you confirm
that the United Nations Human Rights Covenants which China has
signed have not been ratified by the Chinese Government and therefore
they are under no legal obligation to bring them into law in their
country?
(Mr Hain) I think that is probably right. I will need
to check on that but I think that is probably right. But, as you
know, there are two stages in any international treaty or covenant
or agreement of that kind. First of all, you sign it. Second,
you bring it into force in your own country by ratifying it.
84. What steps are the British Government taking
to achieve a near-term ratification of the covenants by the Chinese
Government?
(Mr Hain) I will certainly pursue that and let the
Committee know, because I think it is a very fair question.
85. So you will give us a written response on
that point?
(Mr Hain) Indeed.
86. Can I return to the question which the Chairman
asked a few moments ago which you did not answer? He asked you
whether, following the whole series of major international visits
to China as part of the constructive engagement policy—the
visit of President Clinton, the visit of Prime Minister Blair,
the visit of the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner, Mary
Robinson—the human rights position in China in the British
Government's view had improved or deteriorated.
(Mr Hain) I think there have been some progressive
movements and I think there have been others which have not been
so. So it is a situation where we are promoting and encouraging
progress. Mary Robinson's visit was a very important part of that;
it had previously not happened. The signing up to those covenants
had not occurred and we will continue to encourage that.
87. I think you will find the signing of the
covenants actually did occur prior to the visits to which I referred,
and I would also put it to you that the answer which you have
just given, I would suggest, is wholly at variance with the detailed
reports which have come out into the international community both
from the media and from international human rights organisations
which have universally pointed to a significant deterioration
in human rights in China over the last six months to a year. Would
you not agree that is the case, that there is a whole series of
people who have now been put into jail for considerable lengths
of time and very, very repressive measures taken to remove all
sorts of different groups who are judged by the Chinese authorities
as representing some form of political threat to them?
(Mr Hain) Yes, I would, and that is unacceptable,
which is why we continue to raise it at prime ministerial level,
minister of state level and diplomatic level with the Chinese
Government.
88. Could you explain to the Committee how you
can produce an Annual Report on Human Rights in which reference
to Tibet is erased as surely as the visibility of Tibet was erased
during the recent Chinese Premier's visit?
(Mr Hain) I am not aware of any references to Tibet
having been deliberately erased. I am not, as it were, passing
the buck on this matter but I was not in post at that time, however
I do not think there would be any desire on behalf of our human
rights policy department or the ministers responsible to erase
any reference to Tibet in any kind of attempt to dodge the issue
of Tibet, which remains something we are very concerned about.
89. Could you explain then why there is no reference,
extraordinarily, to Tibet in the Human Rights Report you have
just published?
(Mr Hain) Chairman, it is a fair question and I need
to give you a proper answer to it.
90. I think the proper answer is quite clear,
there is no reference and I am amazed you are unaware of that
but—
(Mr Hain) It is not that I am unaware of it, I am
unaware of the construction you are putting on it. I do not think
there would be any interest or desire on behalf of this Government
and the Foreign Office to erase Tibet as a concern, which it remains,
on human rights on our part and internationally.
91. Are you not dismayed that there is no reference
to Tibet in your Human Rights Report?
(Mr Hain) (After a pause) I am told there is
a reference.
92. Good.
(Mr Hain) I thought that was the case. I think you
will probably find it is on page 28.
Mr Rowlands
93. Then the index is poor because there is
no reference in the index to Tibet.
(Mr Hain) I am responsible for many things in the
Foreign Office, but indexing the Annual Report is not yet one
of them, though no doubt officials might try to load it on me
as well!
Sir John Stanley: Minister, we will obviously
study that and if the assumption which I made, which was based
on reading the index, is factually incorrect I can only offer
you my apology. As a Committee we shall want to look very carefully
at what you do say about Tibet. I do not know whether, for the
record, anybody can read what it says?
Dr Starkey: "Agreeing to an EU Troika Ambassadors'
trip to Tibet in May 1998." Page 28.
Sir John Stanley: If that is the only reference—
Chairman: On the face of it, it is an historic
reference.
Sir John Stanley
94. It is fairly inadequate, if that is the
only reference which we had the utmost difficulty in finding.
(Mr Hain) Chairman, there are a couple of pages on
China around that part of the Report in which Tibet features.
I fully understand the Committee's concerns about Tibet and I
welcome your Committee wanting to return to the subject and we
will want to engage with you about it because Tibet remains a
matter of concern for me in respect of human rights as it clearly
does to the hon. member.
Sir David Madel
95. There is a danger that the Middle East peace
process will stall because of Israel's policy over settlements
in the Occupied Territories. America has long had very close economic
and diplomatic relationships with Israel, do you think America
could do more to persuade Israel to change its policy?
(Mr Hain) I think there are a number of comments which
could be made in respect of other countries' policies, but what
is important at the moment—and I am not trying to dodge
your question—is nothing is done to prejudice successful
progress being made on the Middle East peace talks which are essentially
bilateral negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
We want to see the settlements issue addressed in that as a small
start, and in some respects it is three steps forward, two steps
back, as has been made under the Sharm El Sheikh Agreement, along
with the release of prisoners, redeployment, the safe passage
being opened and a number of other questions which have featured
on the human rights agenda in respect of the Israeli Government's
policy. So I do not want to say anything which would prejudice
the successful outcome of those negotiations, but I do not complain
about you raising the matter.
96. I appreciate they are bilateral in the sense
at last Israel and the Palestinians are trying to negotiate a
settlement, but America is very much hovering in the background
for obvious reasons. Why does not the European Union hover a bit
more in the background? We have immense diplomatic knowledge and
skill in the Middle East and yet I get the impression we have
rather said to America, "That's it, you sort that one."
(Mr Hain) No, I do not accept that. That may be the
impression the hon. member has but Britain is repeatedly and enthusiastically
urged—and we respond—by those involved in the Middle
East, either directly as countries both neighbouring Israel or
those with an interest in it, to get engaged, and we do so. We
have an historic responsibility, we have a special relationship
with all of those involved, and we do not sit by and watch while
others engage more actively, but it is undoubtedly the case that
the Americans, both in achieving the break-through which produced
Sharm El Sheikh and in other areas, such as the question of the
Syrian-Israeli negotiations, the question of Lebanon and so on,
have been playing a leading role.
Sir David Madel: I am not suggesting we do it
immediately, I hope it will not ever happen, but there could come
a point when we will have to publicly disagree with the United
States. There could be a point when we will have to, and if we
do have to, can I have your assurance that the Government will
not shrink from having a public disagreement with the United States
if necessary on this issue?
Chairman
97. That is a hostage to fortune!
(Mr Hain) Chairman, I understand why the hon. member
is putting this question, but I simply have to respond, and it
will disappoint him, that I do not want to say anything, and nor
should the British Government do anything, which prejudices the
successful outcome of the current negotiations. However, I want
to assure him that that does not mean that we are, as it were,
passive by-standers in this process. We are engaged extremely
actively. I met President Arafat only the week before last, having
been asked to do so, with the Prime Minister in No. 10. We are
engaged in a detailed way. I am seeing the Egyptian Foreign Minister
later this week. We are not standing by and doing nothing, on
the contrary, we are very busily engaged.
Mr Chidgey
98. Minister, can I bring your mind back to
constructive engagement, which we were discussing a few minutes
ago? I wonder if you could reflect for a moment and tell us whether
there have been times when the Government's policy of constructive
engagement has clashed with your desire to pursue an ethical foreign
policy?
(Mr Hain) The point about constructive engagement,
as I think Amnesty recognised, is that you do what you can wherever
you can to advance things in a practical way. That does not mean,
as Amnesty also recognised in its 1999 Report, that if you cannot
do everything, you do nothing. What we have done more than any
other previous British Government, I would submit—and I
will be held up to scrutiny on this—in terms of constructive
engagement is to push the human rights agenda up the international
policy arena.
99. Can I take one particular example and I
would like to hear your views on it? We talked at some stage about
China, at some length in fact, and the fact that the UN Human
Rights Covenants had not been ratified. I can understand that,
obviously. Are you happy, or are you not disquieted, by the fact
that America has persuaded China it will work with China to sign
up to the WTO without some trade-off perhaps on accepting human
rights as well? Should this not have been a lever we could have
used, which is very much in China's interests, to pursue human
rights more strongly?
(Mr Hain) I am invited to speak for the American Government,
as I was before, and that is not a job I hold.
|
