APPENDIX 15
Memorandum from Amnesty International
UK
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Amnesty International works to promote the rights
contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 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 and
"disappearances";
— Stop abuses of human rights by armed
opposition groups.
Amnesty International takes no position on the
use or otherwise of arms embargoes, boycotts and other sanctions,
or the arms trade per se. Amnesty International is, however, opposed
to military, security and police transfers that contribute to
human rights violations as outlined above. In our opinion, governments
have a responsibility to ensure that such MSP transfers do not
contribute to grave and serious human rights violations either
by governments or by armed opposition groups.
Amnesty International has over 1 million members
and subscribers in more than 100 countries. Our membership in
the UK totals 150,000.
INTRODUCTION
1. Amnesty International UK welcomes the
Government's decision to review the ECGD's mission and status
and the opportunity to offer our views as part of the public consultation.
2. Since coming to office, the Government
has made a genuine and active commitment to human rights in a
variety of areas. At the same time, however, some parts of government
appear to be out of step with the Government's developing human
rights policy. The review of the ECGD's mission and status thus
provides a clear opportunity for the Government to further integrate
its commitment to human rights throughout all departments.
MISSION
3. The aim of the ECGD, as set out in its
Mission Statement, is "to help exporters of UK goods and
services to win business, and UK firms to invest overseas, by
providing guarantees, insurance and reinsurance against loss."
However, there is currently no mention of any ethical criteria
by which such business might be assessed.
4. In keeping with the Government's stated
commitment to human rights and the UK's ratification of international
human rights law, Amnesty International believes that human rights
observance should become a high-level objective of the ECGD and
incorporated into its mission statement. The following criteria
should be explicit in the ECGD's terms of reference for assessing
projects:
1. Ensuring that projects do not contribute
to violations of international human rights law
Amnesty International is particularly concerned
that the ECGD should not provide support for tansfers of arms
and equipment which are used to commit human rights violations
abroad. In July 1997, the Government issued human rights guidelines
which the Department of Trade and Industry is obliged to refer
to in its role as controller of exports. These guidelines state
that "the Government will not issue an export licence if
there is a clearly identifiable risk that the proposed export
might be used for internal repression."
Despite the existence of such guidelines, Amnesty
International is concerned that shortcomings in the current export
control system still allow UK companies to sell arms and equipment
which are used by those responsible for committing human rights
violations. For this reason, we believe it is essential that additional
guidelines are introduced which set out strict human rights criteria
by which ECGD operations should be governed. This would be consistent
with emerging public opinion. According to a recently conducted
opinion poll, 88 per cent of the public want tougher controls
on arms exports than currently exist.[23]
Amnesty International recommends that the ECGD
Mission Statement should refer to human rights criteria which
state that the ECGD will not issue guarantees and insurance policies
for the export of UK arms and equipment unless it can reasonably
be demonstrated that such transfers will not contribute to human
rights violations.
These criteria must take account of the following
loopholes in the current system:
(a) Joint ventures. A UK company
may enter into a joint venture with a company abroad in which
the UK company provides its partner company with goods which are
then assembled into a final product. If the goods provided by
the UK company are registered as civilian, an export licence will
not required. The final product, however, may be of military,
security or police use and could be exported by the partner company
to a country where it is used to commit human rights abuses.
Given these circumstances, the ECGD should not
underwrite transactions in which the final products, if capable
of being used for military, security or police purposes, are exported
from a second country.
(b) End-use monitoring. Even in cases
where UK companies are exporting arms and security equipment directly
from the UK, there is no guarantee that these exports will not
be used to commit human rights abuses abroad. Former Foreign Office
Minister Geoffrey Hoon MP, has acknowledged that "no formal
mechanisms exist at present for systematically monitoring the
use of British defence equipment once it has been exported.
" The implications of this failing were highlighted on 15
July 1999, when the Chief of the Indonesian Armed Forces admitted
that a British-made Hawk jet flew over Dili, despite assurances
from the Indonesian authorities to the UK Government that Hawk
jets would not be used in East Timor.
In order to ensure that UK arms and equipment
sales underwritten by the ECGD do not contribute to human rights
abuses abroad, an effective system of end-use monitoring should
be put in place.
2. Positively encouraging exporters to be
aware of the human rights context of their operations
Amnesty International believes that exporters
should be encouraged to adopt explicit policies to safeguard human
rights and that such policies should include the following elements:
— integration of human rights considerations
into project planning and risk analysis;
— ensuring that security arrangements
are consistent with international standards for law enforcement;
— consulting and engaging with those
whose rights might be affected by the company's operations;
— avoiding discrimination on grounds
of race, gender, ethnic origin, sexuality, religion, political
or other conscientiously held beliefs;
— ensuring that neither the company
nor its suppliers, partners or sub-contractors use forced labour,
prison labour or bonded child labour;
— preventing all forms of cruel, inhumane
and degrading treatment.
These elements are set out in some detail in
the Human Rights Guidelines for Companies produced by the
Business Group of Amnesty International UK.
STRIKING THE
BALANCE
5. A commitment to give effect to international
human rights law should underpin the activities of ECGD in the
same way as adherence to UK law. The adoption of these standards
should not be viewed as an "add-on" to be traded
off against other factors. They should be regarded as indispensable
and indivisible from other objectives.
6. In contending that the furtherance of
international human rights instruments should be viewed as indivisible
from ECGD's other objectives, Amnesty International UK is not
only invoking arguments of morality or of the status of international
law. The building blocks of human rights protection—the
rule of law, government accountability, independence of the judiciary,
freedom of conscience—are key elements in creating a stable
climate for business. Whilst business flourishes in stable socieities
it is threatened by the uncertain social, economic and political
conditions produced by repeated human rights violations.
7. The persistence of civil unrest in parts
of South East Asia, Africa and Latin America illustrates that
repression and the absence of human rights are not conducive to
long-term stability. Sir John Browne, chief executive of BP Amoco,
has recognised that this view runs "directly contrary,
of course, to the common belief that companies find it easier
to deal with the apparent stability of repressive regimes than
to manage the uncertainties of democracy. In fact stability built
on repression is always false. Sooner or later the waters break
the dam".[24]
8. Promotion of human rights is not only
in the interests of UK business, but also in the national interest.
This was recognised by the Prime Minister in his Chicago speech
of April 1999, in which he affirmed that international security
is subject to global inter-dependence and that we cannot turn
our backs on conflicts and human rights violations in other countries
if we want to be secure ourselves.
9. Amnesty Internatinal recommends that
ECGD's mission and operational policies should reflect the emerging
view that protection of human rights is conducive to the long-term
interests of business.
STATUS AND
STRUCTURE
10. The status and structure of ECGD should
reflect the ethical dimension of its mission with regard to:
— standardisation and integration of
policy across government departments;
— accountability to Parliament and
transparency of operations;
— avoidance of conflicts of interest.
1. Standardisation and integration of policy
across government departments
Incorporating human rights criteria into the
ECGD's Mission Statement will help contribute to the establishment
of policy coherence across government departments. However, as
long as the ECGD is only accountable to a single government department,
integration in practice is unlikely to happen. Amnesty International
recommends that, in situations where projects seeking export credit
guarantees are likely to have a human rights impact, relevant
offices within the FCO and DFID should be consulted. If the ECGD's
services were to be contracted out or privatised, then cross-departmental
integration of its operations would be compromised.
2. Accountability and transparency
The use of taxpayers' money by the ECGD to underwrite
transactions places a great onus on the department to report its
operations to the public. Accordingly, Amnesty International recommends
that the ECGD should be obliged to provide much more detailed
Annual Reports than is currently the case and that future Annual
Reports should be subject to a Parliamentary debate. The Annual
Report should list all projects currently being underwritten,
giving details of the value and type of exports, as well as their
final destination and end-user. The Annual Report should also
seek to explain how the human rights criteria in the mission statement
have informed decisions made by the ECGD on whether to underwrite
particular projects.
Indeed, transparency with regard to all aspects
of ECGD's decision-making processes and project monitoring is
an essential condition to ensure that human rights considerations
are met. Transparency is also necessary to underpin accountability
to Parliament, ensure the avoidance of conflict of interest and
support the integration of policy across government departments.
In the past, Amnesty International has argued
for public and Parliamentary scrutiny of arms export licence applications.
As a first step towards greater transparency, we have called for
a new Parliamentary committee to be established, with responsibility
for scrutinising licence applications to sensitive destinations
prior to the licences being granted. Amnesty International considers
that it would also be appropriate for such a committee to scrutinise
sensitive applications to the ECGD, before the decision to underwrite
them is finally granted. The most effective form of transparency,
however, would be public disclosure in advance of all ECGD applications
for projects involving military, security and police transfers.
3. Avoidance of conflict of interest
The Scott Report drew attention to the fact
that the DTI holds responsibility for both promoting and licensing
exports, a dual role which brings into question the extent to
which current export controls are weighted in favour of granting
licences. Although the DTI is required to consult the FCO, the
MOD and DFID on licences which may be of concern to these other
departments, it does not always heed their advice. Indeed, it
was recently reported by the International Development Committee
that the DTI approved export licences to Eritrea and Indonesia,
despite the fact that objections had been raised on those exports
by the Department for International Development.
In the case of the ECGD, Amnesty International
believes it is essential that members of its Advisory Council
publicly declare conflicts of interest if they arise. No individual
should participate in an ECGD decision if they are obligated,
through any form of contractual or kinship relationship, to any
company, organisation or individual benefiting from that decision.
In order for the public to be reassured that such conflict of
interest situations are being avoided, full transparency as outlined
above is clearly essential.
Amnesty International
October 1999
23 The opinion poll was conducted for Oxfam in May
1999. 495 adults between the ages of 19-64 were questioned in
25 city centres at sample points across the UK. Back
24
J Browne, "Corporate Responsibility in an International Context",
address to Council on Foreign Relations, New York, 17 November
1977. Back
| 
