House of Commons - Foreign Affairs

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Fourth Report

The dossier on Iraqi human rights abuses

12. 2002 witnessed the unprecedented publication of a document on the human rights situation in a single country: Iraq. In November, the Foreign Office published a dossier on human rights abuses in Iraq, entitled, Saddam Hussein: crimes and human rights abuses—a report on the human cost of Saddam's policies.[18] It set out details of the Iraqi regime's systematic disregard for the human rights of its citizens, including its use of torture, persecution of minorities and the frequent arbitrary killings that take place there. We commented on the document in our last Report on the foreign policy aspects of the war against terrorism, in which we concluded that, given the record of human rights abuses highlighted in the dossier, Saddam Hussein "would not hesitate to use torture and weapons of mass destruction against foreign troops and civilians if he believed this would benefit his regime".[19]

13. At the time of the dossier's publication, a number of commentators suggested that other countries had poor human rights records yet did not receive such treatment from the FCO.[20] During the course of our inquiry, these concerns were reiterated by Amnesty International, who drew attention to the fact that much of the evidence contained in the dossier had been produced by them, and other human rights organisations, over a number of years but had not previously received such treatment.[21] This inevitably raised the possibility, Amnesty stated, that it had been published at that time, "in order to strengthen support for possible military action".[22]

14. The Minister strenuously refuted such accusations in his evidence to us, stating that: "Given the concern about weapons of mass destruction, given we were going to the UN, I think it was absolutely right to bring home to people just how appalling and brutal the Iraqi regime is."[23] We agree. However, we were disappointed that the Minister told us that the FCO had "no plans" to produce similar reports on other high-profile human rights abusers, such as Zimbabwe and certain other, Middle Eastern, countries.[24] In our opinion, the periodic publication of reports on such countries would not only serve to meet the criticisms of the Iraqi dossier but allow the Government to explore its concerns and policies on the human rights situation in a particular country at far greater length than would ever be possible in the Annual Report. We endorse the Government's decision to publish the dossier on human rights abuses in Iraq and bring to the attention of the wider public the horrific abuses committed by Saddam Hussein against his own people. However, the Government's apparent unwillingness to produce further dossiers on other human rights abusers may undermine its good intentions for the Iraqi dossier. We recommend that the Government seriously consider publishing further dossiers on the human rights situation in other countries.

Human Rights and the War against Terrorism

15. In our Report last year on the Human Rights Annual Report 2001, we stressed that the Government had to show, "that human rights are central to its vision of a civilised world, and how it responds to the terrorist threat".[25] The Committee also recommended that a section specifically addressing the impact of the events of 11 September 2001 and the war against terrorism be included in the next Annual Report. We were pleased to see that this year's Report included such a section, in its first chapter, illustrating the priority the FCO had given to this important aspect of human rights policy.[26]

Coalition against terrorism

16. A concern that has frequently been expressed to us, and stated elsewhere, is that the Government has been prevented from speaking out on human rights issues as freely as it would wish to, owing to the strategic needs of the war on terrorism. The Annual Report showed that the Foreign Office was conscious of this disquiet and stated emphatically that: "We have not been deflected by the fight against international terrorism from raising human rights concerns with those states indispensable to that struggle."[27] It goes on to list the concerns it has in some countries who have an "important part to play in the fight against international terrorism," and gives examples of occasions it has expressed its concerns, publicly and privately, to the relevant authorities. (Pakistan, the Central Asian states, Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia are mentioned by name in this section.)

17. The Report also highlighted, in the context of the Central Asian states, the danger of certain regimes responding to the terrorist threat in a way that undermined the fundamental human rights of its citizens and could even encourage further unrest.[28] It stated that responding to the threat from Islamic extremism by repression, "risks radicalising moderates and may serve to prepare the ground for the growth of extremism and future conflict". This concern was echoed by the two non-governmental organisations (NGOs) who gave oral evidence to us—Amnesty International UK and HRW. Steve Crawshaw, Head of HRW's London office, told us that the idea of a state ensuring its own security by torturing people, locking them up and denying them freedom of expression a state was "patently not the case."[29] He suggested that Uzbekistan, in particular, had actively used the fight against terrorism as an excuse to imprison people, "whose only real offence is either to practise religion in their own way or to be critical of their regime."[30] (See paragraphs 63-66 below.) Mr Crawshaw, and the representatives of Amnesty, also identified Egypt and Saudi Arabia as being countries where the human rights situation had deteriorated since the start of the war against terrorism.[31]

18. The Minister told us that:

"If we want a longer term solution to the security situation then actually part of the way you achieve that is through the enhancement of human rights. The Government has said, quite rightly, that human rights is at the centre of our foreign policy approach and we say that not only out of altruism, that we want a better human rights situation for everyone everywhere in the world, but also because it is selfinterest, if countries have the human rights principles imbedded into their governing structures they are going to be countries that we can better do business with in the broadest sense but also countries that are likely to contribute to international world security."[32]

The Committee shares this view entirely. We commend the FCO for making it clear that human rights has to be at the heart of the international community's response to threat of international terrorism. The fight against such terrorism cannot be an excuse for human rights abuses anywhere. We recommend that the Foreign Office continue to stress these principles to its coalition partners in the war against terrorism at every opportunity, both in public and private.

Guantánamo Bay

19. The first chapter of the latest Annual Report also included a box containing details on the situation of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. There are, at present, nine British nationals detained at the naval base there by the US authorities, following the events of 11 September 2001 and the overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.[33] The Annual Report stated that: "The question of the detainees' status, access to them and the legal procedure to which they might be subject are complex. The UK has discussed these issues with the US and will continue to do so."[34]

20. We have inquired into the status of these detainees as part of our on-going inquiry into the foreign policy aspects of the war against terrorism.[35] In our latest Report on this subject we stated that:

"While we understand that the US government has obtained valuable information intelligence from prisoners detained at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, we are nonetheless concerned that the US government continues to detain many of these prisoners without trial. We recommend that the Government continues to press the US government to move rapidly towards the trial of these alleged terrorist, in accordance with international law."[36]

21. In that Report, we also noted the'Abbasi case', in which the family of Mr Feroz Ali Abbasi, one of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay, had sought by judicial review to compel the FCO to intervene more forcefully with the US Administration on his behalf.[37] In November the Court of Appeal concluded that, "Mr Abbasi is at present arbitrarily detained in a 'legal black-hole'", in what was a "clear breach" of his "fundamental human rights".[38] The judgement also recorded the Court's view that: "[w]hat appears to us to be objectionable is that Mr Abbasi should be subject to indefinite detention in territory over which the United States has exclusive control with no opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of his detention before any court or tribunal."[39] However, the Court felt unable to order the Foreign Secretary to do more than consider Mr Abbasi's representations for assistance.

22. Human Rights Watch, in its written evidence, stated bluntly that, "the holding of these detainees is in contravention of international humanitarian law," and Amnesty International expressed similar concern at the legal position of the detainees.[40] Amnesty also complained about the description of the situation in the Annual Report, which it felt to be "at best, oblique" and failed to answer some of the fundamental questions about the United Kingdom's stance on this issue.[41]

23. We conclude that the ambiguous status of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, risks undermining the United Kingdom's ability to speak out on human rights issues. We reiterate our concern that the Government continue to press the US Government on the conditions in which the detainees are held and on the need for them to be brought to trial as soon as possible.

Areas of concern

24. The Annual Report provided information on the work undertaken by the Foreign Office in a large number of countries and regions across the world, and through the wide range of international organisations and fora of which the United Kingdom is a member. In this section of our Report, we comment on some of the issues that have caused us concern, or which have been brought to our attention by those submitting evidence to this inquiry. Owing to the pressures of time and space, we are unable to explore in detail many areas that we would otherwise have liked to, but emphasise that the Committee retains a close interest in all aspects of the Foreign Office's work in this important field.

Countries of concern

Afghanistan

25. The 2002 Human Rights Annual Report presented in some detail a summary of the progress that had been made in Afghanistan on human rights issues.[42] It reported that, while there remained much work to be done (such as on the treatment of ethnic minorities), human rights had received far greater attention in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban regime. However, in its written evidence to us, HRW highlighted that the analysis in the Annual Report made very few references to the situation outside of the capital city, Kabul.[43] This was something that it and Amnesty International UK both highlighted when giving oral evidence to us. They argued that, although there had been welcome improvements in the human rights situation in the areas controlled by the Interim Administration in Kabul, local warlords in the rest of the country—such as Ismail Khan, the governor of Herat—had been allowed to tighten their grip on power, with a disastrous impact on the fundamental freedoms of those under their control.[44] The two NGOs emphasised the position of women outside Kabul in particular, most of whom have not enjoyed the benefits reported in the Annual Report: in areas such as access to education and involvement in political life. Similar concerns have been expressed by Miss Asthma Jahangir (Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on extra judicial, summary or arbitrary executions), who is expected to present a report severely criticising all the nations involved in the rebuilding of Afghanistan for failing to curb the activities of warlords, to the next session of the UN Commission on Human Rights.[45]

26. The Annual Report also noted that the presence of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul had been a major contributor to the relatively stable situation in the capital.[46] It is unclear at present, though, whether ISAF's mission will be extended to the rest of the country in the near future, if at all. In our Seventh Report of the last Session, Foreign Policy Aspects of the War Against Terrorism, we recognised the success that ISAF had achieved in Kabul and urged the British Government, with the USA, to consider carefully the possibility of extending its mandate beyond the capital.[47] In its reply, the FCO agreed that the 'ISAF effect' had made a significant difference to the area in which it was working, but that the international coalition had been obliged to conclude that it was "not feasible" to extend its operations at that time.[48]

27. We raised our concerns over the situation in Afghanistan, and the Annual Report's concentration on developments in Kabul, with Bill Rammell when he gave oral evidence to us as part of the inquiry.[49] The Minister argued strongly that there had been significant improvements in promoting human rights for all Afghans and that to think change would come overnight, countering deeply ingrained cultural attitudes was "unrealistic".[50] However, he accepted that the situation had improved far more rapidly in Kabul than in the rest of the country and regretted that there was "very little appetite amongst the current contributing nations to ISAF to commit additional troops".[51] He appeared unable to offer any hope of a change in this situation in the near future.

28. We recommend that the next Human Rights Annual Report provide full details of the human rights situation across Afghanistan and not just focus on developments in Kabul. We also recommend that the Government explore as a matter of urgency with the other contributing nations the possibility of extending the International Security Assistance Force's mandate to other parts of the country.

Burma (Myanmar)

29. One of the more positive developments of 2002 highlighted by the Annual Report is the "encouraging, albeit fragile progress" in Burma, which has been ruled by a military dictatorship for more than ten years.[52] In its principal section on that country, the Report stated that the Burmese regime's abuse of human rights remained, "widespread and systematic" but noted that there had been modest improvements in some areas.[53] It particularly highlighted the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD), in May last year as being the "most positive step" of the period covered by the Report.[54] We too were pleased to note these encouraging, albeit limited, developments, as well as the recent reports of the Burmese government seeking to discuss the country's "transition to a stable democracy" with the US Government.[55]

30. During our inquiry, however, the Committee received a memorandum from the Jubilee Campaign (a UKbased human rights organisation), highlighting the fate of the Karen, Karenni and Shan ethnic minorities in Burma.[56] These groups have long been the victims of repression by the military regime in Burma and the memorandum drew attention to the numerous human rights violations to which these groups were subject: "forced labour, forced portering, summary executions, the deliberate laying of landmines in civilian areas, torture, rape, forced relocations, destruction of crops, food stores and livestock".[57] It also highlighted the high number of internally displaced Karen, Karenni and Shan within the country (estimated at around 650,000) who, it reported, are forced to hide in the jungle from the Burmese military, for fear of being "hunted down and killed on sight like animals" or cross the border into camps in Thailand.[58]

31. Although the Jubilee Campaign accepted that all ethnic groups within Burma experienced human rights abuses, it argued that these three ethnic groups—the Karen, the Karenni and the Shan—suffered disproportionately at the hands of the military regime. It suggested that their plight did not receive the necessary attention from the FCO, which concentrated too heavily on political developments, such as the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Her release, the Campaign reported, had in fact been used as a "smoke screen for the escalation of atrocities against Karen civilians".[59] It argued that the British Government were sending the Burmese military regime the "harmful signal that political developments and political prisoners are all that really matter and systematic atrocities against ethnic minorities are simply peripheral issues".[60]

32. We do not entirely agree with the Jubilee Campaign's memorandum, noting that the Annual Report specifically mentioned the plight of these ethnic groups in its entry on Burma and referred to their forced relocation. It is also important for the FCO to put a strong degree of emphasis on political developments in a country, as the national political framework almost inevitably has a significant impact on the human rights situation. However, we agree with the Jubilee Campaign that political developments in Burma, and elsewhere, should be seen in the context of the wider enjoyment of human rights, especially for those from ethnic minority groups. We recommend that the next Human Rights Annual Report include more detailed information on the plight of ethnic minorities in Burma and on the actions undertaken by the United Kingdom to assist them. We also recommend that the Government and the EU maintain strong pressure on the Burmese regime to respect the human rights of all its citizens and to progress towards democracy.

China

33. The 2002 Annual Report devoted five pages to developments in the People's Republic of China.[61] It recorded that the United Kingdom retained "serious concerns" about a range of human rights issues there, including the treatment of Falun Gong supporters, the situation in Tibet and the continued denial of certain fundamental political rights to all its citizens. It drew attention to the continuing Human Rights Dialogue between the United Kingdom and China (and the EU and China), which had started in 1997 and was facilitating "slow but important change".[62] The Report also outlined the strategic objectives for the Dialogue.[63]

34. During the inquiry, however, it was suggested to us that, even with its concerns and reservations, the Annual Report painted too "rosy" a picture of the situation in China. HRW pointed out the omission of references to new controls on the internet, restrictions on journalists and the continued 'reeducation' of opponents.[64] It argued that many of the improvements highlighted by the Report were insignificant or superficial given the scale of human rights abuses in China. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) similarly stressed the continuing human rights abuses resulting from the often brutal enforcement of China's one-child policy, which, it argued, had been under-stated in the Report.[65]

35. We also note that it is not only Tibet where significant allegations of human rights abuses are made. Apart from the discrimination faced by some religious groups and the curtailment of their right to worship freely, there is evidence of abuses against a number of ethnic minorities and nationalities, such as those committed in Xinjiang province.[66]

36. Tim Hancock, of Amnesty International, also strongly criticised the Human Rights Dialogue discussed in the Report as being largely unproductive. He stated that: "we have been having these formal sessions of human rights dialogues now for some five or six years and I am not really noticing any difference. Discussions seem to be almost exactly the same each year with a different theme thrown in as a seminar... we have got to be more critical and have less engagement."[67] He went on to stress the importance of the EU co-sponsoring, or tabling, a draft resolution on China at the next session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). He felt that such a move would be an important "step in the right direction".[68]

37. The Minister strongly defended his Government's policy on pursuing the Human Rights Dialogue with China. He told us that the United Kingdom did speak out in public on human rights issues in China, such as the situation in Tibet, but that there also had to be a private engagement with the Chinese to move issues forward. The Human Rights Dialogue was a "healthy process" and there had been a "very robust exchange of views" at the last round of the talks in London. However, when we inquired further about the jamming of BBC services by the Chinese, using it as an example, the Minister confirmed that when the Report stated that the issue had been "raised" during the Dialogue, it actually meant that there had been no progress whatsoever.[69]

38. On the question of tabling a resolution at the UNCHR in 2003, the Minister replied that the matter was "under consideration" at that time.[70] At last year's oral evidence session Mr Rammell's predecessor, Rt Hon Peter Hain MP, gave a similar 'holding reply' and subsequently no resolution was tabled. At the same session, Mr Hain had also said that: "There is no point tabling resolutions which are continually voted down and which do not get anywhere; it is counter productive."[71] However, we noted that even though an important EU resolution on Zimbabwe was defeated at the last UNCHR session, the Annual Report's commentary on the meeting stated that: "[a]lthough the resolution was not adopted, the tabling and wide distribution of the text nonetheless raised awareness of the human rights situation in Zimbabwe."[72] We agree with this statement wholeheartedly but are disappointed that the same reasoning should not apply to China, with a resolution on its human rights record being used as a means to encourage change. We recommend that in response to this Report, the FCO explain why a motion being tabled but not adopted at the UNCHR can be helpful to raising awareness of human rights issues in the case of Zimbabwe, but not in the case of China.

39. The Committee appreciate that, owing to numerous factors, making progress on human rights issues with the Chinese authorities is never going to be easy or quick. However, we conclude that, despite the best efforts of the FCO, the rate of progress in the Human Rights Dialogue with China remains too slow. We recommend that future Annual Reports present a more honest picture of what has and has not been achieved by the Dialogue. We also recommend that the FCO give serious consideration to a fundamental re-evaluation of its work with China on the issue of human rights, given that the current strategy appears to be yielding few tangible results.

18 FCO, Saddam Hussein: crimes and human rights abuses a report on the human cost of Saddam's policies, November 2002, www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/hrdossier.pdf Back

19 Foreign Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2002-03, Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism, HC 196, para 100 Back

20 For example see: "Human rights report branded 'opportunist'", The Financial Times, 3 December 2002; "Human rights groups scorn dossier on Saddam brutality", The Times, 3 December 2002; "We are being set up for a war against Saddam", The Independent, 4 December 2002. Back

21 Q 13 [Ms Allen] Back

22 Q 13 [Ms Allen] Back

23 Q 168 Back

24 Q 168 Back

25 Foreign Affairs Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2001-02, Human Rights Annual Report 2001, HC 589, paras 3, 7 Back

26 Annual Report 2002, pp 12-16 Back

27 Annual Report 2002, p 14 Back

28 Annual Report 2002, p 15 Back

29 Q 17 Back