House of Commons - Foreign Affairs

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Fourth Report

EU candidate countries

40. The prospect of membership of the European Union has undoubtedly been an enormous catalyst for change in the countries of central, eastern and south-eastern Europe, in political and economic terms, and in their respect for humans rights. Previous Annual Reports have commented on the progress made by the candidate countries, such as Poland and Slovakia, toward satisfying the political standards for membership set by the EU in 1993 (the so-called 'Copenhagen criteria'). As the 2002 Report noted, these included the need to achieve: "stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for, and protection of minorities".[73] The candidate countries have made great progress toward meeting these objectives and ten of them successfully completed negotiations with the EU in December of last year. While the overall situation is very positive, we retain concerns about specific human rights issues in several European countries and two in particular have been drawn to our attention during the course of this inquiry.

41. There is no direct reference to Estonia or Latvia in the 2002 Annual Report, but previous reports had noted the problems associated with "the integration of noncitizens" into Estonian and Latvian society.[74] In its written evidence to us, Amnesty International noted that the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) had concluded in August 2002 that:

"The Committee remains concerned about the very high number of stateless persons residing in Estonia. Although it welcomes the fact that the naturalization procedure has been made easier for children and disabled persons, the Committee notes the existence of a significant discrepancy between the number of people passing the language proficiency test and those effectively filing applications and acquiring Estonian citizenship. ... The Committee also calls for a speedy resolution of the issue concerning the difficulties in obtaining citizenship for children born in Estonia of longterm residents whose legal status has not yet been determined."[75]

42. Latest estimates suggest that approximately 165,000 'non-citizens' in Estonia and 504,000 in Latvia are affected by this situation.[76] After the country's expected accession to the EU, the differences between them and other citizens will be more sharply highlighted as they will fail to enjoy the same rights of freedom to travel and work across the Union.[77] The Government recently stated, in response to a written parliamentary question, that: "the UK presently requires non-citizens in Estonia and Latvia who hold special passports, in common with other stateless persons, to obtain a visa before travelling to the UK for any purpose. At present, there are no plans to change this requirement after Estonia and Latvia join the EU".[78] While the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) had examined these issues they nevertheless closed the OSCE Mission to Estonia in December 2001.[79] Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE visited Estonia prior to the closure of the mission (but after the decision to close had been made by the Permanent Representatives) and expressed their concern about the unresolved status of these people and deemed that the closure of the mission was premature.

43. We discussed our concerns over Estonia and Latvia with the Minister, who assured us that, although he felt great progress had been made on this issue, the situation there would continue to be monitored.[80] The Committee was also pleased to receive additional information from the Minister on the situation of stateless persons in Estonia, and Latvia, subsequent to the evidence session, which highlighted the progress that had already been made.[81] We conclude that this is a wholly inadequate response. It is an issue that goes to the heart of the 'Copenhagen criteria' and should have been resolved prior to agreement on EU accession. We recommend that the EU and the United Kingdom continue to monitor the human rights situation in the candidate countries of the EU, and attempt to ensure that the momentum for change in those nations joining the Union in 2004 has not been lost following the Copenhagen Council.

44. The second applicant state we raise in this context is the largest, Turkey. The latest Annual Report outlined a number of positive improvements in the country—such as the abolition of the death penalty and the modernisation of the prison system—and the United Kingdom's support for projects such as guidance on human rights for the police force.[82] Both the Annual Report and the evidence we have received agreed that there had been significant improvements in Turkey's human rights record and that EU candidacy had been a major stimulus for that change. However, Tim Hancock of Amnesty International expressed his concern that: "people are focusing on reforms that have been espoused in law, and thinking that reform announcements means reforms on the ground."[83] This was reiterated in Amnesty's supplementary memorandum, following the session, which welcomed the recent election of a new government in Turkey, but stated that: "Last year [2002], Amnesty International found that all the factors that contribute to the persistence of systematic torture and impunity for perpetrators were still in place."[84] We also understand that Turkey has still not abolished the death penalty for offences committed in "time of war or imminent threat of war", which we believe to be comparable to the United Kingdom offence of 'treason'.[85] It was only relatively recently, in 1998, that treason ceased to be a capital offence in the United Kingdom; it was amended in accordance with obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights and other treaties.

45. We have reported on Turkey before, welcomed the progress made and recommended that the Government "speak out forthrightly in defence of Turkey's EU candidacy".[86] We also, however, recognised the progress that it still needed to make in many important areas, including respect for human rights at all levels of public life, before its accession would be fully viable. We recommend that the United Kingdom continue to offer Turkey every possible support in improving its human rights situation as it prepares for accession to the European Union.

Hong Kong

46. In September 2002, the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of the Peoples' Republic of China, Mr Tung CheeHwa, launched a threemonth consultation process on its proposals to implement Article 23 of Hong Kong's Basic Law. The Basic Law is essentially Hong Kong's constitution and sets out the principle of 'one country, two systems'. It came into force at the time of the Territory's handover from Britain to China (1 July 1997).[87] Article 23 states that the HKSAR:

"shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government (CPG), or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies."[88]

47. At the time of the consultation's launch, Mr Tung stated that: "our proposals would not undermine in any way the existing human rights and civil liberties enjoyed by Hong Kong people, nor will our existing way of life be affected."[89] However, there has been widespread concern and opposition over the new law, which many fear will end the relative freedom the territory enjoys compared to mainland China. On 15 December, approximately 20,000 Hong Kong citizens took to the streets to protest about the new law, reportedly the largest demonstration in the Region since 1997.[90] Amnesty International expressed its concern to us about the new law, which it believed could "criminalize those who peacefully exercise their right to freedom of expression and association."[91] It feared that it could lead to widespread censorship, the imprisonment of prisoners of conscience and much harsher prison sentences for offences such as the possession of 'seditious' material. We also met informally with Mr Martin Lee, then head of the Hong Kong Democratic Party, who briefed us on developments in the territory.

48. The Annual Report was produced before the publication of the draft law, but it did note that the FCO followed events in Hong Kong closely and believed that fundamental human rights, such as freedom of speech, assembly and of travel, were essential for Hong Kong's future success and development, a concern no doubt not lost on local businessmen and potential investors.[92] We were pleased to hear Mr Rammell confirm to us that he had expressed the United Kingdom's concerns on the draft law directly to the authorities in the HKSAR during a visit in the previous month.[93] He reported to us that he hoped there would be "the widest possible consultation" on the proposals on Article 23 and was mildly optimistic that there was a, "willingness to discuss the detail in a way that maybe has not previously been envisaged".

49. On 13 February, the HKSAR published the draft National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill and announced that it had been formulated to take into account "public views expressed during the consultation process".[94] We note, however, that the Hong Kong Democratic Party continues to oppose the provisions of the Bill, which it believes will have an extremely serious impact on the Region's political system.[95] In a letter to the Committee, Martin Lee expressed his particular concern over Section 8A of the Societies Ordinance of the Bill, which he believed would make it possible for the authorities in Beijing to proscribe any organisation it 'frowns upon' in Hong Kong.[96] He told us that it was imperative that, "if a Hong Kong organisation poses a threat to national security, the Secretary for Security [in Hong Kong] should be allowed to exercise her own judgement in deciding whether to prohibit its continued operation ... it must not be proscribed irrespective of what its head office may, or may not have done, in the Mainland." [97] There are particular concerns for the freedoms currently enjoyed by Falun Gong supporters in the Region, following the Chinese Government's suppression of the organisation in the Mainland.

50. The Committee will maintain a keen interest in subsequent events in Hong Kong and the FCO's involvement. We recommend that the FCO remain closely involved in the consultation process over the implementation of Article 23 of Hong Kong's Basic Law. The United Kingdom Government must express any concerns it has about the human rights impact of the new law clearly and without hesitation to the Region's Government at every opportunity.

Iran

51. The Annual Report highlighted the, "continuing struggle between the reformists and conservatives" in Iran.[98] Despite the re-election of President Khatami, and a reformist majority in the Majles (parliament), it reported that there was still strong resistance to change in many areas of the Iranian administration, especially the judiciary. While noting some positive signs, the Annual Report stated that the United Kingdom remained concerned about a large number of human rights issues in Iran, including the treatment of religious minorities, freedom of expression and the position of women in society. These concerns were echoed in the memoranda we received during the inquiry and confirmed at our recent evidence session on Iran.[99] We were particularly concerned at the plight of Iran's Bahá'í community, which numbers nearly a third of a million yet faces discrimination in work and education, are denied many of the rights of citizenship, whose marriages are not recognised and who are unable to worship freely.[100]

52. In the last sentence of the section on Iran, the Annual Report noted that: "at the time of going to print, the EU was considering conducting a dialogue on human rights with Iran".[101] The talks subsequently began in Tehran on Monday 16 December and involved discussion of trade issues and co-operation over terrorism, as well as a human rights dialogue. In its evidence to the Committee on these talks, Amnesty International UK stated emphatically that: "[t]he starting point for dialogue must be the acknowledgement of serious concerns about the human rights situation in Iran... The dialogue must be based on specific, measurable and timebound objectives to avoid a situation of dialogue for dialogue's sake."[102] (The comparison was made to the dialogue with China, discussed above.) The head of HRW's London Office, Steve Crawshaw, made similar comments about the need for clear time-frames and visible improvements, if critical dialogue were to be productive. We were also pleased to note the comments of Chris Patten, the EU's External Relations Commissioner, when defending the decision to hold the talks: "I do not believe dialogue without progress in the long-term can be justified. Reformers have history on their side, I just hope it does not take too long for history to unravel."[103]

53. The Minister was able to provide a positive oral report on the first round of the EU-Iran talks during his oral evidence. He told us that the discussions had focussed particularly on the issues of discrimination and torture and that his first impressions had been "reasonably positive".[104] He stressed, though, that there was still "an awful long way to go". Mr Rammell also told us that the United Kingdom had not yet decided whether to sponsor, or co-sponsor, a resolution on Iran's human rights record at the 2003 UNCHR session.

54. The Committee intends to visit Iran later in the year to explore a range of issues arising from our inquiry into the war on terrorism, as well as developments in BritishIranian relations.[105] We were pleased to meet Dr Kamal Kharrazi and Dr Ali Ahani, the Iranian Foreign and Deputy Foreign Ministers, during their recent trips to London; on both occasions we had very useful discussions. Human rights issues will be high on the agenda for our visit and we look forward to exploring further many of the issues raised during this inquiry. We conclude that the start of an EU-Iran dialogue on human rights is a very positive development. However, we recommend that the FCO monitors developments at these talks closely and ensures that they do not simply become a 'talking shop' but a means of encouraging real change in Iran's human rights practices.

North Korea

55. The Annual Report presented an pessimistic picture of the current human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK).[106] It reported "widespread and serious violations of human rights," and that, although the regime there had shown itself to have a "thorough knowledge of human rights norms and instruments," it invariably invoked "sovereignty, non-interference and cultural difference to duck its responsibilities".[107] This corresponded with a memorandum we received from Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW), who told us that "human rights are repressed at every level in North Korea."[108] It provided detailed information of the extensive use of torture (including water torture) in the DPRK, the horrendous conditions in which political prisoners are kept and the complete absence of religious freedom.

56. We raised the question of North Korea's human rights record with Mr Rammell when he gave oral evidence to us. Like the Minister we accept that any progress on this issue will be over a long timescale, given the nature of the regime and the present political situation. However, we were pleased to note the establishment of a British Embassy in the capital, Pyongyang, and the Minister's assurance to us that human rights issues would be raised with the authorities whenever possible and the United Kingdom's concerns made known. Despite the current difficult political situation, we recommend that the Government continue to make its concerns about the human rights situation in North Korea known and to press for very substantial improvements.

57. One particular aspect of the North Korean situation that appears to have worsened markedly in the recent past has been the plight of its refugees fleeing to the People's Republic of China. The Annual Report had a short section devoted to this problem, in which it stated:

"In the past twelve months international media and NGO reports have drawn attention to the situation of North Korean border crossers in China... We believe that the majority of North Koreans entering China are economic rather than political refugees. Visits to the region suggest the local authorities adopt a flexible approach to the issue and that North Korean migrants regularly cross the border in both directions. However, whatever their reasons for crossing the border, many face illtreatment if forced to return to North Korea, particularly those who have sought to make their way to a third country."[109]

58. The evidence we have received on this subject, from a number of sources, seems to indicate that the situation is far more serious than the Report suggested. Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch all highlighted the difficulties faced by North Korean refugees in northern China.[110] Their illegal status makes them vulnerable to harassment, official or otherwise, and exploitation; many are apparently forced to survive by begging or scavenging in the hills, while others rely on the support of fellow Koreans living in the provinces, and many women have reportedly been sexually exploited, or even sold as brides to Chinese farmers.[111] The 'embarrassment' to the Chinese authorities of a number of such refugees claiming asylum in foreign missions and legations has apparently induced a more hard-line approach to the situation recently, contrary to the Annual Report's description of a "flexible approach".[112] Comparatively large rewards are now being offered for information on the whereabouts of refugees and many are being forcibly repatriated.[113] Those returned to North Korea face, what Amnesty International described as, "an uncertain fate": torture, interrogation, imprisonment and even summary execution.[114]

59. We recommend that the Government, in conjunction with the EU and other allies, strongly urge the Chinese authorities to: respect fully the human rights of the North Korean refugees; cease its programme of forced repatriation; allow the UN High Commission for Refugees full access to the region in order to assess the situation; and put pressure on the government of North Korea to respect the human rights of those refugees returning from China. We also recommend that the FCO set out what progress has been made on this issue in the next Human Rights Annual Report.

Saudi Arabia

60. During the course of our inquiry, the coverage of Saudi Arabia's human rights record within the 2002 Annual Report was raised on several occasions. Although there are entries elsewhere, the principal section in the Report on the Kingdom consisted of three paragraphs under the 'Challenges and Progress' heading (the relevant section is reprinted in full in Table 1 below).[115] In its memorandum, Amnesty International UK described the entry as "woefully inadequate".[116] It drew particular attention to the lack of references to the use of torture in Saudi Arabia:

"the FCO notes that Saudi Arabia submitted its first report to the UN Committee Against Torture. It fails to note however that this report was submitted in February 2001, that the report tried to convey an impression of Saudi Arabia as a torturefree country and that the country failed to appear before the Committee in November 2001 to provide further clarifications. The FCO report also fails to note that the Committee Against Torture produced concluding observations in June. The second paragraph of these states: 'The Committee welcomes the submission of the initial report, although it regrets the delay in submission and the paucity of information on the practical enjoyment in Saudi Arabia of the rights conferred by the Convention'."[117]

Both Amnesty and HRW subsequently stressed this issue when they gave oral evidence to us; Kate Allen, Director of Amnesty International, describing the use of torture as "endemic" in Saudi Arabia.[118]

61. We also noted that this year's entry on Saudi Arabia was very similar to that in the 2001 Human Rights Annual Report. Both used similar expressions about the United Kingdom's human rights concerns in that country and many of the 'facts' or events reported for 2002 seem to have appeared in the previous Report too. We have reprinted the sections in both the 2001 and 2002 annual reports for Saudi Arabia in Table 1 (below), with the relevant sections underlined. It was suggested to us by HRW that the short entry might be owing to "geopolitical reasons", i.e. the strategic importance of Saudi Arabia to any military action in Iraq, an issue we discussed above (para. 13).[119] It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that such reasons have indeed meant that the Report understated human rights failures in respect of Saudi Arabia.

Table 1: Human Rights Annual Report entries on Saudi Arabia 2001/2002[120]

(Those sections which are largely repeated from the previous year have been underlined.)

2001

1.8 Saudi Arabia

The UK has a number of concerns about the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia. These include aspects of the judicial system, restrictions on freedom of religion, expression, movement and assembly, discrimination against women and nonMuslims, corporal and capital punishment; and the implementation of basic international human rights norms. A number of British nationals in Saudi Arabia have recently been sentenced to imprisonment and lashes for alcoholrelated offences. Œ We consider corporal punishment to be a violation of human rights and have made this clear to the Saudi authorities.

There have been some positive developments in the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia over the last year. The Saudi Government renewed its invitation, made originally at the UN Commission on Human Rights in 2000, to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers to visit the Kingdom. The Saudi Government also expressed its intention to ratify the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The UK looks forward to ratification being completed as soon as possible.

The Saudi Government has permitted the beginnings of a debate on human rights in the national press. Saudi Arabia's official Press code has been reformed, this has led to a wider debate in the press of social issues. A wideranging review of legal and court procedures has been initiated which includes the study of judicial proceedings, the broadening of the right of appeal, the formalisation of the qualification of judges, the introduction of women police officers and the greater segregation of prisoners.

The Saudi authorities are in the final stages of forming governmental and nongovernmental human rights monitoring committees.

Ž The UK Government remains committed to improving human rights in Saudi Arabia through an active dialogue with the Saudi authorities. We regularly discuss human rights issues with the Saudi Government; this includes Ministerial, Ambassadorial and workinglevel activity. In January 2001, the FCO's Permanent Under Secretary underlined the importance of upholding international human rights standards with Saudi Foreign Minister, HRH Prince Saud, in Riyadh. Most recently human rights issues were raised by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in relation to the cases of a number of British nationals detained in the Kingdom when Prince Saud visited the UK in June 2001.

2002

1.12 Saudi Arabia

We continue to have concerns about the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia. These include the implementation of basic international human rights norms; aspects of the judicial system; corporal and capital punishment; torture; discrimination against women and nonMuslims and restrictions on freedom of expression, assembly and worship. Islam is the only religion that can be practised publicly in Saudi Arabia. The open practice of any other religion is forbidden. In 2001, the Saudi authorities detained a number of nonMuslims for practising their religious beliefs.

Ž The UK Government remains committed to improving human rights in Saudi Arabia through an active dialogue with the Saudi authorities. We regularly discuss human rights issues with the Saudi government, including at Ministerial level. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary raised the cases of a number of British nationals detained in Saudi Arabia in June 2001, and the Prime Minster repeated this when he visited Saudi Arabia in October 2001. We continue to raise these cases at the highest levels. When former FCO Minister Ben Bradshaw visited Saudi Arabia in March 2002 he raised the issue of religious freedom for nonMuslims. Œ We have expressed our concern to the Saudi authorities about corporal punishment. We, with our EU partners, made our concerns clear to the Saudi authorities about capital punishment, including public executions. In 2001, the UK along with other EU countries objected to the wideranging Saudi reservation that Sharia law would overrule the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) when there was a contradiction between the two.

In May 2002, Saudi Arabia adopted new criminal justice procedures aimed at modernising the criminal justice system. Among other things, they provide for lawyers to represent defendants and for greater transparency in court proceedings. Saudi Arabia submitted its first report to the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) since it ratified the Convention in September 1997. As part of this process, on 8 May 2002, the Committee asked Saudi Arabia questions about their use of flogging and amputation by judicial and administrative authorities; the vaguely defined powers of the religious police; prolonged pretrial detention; incommunicado detention; cases of deportation and discrimination against foreigners. The Saudi government has invited the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Param Cumaraswamy, to visit Saudi Arabia.

62. We raised our concerns about the entry on Saudi Arabia with the Minister when he appeared before us. He strongly defended the Annual Report and the Government's wider policy toward the Kingdom. He argued that "one size does not fit all" when tackling countries' human rights records and refuted the contention that "we pull our punches on Saudi Arabia."[121] He went on to say that: "we maintain a confidential dialogue with the Saudi Government on human rights issues because we do find in some circumstances that is more effective than public confrontation. I have to say we are not the only people to reach that view."[122] We remained unconvinced on this point, however, and highlighted the the comprehensiveness of the entry on Saudi Arabia in the equivalent report produced by the US State Department. Its report for Saudi Arabia for 2001 (published in March 2002) ran to 17 pages and covered a far wider range of concerns than the FCO's publication and, in many cases, using far more direct language.[123] The Minister promised to "reflect" upon the Saudi entry in next year's Report. However, we were disappointed to note that in the FCO's supplementary memorandum to us, the Minister again suggested that the entry in the latest Annual Report was an accurate reflection of the concerns the Government had about the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia.[124] We conclude that the entry in the 2002 Annual Report for Saudi Arabia failed to reflect fully that country's poor human rights record, particularly in relation to torture. We agree that private dialogue can be more effective than public criticism in achieving change in many cases. However, we recommend that in its response to this Report the Government set out a more detailed and candid assessment of its concerns about the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia, and of the effect British policies to tackle human rights abuses there, than appears in the latest Annual Report. We also recommend that future Annual Reports include such an assessment.

Uzbekistan

63. As we noted above (para 17), the Central Asian states such as Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have a poor record of respect for human rights in many areas.[125] Although there is no substantial section on Uzbekistan in the 2002 Annual Report, there are a number of references that make clear the FCO's concern over the human rights record in the country.[126] This concern was subsequently confirmed to us by the Minister during his oral evidence session with the Committee, when he told us that: "we do have concerns about the deterioration of the human rights situation in Uzbekistan, particularly in relation to torture."[127] He also drew our attention to a speech recently made by the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Mr Craig Murray, in which he had made the Government's concerns very clear and described the lack of freedom of expression in Uzbekistan, the detention of 7-10,000 political prisoners, the brutality inherent in the penal system and the lack of media freedom.[128] We very much welcome the Ambassador's comments.

64. Given this evident concern over Uzbekistan's human rights record, we were surprised to learn that the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) planned to hold its Annual Meeting in its capital city, Tashkent, in May of this year. The EBRD was set up in 1991 to help "nurture a new private sector" in the former Communist bloc and currently works in 27 countries, with a subscribed capital base of _20 billion.[129] The Establishing Agreement of the EBRD clearly stipulates that the Bank will work in "countries committed to and applying the principles of multiparty democracy, pluralism and market economics" [130] (We note that the Ambassador had stated bluntly in the speech mentioned above: "Uzbekistan is not a functioning democracy".) The Bank's headquarters are in London and the United Kingdom has capital of _1,703.5 million subscribed to the Bank. It is also the United Kingdom's turn to act as Chair of the EBRD Board of Governors at the 2002 Annual Meeting and the Rt Hon Clare Short MP, Secretary of State for International Development, will be attending the Tashkent meeting in that role.

65. Human Rights Watch told us, in its written evidence, that the EBRD's meeting in Tashkent would "undoubtedly be used by the regime as an endorsement of its policies".[131] HRW had apparently, "repeatedly drawn attention to the appalling human rights record of the Uzbek regime" and had, with another 50 NGOs, suggested that human rights 'benchmarks' ought to be set by the Bank before the meeting went ahead. The benchmarks suggested were "concrete" improvement in areas such as the "unfettered operation of opposition parties".[132] Steve Crawshaw stressed this issue in his oral evidence to the Committee, reiterating that: "far from being an incentive towards democracy and for the regime there to change, the regime is taking some endorsement of what it has already done, which... is killing people in custody, locking people up and on one notable occasion boiling people to death. It is a truly horrific regime".[133]

66. When he gave oral evidence before the Committee, we highlighted this issue to the Minister who told us emphatically that: "[t]he meeting is most certainly not an endorsement of what is going on in Uzbekistan at the moment, it is an incentive for the Uzbeks to reform... this will be an opportunity to really encourage reform and also highlight the human rights concerns that exist within Uzbekistan and surrounding countries."[134] We accept that it is, undoubtedly, the aspiration of the FCO and the EBRD that the Tashkent meeting will encourage reforms in Uzbekistan and that meetings of this kind have an important role in stimulating such regimes to undertake reform. We also understand the Minister's concerns over "playing roulette with international meetings" and appreciate his promise to report to the Committee on what progress had been made on human rights issues in Uzbekistan following the May meeting.[135] However, we remain deeply concerned about the decision of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to hold its 2002 Annual Meeting in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, and take seriously the concern that the Uzbek government will view it as an endorsement of its poor human rights record. We recommend that, if the meeting goes ahead, the Government ensure that every possible opportunity is taken to use it as an opportunity to tackle the poor human rights record of Uzbekistan.

Zimbabwe

67. The Annual Report presented a fairly dismal analysis of the human rights situation in Zimbabwe, noting that its government had attacked the independence of the judiciary, harassed the media and "resorted to violence, intimidation and draconian legislation in the runup to the flawed presidential election of 9-11 March 2002."[136] The Report promised that the United Kingdom Government would continue to focus on these issues in all negotiations with Zimbabwe and to draw the world's attention to the Mugabe government's abuse of power. During the oral evidence session with Bill Rammell, the Minister made clear the Government's utter abhorrence at the "disgusting and reprehensible" regime of President Mugabe.[137]

68. We have commented extensively on Zimbabwe in our previous Reports on the situation there and have consistently urged the British Government, and the international community, to maintain the maximum pressure on the Mugabe regime to reform.[138] The Committee is currently seeking further evidence on developments in the country and intends to produce a further full Report in due course. There was, however, one issue related to Zimbabwe which arose during our current inquiry that we comment on here: the extension of the EU's sanctions regime.

69. The European Union imposed targeted sanctions on Zimbabwe in February 2002, which prevented leading members of the Zimbabwean Government and their associates from travelling through or within Europe, as well as imposing an asset freeze and a ban on arms sale. We commented on these sanctions in detail in our second report of last year on Zimbabwe, where we recommended that the United Kingdom Government: "keep the effectiveness of sanctions... under constant review and that it be prepared to seek a further extension or tightening of those sanctions when appropriate."[139]

70. The sanctions regime agreed by the Union was due to expire on 18 February and it had been hoped that EU foreign ministers would have been able to agree its renewal (a move which required unanimity) at a meeting in January. However, before that meeting took place the French Government announced that it intended to invite President Mugabe to a Franco-African summit in Paris on 19 February, putting the future of the sanctions regime, and Europe's united stance on Zimbabwe, at grave risk. The Portuguese Government also expressed its unwillingness to risk the collapse of an EU-Africa summit, scheduled to be held in Lisbon in April, by banning President Mugabe from attending. Both countries sought a 'waiver' from the sanctions regime to allow the meetings to take place. The UK Government, and others, made clear their opposition to such moves. On 12 February, EU ambassadors agreed to extend the sanctions regime for a further 12 months but also allowed the French to invite Mr Mugabe to Paris later that month.[140] It seems unlikely that the Lisbon Summit will now go ahead.[141]

71. We raised this issue with the Minister, who told us that the "clear priority and determination for us is to get the sanctions regime, and particularly the travel ban, reinstated".[142] He also candidly expressed his regret over France's decision to invite President Mugabe and assured us that the Government had made its concerns clear on the subject. The Committee was concerned by recent allegations that the British and French Governments had 'made a deal' on this issue, allowing the Paris meeting to go ahead in return for a renewal of the overall sanctions regime.[143] We were pleased to note the recent reply to a written question, therefore, in which Mr Rammell reported that the French had merely "mentioned" the possibility of inviting Mr Mugabe to Paris, "in the margins of Copenhagen summit in December" and that no 'deal' had apparently been struck.[144] We intend to return to this issue again in our future work on Zimbabwe.

72. In our judgement, the Government has been weak in this respect. It would have been better to have called the bluff of the French and challenged them to incur international criticism by preventing the renewal of the sanctions regime. We deeply regret the decision of the French Government to invite President Mugabe to Paris and the apparent weakening of its stance on the horrific human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. We recommend that the United Kingdom Government do everything within its power to ensure that the EU sanctions regime against the Mugabe regime is maintained and, if possible, extended.

Other countries

73. We have commented in detail on the human rights situation in several countries above but we also remain concerned about a number of other regions and states. These include:

Chechnya We agree with the 2002 Annual Report that the human rights situation in Chechnya remains one of "deep concern" and that the conflict there cannot be solved by military means alone.[145] We agree with those, such as Human Rights Watch, who argue that the United Kingdom and the EU need to be seen speaking out more publicly and candidly about their concerns over the actions of the Russian authorities in the region.[146]

Colombia The 40 year-old conflict in Colombia, and its associated atrocities, shows no signs of abating and all attempts by the government there to negotiate with the main rebel group, the FARC,[147] appear to have been fruitless. We utterly condemn the horrendous acts of brutality committed by the guerilla groups against the civilian population, but at the same time urge the Colombian government, and the new President Alvaro Uribe in particular, to retain the highest human rights standards in all its actions. We were pleased to note the FCO's willingness to help the Colombian Government in any way it could.[148]

Sierra Leone British forces played an extremely creditable role in ending the conflict in Sierra Leone and earned well-deserved praise in Africa. More recently we were pleased to note the recent holding of peaceful elections there in May 2002.[149] We are concerned, however, at the disturbing reports of incidents of sexual violence involving peacekeepers and UN employees.[150] Such violence, particularly when committed by those representing the UN, is utterly unacceptable.[151] We recommend that, in its response to this Report, the FCO set out its assessment as to the truth and scale of the allegations of sexual violence involving peacekeepers and UN employees in Sierra Leone. We also recommend that the Government press the United Nations to address the issue of human rights abuses committed by peacekeepers with the utmost urgency.

Uganda During the inquiry, we received worrying evidence on the destabilising role that Ugandan forces had been playing for some time in the eastern Congo, where they were (as the Annual Report noted) the de facto authority.[152] The Committee was pleased to note, therefore, the recent agreement between the Presidents of Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) on the withdrawal of Ugandan forces from Ituri Province in the north east of the country.[153] It remains to be seen, however, if this withdrawal will include paramilitary forces in the eastern DRC controlled by Uganda. We look forward to reading an update of the situation there in the next Annual Report.

74. We shall continue to monitor the situation in these countries and scrutinise the FCO's actions in supporting those working for a greater respect for human rights.

The International Criminal Court

75. One of the 'remarkable successes' of the period covered by the 2002 Annual Report was the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC formally came into existence, at its temporary headquarters in The Hague, on 1 July 2002 after the earlier ratification in April of the Rome Statute of the ICC by the necessary 60 states.[154] The Annual Report stated that the Court represented a "new era for international justice," which would "establish that the global rule of law is greater than the rule of local dictators".[155] It expressed the hope that the Court would allow all perpetrators of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity to face trial, in a way that had not previously been possible. The Report highlighted the part the United Kingdom had played in the establishment of the ICC, taking a leading role in the negotiations that led to the agreement of the Rome Statute and in encouraging sufficient states to ratify it. We welcome the election of Mr Justice Fulford as one of the ICC's first judges.[156] We commend the United Kingdom Government for the positive role it played in the negotiation of the Rome Statute and in its significant contribution to the establishment of the International Criminal Court.

76. However, the future of the International Criminal Court is not yet secure. In May 2002, the US effectively withdrew from the Rome Treaty and has subsequently successfully sought immunity from prosecution by the Court for its personnel serving abroad. These developments are noted in the Annual Report thus:

"US objections to the ICC have been well publicised. On 6 May 2002 the Bush Administration disassociated itself from President Clinton's signature of the [Rome] Statute. We do not share US fears that the ICC will become a vehicle for malicious and politically motivated indictments of service personnel and officials. ... We hope that experience of the Court in action will reassure the US."[157]

77. When we asked Amnesty International UK and HRW for the human rights issues which they regarded as requiring greater governmental weight and action, both organisations identified the future of the International Criminal Court as being their "top priority".[158] They agreed that the United Kingdom had rightly earned, "an excellent reputation as a strong supporter of the ICC," during the negotiation of the Rome Statute. Its perceived willingness, though, subsequently to appease the USA over the issue of 'impunity agreements' had, to them, exemplified how quickly a country's reputation could change.[159] Indeed Amnesty International told us in its memorandum that the United Kingdom was, "now perceived as a country which believes that the wishes of the US administration are more important than the future of an institution designed to address the worst crimes in the world."[160] HRW made similar representations, urging the British Government to resist the 'chipping away' of the Court by the USA, who would "basically like to see the Court dead in the water."[161] Amnesty was "surprised" by the single paragraph of the Report which dealt so briefly with, "the US assault on the ICC," and, "one of the most contentious UN Security Council battles of the year".[162]

78. In our previous Report on British-US Relations in December 2001, we commented on the negotiations to establish the Court and the USA's doubts over its role and functions. We recommended that the British Government "continue its dialogue with the US Administration" on the issue.[163] Our later Report on the Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism noted the subsequent developments in the establishment of the ICC, most notably the USA's withdrawal from the Rome Treaty. At that time, we recommended that: "the Government seek to allay the concerns of the US Administration about the International Criminal Court, with a view to persuading it to reconsider its renunciation of the ICC Treaty."[164] We consider these conclusions still to be valid. We recommend that the Government continue its dialogue with the US Administration over the International Criminal Court, and urge the US to reconsider its attitude to ratification of the Rome Treaty.