Examination of Witnesses(Questions 1-19)
TUESDAY 7 JANUARY 2003
MR STEVEN
CRAWSHAW, MS
KATE ALLEN
AND MR
TIM HANCOCK
Chairman
1. On behalf of the Committee may I, in this
our first meeting in the calender year 2003, welcome two representatives
of Amnesty International UK, Ms Kate Allen, who is the Director,
and Mr Tim Hancock, who is the Parliamentary Officer, and Mr Steven
Crawshaw, who is the Director of the London office of Human Rights
Watch. We are delighted to see both organisations. You personally
both in your own right have assisted the committee on a number
of occasions and we are indeed grateful for the memoranda which
both of the organisations sent to us, which have a remarkable
degree of similarity I notice. We also value this meeting as preparation
for the meeting which the committee has with the relevant Foreign
Office minister. We are indeed meeting Mr Bill Rammell on January
28, so much of what we learn today will be helpful for us in that
preparation. If matters arise between now and that date on which
you wish to comment we would again be most grateful. The year
2002 was perhaps not a good year for human rights because of the
way in which the war against terrorism was used by governments.
Let us hope that this new year will be rather better. First of
all, on the basis on which we work this is a much more weighty
document than we have had in the past and it has been the practice
of the committee to comment on the contents and indeed on the
form of this report, which is now getting in every way a much
more weighty document. May I begin by asking you both what are
your general reactions to this year's Annual Report. Perhaps I
will begin with Ms Allen, do you believe this gives a reasonably
fair picture of the role human rights plays in UK foreign policy?
I notice, with respect, you were given a certain prominent role
in a leadership conference this morning. Does this make you feel
that you and human rights are at last being mainstreamed within
the Foreign Office?
(Ms Allen) Thank you for that welcome.
I think in terms of the report we do think that it is a very comprehensive
report, it is a very thorough report in terms of the coverage
of human rights and the role of the government and the work that
it has been doing over the year. We have no argument with the
report, we think it is a very good report.
2. And an improvement on previous reports?
(Ms Allen) I think that it is becoming more and more
comprehensive. I think the question that we would have is one
that we raised in our written evidence to you, the report seems
to be increasingly talked about and referred to by ministers as
covering their concerns on different countries much more thoroughly
than we think the report itself justifies. The coverage of different
countries and their records is quite patchy and if ministers are
going to rely upon it as covering human rights' situations in
those different countries as opposed to providing snapshots backing
up different themes then I think there may be some difficulties.
3. Do you understand that for some reasons ministers
believe in respect of certain countries it makes more sense to
bring pressure informally?
(Ms Allen) Certainly. The point I am trying to make
is that in publicity and in interviews on the television and radio,
ones that I have been involved in with ministers too, they referred
to the report and to country accounts within the report as a systematic
and comprehensive discussion of human rights. We would question
that and whether that should be the case. I think there needs
to be some clarity about the purpose of the report.
4. Mr Crawshaw, your response to the report,
is it an improvement on previous years?
(Mr Crawshaw) Very similar to Kate Allen's. We agree
it is comprehensive and thorough. One should not be dragged into
the cynical view that sometimes comes that the whole thing is
just a whitewash, we do not regard it as that.
5. Do you reflect the views of the NGO community
largely?
(Mr Crawshaw) I certainly reflect the views of Human
Rights Watch.
(Ms Allen) Not generally but from conversations that
I have had with other human rights' organisations I think that
we do recognise the value of the report.
6. Thank you.
(Mr Crawshaw) Having said that, there are clearly
bits, if you like, there are two concerns that we have, one is
that there are some points where what is said in the report is
right and proper but does not really seem to be matched by government
action on a particular area, and we have highlighted some of those
in the written submission and we will be happy to take more questions
on that. The other is really one or two really gross omissions
which are quite startling, and one finds it remarkable that a
human rights report cannot highlight them. That may be something
that you want to ask more questions about later. Saudi is a clear
case. It is really very, very surprising that torture is not addressed
directly within that section. One can make all sorts of speculation
about why not but given the fact that the report itself highlights
the fact that human rights and security are not alternatives but
are mutually reinforcing I think it is a pity if one make omissions
for whatever type of geopolitical reasons. That has been seen
as a mistake in the past.
Sir John Stanley
7. If, like the new Archbishop of Canterbury
on Desert Island Discs, you want to pause for a moment so you
can give a considered answer to this question the Committee will
understand. The question I want to put to youwe have a
lot of detailed and specific questions to put to you lateris,
if you were in a position to have a free hand as far as the Government's
human rights policy is concerned, what for each of your organisations
would be the two or three issues or country areas which you and
your organisation would like to see greater government weight
and greater government attention given to in the human rights
area? What would be your top two or three priorities for more
action?
(Ms Allen) I think between us we would both have the
same first issue that we would both raise, which would be the
International Criminal Court. That has been an issue of concern
to both organisations and the UK Government's response to the
US's onslaught has caused us quite some concern.
(Mr Crawshaw) It is something which the report talks
very strongly about, the British support and the importance of
the British role in setting up the Court, which is absolutely
right, because it did indeed play an important role. During the
past six months since the official creation in July 2002 there
have, on a number of occasions, been signs that Britain is willing
to make conciliatory moves towards the Americans, who would basically
like to see the Court dead in the water. Both of our organisations,
and I would like to think anyone who cares about human rights
in the world, feels that for this Court to be weakened and chipped
away, chipped away, chipped away is very dangerous. The British
Government would insist that they are defending it to the hilt.
I think that it needs to be understood that sometimes making compromises
will weaken in the long term. The Hague Tribunal was not terribly
powerful when it started but it gained power over the years. That
is one issue where we do think it is very, very important that
Britain should stand strong for greater international security
for all to stick by the ICC. That is one very important issue.
8. Do you want to follow anything on the ICC?
I would also like to ask you about your second and third top priorities.
(Ms Allen) Moving on to the second and the third,
one of the issues we are very concerned about is the protection
of human rights as states increasingly enact counter-terrorism
measures. We have produced a report "Rights At Risk"
on this issue and are updating that at the moment where we have
expressed our concerns in numerous countries round the world where
the security of counter-terrorism legislation has, we think, undermined
human rights, including within our own country where we think
the fact that there are 11 foreign nationals being held without
charge or trial now for coming up to a yearsomething that
the Master of the Rolls recently described as a legal black hole[11]is
something that causes us great concern. That gives quite a picture
to other countries about the way in which they can tackle counter
terrorism and the way they can use that to abuse human rights
within their countries. That would be our second choice. You gave
me three, the third would be to ask the British Government to
speak up more clearly about the human rights' records of some
countries that it does find quite difficult to confront.
9. Which specific ones?
(Ms Allen) Saudi Arabia is clearly one. The three
paragraphs in the report are completely inaccurate. It does feel
that at the moment the Government are saying less about what their
concerns are about Saudi Arabia than it was a year or two years
ago. We are moving in the wrong direction on those issues. Those
would be the three Amnesty issues.
10. Mr Crawshaw, your second and third?
(Mr Crawshaw) We are happy to subscribe to those,
however we would like some additional as well. Picking up really
on the fact of sometimes speaking not quite loudly enough where
we feel that it would be necessary, Chechnya would be a obvious
case in point. We are not looking for some major showdown with
Moscow at every moment but clearly dialogue is terribly important.
In the long term it must be understood that turning a blind eye
to the disappearances and brutality that is happening the whole
time and taking government assurances from Moscow, which constantly
come, about the rule of law being okay is simply not sufficient.
Those assurances, as our own research on the ground has shown
very clearlywe have a forthcoming report talking about
people being forced out of refugee camps there and disappearances
continueare certainly ones that are very serious.
Mr Pope
11. I want to ask a couple of questions about
Iraq and the document which the Foreign Office published in November
of last year. First of all the Foreign Office concluded that a
cruel and callous disregard for human life and suffering remains
the hallmark of the Iraqi regime, and it goes on to list a variety
of forms of torture that are commonplace in Iraq. Is it your assessment
that this dossier is a fair and accurate account of the human
rights' records of Iraq?
(Ms Allen) Yes, it is. Amnesty International has produced
reports on the human rights situation in Iraq every year and sometimes
more than once a year since 1975. A lot of our reports have been
used in that document.
12. Is it your estimation that Iraq is by some
measure the worst offender against human rights in that region
or is it just comparable to any of its neighbouring countries?
(Ms Allen) At Amnesty we try not to get into comparing
the human rights' records of different countries, it is a task
that would become quite invidious for us. What we try to do is
tackle each country, each government on its merits. The Iraqi
regime is by any measure pretty horrendous in terms of its human
rights record.
13. Do you have some reservations about the
motives of the Government in publishing the dossier?
(Ms Allen) Our concern that we voiced when that dossier
was published, given that a lot of the evidence within it was
evidence that Amnesty and other human rights' organisations had
produced over many years, was our concern that the aim of publishing
the document was to strengthen support for possible military action,
and we simply raised that as a concern.
14. I accept that point and no doubt that will
be widely accepted round this Committee. There is also another
view which one could hold simultaneously, which is it is helpful
to produce a document like this if the Government thinks human
right are a priority. It is the function of the Foreign Office
to raise human rights and it is therefore a helpful contribution
to the wider debate to be able to publish a dossier like this.
(Ms Allen) Yes. It would be very interesting to see
them on other countries too, perhaps some of the ones we mentioned
earlier.
15. I very much welcomed this dossier, I thought
it was helpful. I am proud that the government I support is able
to do this kind of stuff and I would be even more proud if it
were able produce one on a country which is notionally an ally
of ours, Saudi Arabia, where torture is widespread. It is time
that the government might be even-handed about it. I hope you
would agree with that.
(Mr Crawshaw) Can I say I think one of the lessons
that ought to be contained within the dossier is precisely reminding
us how not addressing enormous and brutal human rights abuses
at the time when they are occurring or at the time when they are
known to the world has very, very bad knock-on effects down the
line and I think that reminds us very forcefully of that.
Mr Maples
16. As a committee we have been very interested
in the circumstance that have given rise to the Islamic terrorism
we have seen since September 11, Al-Qaeda and the groups associated
with it. It has been suggested to us in evidence, and we are inclined
to give some weight to this, that there are several factors and
at least one of them is the absence of human rights, democracy,
and rule of law in many Arab countries, and Saudi Arabia has already
come up in conversation. I would be interested in your view in
general on the state of human rights in the Arab parts of those
regions. We have heard a bit about some progress, there were some
elections in Kuwait and Bahrain and Morocco, do those amount to
anything? Do you think there is real progress? We are particularly
interested in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which seem to be the economic
and political leaders in the Arab world. I would like your opinion
and whether you think there is any progress at all?
(Mr Crawshaw) As you say, there is not a lot to be
hopeful about. There are many countries in the region.
(Mr Hancock) Certainly post September 11 we saw an
increased use of repressive legislation to clamp down on the freedom
of expression in Egypt, if anything it has got worse since 11
September. The overall trend has not been terribly encouraging.
I think that has probably been mirrored throughout the region.
There are some elements of positive news. I think Bahrain is one
country where we have been fairly encouraged by some recent reforms
there. The two countries that you cited, Saudi Arabia and Egypt,
no, I do not think we can say there has been progress, in fact
probably the opposite.
17. I suppose if we made these points to the
Egyptian or Saudi governments they would say, "you mean now
with what is going on you are asking us to do something about
it and you are also asking us to liberalise our freedom of expression,
you must be crazy". What would your reaction to that be?
Do you think that the absence of democracy and law on human rights
is a factor in producing terrorism?
(Mr Crawshaw) They ought to understand and the British
Government also ought to be making clear that these are absolutely
complementary. The idea that by torturing people, by locking people
up, freedom of expression, the idea that you are creating security
for yourself is so patently not the case. Again, perhaps, Saudi
is the absolute clearest example of that. You are creating instability
by locking people up, by torturing the whole time, that is what
is the instability for the future.
18. Do you see a pattern in countries where
basic human rights are suppressed of political activity being
diverted into other areas? Are governments, not necessarily just
Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but China amongst others, are they successful
or does it end up being channelled in a different direction and
going underground? Is there a pattern to this?
(Mr Hancock) It depends on the country and the nature
of the opposition of each of the dissenters. In some circumstances
you have an opposition that sees violence as the best way or the
only way of expressing itself. In another country, Burma for example,
we have a very repressive government and the main opposition clearly
felt that using democratic procedures is perhaps the best way
of garnering international support. I think it depends on the
opposition and the country.
19. If we were trying to the press the Government
of Saudi Arabia and Egypt as two examples and urge them to make
progress, where would you start? I would imagine trying to get
a free election of political parties is probably the last step
in this process, perhaps the establishment of a genuine rule of
law where people feel they have rights, where do you think we
should be urging the government to start with those two countries,
Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
(Ms Allen) Some of the extreme examples are the fact
that in Saudi Arabia torture is endemic, the fact that the death
penalty is used in very wide sets of circumstances, so starting
with those sorts of issues and gradually moving in those directions.
That is what is regrettable about the report, it is not even starting
to challenge the issue round torture in this particular year's
coverage of Saudi. That would be the starting point.
(Mr Crawshaw) I would subscribe to that. Exactly the
rule of law you mentioned, and torture is where that begins. Torture
is a licence to do whatever you like by the state. That again
contributes to instability enormously. There are a number of other
places, there are a number of central Asian states who may seem
to be useful at a particular moment for geopolitical reasons and
think they have a free hand to carry out torture. That is a very
basic thing. That can be stopped more or less overnight. It cannot
be stopped exactly overnight, but the sense that this is a culture
that will not be tolerated, that a policeman or an army officer
who tortures can be held accountable for that, that sense of accountability
is enormously important and many, many other things can flow from
that.
11 Note by witness: This comment is out of context
and actually a reference to Guantanamo Bay. Back
|