Examination of Witnesses(Questions 20-39)
TUESDAY 7 JANUARY 2003
MR STEVEN
CRAWSHAW, MS
KATE ALLEN
AND MR
TIM HANCOCK
20. Most of those would apply to Saudi Arabia,
would they be the same with Egypt?
(Ms Allen) Yes.
Mr Chidgey
21. I am very interested to hear your views
on this, you have obviously concentrated so far on talking about
the breach of human rights through torture in countries whether
the rule of law is questionable. Have either of you or your organisations
or both made any evaluation of a link between state torture to
extract confessions, a classic example, because of the absence
of the techniques of investigative detective work and forensic
science? We know it is the classic case, for example, in Turkey,
which we visited last year. Is this not a rather brutal and basic
shortcut to try to apprehend and incarcerate the criminal fraternity
because of the absence of any sophisticated method of investigation,
interrogation and the justice system. Have you looked at this?
Is there a relationship between that?
(Ms Allen) I think there is a very clear relationship
there. In the work that Amnesty have done in the various countries
we have made that link. I was in Nepal a year or so ago when Amnesty
members were involved in training the police specifically in why
torture was not acceptable and those were specifically the issues,
the lack of resources, the lack of training in detection methods.
The move towards beating confessions out of people was the immediate
first point of action.
22. Should the priority be for the British Government
in its intervention to try and establish, protect and enhance
human rights?
(Ms Allen) I think that is right. Amnesty have opened
an office in Kabul specifically to ensure that we are able to
address some of those issues in the reconstruction of that country
so that the criminal justice system, the police system and the
prison system are areas where we are able to have some impact
in the reconstruction so that we do see those institutions that
will ensure that issues like torture can be defeated.
23. Are you satisfied we are doing enough in
terms of our government policy in this respect?
(Mr Crawshaw) I do not feel my organisation would
feel qualified to comment on whether enough is happening on the
training at the moment. One thing I would wish to add is it is
not just a matter of police not being able to do things but where
the repressive apparatus of the state wants to reach a certain
verdict they will do so irrelevant to whether the person looks
as though they are guilty of the given crime or not. Uzbekistan
is a very clear example of that. The UN Special Rapporteur, who
has not yet fully reported, even while in Tashkent, the capital,
unusually while there he said that he had found systemic torture
in Uzbekistan, which backs up what we had already documented over
a long period in recent years. The regime there is using as the
excuse, as has happened across the world, post September 11 and
the fight against terrorism, it simply locks up people whose only
real offence is either to practise religion in their own way or
to be critical of their regime. There it is not really a police
matter, moving over, sliding over towards torture but simply locking
up your opponents, then torturing them and indeed killing them
on a regular basis.
(Ms Allen) We are very pleased to see the Optional
Protocol to the Convention Against Torture has been agreed. It
was a 10 year battle and that has now been agreed. I think that
the role that the British Government played in that has been a
significant and positive one. One of campaigns that Amnesty has
on-going is the torture campaign and we have worked very closely
with the Foreign Office on that. We have had some very good joint
work with them. We do feel we have some good cooperation.
24. Returning to Saudi Arabia and the 3 paragraphs
contained in the report, which a lot of us picked up at the time.
I happened to pick up the American State Departments Human Rights
Report on the web and turned to Saudi Arabia and found literally
page after page of examples of human rights abuse compared to
the three paragraphs in our own Foreign Office's report. It seems
strange given the present political climate that the US should
be able to give us so much more information on what is happening
in Saudi than our Foreign Office. I wonder whether you in Amnesty
and Human Rights Watch—I know Amnesty has an office in Washington—picked
this up and whether you can find any reason why it is that the
US, surprisingly, should be so forthcoming on human rights abuse
in Saudi and yet our own Foreign Office seems to have overlooked
the issue?
(Mr Hancock) Unless I am very much mistaken I think
that is because Congress demands that the State Department issues
that report.
25. Would you like to say a little bit more
about that?
(Mr Hancock) I am not one hundred per cent confident
but I think it is that Congress demands that the State Department
issues an annual report on human rights as well as on other aspects[12]
It is an accountability role to Congress and it has to do that.
It is a very good idea.
26. That begs the question, is there a lack
of accountability in our view?
(Mr Hancock) Given that the Government produces this
Human Rights Report which we are considering today I think that
is an extremely positive way of injecting some kind of accountability
and some kind of transparency. Personally I find it useful looking
at these issues day-to-day because it does tell me a lot of information
I would not otherwise know about good practice. Clearly there
is a role for getting the Government to give an honest and clear
assessment about what it thinks the human rights situation is
itself rather than quoting Amnesty International. If they can
prove transparency and accountability in that area that would
be good.
27. My final area of questioning comes back
to something that you mentioned a few minutes ago in your comments
on the report that we have here, Ms Allen, and in your written
response to us. What is the report for? Is it meant to be a themed
approach to the Government's foreign policy—I am possibly
shorthanding your words—it seems to be cherry-picking certain
areas of human rights concerns. On the other hand, in Amnesty
you do not try to assess and place countries by order of human
rights abuse. I am little puzzled here as to how you feel that
the British Government should be approaching human rights as a
global issue. We have pointed out and you have pointed out, that
certain countries are mentioned for human rights abuses. It has
been implied by others that there is a political reason for highlighting
issues of human rights in some countries while others, and Saudi
is an example, have been more or less ignored. What is the approach
that we should be taking? Should we be looking at the continent
of Africa? Should we be looking at the Middle East and the Far
East? How is the Government supposed to have any yardstick to
show that it is improving the delivery of its foreign policy on
trying to limit and eliminate, if we can, human rights' abuses
on a state level. What should they be aiming at?
(Ms Allen) I think some form of consistency, so that
if the report is going to cover individual countries then there
is a consistent approach to that rather than 3 paragraphs on one
country and a different approach to another. I think that would
be a good starting point. As we just said there is really a kind
of open and transparent account of what the British Government
thinks the human rights record of a particular country is and
we can then have that kind of debate. Obviously the response of
the British Government, how it decides to tackle that is one that
varies depending on the different circumstances. We are not saying
that the response of the Government has to be the same with every
country but we do think that the assessment of what is happening
within a country needs to be clear and accountable.
(Mr Crawshaw) I would agree with that. I think that
league tables are not enormously useful. An individual may look
at them and create an individual league table. If you look at
a certain basic set of standards that people should be adhering
to, the description of which of those standards has been breached
makes it very clear to any reader where the most severe breaches
have taken place. Again on the report, one should be very clear
that there is much that is very good within the report. The very
fact that the Government appears to be taking the issue so seriously—I
would correct myself—the Government is taking these issues
seriously I think that should not be dismissed and it is very
important, but it is all the more important that one can see very
clearly the gaps that come up. We have already discussed Saudi
but there are other points where there are blind spots, Afghanistan
is one where one almost had the impression that different parts
of the section have been written by different hands because there
is one bit which says that everything was now fine and dandy and
there was another bit (almost between commas) that began to address
some of the very, very serious problems existing throughout Afghanistan—Kabul
is much better, but in other areas . . .. Again human rights has
done a whole series of reports from different areas and it was
odd to find phrases within the comments in Afghanistan which appear
to suggest that this was now all looking rosy. One needs to confront
difficulties. It may be rather unpleasant for the Government to
realise there is a lot of very, very unfinished business, some
of which is getting worse, and that needs to be confronted. You
cannot simply move on and say, "Afghanistan is too complicated,
let us not think about that too much, let us say things are okay
there". That sense of an unchanging yardstick is important[13]
28. You mentioned league tables and you mentioned
yardsticks, you are probably familiar with the Copenhagen criteria
which the EU has been using to great effect in recent months would
you see a similar set of criteria being relevant and useful to
British foreign policy and perhaps EU foreign policy in its assessment
of human rights' records worldwide, the establishment of Copenhagen
criteria and expanding the element that deals with human rights?
(Mr Crawshaw) My instinct is that I see no reason
against that but I would need to think it through more carefully
to give a considered answer.
Mr Olner
29. Can I bring you back to Afghanistan, which
has now, sadly, fallen off world headlines. Obviously there is
grave concern about the deteriorating state of human rights in
Afghanistan. What more should we be doing to get the human rights
issues addressed there?
(Mr Crawshaw) Above all looking at the fact that Kabul
is not the end of the world for Afghanistan, this is across the
country. It is an importantly strong international security force.
The Afghan army will be able to do its job in due course, at the
moment it cannot, it is a fantasy land to think it can. That would
be my short answer
(Ms Allen) The only other thing to add is this is
going to be a long-term commitment. The support for rebuilding
in that country needs to take place over many years. There needs
to be attention paid to the issues of the criminal justice system,
policing, prisons, those sorts of infrastructure, as well as the
other more obvious infrastructure questions in a country that
has been through so much. There is certainly one piece of unfinished
business in the need to ensure that there is an inquiry into the
killings that happened at the Fort near Mazar-i-Sharif and that
is something that Amnesty called for at that time and will continue
to say that that is an area that there still needs to be some
inquiry into.
Chairman
30. In reality, given the embryonic nature of
the regime within Kabul, is it really justified to try and push
them very, very much more quickly along the lines to bring in
all of the things you mentioned about criminal justice and getting
rid of the warlords?
(Mr Crawshaw) I would say I think that that is precisely
where the Afghan Government itself clearly needs international
help, and this is not some kind of patronising idea of outsiders
coming to do stuff. The Afghan Government is absolutely clear,
welcomes and indeed many ordinary Afghans are begging for more
support in order, if you like, to act as the bandage enabling
the wounds of Afghanistan to gradually heal. If those wounds are
left as open, festering wounds and the warlords' grip is allowed
to tighten again then in the medium and longer term, even in the
short term, you are building in horrific instability. That effort
really needs to be made, and it is international, to help the
Afghans themselves.
Mr Olner
31. Can I turn to a general problem within Afghanistan.
I think many of us who care for these issues were delighted with
the opportunity that was offered to women within Afghanistan to
be human beings with education and various other things. There
did seem to be a move to genuinely free that up but that seems
to be receding now. There seem to be reports of girls' schools
being attacked and burned down, is this something that warlords
are doing? Are they the ones that are turning its clock back?
(Ms Allen) I think you must remember the record of
the Northern Alliance on these issues was not good either. Many
woman have kept wearing the burqa for protection even at the present
time. This is something which happened over many, many years of
discrimination, really appalling discrimination over many, many
years. That is going to take some time to break down. It is not
going to happen overnight but clearly the removal of the Taliban,
and they are the most extreme excesses of that discrimination,
will help. It would be unrealistic to expect this to change hugely
quickly, there needs to be a programme of work that supports and
encourages woman in Afghanistan who are organising in all sorts
of extraordinary ways at the moment to promote their own freedoms.
32. How can the international community really
hone in and focus on those groups within Afghanistan that are
doing that? Are we doing enough? Can we do better? What should
we be doing?
(Ms Allen) I think it is supporting women's organisations
that are developing in Afghanistan and making sure in all of the
various initiatives that the international community supports
that the voice of women is heard and that that is not ignored
and it is supported and helped to express itself.
(Mr Crawshaw) I would add to that, adding the framework
stability which allows that to happen. A recent report which we
produced called "We want to live as humans" was produced
in December 2002 that focused on Herat specifically and the warlord
Ismail Khan. There, people were saying that the rights of women
in Afghanistan are as bad as it was under the Taliban. This is
going backwards. Nobody can really change that except people who
are powerful enough with political means, which means the international
community, to reduce the power of those warlords to allow the
bandages to be on the wounds and some kind of health to be restored.
33. On the question of stability, and finally
as far as I am concerned on this issue, should we still be encouraging
refugees to go back to Afghanistan? Should refugees returning
be given more security? Should we encourage them or should we,
as Amnesty have said, not encourage them at the moment because
it is not secure.
(Ms Allen) There is a difference between encouraging
and saying that people must return. What Amnesty said is that
we do not think there should be a speedy return of people from
the UK at the moment unless people are ready themselves individually
to return because outside of Kabul life is still pretty precarious.
We need to be sure that people are going back to somewhere safe.
We were concerned that some of the return issues were happening
too fast and people were not being given enough choice. It is
best if people are able to choose their own time to return rather
than being sent back.
34. What percentage of Afghans are protected
by the regime in Kabul as opposed to the percentage of Afghans
that live outside Kabul?
(Ms Allen) I am not sure of the figures, I would need
to get back to you on that.
Chairman
35. It would be useful. Are you saying that
there are deficiencies in the British Government's response to
the crisis in Afghanistan. I am sure Claire Short would be a little
upset if it were alleged that DFID had been tardy in a number
of these efforts, particularly in respect to the status of women,
or is this a general point you are making?
(Ms Allen) It is a general point.
(Mr Crawshaw) As regards the status of women, it is
not really something which can be done directly, it is the security
framework which needs to make that possible which makes all of
the other things possible.
36. That is the fault of the international community
generally not providing resources?
(Mr Crawshaw) We feel that Britain has been in favour
but I think a stronger voice heard from Britain, which does have
a very important voice and is also heard very loudly in Washington,
can have important advantages, that that voice can be heard more
loudly in saying this really matters. This is not something which
can be put to one side because we are bothered with Iraq now,
this is just as important in its own way.
Chairman: The best example of positive regional
change.
Andrew Mackinlay
37. The Human Rights Fund is the single most
important source of the projects in supporting civil society.
Have you any views on its usefulness, its distribution and the
coordination of that fund with the various governments departments,
DfID, the FCO and the Ministry of Defence?
(Ms Allen) We very much welcome the fund. We consider
that it does provide important funding for very useful projects.
At the meeting that the Chairman referred to today in one of the
discussions that I was part of, concerns were expressed that decisions
on the fund took too long and that it would be useful to have
more than one year funding in succession. I think those were the
kind of practical comments that were made. Amnesty are very supportive
of that fund.
38. The Copenhagen criteria has been referred
to by my colleague earlier. We now agree that Estonia should come
into the European Union in just under one year and they still
have a number of stateless persons—stateless as distinct
from Russian living there, something in the order of 50,000. It
seems to be contrary to the Declaration of Human Rights, a person's
right to nationality. Can you throw any light as to what has happened
about these people? Should we have agreed to Estonia coming in
without the resolve of that? On the Copenhagen criteria I also
see from Human Rights Watch this very important paragraph about
the culture of the judges in Turkey not interpreting, they signed
up to the form but not the spirit. Admittedly there has been a
change of government but there have been some disappointing episodes
in Turkey this year. Perhaps we can have your comments and observations
on that?
(Ms Allen) We will need to get back to you, Human
Rights Watch have not done recent, specific work on that[14]
39. Should we have done? There are 50,000 stateless
persons there I understand. What about Turkey?
(Ms Allen) Perhaps we can get back to you on that.
(Mr Crawshaw) We have expressed those concerns. Again
this has been said in a different context earlier, one needs to
acknowledge that enormous progress has been made in Turkey and
that is very important. In a way that is the heartening bit, one
can concentrate on the details but I think bringing together the
theory and practice is enormously important and will continue
to be. The positive signs are the fact that Turkey has made so
many changes and, yes, I would leave it at that.
12 See also Ev 22. Back
13
See Human Rights Watch reports on Afghanistan: All Our
Hopes Are Crushed: Violence and Repression in Western Afghanistan,
HRW, Vol 14, No 7, November 2002; We want to Live as Humans:
Repression of Women and Girls in Western Afghanistan, HRW,
Vol 14, No 11, December 2002 Back
14
See Ev 23. Back
|
