Examination of Witnesses(Questions 40-59)
TUESDAY 7 JANUARY 2003
MR STEVEN
CRAWSHAW, MS
KATE ALLEN
AND MR
TIM HANCOCK
40. You would leave it at that. It seems to
me, it troubles me to be candid with you, that we have lurched
forward being very critical of Turkey and its failure to accommodate
minorities, it is not a dictatorship but it is a halfway house,
as it were. Admittedly there was a change of government but it
is too early to do a real audit of the progress and intent. As
a snapshot today it seems to me Turkey is seriously deficient
on human rights, as of this afternoon. Politically one has sensed
over the past few weeks a major lurch by commentators, by government
ministers, by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, everything
is melting there, it is all going to be glorious through the Copenhagen
criteria. I am pretty jaundiced about that, what is your reaction?
(Mr Hancock) I think what you described reflects what
has happened. If I was looking at it in a positive way, yes, there
has been a number of reforms announced, the death penalty for
example, but you have to see how that works out in practice. I
am concerned people are focusing on reforms that have been espoused
in law and thinking that reform announcements means reform on
the ground, I am a little concerned about that. I would be worried
if I was to take a negative view and say that a lot of commentaries
happening now are a reflection of some kind of desire to get Turkey
into the EU. We know within the European Union there seems to
be a split about the fundamental desirability about getting Turkey
in or out. I would be worried if the United Kingdom as an enthusiast
of having Turkey as a member would in any way weaken its position
on what is going on on the ground in Turkey.
41. NEPAD, the New Partnership for Africa's
Development, in relation to human rights what is its impact on
that? Aid, medication, access to drugs, I know it is not mainstream
but I think it is indivisible to human rights and also the question
of debt relief. Is it working? What is your read on that?
(Mr Hancock) Things like giving people medication
for aids or other communicable diseases, making sure governments
have money to promote their own development, make sure we can
address some of the issues about policing in terms of knowing
how that is working, that is not something that I worked on particularly
closely, we will need to come back to you on that one[15]
That is probably more for Oxfam, or something.
(Mr Crawshaw) We welcome the fact that
NEPAD incorporates the importance of human rights in a way that
was not there before and it comes back to the theory and practice.
42. Human Rights Watch, you refer to the fact
that the European Bank's reconstruction is going to go ahead with
the generous mandate, perhaps you can amplify on that? Is there
something the Foreign Office have asked questions on and should
they have done so?
(Mr Crawshaw) The meeting, which is due at the moment
to take place in May in Tashkent, is the EBRD's[16]annual
meeting. The EBRD has democracy as part of its mandate and this
is seen as an incentive towards democracy. Our concern from the
moment this was announced has been 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,
as mentioned already, is killing people in custody, locking people
up and on one notable occasion boiling people to death. It is
a truly horrific regime. We are not saying the meeting should
be cancelled but we feel there should be benchmarks attached to
the meeting. There was a hint from the President of the Bank,
Jean Lemierre, just before Christmas that it was conceivable that
it could be held alternatively in London, but the impression given
there was that it would wait for the results of the Rapporteur
on Torture's visit, which is yet to come. To answer your question
briefly, at the moment we have a rather muddy situation. If it
remains muddy one already drifts in too late to impose any benchmarks.
You are having a meeting and however outspoken—it would
be good, naturally, if people are outspoken when they go there.
Claire Short will be chairing the meeting—
43. In Tashkent!
(Mr Crawshaw) We are not against the meeting taking
place but we do think it is very important that there are some
very basic benchmarks, which we have listed in letters to the
EU foreign ministers. As you will remember the EU foreign ministers
are the majority shareholders of the Bank.
44. I would like your read on Sierra Leone,
it seems to me of all the various players there in the past they
have not been the Archangel Gabriel and whilst one welcomes the
fact there is a semblance of Parliamentary democracy there again
one cannot help thinking the thing has gone off the boil in terms
of looking at what has happened in Sierra Leone. I would like
you to give us your reading of just what is happening there and
indeed is there more which should be done by leverage? Are we
satisfied with the current government's response? Is there anything
else that you would like to add?
(Ms Allen) That is another one we would need to get
back to you on[17]
(Mr Crawshaw) My short answer would be,
we would have to get back to you, broadly we would certainly be
pleased at the progress that has been made, that needs to be acknowledged.
The situation is a great deal better very, very, very much better.
We do have concerns but we would need to get back to you[18]
45. Romanies throughout Europe, and particularly
in the accession countries but also in the United Kingdom, various
travelling communities, is this not a great areas where all of
the western governments cannot get their head round it because
they all have gypsy, itinerant, Romany communities, tinkers and
various groupings and in a sense because we recognise we have
not had a national strategy in the United Kingdom we are unable
to press other countries, it would be hypocritical to do it. This
is probably a group which is least attractive, as it were, not
to me but to governments. What about Romanies?
(Ms Allen) One of the things Amnesty do is to produce
a report of our concern in Europe and one of the major concerns
in that report has been the treatment of Roma by many European
countries. I think in a United Kingdom context the issue is also
one where asylum seekers come to this country, particularly from
countries such as Romania, seeking asylum because of their treatment
in their home countries, and there is a very harsh regime here
in terms of not recognising asylum claims and the return of people,
and also the placing of immigration officials in capital cities
in various parts of Romania and other countries stopping people
getting on planes in the first place there. So we do have those
concerns in terms of our refugee policy in the UK as it relates
to the Roma.
Chairman: In 2004 the structures for the Roma
in any event will mean they can come in.
Andrew Mackinlay: They cannot claim political
asylum because it is what is termed a "white" country.
Chairman: They can come in any event. Mr Hamilton?
Mr Hamilton
46. Can I move on to Iran. You may or may not
know that this Committee intends to visit Iran in March, and we
will be the first parliamentary committee from Great Britain since
the Islamic revolution to visit that country. In the Foreign Office
Annual Report, the Foreign Office states that its policy of "critical
engagement with Iran aims to encourage the reform process and
enables us to raise regularly . . . issues of concern, particularly
human rights". In your view, has this policy of critical
engagement been bearing fruit?
(Mr Hancock) With critical engagement what you have
got to look for is whether the critical engagement is yielding
progress. The way that we are going with Iran is to engage to
try to reward the moderates within that country, and I would say
on the face of it at present that is probably a sensible strategy.
In our view, the problems come when we have a situation, as we
do in China, where we have been having these formal sessions of
human rights dialogue now for some five or six years and I am
not really noticing any difference. Discussions seem to be almost
exactly the same year on year with a different theme thrown in
as a seminar. That is what we are looking for, we are looking
for some sense that this year is going to be an improvement on
last year, and certainly that five years down the line we have
got substantial differences. If this is the current policy on
Iran, then I would say okay, let's have a look at it and let's
give it a chance. The government needs to articulate, though,
what kind of improvements it is expecting, within what kind of
time-frame, and then in some years and months we need to see how
things are improving. If there is not an improvement then we have
got to change the policy of critical engagement and we have got
to be more critical and have less engagement. That is what I look
for. I do worry if they just say we have got to have a policy
of critical engagement and they do not actually look at what needs
changing.
47. But there is a big difference, is there
not, between Iran and China? In Iran there is a clear split between
the reform elements of President Khatami and the more conservative
(if you can call them that) elements of the Council of Guardians
and the Supreme Leader, whereas in China there is no such clear
split. There may well be a split behind the scenes but we do not
know about it. There is a public split and there is a form of
democracy in Iran which you do not have in China. You may disagree
with that but surely that is the big difference, is it not, to
encourage one of those groups, the more reformist, progressive
elements to, if you like, take precedence and overcome the more
conservative elements?
(Mr Hancock) What I was saying is yes I would agree
with that analysis. Let us give it a chance but if five or six
years down the line we are still saying the same things and the
position of the moderates has not improved or has substantially
weakened then we need to decide whether now is the time for UK
policy to change. That is all I am saying. Give it a fair chance
but make sure we keep it under constant review.
48. Given that the foreign minister of Iran
is coming to London next month, what issues would you wish our
government to raise with him in particular and given that we are
going there, we hope, in March what should we raise as a Foreign
Affairs Committee? What are the particular issues?
(Mr Hancock) I would not mind talking to our experts
on that and provide you with a brief[19]
We will certainly write to the Foreign Secretary later this month.
Chairman
49. It would be helpful if you let us have a
memorandum.
(Mr Crawshaw) It is something that we have taken a
very strong interest in and we would be very pleased to help[20]
Mr Hamilton
50. Any information you can give us for our
trip would be very helpful. EU representatives met with their
Iranian counterparts to discuss human rights issues last month
in Tehran. To your knowledge have these talks been productive?
(Mr Hancock) As far as I am aware, it
has been a "getting to know you" session. Human rights
would have been raised in a thematic way. It is the first time
there has been a specific human rights dialogue between the EU
and Iran. I need to get back to our EU office to see if they can
add to what I have said. Again with human rights dialogues they
are useful if once we have got over the initial getting to know
you phase we can agree on some specific projects and some specific
areas where improvements can be sought. So long as we are making
progress on that I support human rights dialogue. What I do not
want is the human rights dialogue being a pigeon-hole for human
rights. Let's watch out for that.
51. Both your organisations were denied access
to that meeting. Has that been changed at all or are you still
not permitted to attend?
(Mr Hancock) I am not aware of any change.
(Mr Crawshaw) I am not aware of any change.
52. If you were permitted to attend, what questions
would you be putting directly?
(Mr Crawshaw) All of this stuff is enormously important
and I know that we have got people who are looking at it in great
detail. It will be more productive probably to have a so-called
substantive session.
Chairman
53. Are there circumstances where either or
both of your organisations have been included in an EU delegation
in such circumstances or might some outsiders consider it somewhat
presumptuous for you to be involved in inter-governmental talks
of that nature?
(Mr Hancock) With the China dialogue there was a stage
where there was a session which was open where NGOs could participate.
I am not certain whether that is still the case.
54. You do not know in China?
(Mr Hancock) I gave up the ghost on it, to be honest
with you, because we thought everything was circular.
55. You think you should be taken in as part
of an official, effective EU-to-Iran delegation? (Mr Hancock)
Possibly. We will have to look at the circumstances. As I said,
with China where there was a segment where we could participate,
we felt that the human rights dialogue was so unproductive that
we did not want to participate.
56. We need to move on. In terms of China, clearly
the Government believes still that critical dialogue is the best
way of making progress. Can you think of any better way?
(Mr Hancock) Yes, we come back to the perennial appeal
of Amnesty International and I think of the Committee as well,
one thing that we think really needs to happen is that the European
Union has explicitly to co-sponsor or table a draft resolution
on China at next year's UN Commission on Human Rights. If they
do that then I would say that is a step in the right direction.
57. Just to move on, clearly the major human
rights issue in Hong Kong currently is Article 23 of the Basic
Law[21]
What can you tell us about the opposition in that respect? Have
the concerns of people like Martin Lee been exaggerated? Is it
something that our Government needs to press the Chinese authorities
on strongly?
(Mr Crawshaw) It is something that we
have expressed strong concerns about. No, we do not believe Martin
Lee has exaggerated. Again with apologies, it is something which
I know we have been looking at[22]
Mr Chidgey
58. We have had a number of submissions to the
Committee setting out a rather disturbing picture of the situation
in North Korea where they say "human rights are repressed
at every level". One particular aspect which is concerning
as it appears to be worsening in recent months: the plight of
refugees fleeing to China. There are reports that many women refugees
are being forced into sexual slavery while those that are caught
by the Chinese authorities are forced back across the border to
who knows what fate. I would very much like to have your views
on what you believe is happening there, in particular for example,
to your knowledge, has the situation in North Korea regarding
refugees fleeing to China worsened in recent months owing to the
number who have claimed asylum in foreign embassies in particular?
How difficult is it to get accurate information about what is
happening in this region? Perhaps you would both like to comment
on that.
(Mr Crawshaw) Human Rights Watch has looked pretty
closely at this and has produced something which I would be happy
to forward also[23]
In broad terms it certainly has not got better, that can clearly
be said. In terms of what Britain might or might not be able to
do, one major glaring gap at the moment is that the North Koreans
are refusing to engage with the UNHCR on this issue. We are not
saying that would solve the problem but at least that would be
a first step. It is very clear that UNHCR ought to be involved
in something like this, which at the moment they are not able
to. That would certainly be worth pressing more.
(Ms Allen) We certainly covered these
issues in our last Annual Report. We could get back to you with
any update on that[24]
59. Would you like to see the United Kingdom
putting greater pressure on China with regard to this particular
issue and, if it did, what concrete issues would you like to see
the UK Government urging upon the Chinese?
(Mr Hancock) Certainly the refugee issue and China
hounding refugees back to North Korea is something that needs
to stop. I would like to see the UK Government making itself absolutely
clear on that point. It is difficult given China's human rights
record, but it would be good to see the Chinese government trying
to exercise some level of restraint on Pyongyang in terms of human
rights, but that is probably fanciful.
15 See Ev 23. Back
16
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Back
17
See Ev 24-25. Back
18
Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper on Sierra Leone: The Jury
is Still Out, 11 July 2002. Back
19
See Ev 25-26. Back
20
Human Rights Watch Press Release: EU-Iran Conference must set
Human Rights Benchmarks: Backgrounder on Human Rights Dialogue,
14 December 2002. Back
21
See also Ev 26-27. Back
22
Human Rights Watch Press Release: Hong Kong Subversion Proposals
Threaten Liberties: Public Consultation Should be Extended, 24
December 2002. Back
23
Human Rights Watch Report on North Korea: The Invisible Exodus:
North Koreans in the People's Republic of China, HRW, Vol 14,
No 8, November 2002. Back
24
See Ev 27. Back
| 
