Examination of Witnesses(Questions 100-119)
TUESDAY 28 JANUARY 2003
MR BILL
RAMMELL, MP, MS
PHILLIPA DREW
AND MR
JON BENJAMIN
Mr Pope
100. I would like to ask about the situation
in Uzbekistan, the reason being the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development is holding its annual meeting in Uzbekistan in
May, I think. The United Kingdom is a major shareholder in the
Bank and we are chairing some of the sessions and yet Human Rights
Watch told this Committee: "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". Is it not
extraordinary that this meeting is going to take place in Tashkent
and should we use our good offices to make sure it does not take
place?
(Mr Rammell) The first point I would like to make
is that we do have concerns about the deterioration of the human
rights situation in Uzbekistan, particularly in relation to torture
and actually I think we have a fairly strong record. The Ambassador's
speech at the opening of Freedom House was, to coin a phrase,
very blunt and very critical. I think that is a demonstration
of our concern and our willingness to act upon that concern. In
terms of the specifics of the European Bank of Reconstruction
and Development and the meeting at Tashkent in May, I think that
is an opportunity to focus on the needs of Central Asia, where
there is desperate poverty, high levels of debt and corruption.
The 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. We want to encourage reform not only in Uzbekistan
but throughout the region. I can assure you that with Clare Short
chairing that, as she will be, she will certainly not be giving
them an easy ride. I think it is also worth noting, I did note
this when I was reading the evidence session from Human Rights
Watch and Amnesty International, they were not calling on us to
try and stop that meeting taking place, they felt it could be
a positive contribution to change.
101. When you say that it is not an endorsement,
my point is that the Uzbek Government takes it as an endorsement.
We may not mean it as one but that is how they are taking it and
that is the kind of PR spin they are putting on it, it is an endorsement
of their policies. The point I really want to put to you is, is
this not an example of the opposite of joined-up government. We
have the Foreign Office saying in its Annual Report on page 148,
"there has been no improvement in Uzbekistan's worrying record
on respecting people's rights to freedom of expression",
and on the other hand we have the Secretary of State for International
Development—who often, it seems to me, parades herself as
the conscience of the Government—going out to Tashkent to
chair this meeting. What I really want to know is, has the Foreign
Office made any representation to the Secretary of State for International
Development, and do you think it ought to, to suggest that we
should look at this a second time?
(Mr Rammell) We have not made those representations.
The ultimate judgment on this issue will come when the meeting
takes place and what reporting there is of that within Uzbekistan
and the surrounding countries. If, as we assert, and certainly
Clare Short asserts, this will be an opportunity to really encourage
reform and also highlight the human rights concerns that exist
within Uzbekistan and surrounding countries then I think that
will be a positive experience. If we were to pull our punches
at the meeting and it really was to be seen as an endorsement
of the regime then I think you would be justified in those concerns.
I am confident it will be the former of those two situations.
102. Is there not also an opportunity for us
to use some leverage in advance of the meeting in May and demand
some benchmarks off the Uzbeks about freedom of opposition parties,
which seems to me an area of real concern in Uzbekistan? Why do
we not lay down a benchmark and say, this meeting will not take
place unless by May we have some evidence that things have improved
as far as freedom of speech for opposition parties is concerned?
(Mr Rammell) We do have a number changes that we are
calling for with the Uzbeks. I am not going to reject what you
are saying out of hand and I ensure you we look at that, although
playing roulette with international meetings such as this can
be dangerous process and end up with unintended consequences.
It is something that we will look at to ensure that this meeting
is an opportunity for scrutiny, an opportunity for challenge and
an opportunity for change and is most certainly not an opportunity
to endorse what the Uzbeks are doing.
103. Would it be possible to write to the committee
after the meeting in May to tell us what progress has been made?
(Mr Rammell) I will certainly do that.
Andrew Mackinlay
104. Taking your point, I think the self-evident
truth is that it is probably not a matter we could pull out of
now. Surely the lesson to be learned here is there was some United
Kingdom official—I do not know if it was our person at the
European Bank of Reconstruction and Development—somebody
at some level who was asleep because he or she at an early stage
when they decide where they hold this conference should have said,
"hold on, this is a sensitive location". We have seen
that to some extent, if you like, with the United Kingdom Government
not flagging up objections to cricket—I do not want to go
into that. I want to put it to you that whilst the mainstream
diplomats are alive to human rights issues, I think probably there
needs to be a message sent right down the line and across the
spectrum of agencies which suggests they always have to be alive
to this issue because clearly if this had been caught early enough
there could have been a different location. From reading what
you say, I do not want to put words in your mouth, with hindsight
we could have flagged it up with other partners, "not Tashkent".
I wonder if that could be borne in mind. You seem to be proud
of, as I am, the ambassador in Uzbekistan, who we saw as courageous,
that was the view of yourself at HMG.
(Mr Rammell) Yes.
105. The final point in this area, I think the
mission at Tashkent is quite small. In the other "stans"
they are very, very small. In Kyrgyzstan, which is the one beacon
of fairly democratic norms, probably the best and smallest, I
do not think we have an ambassador there.
Chairman: Yes, we have. We established an embassy
a year ago.
Andrew Mackinlay
106. There is a void, there is an empty desk,
is there not? Am I wrong?
(Mr Rammell) No, the ambassador comes from Kazhakstan.
107. That is my point, there is a not one.
(Mr Rammell) There is a post[7]
108. Yes, there is a post but an empty desk.
It seems to me this is a bit reckless of us, in relation to the
Kyrgyzstan but I also think in terms of the regions we ought to
beef-up our staff there, particularly in Uzbekistan where there
is serious human rights violations, a sensitive area because of
United States presence, we ought to be beefing-up our representation
and getting somebody at the empty desk in Bishkek.
(Mr Rammell) Let me deal with your first point, I
would not accept the contention that anybody was asleep in terms
of the meeting of the Bank of Reconstruction, I do not think that
is valid.
Chairman
109. Did we make any objection, any observations
at the time when the venue was being discussed?
(Mr Rammell) Liaison takes place on an on-going basis
between officials and all venues are looked at very carefully.
On the general point that you make, I think the point about joined-up
government is an important one. There is a chapter in the Annual
Report on that very issue. One of the things we were seeking to
do in our approach to human rights is to mainstream it. With respect
to the two officials who are here it is not their explicit, discrete
responsibility, it is actually the responsibility of everyone
who works not only in the Foreign Office but in other government
departments. In terms of the issue about representation, we are
currently going through our resource allocation review at the
moment and one of the things that we as a Department and the ministerial
team are focused on is the need to ensure that our representation
throughout the world reflects the developing realities and concerns
in line with our overall policies. Sometimes that is not the case
because posts are established on the basis of what has happened
historically. That is a difficult process because any process
of reviewing rationalisation can lead to some difficult decisions,
but it is one we are determined to take forward.
Mr Olner
110. Can you look at the part in the Annual
Report that deals with Afghanistan. It does appear in the Report
that it concentrates largely on developments within the capital
Kabul. Are you not concerned about the human rights situation
in the rest of the country and that it is not improving as rapidly,
and in some cases even deteriorating?
(Mr Rammell) Let me say this, if I can, Mr Olner.
I think there has undoubtedly been progress in Afghanistan since
the fall of the Taliban but I will acknowledge, I will be candid
with you, the progress in Kabul and the surrounding areas has
been greater than in the rest of Afghanistan. There has been real
progress, the very fact that girls now go to school, women go
to work. Last weekend the first woman passed her driving test
in 10 years in Afghanistan, that is evidence that progress is
being made. There are cultural and entertainment events taking
place that did not previously take place. There has been a proliferation
of newspapers, although not along the lines of the free press
that we would wish. I fully acknowledge that progress has been
greater in Kabul and the surrounding areas than the rest of the
country. I think there are, however, some positive developments
in terms of the rest of the country. We have certainly supported
the Afghan presidential decree on the separation of administrative
and military power in the regions, which I think can be a positive
development and it is one that we understand is supported by regional
leaders. Also, bluntly, part of the reason why the situation is
better in Kabul than the rest of the country is because of efforts
and the activities of ISAF. The difficulty there is there is not
a willingness and enthusiasm amongst the international community
to extend the activities of ISAF.
111. The greater percentage of the country is
still run by warlords and human rights violations are rife, what
are we going to do to get the impetus back? All of the very good,
noble promises that were made after the war on Afghanistan, it
was said that the war was the easy bit, the second bit was making
sure that the Afghans knew what we had done it for would be much
more difficult. We seem to have lost our way on that.
(Mr Rammell) Anybody who thought that we could go
in to Afghanistan and within a relatively short period of time,
which is what we are still talking about, we could see massive
change I think was being unrealistic. Your concern that we do
not do what historically has been the case, we go in and sort
out a situation and then we depart, there is certainly not the
view that that should happen. We are looking very proactively
with the Afghans about ways they can provide for their own security,
which I think has to be the long-term solution to getting a better
settlement in the rest of Afghanistan.
112. I would commend the Report for its very
good picture of the Afghan lady with her face revealed but it
is still very true that in the rest of the country the women are
still not able to remove their burqas and in many parts of the
country the rights that are so fiercely praised in there are just
not for women in the rest of the country.
(Mr Rammell) Let me make one general point and then
return to the specific. I was very upfront at the beginning that
I think the progress has been greater in Kabul than in the rest
of the country. I think there is some validity in the point you
are making. Yes, there has been progress, particularly in Kabul,
but more generally since the fall of the Taliban particularly
in terms of girls' and women's rights. We are not just talking
about the move from the Taliban to a different regime. We are
talking about deeply ingrained cultural and historical attitude
and the idea that just by bringing in a transition administration
and international support that those very deeply ingrained attitudes
are going to change overnight or even within a process of months
or years I do not think is realistic. Does that mean we are not
concerned about it? No, it does not. We are very concerned and
we have committed £200 million over 5 years to different
projects to try and support the development of women's rights
and human rights within the whole of Afghanistan because we believe
the only long-term way that you can turn that situation round
is by women in Afghanistan leading that process, and we want to
help them to do that.
Mr Hamilton
113. Can I follow up something that you said
about ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force, and its
extension. In the Report you describe very well how ISAF's work
in Kabul has made sure that Kabul is secure and people can live
in relative peace and safety in the Kabul area. My concern is
that given the success of ISAF in Kabul surely one would want
to see ISAF's work extended outside Kabul to the rest of the country.
Is it realistic to expect an improvement in human rights throughout
Afghanistan unless ISAF's mandate is extended?
(Mr Rammell) In an ideal world I think the point you
are making has got a lot of sense, however the reality is that
there is very little appetite amongst the current contributing
nations to ISAF to commit additional troops. It is also the case
that extending the remit of ISAF will require a further UN mandate.
There is also no guarantee that what has worked in Kabul will
work elsewhere in the country. We are, therefore, given that reality,
and it is a difficult reality, working with the Afghan authorities
and the international partners to try and establish homegrown
Afghan democratically controlled institutions and forces, which
has to be the best way of taking forward the progress that has
been made in Kabul, to elsewhere in the country.
114. How hopeful are you that will succeed given
what you said about the ingrained cultural history?
(Mr Rammell) We are determined. I do not want to sit
here glibly and give you guarantees. I could say that but, in
reality I am a Foreign Office minister of the British Government
and we can not say this will happen but we will do our damnedest
to ensure that it happens. I think we have a track record, if
you compare what we have done with other countries since the fall
of the Taliban, we have a very positive record. We will do our
level best, and I think there are grounds for optimism that that
will work but I am not going to give you a glib off-the-cuff guarantee
that it will work.
Mr Pope
115. I wanted to move on to Hong Kong if that
is possible. The Report quite rightly states in my view, and I
welcome this, that freedom of speech, association and travel are
the benchmarks of an open society and I am sure there is widespread
agreement on that. Do you share my concern that in Hong Kong the
possible implementation of Article 23 of the Basic Law will curtail
those very freedoms which we cherish and which, as I say, are
the benchmarks in open society in Hong Kong?
(Mr Rammell) Let we make one or two prefacing remarks
that we think, since the hand-over in 1997, the "two systems
one country", is working well. There are economic difficulties
that Hong Kong is facing at the moment but broadly the things
that make Hong Kong a success story, the rule of law, free press,
decent institutions, are working well and are bearing fruit. The
Special Administrative Regional Government has to implement Article
23; that was always envisaged by both the joint declaration in
1984 and the hand-over document. However, there are concerns about
the possible implication of Article 23, particularly in terms
of the suggestions of the extra-territoriality cessation and also
the outlawing of groups because they are outlawed on the mainland.
We have made clear our view to the SAR Government that we hope
there will be the widest possible consultation on the detail of
those proposals before they get to what is called the blue bill
stage, the final legislation. There have been calls for a white
bill and I think there are a number of ways they can achieve that.
I was in Hong Kong the week before last and engaged in that discussion
directly with ministers within the SAR Government. They are coming
up to the crunch point on decisions, I will not state it higher
than that. I was actually reasonably heartened that they are looking
for ways to address some of the concerns. They have said that
once the detailed proposals come forward a lot of the concerns
will prove to be ill-founded. The proof will be in the pudding.
They are looking at mechanisms to consult on some of the detail,
and I welcome that.
116. What is your judgment on this: Amnesty
International tell us that they thought there would be widespread
censorship, which they thought would lead to the imprisonment
of prisoners of conscience, they thought it would lead to longer
prison sentences for people carrying seditious material. Is that
a valid concern or do you think—you said sometimes Amnesty
and other organisations tend to overstate things—they are
overstating it or is that a really valid concern?
(Mr Rammell) It is going to sound like I am ducking
the question and I am genuinely trying not to. I am actually saying
to you what I said to Regina Ip, who is the lead minister responsible
for handling it. Until I and FCO officials actually see the detailed
legislation we cannot properly make a judgment and it is in response
to that point that I get a sense that there is perhaps a willingness
to discuss the detail in a way that maybe has not previously been
envisaged. If this goes wrong and if it is handled badly then
I think that some of those concerns could be well founded. However,
I am confident, given the discussions that I have had, that there
appears to be a determination to ensure that that is not the case.
The devil is in the detail and we need to see the detail.
117. You said at the beginning of this session
that sometimes it is better to engage in a private word when dealing
with some countries rather than with, say, `loudhailer diplomacy'.
It strikes me that, given your response, China is perhaps a good
example of that.
(Mr Rammell) When I was in Hong Kong, immediately
before that I had been to Beijing and I discussed my view of Article
23 and I gave exactly the same view as I have given to you. I
did not go into the detail because it is properly not a matter
for the Beijing authorities. It is clear within the handover agreement
that it is for the SAR Government to implement Article 23.
118. My last point really is just for clarification.
So you can reassure the Committee that, in fact, representations
have been made very recently by yourself on behalf of the UK Government
precisely about this point to both the regional governments in
Hong Kong and in Beijing?
(Mr Rammell) Yes, I can, but I need to put the Beijing
representation in context, not because of anything that will be
of concern to the Beijing authorities but because of what some
of the democracy activists in Hong Kong rightly will be concerned
about. I was talking about the generality of the issue and I certainly
was not negotiating with the Beijing authorities because this
is properly a matter for implementation by the SAR Government.
119. But our concerns have been expressed?
(Mr Rammell) Absolutely.
7 Note by witness: DfID employs three local
staff at their office in Bishkek. See also Ev 53. Back
|
