House of Commons - Foreign Affairs

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Fourth Report

Other states of interest

92. This year we have chosen to comment on 14 states, some of which have problems with human rights and some of which have made considerable progress.

Afghanistan

93. The Annual Report dedicates a section to the human rights situation in Afghanistan, in response to our request last year for more information on the human rights situation in the Central Asian state.[124] In particular, the security situation in Afghanistan remains uncertain. The Annual Report says: "While political progress has been made, security remains a real problem,"[125] and welcomes efforts by regional leaders to work with the Transitional Administration.

94. Another area of major concern is the status of women in Afghanistan. The Annual Report says that

Afghanistan publicly demonstrated its intention to ensure full and equal rights for women by ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) on 5 March 2003. The UK has offered to help Afghanistan implement CEDAW.[126]

95. However, women's rights in Afghanistan remain severely curtailed. Amnesty International said in their submission:

The treatment of women remains a matter of real concern. Afghanistan ratified CEDAW in 2003 and the UK government has offered help and advice on implementation matters. Women and girls continue to face widespread domestic violence, forced marriage and rape by armed groups. The criminal judicial system is still too weak to offer effective protection of women's right to life and physical security, and itself subjects them to discrimination and abuse.[127]

96. Amnesty International went further, and said: "The UK government and international community needs to provide the long-term money, training and skills necessary to establish an effective justice system in Afghanistan which will fully integrate the protection of women's rights with the reform of law enforcement, legal and judicial system."[128]

97. We conclude that the continued insecurity in Afghanistan is a major impediment to the establishment of decent standards of human rights, and is one of the reasons why the Government and its NATO allies should take steps to improve security in Afghanistan. We also conclude that the status of women in Afghanistan is a major human rights concern and recommend that the Government intensify efforts to ensure full and equal treatment of women in Afghanistan.

Burma (Myanmar)

98. The Annual Report has a thorough section dealing with human rights abuses in Burma. The Report says:

The past year has proved to be another depressing period for the people of Burma during which tentative hopes for moves towards democracy and improved human rights adherence by the military regime were raised, eroded and then abruptly shattered by the regime's renewed crackdown on the democratic movement since May 2003. Human rights violations in Burma continue to be widespread and systematic and the Burmese ethnic minority groups suffer disproportionately.[129]

99. Human rights abuses in Burma are extensive. A report by the Burma UN Service of the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma[130] submitted to the 60^th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights resolution on 'The human rights situation in Myanmar' states:

Violations of human rights, including arbitrary killings, rape, looting, forced relocation, and destruction of villages continue particularly in the border areas where large-scale military offensives are launched against ethnic minorities. The Burmese people continue to be held hostage under the military's corrupt, brutal, inhumane, and undemocratic policies.[131]

The democratically elected government has been unable to take power since the elections in 1990 at which it won 82% of the vote, while its leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, is still held under house arrest by the Burmese authorities and progress towards her release remains glacial. The members of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) also weakened the campaign to ostracise Burma because of its human rights record by permitting its accession into the international organisation in 2002. We met representatives of the Burmese government in exile in March 2004.

100. Last year we called on the FCO to ensure that its Annual Report included more information about the plight of Karen and other minorities.[132] It is pleasing to note that the Annual Report 2003 includes a more substantial section on the abuse of minorities in Burma.[133]

101. We conclude that given the continued abuses perpetrated by the unrepresentative cabal of generals in control of Burma the FCO's work to expand its coverage of Burma to include abuses against ethnic minorities is commendable. We recommend that the Government work both bilaterally and in multilateral institutions to bring about the restoration of democratically elected government in Burma, and bring pressure on ASEAN members to take a more robust position on human rights abuses in Burma.

Colombia

102. The section of the Annual Report covering Colombia is thorough. The Report states:

Violence—murders, torture, massacres and kidnappings as well as forced recruitment by the illegal armed groups—tops the list of serious abuses of human rights in Colombia. Bombings and landmines kill civilians as well as police and armed forces personnel. Civilians are murdered if they refuse to move from their land or to join one of the armed groups, or if they are simply believed to be supporters of the 'enemy'. The list of those considered undesirable by one or other of the combatants is long: trades unionists, human rights defenders, journalists, teachers, local and national government representatives, lawyers and church leaders.[134]

103. Despite the Report's extensive coverage, Christian Solidarity Worldwide drew attention in their submission to a number of human rights abuses and their countenance by the government of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe unmentioned in the Annual Report. Their submission states:

The current government, under the leadership of Alvaro Uribe, has pushed a hardline agenda aimed at wiping out terrorist organisations. However, international observers—including NGOs and governmental organisations (including UN agencies, the US government and the EU) have expressed concern at the methods employed in this endeavour. Uribe attempted to push through legislation that would have severely curtailed civil rights—however, this went to a national referendum and was soundly defeated.[135]

104. The submission goes on to state:

In addition, the Uribe government has sought an increasingly close relationship with the Colombian military, which, as stated above, has a highly dubious record on human rights and respect for civilians. Unfortunately, Uribe has very little tolerance for any form of criticism directed at his policies and has also caused great concern in the human rights community, both domestic and international, by publicly referring to human rights organisations (without specifying which ones) as supporters of terrorist or guerrilla organisations. This type of declaration, in Colombia, is widely understood to give a green light to paramilitary organisations to carry out targeted assassinations of human rights workers.[136]

105. The Annual Report paints a contrasting picture of the Uribe government. It states: "The Uribe government has stated it will take human rights commitments seriously. We believe that it is genuinely committed to taking steps to address the human rights situation, and we will be supportive of its efforts to this end."[137] The Report goes on to say President Uribe has taken steps "to ensure that trades unionist activists, local government representatives and human rights defenders could conduct their business free from threats or intimidation."[138] However, the Report mentions that between 3000 to 4000 politically motivated murders occur each year, including in 2002 more than 170 trades unionists.[139]

106. We conclude that the Annual Report's coverage of the human rights situation in Colombia is thorough when examining abuses committed by the rebel groups, but that it may have underplayed the extent of abuses by the Colombian government.

Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)

107. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) perpetrates human rights abuses which are amongst the worst in the world. Accusations range from allegations that the North Korean regime has carried out gas chamber experiments reminiscent of the Holocaust as part of its chemical weapons program to the routine incarceration of 200,000 people, torture and mass executions of political dissidents.[140] Many Koreans flee the DPRK across the border to the Korean speaking parts of northern China.[141]

108. Putting pressure on the dictatorial regime of Kim Jong-il to improve human rights is difficult because of the state's reclusive nature and rogue status, but the United Kingdom opened relations with the DPRK in 2000. Under the Agreed Framework in 1994 that offered aid in exchange for undertakings by the DPRK not to develop its nuclear weapons capabilities, the United Kingdom and the European Union contributed to the supply of heavy fuel oil as part of the Korean Peninsular Energy Development Organisation (KEDO). However, KEDO suspended its activities in October 2002 following statements by Kim Jong-il about DPRK's nuclear weapons capability, and almost all negotiations, including those on human rights, have since stalled. The UK suspended its programme for technical assistance to North Korea pending movement on the nuclear issue.[142]

109. We asked Bill Rammell about the situation in North Korea and he told us:

I have to say as the FCO minister responsible for human rights you deal on a daily and weekly basis with accusations and allegations of human rights atrocities but the passage you have just read I found one of the most appalling I have dealt with in the fifteen months that I have held this post, and arguably the human rights situation in North Korea is the worst in the world. It is something that we have raised consistently: I did it when I met Vice Foreign Minister Kye when he visited London back in May. Immediately following the BBC documentary it was raised at official level and I called in the North Korean Ambassador to discuss it in detail. I pressed the individual that you have referred to; I also pressed him strongly on the fact that the alleged prison camps all happen to be in areas of the country that are sealed off for so-called 'security' purposes.[143]

110. However, the Minister also said that one of the biggest problems was the verification of human rights abuses in the DPRK, since the state maintains a staunchly hermetic attitude.[144]

111. We agree with FCO Minister Bill Rammel that "arguably the human rights situation in North Korea is the worst in the world". We recommend that the Government work with its partners in the USA, China, Japan, Russia and on the Korean peninsular to exert stronger pressure for human rights improvements in North Korea.

Egypt

112. Human Rights Watch state:

Egypt has been governed by state of emergency legislation almost continuously since 1958. The emergency law gives the government extensive powers to suspend basic liberties, including powers to arrest suspects at will and detain them without trial for prolonged periods, and to refer civilians to military or exceptional state security courts. These tribunals allow no appeal to a higher judicial body. Their verdicts can only be overturned or modified by the President of the Republic.[145]

113. The Annual Report says that the FCO "is empowering Egyptian civil society by funding a campaign for legislative change to the emergency laws. The emergency laws are major obstacles to progress on human rights in Egypt and reforming these laws has not yet been publicly discussed."[146]

114. The trial and sentence of three British men, alongside 22 Egyptians, for attempting to revive an Islamic group illustrates the problems of the emergency laws. The Egyptian authorities have held the three British nationals, Ian Nisbet, Reza Pankhurst, and Maajid Nawaz, since April 2002, but only passed sentence on 24 March 2004.[147] The authorities detained the three men for their links with Hizb-ut-Tahrir, an Islamist organisation that is legal in the United Kingdom but banned in Egypt.[148] Mr Nisbet and Mr Pankhurst were learning Arabic in Cairo, while Mr Nawaz was on a mandatory year abroad for his degree studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London.[149] It is alleged that the three men suffered torture at the State Security Headquarters in Nasr City for five or six days after their arrests and then had to sign statements in Arabic that they could not read, admitting to links with Hizb-ut-Tahrir.[150] The judicial proceedings did not conform to accepted standards and the judge summarily deferred a verdict until March 2004.[151] The three men had been jailed for nearly two years without trial before receiving sentences of between one and five years.[152]

115. We asked the Government what it was doing to aid the men. Bill Rammell said:

We are, through our embassy, seeking an explanation for that delay. We have also written directly to the Foreign Minister to bluntly express concern about the time it is taking to complete, and we have also sought a reassurance that there will be a verdict on 25 March.[153]

116. Despite the Government's efforts, the case raises serious doubts about the adequacy of the Egyptian judicial system and concerns that groups opposing the existing regime face punitive extrajudicial sanctions. The faults in the system are clear. We are aware, however, of the very serious terrorist threat faced by Egypt.

117. We recommend that the Government put pressure on the Egyptian authorities to carry out judicial reform, particularly of criminal justice, and to abolish any use of torture. We recommend that next year's Annual Report provide more information on the human rights situation in Egypt.

The Gulf States[154]

118. The Annual Report does not dedicate a great amount of space to the human rights situation in the Gulf States of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), although it mentions the use of children as young as four as camel jockeys in Qatar and the UAE. It states:

We want to strengthen action to combat the trafficking of children to the Gulf States for their use as camel jockeys. We are funding a project by Anti-Slavery International to exert pressure in those countries where camel racing takes place and also to help NGOs in countries the children come from to co-ordinate their lobbying against the practice.[155]

119. Other problems persist in the Gulf States. In a letter to us on 16 February 2004, the FCO said:

Freedom of speech and of the press are provided for in the constitutions of Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and UAE but these rights remain restricted in practice. In all of the Gulf States there are varying forms of censorship of the media, under law in Oman and Kuwait and in practice in Qatar.[156]

120. Additionally, many guest workers in the Gulf States suffer from abuse and lack of any form of restitution under the existing systems. The FCO told us:

Kuwait employs about one million foreign workers, mainly from south-east Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Many are household workers. There have been reports of physical and sexual abuse by employers but because this category of worker is not specifically included in the 1964 law on work in the private sector, many cases are not prosecuted.[157]

121. Human Rights Watch claim that as many as 5.5 million migrant workers live in Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE, where they constitute the majority of the population. Human Rights Watch state that:

Migrants, including large numbers of women employed as domestic servants, face intimidation and violence at the hands of employers, supervisors, sponsors, and police and security forces. Intimidated by violence or the threat of it, workers are often afraid to demand unpaid wages, protest poor conditions, or seek legal recourse for abuses.[158]

The workers also have no rights to freedom of movement or trade union organisation.[159]

122. We recommend that the Government press its close allies in the Gulf to carry out reforms that establish the rights of guest workers, as well as other political and social reforms, and not to turn a blind eye because of their strategic importance. We recommend that next year's Annual Report should provide more information on human rights in the Gulf states, particularly the rights of women.

Iran

123. The Annual Report also deals with the human rights situation in Iran and examines the breadth of concerns raised in the international arena.[160] Human Rights Watch said in their submission to the Inquiry that since the publication of the Annual Report the human rights situation in Iran had worsened. Their submission states:

Scores of students, writers and journalists have been detained in 2003. The first two dialogues with the European Union have notably failed to produce results. Iran should release political prisoners, and should authorise an independent investigation into judicial abuses by the Office of the Chief Prosecutor.[161]

124. We examined the human rights situation in Iran at length in our Third Report of Session 2003-04. In that report we drew attention to the limited political freedoms, the flawed elections of February 2004, the personal freedoms of young people, women and religious minorities. We also mentioned the murder of the Canadian-Iranian photo-journalist, Zahra Kazemi.[162]

125. We concluded in our Iran report that the recent elections were a setback for political freedoms and that the Government should remind its Iranian friends of the benefits of democracy and that the position of women is improving although inequitable laws remain in place. We also concluded that the suppression of religious communities damages Iran's relations with other states, and that its treatment of the Bahá'í community is inconsistent with its obligations under international law.[163]

Israel and the Palestinian Territories

126. The human rights situation in Israel and the Palestinian Territories is well documented. We published an extensive examination of the conflict in our Report of February 2004 on Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism[164] and the Annual Report dedicates a substantial section to the Arab-Israeli conflict.[165]

127. Major issues remain unresolved. For instance, the construction of the 'security fence' inside the Occupied Territories raises a series of human rights concerns, since the wall could render impossible a viable Palestinian economy and prevent the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict on a two state basis. In our Report on Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism, we said:

We conclude that conditions in the occupied West Bank are changing rapidly, and that the continuation of Israel's current settlement policies, and its construction of the 'security fence', will make the eventual establishment of a contiguous and economically viable Palestinian state increasingly difficult if not impossible.[166]

The recent decision by the Israeli government to accelerate the construction of the 'Security Fence' makes the issue more pressing.[167] Additionally, the assassinations of Sheik Ahmed Yassin on 22 March 2004 and Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi on 18 April 2004 have highlighted Israel's continued use of extrajudicial killings.[168]

128. However, Israel's policies are a response to the terrorism perpetrated by Palestinian suicide bombers against Israeli civilians and encouraged by organisations such as Hamas. In our Report, we said:

In particular, more should be done by the [Palestinian Authority] to arrest and bring to justice those responsible for the recruiting, training, equipping and launching of suicide bombers and to prevent the honouring and even encouraging of suicide bombers and their masters by the Palestinian media.[169]

There is no doubt that the Palestinian Authority could and should do more to curb the activities of the suicide bombers.

129. We recommend that the Government do all in its power to encourage both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to adhere to human rights standards in all respects, for instance both by condemning suicide bombings by the Palestinians and urging the Israelis not to construct their 'security fence' inside the occupied West Bank, as well as condemning any extrajudicial killings.

Morocco

130. Some states have improved their human rights record of late. Reforms to introduce higher human rights standards in Morocco have accelerated since the accession of King Mohammed VI in July 1999. In particular, there has been a very marked progress towards peaceful democratic change with the elections in September 2003. Morocco is a relative beacon amongst its neighbours and throughout the Arab world. The FCO wrote to us on 16 February 2004 and said:

In December 2001, the King announced the creation of the organisation of the institution of ombudsman, an arbiter between citizens and public administrations. Reorganisation of the national human rights council has also been announced. In 2003, the Moudawana (a personal civil status code based on Malekite jurisprudence of sharia) was amended to improve the status of women.[170]

Additionally, the King appointed a Justice and Reconciliation Commission to look into cases of unaccounted for disappeared.[171]

131. However, areas of concern still exist. For instance, "European diplomatic reports have noted that following the May bombings, reports of torture and arbitrary arrest had increased, but the feeling is that this was not a return to the forms of repression which had characterised previous regimes…but a backwards step in an otherwise improving context."[172] Concerns about this "backwards step" may possibly increase following the bombings in Madrid on 11 March 2004 that killed over 200 people because a number of the suspects detained for the attacks are of Moroccan origin.[173]

132. We conclude that Morocco's efforts to introduce democracy are both commendable and an example for the entire Arab world. We recommend that the Government encourage the Moroccan authorities to continue improving human rights in Morocco. We also recommend that next year's Annual Report include more information on human rights in Morocco.

Nepal

133. The escalation of the conflict in Nepal raises concerns about human rights in the mountain state. For instance, on 22 March 2004 5000 Maoist rebels attacked the western Nepalese town of Beni, and about 600 people died in the battle.[174] The conflict in Nepal has worsened and Human Rights Watch suggests that hundreds or even thousands of civilians have died at the hands of forces of both the government and Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (CPN).[175] Additionally, on 4 October 2002 King Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah suspended the constitution under security pressures, although he made clear in February 2004 his preference for a return to democratic rule.[176]

134. The Annual Report mentions the burgeoning civil war in Nepal, saying: "Since the summer of 2002 the UK has concentrated its efforts in Nepal on monitoring the gross and widespread human rights abuses which both the Royal Nepalese Army and the Maoists have committed with impunity."[177] The report also mentions the work funded by the Global Conflict Prevention Pool in Nepal, describing its work funding the Centre for Victims of Torture (CVICT) which trains medical professionals to recognise and treat torture.[178]

135. However, the Annual Report fails to mention that in July 2002 the British Government presented two MI7 helicopters to the Nepali government,[179] or that in January 2004 it emerged from the Nepali press that it had gifted two aircraft to the government of Nepal without informing Parliament and with the funds once again coming from the Global Conflict Prevention Pool.[180]

136. The Foreign Secretary told the Quadripartite Committee on Strategic Export Controls, which scrutinises the Government's policy on strategic export controls, on 25 February 2004: "It is not an oxymoron for us to use the Global Conflict Prevention Fund to support, for example, the operation of short take-off and landing aircraft because sometimes you have to prevent conflict and its scale by making use of military action; there is no other way."[181]

137. We recommend that the FCO work to maximise international condemnation of Maoist atrocities in Nepal, that it do all in its power to press the Nepali authorities to conform to the highest standards of human rights, and that it work to encourage Nepal's return to parliamentary democracy.

The People's Republic of China (PRC)

138. The People's Republic of China (PRC) consistently abuses human rights on a large scale, although the general economic situation of the great majority of the Chinese people has improved significantly in the last two decades. Its government incarcerates political dissidents and sentences to death the largest number of people in the world, about 1921 in 2002-03.[182] The one-party government controls access to all types of information, including the internet. For instance, the authorities conducted a campaign against internet use which began in April 2003 and gathered steam after a deadly fire in a Beijing internet café in June 2003.[183] Religious freedom, including the freedom to belong to religious sects, such as the Falun Gong, is suppressed and activists told Human Rights Watch that Falun Gong members have died in police custody.[184] China also refuses the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) access to Korean refugees who have fled North Korea.[185]

139. The Annual Report covers a large range of human rights abuses in China, and Human Rights Watch praised the report in its submission, which said:

We appreciate the space given to human rights concerns in China. We agree with much of the UK analysis, and share many of the concerns on a wide range of issues, including freedom of assembly, expression and religion, repatriation of North Korean refugees, and others.[186]

140. No one can be in any doubt that China faces a secessionist campaign by Muslim Uighurs in its western province of Xinjiang and continues to label all secessionists as terrorists, since amongst the insurgents are terrorists who have fought in Afghanistan. However, China uses very heavy-handed techniques to maintain control in Xinjiang and Human Rights Watch has raised concerns about the lack of detail on the suppression of political movements in Xinjiang.[187]

141. We recommend that the Government include more information on the human rights situation in Xinjiang in the next Annual Report, and make efforts to monitor the situation there.

142. The FCO believes that interaction with the PRC will improve human rights and has an ongoing dialogue with meetings twice a year in both Beijing and London. The Chinese government has asked the United Kingdom to train China's police in human rights, to carry out a follow up visit by the Death Penalty Panel—an independent body comprised of experts on the death penalty—and to provide a follow-up group of United Kingdom representatives to work on human rights covenants with the PRC government.[188] Chinese judges have also come to the United Kingdom as part of an exchange with British lawyers and judges, under the aegis of the Great Britain-China Centre.[189] The Annual Report says: "we believe that a policy of engagement rather than isolation remains the right approach to promote systemic reform and better human rights in China."[190]

143. However, Human Rights Watch raises doubts about the China-UK human rights dialogue in its submission, saying: "Human Rights Watch believes in the importance of dialogue, but is concerned that the UK-China dialogue has become little more than a formality."[191]

144. We put this suggestion to Bill Rammell, who claimed: "I genuinely do not believe that to be the case."[192] He went on:

I think we are right to [discuss] but I am sure that anyone who is engaged with Chinese officials on these issues will know there is a degree of diplomacy to be gone through, and it took an hour and ten minutes to get an acknowledgment that, from their perspective, they are at a different stage of development from an advanced, developed country like the United Kingdom. Now I do not accept that argument and I think we should continue to press them on the death penalty and the other issues you have raised, but I do refute the accusation that we do not put these views forward.[193]

145. The United Kingdom is not the only advocate of engagement with China on human rights; the European Union has a similar dialogue with China. The Annual Report states:

The aim of the EU-China human rights dialogue is to express the EU's concern about human rights in China and to increase awareness within China of the need to promote and protect human rights. The dialogue covers human rights issues such as: co-operation within the UN framework; economic, social and cultural rights; freedom of expression; freedom of association; freedom of religion and belief; torture; the death penalty; administrative detention; individual cases; and treatment of refugees and minority rights, including in Tibet and Xinjiang.[194]

The Report also states that the United Kingdom took the initiative in pressing for an evaluation of the EU/China human rights dialogue.[195] The advantage of operating as an EU unit is that China is unlikely to reject any one state's calls for improvement and take sanctions in response, because taking action against the EU as a whole could have a deleterious impact on Chinese trade and interests.

146. Despite its extensive coverage of China, the Annual Report fails to highlight other human rights concerns. For instance, Human Rights Watch stated in their submission:

Surprisingly, the report has only praise for China's handling of the AIDS epidemic, and does not raise the problem of serious human rights abuses against people living with HIV/AIDS and persons at high risk of HIV/AIDS, such as injection drug users. It does not raise the issue of lack of official accountability for the blood scandal in Henan and other provinces. Health officials there profited from unsafe blood collection centres that spread HIV to hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of farmers.[196]

147. Another area of major human rights abuses is in Tibet, where the authorities arrest any political activists and deny access to the Panchen Lama, Gendun Choekyi Nyima, the second most important figure in Tibetan Buddhism, despite warming relations between Beijing and the Dalai Lama. Free Tibet stated in their submission:

The FCO goes on to state that, despite this, HMG prefers a policy of engagement to isolation. The implication that the only alternative to the bilateral dialogue is isolationism is clearly nonsense, and Free Tibet is not satisfied that the Government has justified the continued focus on the Dialogue as its primary strategy on human rights in China.[197]

148. One case in particular was that of a locally-respected and well-known lama, Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, who the Chinese authorities sentenced to death for "causing explosions". Human Rights Watch claim he is innocent and subject to charges because of his long-term work to foster Tibetan Buddhism; his work earned him a coterie of supporters and so the enmity of the Chinese authorities.[198] Free Tibet stated in their submission, relating to the case:

The FCO comments on the failure of the Chinese to keep the EU informed, stating: 'we view this as a breach of the trust built up by the dialogue process.' Whilst this robust statement is welcomed, Free Tibet Campaign has been unable to determine what action HMG proposes to take to address this 'breach of trust'. It would be wholly inadequate for this to appear merely as a 'throwaway' statement in the Annual Report, without a specific plan to address this problem. Clearly a breach of trust undermines the case for Dialogue as the Government's predominant strategy.[199]

149. In response to questioning on Tibet, Bill Rammell told us:

On Tibet the Prime Minister raised it when he was in China; I have raised it; I think there have been some positive elements. The fact that representatives of the Dalai Lama have visited Beijing I see as a positive development because ultimately there can only be a political solution….[200] You referred to Mr Ronpoche and it is a concern that he is still detained. There are other examples of progress. One of the most moving meetings I have been involved in an awfully long time was meeting Ngawang Sangdrol when she visited London some months ago, so we do make progress in some areas.[201]

150. We also hold concerns about the human and political rights situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). Of late, Beijing has walked a tight rope between concessions to the democracy movement in Hong Kong and efforts by Tung Chee-hwa, the HKSAR's Chief Executive, to strengthen central control. A large rally on New Year's Day 2004 called for greater democracy, including direct elections of the head of the administration, but Tung has promised only to set up a task force to consult the public.[202] This row follows a huge protest in July 2003 condemning efforts by Tung to introduce anti-subversive legislation, which was then dropped.[203] A further large demonstration in favour of democracy took place on 11 April 2004.[204]

151. The Annual Report has a section dedicated to Hong Kong. The Report concludes that "generally, the people of Hong Kong continue to enjoy the basic rights and freedoms promised in the joint declaration."[205] However, the arrest of Falun Gong members and the prosecution of three people for organising an unauthorised public assembly raise the spectre of increasing repression.[206] The Committee will continue to value contact with those pressing for greater democracy in the SAR.

152. We recommend that the Government do more to raise human rights questions with the Chinese authorities, and that the Government does not let the human rights dialogue with the People's Republic of China become nothing more than a talking shop. Similar considerations apply to the EU dialogue. We recommend that in its response to this Report the Government set out what it hopes to achieve with the dialogue, and to what extent it has been successful.

153. We recommend that the Government also seek assurances from the Chinese authorities that they will adhere to the one country, two systems formula, the terms of the Basic Law and the Joint Declaration and do not seek to impose central control from Beijing.

The Russian Federation and Chechnya

154. The FCO Annual Report has no separate section on the conflict in Chechnya, despite the continued widespread abuses committed by the Russian authorities in the turbulent region. The European Human Rights Advocacy Centre states in its submission to the Committee, "the Annual Report could be open to criticism for failing to give sufficient prominence to [Chechnya]."[207] The submission points out that the influence of the international community is limited by the small number of international organisations in the region as well as major political obstacles to resolution. UN resolutions on Chechnya often fail to pass, in part because of Russia's prominence at the UN, and since 11 September 2001 states have become ever more willing to turn a blind eye to the Chechens' plight because of Islamist aspects of their campaign.[208]

155. Human Rights Watch states on Chechnya in its 2004 World Report:

By 2003 the cycle of arbitrary detention, torture and forced disappearance was well entrenched, and the crisis of forced disappearances appeared to have become a permanent one. According to unpublished governmental statistics, 126 people were abducted and presumed 'disappeared' in January and February 2003 alone.[209]

However, the Russian Federation continues to suffer from Chechen terrorist outrages including well-publicised actions in Moscow and some Chechen rebels have clear links to Al Qaeda. Yet such atrocities do not justify the extent of the human rights abuses committed in the separatist republic.

156. Other human rights abuses occur elsewhere in Russia. For instance, the FCO wrote to us detailing the problem of racism in the Russian Federation, saying:

Racism and extremism is a serious problem in Russia. Attacks on non-white ethnic minorities, especially from the North Caucasus, are common. There have also been attacks on Africans by skinhead gangs. A new law countering extremism was passed by the Duma in 2002, but NGOs such as Amnesty International, who are currently conducting a campaign on the subject, continue to criticise the failure of the Russian authorities to take a stronger line countering extremist behaviour.[210]

The FCO raised concerns about racism in Russia at bilateral talks in March 2003, and funds a series of NGOs to counter racism.

157. One institution that contributes to the human rights dialogue with the Russian authorities is the European Union, using its links to encourage human rights improvements. Its tools include a dialogue "on democracy and human rights issues, including Chechnya and on matters where OSCE is active, notably in the South Caucasus, Moldova and Belarus."[211]

158. We conclude that the continuing war in the secessionist republic of Chechnya presents human rights concerns, notwithstanding the clear terrorist links of many Chechen rebels. We recommend that the Annual Report provide more information on human rights in Chechnya and that the FCO encourage increased access for international human rights monitors in Chechnya, including the Council of Europe and the United Nations. We also conclude that the Government's work to reduce racism in Russia and to engage the Russian authorities on the issue is valuable, and is evidence of the constructive human rights dialogue between the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom. We recommend that the Government in its response to this Report set out the steps it is taking with the EU to try to persuade Russia to engage in a more meaningful dialogue with the EU on human rights in the Russian Federation and Chechnya.

Saudi Arabia

159. The FCO Annual Report emphasises continuing human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. The Report raises serious concerns about the detentions of political prisoners, the continued use of torture to extract confessions, and use of the death penalty as well as restrictions of freedom on women, religious minorities, and controls on freedom of association and worship.[212] The expanded section on human rights in Saudi Arabia is in part a response to the Committee's Report on the Human Rights Annual Report 2002.[213]

160. Human Rights Watch praised the improvement on last year's entry on Saudi Arabia, saying: "We are pleased to note that, following the concerns expressed by HRW and Amnesty International about last year's entry on Saudi Arabia, and following the FAC's own criticisms, this year's entry is stronger, and thus more accurate."[214] Its comments conclude that: "The UK government should not pull its punches on this issue."[215]

161. We tackled the question of human rights standards in Saudi Arabia in our evidence session with Bill Rammell. He said: "What we demonstrated last year is that this is not an academic exercise, and that we do listen and respond, and you have acknowledged that we did that in the way we compiled our comments on Saudi Arabia this year."[216] He added on a more positive note:

I do not want to say that there is suddenly a huge sense of progress on these concerns within Saudi Arabia; nevertheless, there are some straws in the wind to the extent that Saudi Arabia is shortly going to be organising a seminar to which international governments have been invited on human rights aspects of legal reforms. That at least indicates to me that there is a recognition that Saudi Arabia needs to respond to the concerns, and that is a way forward.[217]

162. However, major problems remain in Saudi Arabia. In the past, a number of British and other nationals have alleged they received ill-treatment at the hands of the Saudi authorities. Amnesty International said it remains

deeply concerned that Saudi Arabia's position in the frontline of the present 'War against Terrorism' is aggravating gross and widespread violations of human rights in the country. The lack of transparency in the justice system, the use of capital and corporal punishment, torture with impunity, discrimination against women and non-Muslims are areas of particular concern. Basic rights of freedom of expression and assembly continue to be denied with over 250 people arrested in October 2003 for participating in demonstrations calling for political reform and the release of political prisoners. Over 80 were detained for interrogation and trial. Seven were sentenced to prison terms varying from one to three months, to suffer at least 50 lashes and to sign declarations undertaking not to demonstrate again. None of the seven is believed to have had legal representation at their trial.[218]

163. We received written evidence from Dr William Sampson, one of seven westerners who in 2001 were convicted in Saudi Arabia of carrying out a number of fatal car bombings. Dr Sampson and others have since launched a case in the High Court seeking compensation from the Saudi authorities. Under the terms of the Resolution of the House of 15 November 2001 on matters sub judice,[219] we cannot comment on his allegations. We did, however, raise his case in our evidence session with the Minister, which was held before proceedings were under way.

164. We also received a submission from Ms Mary Martini on behalf of her ex-husband James Cottle, who was sentenced to 18 years for allegedly carrying out a bombing in Saudi Arabia.[220] Although Mr Cottle is not a party to the action launched by Dr Sampson and others, many of the issues are the same and we therefore refrain from making any comment on his treatment by the Saudi authorities.

165. However, in her submission, Ms Martini also claimed that the FCO had encouraged her not to talk publicly about the case, and condemned the fact that "the FCO never once backed these men up publicly."[221] We questioned the Minister in the evidence session on 24 February 2004 about the role of the FCO representing United Kingdom nationals arrested and detained in Saudi Arabia. Mr Rammell told us: "our judgment, rightly or wrongly, was that the most effective way to secure the release of these men was to do that privately rather than raise the profile of the cause publicly."[222] The evidence we have received on behalf of Mr Cottle suggests that that judgment may have been wrong.

166. We conclude that the Government's expansion of the section of its Annual Report dealing with human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia is commendable, and we recommend the Government do all in its power to pressure the Saudi government to come into line with international human rights standards, for instance by reforming its criminal justice system to conform with basic international standards. However, we also conclude that the Government's judgment in cases involving British nationals overseas is open to serious question. We recommend that the Government make clear that actions such as the torture of British nationals by the Saudi authorities—or by any other country—are unacceptable. We further recommend the threat of retaliatory actions, preferably in concert with our European Union allies, if such abuses occur in the future.

Tunisia

167. Tunisia has an impressive human rights record on paper. The FCO wrote to us, saying: "The ministry for foreign affairs has a roving ambassador for human rights, and the higher commission for human rights deals with social and economic rights as well as prisons."[223] However, the letter also states that since "September 11 and the Djerba bombing of April 2002 [the Tunisian authorities] have claimed that restrictions on freedom of expression and political association are necessary to prevent the rise of extremism and to combat international terrorism."[224]

168. Human Rights Watch have brought attention to the harassment of journalists and independent commentators and claim that human rights organisations also face governmental repression. They state that the treatment of these journalists includes surveillance by the police, repeated assault and intimidation,[225] while over 500 political prisoners are incarcerated by the Ben Ali regime which also maintains tight control over the internet.[226] Kamel Labidi, former director of Amnesty International Tunisia wrote in the New York Times on 21 February 2004: "Tunisia is one of the world's most efficient police states. Since his ouster of President Habib Bourguiba in a coup in 1987, Mr Ben Ali has quashed virtually all dissent and silenced a civil society that once was an example of vibrancy for North Africa and the neighbouring Middle East."[227]

169. We recommend that the Government bilaterally and with our EU partners raise with the Tunisian authorities concerns about political freedoms and repression of journalists and other independent commentators. We recommend that the Government include in the Annual Report more information on human rights in Tunisia.

124 Foreign Affairs Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2002-03, Human Rights Annual Report 2002, HC 257, para 28 Back

125 Annual Report, p 26 Back

126 Ibid., p 27 Back

127 Ev 70 Back

128 Ibid., para 45 Back

129 Annual Report, p 31 Back

130 This group comprises politicians who escaped the military crackdown following the 1990 elections which were won by the National League for Democracy. The National Coalition Government is based in Washington and the FAC met leading members of the group on March 9. Back

131 Burma UN Service of the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, Briefing paper on the Human Rights situation in Burma, 2003-2004 p 3 Back

132 Foreign Affairs Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2002-03, Human Rights Annual Report 2002, HC 257, para 32 Back

133 Annual Report, p 33 Back

134 Ibid., p 57 - 58 Back

135 Ev 47 Back