House of Commons - Foreign Affairs

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Fourth Report

6 Regions and countries

113. As has been our custom in our previous reports on human rights, we now turn to areas of the world in which human rights are a particular concern. We have not attempted to offer an exhaustive survey, but instead have focussed on key areas in which improvement is lacking or where respect for human rights is deteriorating. As the Annual Report states, over 2003-04, there has been "encouraging progress in some areas and a stark lack of it, or even regression, in others".[143]

Middle East and North Africa

114. One of the thematic human rights programmes funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is the Engaging with the Islamic World programme. The 2003-04 Report of the overarching Global Opportunities Fund describes the programme as follows:

The Engaging with the Islamic World programme was created to support the FCO role in a cross-government strategy for constructive engagement with the Islamic world and the promotion of peaceful political and economic reform in Arabic countries…the programme's main purpose is to support indigenous led change and to encourage a greater understanding and partnership between Islamic countries and the West.[

144

115. The activities supported by the programme are divided into three areas: good governance, rule of law and the participation of women. In 2003-04, the programme focussed on the Middle East and North Africa, although it is now projected to expand its coverage outside the region. In 2003-04 projects were supported in Egypt, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. The budget was £1.52 million, which has been increased to £4 million for 2004-05 and is expected to rise to £8.5 million a year from 2005-06 to 2007-08.[145]

116. At the end of January the Foreign and Commonwealth Office launched an Arabic version of its website, which "provides detailed information on a broad range of policy issues and many aspects of British life". In introducing the website, the Minister Douglas Alexander said that one of the purposes of the new site was to enable Arabic-speaking people around the world to gain a "better understanding of Britain and our diverse society".[146] In this context, it is unfortunate that the Government's priorities have not been reflected in the resources it has committed to the UK's representation in Algiers, as we saw for ourselves on a recent visit to Algeria. We will be commenting on this in our forthcoming Report on foreign policy aspects of the war against terrorism.

117. We note with approval the Government's stated intention to promote peaceful political and economic reform in Arabic countries. We strongly recommend that the Government continue to place emphasis on the promotion of human rights within those countries.

ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES

118. The Annual Report registers deep concern about "Israel's failure to respect the human rights of ordinary Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and…the impact of Israeli occupation and associated military operations on their lives".[147] It also registers concern at "the failure of the Palestinian Authority to act with sufficient energy to prevent acts of terrorism against the Israeli population".[148] We published a thorough assessment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in our Reports of February and July 2004 on Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism and will be returning to the subject in a forthcoming Report under the same title.[149]

119. Amnesty told us in evidence that the Annual Report "fails to accurately reflect the scope of [Israeli] human rights violations and the massive impact that these have on Palestinian lives" and fails to mention that "over 3,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces in the last four years and more than 4,000 [Palestinian] homes have been destroyed".[150] Amnesty also commended the Report for arguing that "it is necessary to put concrete pressure on the Palestinian Authority to take the necessary steps and to spare no efforts to prevent attacks by Palestinian armed groups on Israelis and to investigate each attack and bring to justice those responsible".[151]

120. As the terrible suicide bombing in Tel Aviv on 25 February showed, the cycle of violence in Israel-Palestine is not yet broken. In recent months, however, there have been a number of positive developments in Israel-Palestine. Leadership elections were carried out successfully in the Palestinian Territories, and Mahmoud Abbas took office as President of the Palestinian Authority on 15 January. Since then, the Authority has acted against violent groups and has taken steps to reduce the political temperature in the region. The Knesset has endorsed Ariel Sharon's proposal to withdraw from Gaza, and Israel has released hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. The United Kingdom hosted talks in London to accelerate reforms of Palestinian institutions, as required by the Road Map.[152] Most significantly, the US administration has indicated its renewed engagement with the Peace Process. A new spirit appears to be developing, as evidenced by Israel's measured reaction to the Tel Aviv bombing.

121. We recommend that the Government continue to engage actively with all sides in the Middle East conflict, encouraging them to respect human rights and making the point that this will enhance the prospects for an overall peace settlement.

IRAQ

122. In January, in a climate of intimidation and escalating violence, Iraq went to the polls. The election results were declared on 13 February and showed a 48% victory for the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance, followed by strong showings for the Kurdistan Alliance and the Iraqi List.[153] This was a major achievement in the context of the most difficult circumstances. Violence in Iraq continues to claim lives, most notably in the indiscriminate suicide bomb attack in Hillah on 28 February, but there is now an elected government in place which represents the interests of the people of Iraq and to which they can look for leadership and recognise as their own.

123. The Annual Report, written, of course, some months before the elections, states that progress has been made, following the fall of Saddam Hussein, in building a "democratic Iraq governed by the rule of law and based on respect for human rights" but recognises the great challenges posed by the continuing violence.[154] The Report sets out the activities of the Coalition Provisional Authority in supporting the development of the political process, improving security, bringing in reform of the judicial and penal systems, working with refugees and internally displaced persons, promoting women's rights and freedom of religion and expression, bolstering civil society and establishing an Iraqi Ministry of human rights.[155]

124. Amnesty criticised the Annual Report in its evidence to us, saying that it "does not go into sufficient detail on the human rights problems of the past twelve months or the daunting challenges that remain". These challenges include the continuing climate of instability, an exponential increase in the incidence of violence against women and a lack of confidence amongst Iraqis in the Iraqi Police Service's ability or willingness to investigate attacks and murders.[156] These concerns have been echoed by allegations in the US State Department's annual report on human rights, published in March 2005, which refers to beatings, torture and rape by Iraqi law enforcement agencies.[157] Amnesty also raised questions about the procedures being used to try Saddam Hussein and expressed surprise and disappointment that the UNCHR failed to appoint a Special Rapporteur to Iraq at its 60^th session, for the first time in ten years.[158]

125. Amnesty and Human Rights Watch also expressed particular disquiet about the killings of Iraqi civilians by the coalition and the processes for investigating such cases. Human Rights Watch described "the killing of Iraqi civilians with impunity again and again and again" by American troops and stated in its report, Hearts and Minds: Post-war Civilian Deaths in Baghdad Caused by U.S. Forces:

159

The organisation also told us that, out of 90 documented cases, only three had been investigated.[160]

126. On the investigation of cases involving British servicemen, Amnesty told us that over the past twelve months, it had raised concerns about specific cases of individuals killed by UK forces in disputed circumstances and had exchanged detailed correspondence with both the MoD and the FCO as well as holding meetings with ministers and officials of both departments. However, Amnesty "remained concerned that the military's investigation processes are not sufficiently independent or transparent".[161]

127. When we questioned Bill Rammell about the transparency of investigations of deaths at the hands of British troops, he told us that "there are specific circumstances and peculiarities involved in military operations, including detentions, that mean they are better dealt with through a court-martial procedure" but that he did not accept that "by going through the court-martial procedure we adhere to a lesser standard of justice".[162]

128. We conclude that the security situation in Iraq remains extremely difficult but that, if the new government is to operate well, it should be seen to place respect for human rights and freedoms at the centre of its work. We recommend that the Government continue to offer support to the Iraqis in developing and implementing a human rights capacity. We recommend that the Government support the appointment of a UNCHR Special Rapporteur to Iraq.

IRAN

129. Iran's news profile over recent months has been dominated by the nuclear issue, but the Annual Report draws attention to a series of "disappointing" violations of human rights, which appear to be on the rise.[163] The Canadian-Iranian journalist Zahra Kazemi was violently killed in police custody in July 2003, after taking photographs of protesters at Evin Prison in Tehran. There has been a deterioration in respect for the rights of freedom of expression and assembly, serious concerns continue in relation to the judicial and penal system and in February 2004 many candidates standing for parliamentary elections were summarily disqualified. Co-operation with the UNCHR has been poor and the results of the EU dialogue on Human Rights have been disappointing. Despite these problems, the Report states that new laws have been passed making some improvements to the rights of women and minorities.[164] We discussed these and other issues in our Report into Iran, published in March 2004.[165]

130. We received evidence from the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United Kingdom describing a "marked intensification of the persecution of the Bahá'ís in Iran". The evidence stated that:

166

131. Dr A M Ansari of the University of St Andrews told us, in his memorandum to our inquiry into Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism, that "the whole approach of the EU to Iran over the last year has ill served the cause of democratisation and human rights, and this has been damaging to the EU position in Iran as a whole". He advised that "the EU would regain lost credibility if it made explicit its reservations about human rights".[167]

132. We conclude that the dialogue on nuclear proliferation with Iran should not be allowed to eclipse the very serious human rights concerns which exist in that country and which appear to be worsening. We recommend that the Government set out, in its response to this Report, how it intends to use the dialogue with Iran on human rights over the next year to deliver real improvements.

SAUDI ARABIA

133. The Annual Report states baldly that "there has been no significant improvement in human rights in Saudi Arabia since the publication of the last Annual Report", and lists concerns raised by the EU at the UNCHR relating to the rights of women, prisoners and Shiites, the use of capital punishment and corporal punishment including amputation, curtailments of freedom of expression, assembly and religion.[168] Migrant workers have also been subjected to torture, forced confessions and unfair trials. In March, 13 people who were known as supporters of reform in Saudi Arabia were arrested, charged with activities "that do not serve the unity of the country or the cohesion of a society based on Islamic Law".[169] Three were still in custody when the Annual Report went to press. At paragraphs 107-112 above, we consider the treatment by foreign governments of arrested British citizens. When we pursued this matter with the Minister and asked him to give us specific examples of cases in which the FCO has made representations to foreign governments seeking an impartial investigation of allegations of mistreatment, we were surprised that none of the four cases to which he made reference in his later reply related to Saudi Arabia.[170]

134. On a more positive note, the Report describes a "growing recognition by the Saudi government of the need for reform" and the beginning of a "process of internal debate" initiated by the government.[171] Three "National Forums for Dialogue" have been held addressing issues ranging from women's rights to the participation of the public in government and a National Human Rights Association was set up in March 2004, although its powers are not entirely clear. Elections were held in February to provide some of the seats on municipal councils, but these were very limited and women were prevented from voting. The Annual Report points to improvements in press freedom and states that "it is now more possible to discuss human rights in a way that would have been impossible in Saudi Arabia a few years ago".[172]

135. Amnesty praised the improved detail in the Annual Report on Saudi Arabia, but told us that many of its concerns remain regarding that country, casting doubt on the impact of the ostensible reforms. Human Rights Watch was similarly cautious.[173]

136. We conclude that the Annual Report's increased detail regarding the situation in Saudi Arabia is welcome. We recommend that the Government continue to press the Saudi Arabian government to move towards greater respect for human rights, particularly in respect of equal rights for women within Saudi Arabian society.

Africa

137. The Prime Minister said, in May 2004, that "Africa is a scar on the conscience of the world and I think it is right that we continue to treat this as an absolute priority over the coming years".[174] In 2004-05 the UK has put the spotlight on Africa's problems, making the continent a priority of its Presidencies of the EU and G8, and establishing the Commission for Africa, due to report at the G8 Summit in July. In this context it is fitting that we draw attention to some of the worst human rights problems in the world which are currently unfolding in African states. Many of the problems on the African continent derive, in part, from poor governance, and we welcome the Annual Human Rights Report's endorsement of the African Union's focus in this area.

THE AFRICAN UNION

138. The African Union (AU), established in 2002 as the successor to the Organisation of African Unity, was formed to promote unity and solidarity among African States and to co-ordinate their policies on matters of common concern. Modelled on the European Union, although in practice a much looser organisation, the AU includes among its founding objectives a commitment to "promote and protect human and peoples' rights in accordance with the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and other relevant human rights instruments."[175]

139. The Annual Report states that "there is much about the new [African Union], and its capacity to deliver on its wide-ranging objectives, which remains unclear at present". However, the Report also welcomes the "emphasis on promoting good governance, democracy and human rights" in the Union's Constitution.[176] Bill Rammell told us that

177

The Minister also advised us that the Government "plans to use the UK's presidency of the G8 and EU to build, consolidate and co-ordinate international support for the AU" and that the "European Commission views the AU as the main conduit for EU-Africa co-operation".[178]

140. We commend the Government for its work to support and enhance the work of the African Union in the human rights field and recommend that in its response to this Report it set out in detail how it intends to "build, consolidate and co-ordinate support for the AU."

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO

141. The Annual Report draws attention to the dire situation which has continued to develop in the Democratic Republic of Congo over recent months, despite the progress made by the Transitional National Government, inaugurated in July 2003. The deployment of a multinational force, Operation Artemis, in mid-2003, and a UN peacekeeping brigade to Ituri in the north-east of the country have not prevented the "frequent abuses" which continued to be reported in 2004. These included massacres of hundreds of people and displacement of thousands more.[179] Since 1998, 3.8 million people have been killed in the conflict.[180]

142. Since the publication of the Annual Report, events have continued to outpace humanitarian efforts. The New York-based International Rescue Committee published a report, in December 2004, stating that more than 31,000 people were continuing to die every month.[181] Renewed fighting in February led to the displacement of an additional 30,000 to 35,000 people and neighbouring Rwanda and Uganda appear to be fuelling the conflict by supporting armed groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo.[182] Even UN peacekeeping troops have recently come under attack, nine Bangladeshi soldiers being brutally murdered on 25 February. Jan Egeland, UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, told the International Development Committee in February that the situation in Eastern Congo "is probably the worst crisis in the world at the moment; ten or 100 times worse than the Tsunami crisis at the moment on the Indian Ocean beaches".[183]

143. In June 2004 the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court announced his decision to open the first investigation into the events in the Democratic Republic of Congo, following a referral from the government of that country.[184]

144. Human Rights Watch told us that the British Government is a major donor to Uganda, and that, "given that Uganda has played a remarkably destabilising role through its support of rebel groups in Congo" it was surprising that "from the British Government we have had very little pressure" on the Ugandan government to desist from its activities in this respect.[185] Amnesty told us that, if the transitional national government were to make sustainable progress, it would need to do more to bring to justice the perpetrators of human rights abuses and address the needs of the victims of those abuses. Furthermore, the continuing insecurity in the eastern parts of the country was being exacerbated by the delay of funding to integrate the army and police forces and the only partial effectiveness of the arms embargo against Democratic Republic of Congo.[186]

145. Bill Rammell told us that "we are regularly pushing the transitional government [of the Democratic Republic of Congo] to do more to prevent … abuses" and "we have made abundantly clear to the government of Rwanda that incursions into DRC territory would be unacceptable", in the context of the UK's ongoing commitment of aid to Rwanda.[187] There are also some signs that the African Union may at last be ready to take action to prevent Rwandan incursions.[188]

146. We conclude that the shocking ongoing human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of Congo represent a failure of the international community's efforts to assist the negotiation of a peace settlement. We recommend that the Government make very strong representations to the governments of Uganda and Rwanda to cease their destabilising activities in the country. We further recommend that the Government support efforts to hold perpetrators of crimes accountable and that it continue to support the efforts of the transitional national government in Democratic Republic of Congo to bring peace to the country.

147. The problems in the Democratic Republic of Congo have been compounded by the scandalous behaviour of some UN peacekeepers. In November 2004 accusations emerged of widespread sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers of refugees in the country, and in January a report of the UN's Office of Internal Oversight Services found the problem to be "serious and ongoing". After a series of investigations, the UN has established curfews and off-limit areas for the peacekeepers in an attempt to stem the problem.[189] The UN itself has no jurisdiction to discipline peacekeepers; that is the responsibility of their respective governments. In February the Government of Morocco arrested six of its peacekeepers in connection with the abuses, pending courts martial.[190] It is to be hoped that the announcement by the UN on 10 March of a new force commander for its mission in the DRC, Lieutenant General Babacar R Gaye, currently Senegal's ambassador to Germany, will restore the good name of the UN and increase the effectiveness of its operations in the DRC.[191]

148. We conclude that the apparent appalling behaviour of some UN peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo is compounding the problems of that fragile country and bringing the UN into disrepute. We recommend that the Government make the strongest representations to those troop-contributing countries involved to ensure that this behaviour is stopped and the perpetrators brought to justice. We further recommend that the Government set out its suggestions for how this behaviour might be prevented in other UN peacekeeping missions.

UGANDA

149. We were surprised and disappointed that the human rights abuses perpetrated by the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda were not included in the Annual Report's first chapter on "key human rights issues" around the world. The situation in that country continues to resist easy solutions. Since 1988 the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in the north of Uganda has kidnapped 20,000 children to use as soldiers, sex slaves and labourers. The civilian population has suffered execution, torture, mutilation, rape and sexual assault at the hands of the LRA and, as the US State Department has recently pointed out, has endured further atrocities at the hands of elements of the Ugandan People's Defence Forces.[192] The International Lobby for Reform in Uganda told us that "thanks to weakened institutions of state, the suppression of human rights, democracy, fundamental freedoms including the freedom of association, are on the increase".[193]

150. At the beginning of January, the Ugandan government and the Lord's Resistance Army held peace talks but these failed when the LRA demanded more time to consider the terms of a draft agreement. In recent weeks there have, once again, been suggestions that the conflict may be nearing an end, with the defection of a rebel commander, Sam Kolo, the LRA's main negotiator.[194] The Ugandan government turned down an offer of military assistance from Kenya and Tanzania on 28 February, on the basis that the LRA's forces have been considerably reduced by the peace agreement in Sudan and that they are close to defeat.[195] Such claims have, however, been made before and there is no indication that anything other than a negotiated end to the conflict is attainable.

151. In October 2004 Jan Egeland, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, called the situation in northern Uganda a "moral outrage" and the "world's largest neglected humanitarian emergency".[196] Amnesty and Human Rights Watch listed several factors which have distracted international attention from the crisis. President Museveni, who has had an honourable record in office, has successfully portrayed his government in a favourable light and, by responding well to other issues such as the spread of HIV/AIDS and poverty alleviation, has won international support. The government has also limited the international presence in northern Uganda and has thus controlled the flow of information out of the area, which, combined with 'crisis fatigue' in the West, has kept the issue out of the media spotlight.[197]

152. The International Criminal Court accepted a referral from the Ugandan government to investigate crimes committed during the conflict, but Amnesty advised us in evidence that the Ugandans were seeking to withdraw the referral.[198] Although the United Kingdom supports the referral, the US administration has recently criticised it as exceeding the mandate of the ICC and a refugee group in Kampala has expressed concern that legal proceedings will polarise opinion in Ugandan society, rather than promote reconciliation.[199]

153. World Vision criticised in evidence the "weak recognition by the UK Government of the human cost of this conflict" and Amnesty stated that the British Government "needs to highlight the situation in [northern Uganda] much more comprehensively and take the lead, not follow, the media in publicising the situation there".[200] Human Rights Watch told us that, while focussing on the peace process, the UK has "failed to push the Ugandans on key human rights concerns" and that, when offering advice to the Ugandan government's defence review, the UK failed to identify the inadequacies of protection for civilians and to question the Ugandan government's sponsorship of small militias, which have been implicated in human rights abuses.[201] When we questioned the Minister about these issues, he advised us that the UK was closely involved with attempts to secure a peace agreement, was supporting the ICC's investigations and was also supporting the rehabilitation and reintegration of former child abductees.[202]

154. We commend the Government for its aid projects and efforts to secure a peace agreement in Uganda but conclude that its attention has been distracted from the very pressing human rights concerns associated with the conflict. We recommend that the Government, as a significant donor to Uganda, maximise its efforts to stop human rights abuses there and to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice.

SUDAN

155. The events in Darfur, Sudan, have gained a prominent place in the international media over the last year because of the ongoing conflict between rebels, the government of Sudan and Janjawid militias. The Annual Human Rights Report describes the killings, displacement, rape and destruction of property and "enormous" humanitarian need.[203] Jan Egeland, giving evidence to the International Development Committee in February, noted the "relentless increase in the number of new internally displaced" since the autumn of 2004, to 1.8 million people.[204]

156. The International Commission of Inquiry, which reported to the UN Secretary-General in January, stated that the Government of the Sudan and the Janjawid "are responsible for serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law amounting to crimes under international law" including killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement, throughout Darfur. Most of these attacks were "deliberately and indiscriminately directed against civilians".[205] The Commission stated that genocide had not occurred, but that this "should not be taken in any way as detracting from the gravity of the crimes perpetrated in that region [which] may be no less serious and heinous than genocide".[206] Rebel forces are also responsible for "serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law which may amount to war crimes". The Commission strongly recommended that the crimes committed be referred to the ICC.[207]

157. Amnesty and Human Rights Watch were robust in their criticism of the international community's reaction to the events in Darfur. The "international public condemnation and focus on Darfur has come very late" and despite efforts by the UK and other European countries to secure a robust declaration on Sudan, the UNCHR agreed a "weakly worded" decision, which was "a very meagre response".[208] By concentrating on the north-south peace process during 2004, the international community were also guilty of "willingly ignoring" events in Darfur.[209] The UN Security Council's failure to act in November, when it "rowed back on its previous threats of action against Khartoum" was regrettable.[210] Mr Egeland told the International Development Committee that he had not been satisfied "either with the donor response nor with the humanitarian community's response to the Darfur emergency". He went on,

211

158. Human Rights Watch also emphasised to us the importance of ensuring the referral of the crimes committed to the International Criminal Court, in the face of US opposition.[212] Bill Rammell told us that the Government would "strongly support" a referral to the ICC, should the International Commission of Inquiry recommend it.[213] However, in recent weeks Javier Solana, High Representative of the Common Foreign and Security Policy in the EU, has suggested that European efforts to secure a referral may fail, and concern has been expressed that the UK may not stand up to the US on the issue.[214] More recently, there appear to be some signs that the US may soften its stance.[215]

159. We conclude that the international community's response to the events in Darfur has been slow and inadequate, and that lives have been lost unnecessarily as a result. We recommend that, in its response to this Report, the Government set out its position on actions to be taken against the government of Sudan to put a stop to the continuing abuses of human rights. We further recommend that the Government set out the lessons learnt from the inadequacy and slowness of the international response over 2003-04 and the actions which need to be taken to improve the response to crises of this nature.

160. We further recommend that the Government act in support of the referral of the crimes committed in Darfur to the International Criminal Court, including by persuading the US administration not to oppose it.

ERITREA

161. Although Eritrea is hardly mentioned in the Annual Human Rights Report, we received compelling evidence from Christian Solidarity Worldwide documenting Eritrea's decline "within a few years from being a promising young democracy to being a country where widespread violations of human rights occur routinely". Christian Solidarity Worldwide describe the country as "one of the most repressive countries on the African continent with regard to its overall human rights record, and … the third worst abuser of religious liberties on the African continent, after Somalia and Sudan".[216]

162. In particular, the "commendable" Constitution has been cast aside by the government; there has been no freedom of speech since September 2001, when the government banned the country's independent media and imprisoned journalists and critics of the regime; arbitrary detentions and political and media detentions without trial are carried out with impunity; an estimated several thousand political prisoners and up to a thousand prisoners of conscience and belief languish behind bars; and there is "severe and increasing persecution" of religious practitioners, particularly in the army. Torture "appears to be used systematically against anyone deemed to be a critic of the government and particularly against dissenters in the armed forces".[217] The US State Department Human Rights Report 2004 stated that the Eritrean government's human rights record in 2003 "remained poor" and that the government "continued to commit serious abuses".[218]

163. Christian Solidarity Worldwide criticised the FCO for its failure to comment on this situation in the Annual Report and recommended immediate high level advocacy to resolve some of the problems, as well as a resolution of the border dispute with Ethiopia, described as "a source of instability that has contributed towards government insecurity and the deterioration of human rights in both Ethiopia and Eritrea".[219]

164. We recommend that the Government take steps both to help resolve the border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea, and to put pressure on the Eritrean government to improve its human rights record.

ZIMBABWE

165. We have discussed the ongoing situation in Zimbabwe in a series of Reports to the House, most recently in 2003, and in our Report on South Africa of May 2004.[220] The Annual Human Rights Report describes the human rights situation in Zimbabwe as "in crisis" and showing signs of further deterioration over the past year. Specific abuses include the "stifling of democratic opposition, police abuse, torture and absence of freedom of expression and association".[221] Zimbabwe recently adopted a law regulating the activity of NGOs in the country, which was denounced by the Presidency on behalf of the EU as having "severe consequences for the operations, even the existence of many local and foreign NGOs active in Zimbabwe".[222] We received evidence from the Bar Council which stated that

223

166. Amnesty and Human Rights Watch agreed in evidence that the situation in Zimbabwe is "very bleak" but considered that the UK is doing all that it can.[224] The UNCHR was prevented from considering a country resolution on Zimbabwe in March by a successful 'no action' motion, and a similar motion prevented the UN General Assembly Third Committee from considering Zimbabwe in the autumn. The use of such procedural devices to prevent justified criticism reflects badly on South Africa and undermines the credibility of the international organisations concerned.

167. Parliamentary elections are due to take place in Zimbabwe on 31 March. President Mugabe has declared that he will not allow observers from the US or from EU countries, although observers from SADC, African Union and other countries are expected to be appointed. President Mbeki, who in a February interview with the Financial Times described his relations with Mr Mugabe as "very good" and who has consistently declined to make any public criticism of his neighbour, has expressed irritation with the "defective" voter registration procedures before the poll.[225]

168. Bill Rammell told us that the Government was encouraging other African states to take a stronger stance in challenging Zimbabwe on the deterioration in human rights, but that the EU's travel ban, assets freeze and arms embargo had had a "significant impact".[226]

169. We conclude that the Government's work to isolate and put pressure on the Zimbabwean leadership for its economic mismanagement and deteriorating human rights record remains wholly justified and should be intensified where possible. We recommend that the Government continue to work with Zimbabwe's neighbours, and that it seek to persuade South Africa to use its considerable influence as regional leader to attempt to secure improvements in the human rights situation in Zimbabwe.

Asia

NEPAL

170. On 1 February King Gyanendra, citing the ongoing civil war with Maoist rebels as his justification, declared a state of emergency in Nepal, sacked the government and took control of the country. Foreign Office Minister Douglas Alexander stated at the time that the action of the King would "increase the risk of instability in Nepal, undermining the institutions of democracy and constitutional monarchy in the country" and made a call for "the immediate restitution of multi-party democracy…[and] calm and restraint on all sides during this difficult time".[227] More recently, the Government recalled the British Ambassador to Nepal for consultations, and has withdrawn a proposal for military assistance to Nepal.[228]

171. Following a monitoring mission to Nepal in February, Amnesty reported that political leaders, students, human rights activists, journalists and trade unionists arrested in the immediate aftermath of the declaration of the state of emergency remain in detention more than two weeks later, and assessed the situation as follows:

229

172. At the beginning of March it was reported that up to 700 homes were burnt in the Kapilvastu district in southern Nepal and approximately 30 people killed on suspicion of being Maoist rebels by mobs sanctioned by the army.[230]

173. We conclude that the actions of King Gyanendra in taking control of Nepal are destabilising and unacceptable. We recommend that the Government use all diplomatic means to secure the return of multi-party democracy to Nepal, as a first step to finding a settlement to the internal conflict in that country.

CHINA

174. The Annual Human Rights Report describes some progress in respect for human rights in China over 2003-04, but also sets out ongoing concerns about many basic freedoms, including:

the extensive use of the death penalty; the use of torture; the continuing harassment of political dissidents, religious practitioners and adherents of the Falun Gong spiritual movement; the situation in Tibet and Xinjiang; and severe restrictions on basic freedoms of speech, association and religion.[

231

175. In evidence, Amnesty also drew attention to the plight of refugees from North Korea, of which "hundreds, possibly thousands…continue to be arrested and forcibly returned" by China without recourse to asylum procedures.[232] The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children stated in evidence that "forced abortions and sterilisations, infanticide, arbitrary detention, destruction of property and torture" are perpetrated by the State through the One Child policy and that comment in the Annual Report was limited to a "totally inadequate passing reference".[233]

176. Although during its forthcoming presidency of the EU Britain will assume a leading role in the ongoing EU-China Human Rights Dialogue, the UK's main channel for the discussion of human rights with the Chinese is through the UK-China Human Rights Dialogue, of which the 11^th round took place in May 2004. The Annual Report states of the dialogue that it

234

177. Several witnesses to our inquiry, however, complained precisely on these grounds that the dialogue was inadequate and unproductive. Amnesty stated its concern that "this process, after eleven rounds of dialogue, is not leading to significant changes on the ground in the country" and suggested that "as the dialogue has continued and proliferated, there has been a growing reluctance among those involved to engage in more public forms of pressure and criticism".[235] Human Rights Watch advised that the dialogue "seems to have very little benefits to show" and that "real pressures must be brought to bear".[236] The Free Tibet Campaign said that "there has been a general shift in the manner in which China is held accountable for its compliance to human rights principles - from multilateral to bilateral dialogue…[which] threatens to undermine the universality and credibility of the international human rights regime entrenched in the UN" and has failed to deliver progress.[237] The Falun Gong Association UK told us that "the dialogue need to be accompanied by top-level representations and public criticism".[238]

178. When we questioned Bill Rammell on the dialogue, he advised us that he had turned down advice to move to an annual session with China because it would "send out a message that we were downgrading our concerns". He also said, however, that he was considering a way to prioritise the issues raised with the Chinese so that there could be a greater focus on those issues considered the most important.[239]

179. We conclude that the UK-China Human Rights dialogue is failing to deliver results with sufficient speed, despite the incremental progress described in the Annual Report. We recommend that the Government review the continuation of the dialogue in this light. We further recommend that the Government set specific goals for the dialogue, with appropriate timescales by which it hopes to achieve them.

180. We recommend that the Government describe, in its response to this Report, how it co-ordinates the UK-China dialogue with the EU-China dialogue and with other mechanisms available to the UK and EU to encourage positive change in China on human rights.

181. In December 2004 the European Council stated that "EU-China relations have developed significantly in all aspects in the past years" and "reaffirmed the political will to continue to work towards lifting the arms embargo" which was imposed in the wake of the massacre in Tiananmen Square in 1989. The Council also "invited the next Presidency [the current Luxembourg Presidency] to finalise the well-advanced work in order to allow for a decision". The Council stated that "the result of any decision should not be an increase of arms exports from EU Member States to China, neither in quantitative nor qualitative terms" and noted the provisions of the EU Code of Conduct on arms exports, "in particular criteria regarding human rights, stability and security in the region and the national security of friendly and allied countries".[240]

182. We conclude that the raising of the EU arms embargo on China would send the wrong signal at this time, in the absence of strong undertakings from the Chinese government to address human rights issues.

VIETNAM

183. The Annual Report describes a "gradual improvement" in the human rights situation in Vietnam over recent years; but, during 2003-04, setbacks on use of the death penalty (the use of which increased by at least 100 per cent in 2003) freedom of religion and freedom of expression.[241]

184. In evidence, Christian Solidarity Worldwide raised the "severity of religious persecution in Vietnam", in particular in relation to Protestant faith groups, and highlighted the "Ordinance Regarding Religious Beliefs and Religious Organisations" which came into force in Vietnam in November 2004. This legislative measure is described by Christian Solidarity Worldwide as "a step backwards for religious freedom in Vietnam" as it places "substantial limitations" on the rights to freedom of worship. Christian Solidarity Worldwide told us that "is feared by the churches that [the Ordinance] will provide a more substantial legal basis for the limiting of religious liberties in Vietnam".[242]

185. Bill Rammell told us that the "major concerns" of the Government in respect of Vietnam are freedom of expression and religious freedom, "including, in particular, the situation of protestants from ethnic minority groups in the Central Highlands". He went on to state that Ministers had raised this issue directly with the Vietnamese State President in May 2004 and that the Vietnamese government is "responding to these issues", assisted by DfID.[243]

186. We recommend that, in its response to this Report, the Government set out its view of the Ordinance Regarding Religious Beliefs and Religious Organisations which recently passed into law in Vietnam and an assessment of its likely impact on religious freedom in that country.

BURMA

187. The Annual Report calls Burma's human rights record "grim" and states that "minor steps forward have been accompanied by continued repression" over 2004.[244] In particular, the leader of the National League for Democracy, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi remains under house arrest following a national crackdown on the party, ethnic groups suffer "appalling abuses", prison conditions are "very poor", freedom of religion is constrained and thousands of children have been forced into service as soldiers.

188. We received evidence from the Jubilee Campaign and from Benedict Rogers, a human rights advocate and journalist, drawing particular attention to the treatment of religious groups and ethnic Karen, Karenni and Shan people. These groups "are facing the worst level of systematic atrocities by the Burmese military which include widespread and repeated summary executions, rape, torture, forced labour, forced relocations and the destruction of villages, crops, livestock and food stores".[245] Both submissions of evidence contend that these crimes amount to genocide and urge the Government to raise the matter at the UN Security Council, to increase pressure on the Association of South-East Asian Nations, and the governments of China and India, to cease investments in Burma, to call for the suspension of Burma from ASEAN before it assumes the presidency in 2006, to lobby for a global arms and investment embargo against Burma and to support aid agencies in Thailand which work with the internally displaced ethnic minorities in Burma.[246]

189. Bill Rammell told us that the UK had been instrumental in strengthening the EU policy on Burma and that, "we have made clear to all the regional powers that were Burma to take the Chair [of ASEAN in 2006] without progress from where we are…that will be extremely concerning".[247]

190. We conclude that the abuses being perpetrated in Burma, in particular against the ethnic Karen, Karenni and Shan people, are appalling and that increased international pressure is needed to address the situation. We recommend that the Government give its assessment of whether or not a policy of genocide against those groups is being pursued by the Burmese government, and what actions should be taken by the international community. We further recommend that the Government use its Presidency of the EU to achieve a common position on action to be taken in the event of Burma being allowed to assume the presidency of ASEAN in 2006. We also recommend that the Government support the provision of assistance to internally displaced persons in Burma.

Former Soviet Union

RUSSIA

191. The terrible events at Beslan unfolded just before the intended publication of the Annual Human Rights Report. The Report pays tribute to the estimated 338 victims of the atrocity, half of whom were children, and describes the event as "unprecedented in its horror".[248]

192. The Annual Report states that Russia is "incomparably freer than the Soviet Union ever was" and reserves its main focus for the problems in Chechnya. However, the Report acknowledges that abuses continue throughout Russia, highlighting in particular:

249

193. In Chechnya, the Report comments on the bombings and reports of abductions, torture, mine-laying, assassinations and looting carried out by Chechen militants. In the face of these serious problems with terrorism, the Report highlights evidence that federal forces too "continued to carry out serious human rights violations" during 2003-04, including targeted night-time abductions or disappearances, alleged extrajudicial killings, illegal detention and abduction of civilians, beatings and torture of detainees, theft and looting, and extortion of bribes. Furthermore, there has been little progress in bringing cases of human rights violations to court.[250]

194. The For Human Rights: All-Russian Public Movement submitted evidence to us in which it stated that the Annual Report "woefully under-represent[s] the true situation" in Russia. The Movement describes state intervention in the electoral process in Chechnya, politically inspired prosecutions and imprisonment in Russia, state intervention in the judicial process and "beatings and degradation of prisoners en masse".[251] Amnesty told us that there was "an apparent reluctance at the most senior levels of [UK] government to criticise Russia's human rights performance overall" and Human Rights Watch said that the "government seems unwilling to speak in the plain terms that are needed".[252]

195. We conclude that the Russian state faces formidable problems with terrorism but that this cannot be used as a pretext for a failure to respect human rights. We conclude that, in concentrating almost exclusively on Chechnya, the Annual Human Rights Report does not pay enough attention to the human rights situation in the rest of Russia, and we recommend that the Annual Human Rights Report 2005 include more information on this. We further recommend that the Government make clear at every level that Russia should do more to promote and protect human rights both in Chechnya and in the country as a whole.

UZBEKISTAN

196. In Uzbekistan, the Annual Report notes, progress on human rights has been "negligible" over 2003-04, and "until we see…improvements, human rights will remain the primary focus of the UK's bilateral relations with Uzbekistan".[253] Particular criticisms include state repression of opposition groups, harassment of international NGOs and severe curtailment of their activities, reports that prisoners have been tortured to death in custody and the executions of six individuals whose cases were pending before the UN Human Rights Committee.[254] The Ambassador of Uzbekistan submitted evidence to us offering a rebuttal of the criticisms in the Annual Report and stating that "political and democratic reforms in Uzbekistan should be assessed not from a viewpoint of high achievements of the West".[255]

197. Since the writing of the Annual Report, the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, has publicly alleged that, while he was in post, the British Government was in the habit of accepting intelligence material extracted under torture by the Uzbek authorities, which the US received from Uzbekistan and shared with MI6.[256] Mr Murray made the further point that evidence obtained in this manner is almost certainly unreliable and that, therefore, "we are selling our souls for dross". We consider this issue in its wider context at paragraphs 94 to 106 above.

198. Human Rights Watch criticised in evidence the Annual Report's apparent eagerness to portray the USA as "equally concerned about the state of human rights in Uzbekistan", pointing out that although, as the Report states, the US government announced plans in July to cut $18m in military and economic aid because of human rights concerns, what the Report fails to add is that "shortly after that $18m cut, the Pentagon gave an additional $21m of aid to Uzbekistan, thus wiping out the previous cut and more".[257]

199. We conclude that the Government is right to make human rights the primary focus of its relations with Uzbekistan and we recommend that it maintain this stance until real improvements are evident.

143 Human Rights Annual Report 2004, p 15 Back

144 Foreign and Commonwealth Office , Global Opportunities Fund Annual Report 2003-4, Cm 6413, December 2004, p 53 Back

145 Ibid., pp 54-55 Back

146 "Alexander Launches Foreign Office Arabic Website", Foreign and Commonwealth Office Press Release, 25 January 2005, available at www.fco.gov.uk Back

147 Human Rights Annual Report 2004, p 67 Back

148 Ibid., p 69 Back

149 Foreign Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2003-04, Foreign Policy Aspects of the war against Terrorism, HC 81, Seventh Report of Session 2003-04, Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism, HC 441 Back

150 Ev 16 Back

151 Ev 17 Back

152 HC Deb, 2 March 2005, col 89WS Back

153 "Power-sharing key to Iraq's political future", Financial Times, 14 February 2005, p 9 Back

154 Human Rights Annual Report 2004, p 18 Back