Written evidence submitted by Human Rights
Watch
Human Rights Watch appreciates the invitation
by the Foreign Affairs Committee to comment on the UK government's
Human Rights Report 2004. As with previous submissions to the
committee, these comments should be framed in the context that
we believe the existence of the Human Rights report to be welcome
and worthwhile. There is much in the report to be commended.
The comments that follow do not attempt to be
a line-by-line analysis of the report, but merely to highlight
some key areas where we believe that the government's policy should
change, that the analysis is misleading, or that there is a discrepancy
between the analysis to be found in the pages of the report and
the reality of UK government policy. We will be happy to answer
further questions from the committee if this would be helpful.
For ease of reference, the comments follow the chronology of the
report itself.
Terror and human rights (pp13ff and elsewhere)
On p13, the report notes: "It no more follows
that a counter-terrorism agenda must mean being weak on human
rights than that a human rights agenda must mean being soft on
terrorism. The abuse of human rights risks creating new reservoirs
of discontent which can nurture terrorism itself." It is
regrettable that the UK has not always followed through the consequences
of this accurate analysis. Above all, it has been timid in commenting
on serious abuses and trampling of due process by its close ally,
the United States, which have helped create such "reservoirs
of discontent". Human Rights Watch, which has its headquarters
in New York, feels this partial silence to be a deeply regrettable
failure, with important implications for the safety of the world.
The report notes that the UK "has a continuous
and constructive dialogue with human rights NGOs". That is
correct, and we welcome that constructive dialogue on a range
of issues, which we hope and believe is useful for both sides.
We hope that it will be understood that our
outspoken criticisms of, for example, US policy will be understood
not to be "disproportionate"—a phrase that has
sometimes been heard in connection with the work of HRW and other
human rights organisations HRH, in tones which imply that we should
mute our criticisms. The committee will not be surprised to learn
that HRW does not believe it would be appropriate for the organisation
to mute its criticisms when serious abuses are committed by powerful
democracies—not least because of the message that such abuses
send. We have already seen how authoritarian regimes have repeatedly
taken comfort from or hidden behind the abuses committed by the
United States, at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. HRW will, of course,
continue to document the abuses carried out by authoritarian regimes
around the world, as we have done in the past. We hope that the
continuous and constructive dialogue will continue.
UK anti-terrorism measures, (pp15ff)
The report says that the Home Secretary "is
encouraging public debate on the sort of powers which the UK will
need to tackle terrorism in the future". In reality, the
Government appears to have little appetite for open debate. The
December 2003 report by the Privy Counsellor Review Committee
chaired by Lord Newton of Braintree (the "Newton Report")
and February and July 2004 reports by the Joint Committee for
Human Rights (JCHR) called for part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism Crime
and Security Act to be replaced as a matter of urgency. This call
was recently echoed by the United Nations Committee on Torture.
Both the Newton Committee and JCHR have suggested alternatives
to indefinite detention that would not require a derogation from
UK obligations under international human rights law. Yet the Government's
February 2004 discussion paper "Counter-terrorism powers:
Reconciling security and liberty in an open society" is little
more than a defence of Part 4 and a rebuttal of the conclusions
and recommendations contained in the Newton Report. With the exception
of the issue of the relaxing the ban on intercept evidence, the
Government continues to show little interest in considering alternatives
to indefinite detention, or measures that would facilitate prosecution
of terrorism suspects and therefore obviate the need for its use.
Human Rights Watch analysed the legal and policy deficiencies
of indefinite detention in June 2004 briefing paper "Neither
Just Nor Effective; Indefinite Detention Without Trial in the
United Kingdom Under Part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security
Act 2001", http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/eca/uk/.
Guantanamo detainees, (p18)
Criticism of the US policy on the Guantanamo
detainees is welcome. There has been a severe trampling of process
on a whole range of issues—including holding detainees indefinitely
without trial, without reference to domestic courts, and the flawed
military commissions which have now begun, and which HRW have
observed at Guantanamo itself. (HRW analysis of the commissions
can be found in, for example, Briefing Paper on US Military Commissions,
http://hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/2004/1.htm)
The report is right to note that detainees "should
be tried in accordance with international standards". It
is regrettable that it took so long for a British government to
make this clear. The report describes the abuses as though they
were of importance only for British citizens. Every government
must consider the welfare of its own citizens. But the abuses
at Guantanamo are of wider significance, both for moral and legal
reasons and for the reasons acknowledged in the report's comments
about "reservoirs of discontent". The report says that
"British detainees should either be tried fairly in accordance
with international standards or be returned to the UK". This
is true, but fails to mention the importance of fair trial for
the hundreds of non-Britons who are held there. The fair trial
or return of the Britons, carried out in isolation, would not
begin to address the overall problems associated with Guantanamo.
Allegations of abuse by coalition forces, (p21)
There is little doubt that the UK forces have
been much more respectful of international law than the US forces
in the coalition. Where there have been alleged abuses, investigations
have taken place. But the British government has seemed reluctant
to criticise the permissive culture of torture which has been
allowed to take root amongst policy-makers in Washington. The
images from Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad were, as the Foreign
Secretary rightly noted, "utterly shameful, disgusting and
disgraceful". These criticisms echo words that we have heard
from President Bush. But these actions did not take place in isolation.
It should also be noted that, though there are
no photos and consequently less public attention, US forces in
Afghanistan, which operate alongside UK forces as part of Operation
Enduring Freedom, have since 2001 had an exceptionally poor record
of abuse of detainees and use of excessive force. (See also Enduring
Freedom: Abuses by US Forces in Afghanistan, http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/afghanistan0304/)
If a totalitarian government were to carry out
such abuses, the UK government would not hesitate to speak out.
It is regrettable if the British government feels constrained
to remain silent because the abusive government is a political
ally. Arguably, this makes the need to speak out all the greater.
(The HRW report The Road to Abu Ghraib, June 2004 analyses this
subject in greater detail, http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/usa0604/)
Iraq (pp18ff)
The current security situation in Iraq is, as
the report rightly notes, "difficult and complex". The
report does not acknowledge, even indirectly, that the situation
has not been helped by the behaviour of the most powerful ally
in the coalition forces, which has allowed impunity for abuses
and killings of Iraqi civilians. An HRW report showed clearly
how few of the deaths of Iraqi civilians at the hands of US forces
have been properly investigated. (See the HRW report Hearts and
Minds: October 2003, http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq1003/,
for more details on this).
Justice (p22)
The report rightly notes that there is "provision"
in the statute of the Iraqi Special Tribunal for the involvement
of international judges. But the United States, which mistrusts
international justice, has pressed for the Iraqi judges to act
alone, and not draw on international expertise; the US pressure
has in this regard been powerful. This is regrettable, since the
complexity of these trials is such that international expertise
would be valuable. (See the HRW briefing paper, Memorandum to
the Iraqi Governing Council on "The Statute of the Iraqi
Special Tribunal", December 2003, http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iraq121703.htm)
Preservation of evidence
The UK support for forensic teams exhuming mass
graves in Iraq has been welcome. There have, however, been serious
shortcomings, in terms of the preservation of evidence, with important
consequences. Key evidence has been lost. (See Iraq: State of
the Evidence, November 2004, http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/iraq1104/)
Afghanistan, (pp28ff, also, on opium production,
pp138-139)
The role played by the UK with its provincial
reconstruction teams, described in the report, has been valuable.
There has, however, been a woeful slowness to respond to the need
for strengthened international presence throughout Afghanistan,
to help curb the power of the warlords. All the undoubted signs
of progress in Afghanistan will be worthless if the power of the
warlords is not curbed. Ordinary Afghans expect President Karzai
and the international community to deliver a government free of
the old, rights-abusing faces. HRW has documented the pernicious
and continuing role of the warlords in a number of reports in
the past three years from different parts of Afghanistan. HRW
is concerned whether the UK has done everything possible to end
relations with local warlords with poor human rights records,
especially in the east of the country.
HRW has also drawn attention to the serious
continuing problems with women's rights, including widespread
death threats against those who seek to play a role in public
life. There is strong evidence that such threats are politically
orchestrated. The most recent reports on Afghanistan include:
Between Hope and Fear Intimidation and Attacks
against Women in Public Life in Afghanistan, October 2004, http://hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghanistan1004/
The Rule of the Gun Human Rights Abuses and
Political Repression in the Run-up to Afghanistan's Presidential
Election, October 2004, http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghanistan0904/.
Previous reports included
"Killing You is a Very Easy Thing For Us":
Human Rights Abuses in Southeast Afghanistan, July 2003, http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/afghanistan0703/
"All Our Hopes Are Crushed: Violence and
Repression in Western Afghanistan", October 2002, http://hrw.org/reports/2002/afghan3/
Sudan (Darfur), (pp31ff)
Human Rights Watch takes this opportunity to
confirm the significant role played by the Foreign Secretary,
as mentioned in the government human rights report, in gaining
visas for both HRW and Amnesty International to visit Khartoum
and Darfur. HRW had already documented the crimes committed in
Darfur by crossing the border from Chad into Darfur when official
permission was not granted. But the subsequent permission to work
officially inside Sudan was invaluable. HRW wishes to put on record
the appreciation of the Foreign Secretary's personal intervention.
HRW is pleased, too, at the UK government's
emphasis on the extent of the crimes that have been committed
there. As the report notes, "Respect for basic human rights
and international humanitarian law must underpin the Sudanese
government's and the international community's response, both
in the short and the longer term."
The recognition that grave abuses of human rights,
including crimes against humanity, underpinned the humanitarian
tragedy was much too slow. This theme is explored in greater detail
in the HRW submission to the international development committee
on "Darfur: Lessons Learned", of which a copy is attached
electronically and in hard copy.
Thus, the Queen's Birthday speech by the British
ambassador in Khartoum on 27 April 2004—a speech which would
have been cleared with London—came after the mass ethnic
cleansing and crimes against humanity were already documented.
There had been reports by HRW, Amnesty International and other
NGOs, as well as strong words from senior UN officials. And yet,
there was no indication in the ambassador's speech of the gravity
of the human rights crisis in Darfur at that time. The ambassador
felt able to talk optimistically of Sudan as standing "on
the threshold of a new era". Emphasising that "we are
and wish to remain true friends of Sudan", the ambassador
boasted that British trade with Sudan was up by a quarter; and
noted that British Airways had just reopened flights to Khartoum.
If the British government and other governments had been engaged
at an earlier stage on this issue, many thousands of lives could
have been saved.
Even now, there sometimes appears to be a reluctance
to confront the extent to which peace processes cannot be seen
in isolation. The north-south peace process, bringing hopes of
peace after two decades of civil war, is important. But it cannot
be seen in isolation. The willingness in the early part of 2004
to look away from the Darfur abuses because focusing on these
abuses might "destabilise" the Naivasha north-south
peace process failed to take account of the fact that only by
looking at the issues in the round is there a hope of moving forward.
It was regrettable that, at the time of the
Nairobi meeting of the UN Security Council in November, the Security
Council rowed back on its previous threats of action against Khartoum
(including, for example, targeted sanctions) if the government
failed to honour its commitments. It will now be essential to
push for real justice in Darfur—including a possible Security
Council referral to the International Criminal Court, discussed
below.
HRW reports from Darfur included:
— Darfur in Flames, April 2004 http://hrw.org/reports/2004/sudan0404/,
— Darfur Destroyed, May 2004 http://hrw.org/reports/2004/sudan0504/,
— "If We Return, We Will Be Killed"
Consolidation of Ethnic Cleansing in Darfur, Sudan, November 2004
http://hrw.org/backgrounder/africa/darfur1104/
Democratic Republic of Congo, (pp36-38)
The report says: "In May and June threats
were traded between the DRC and Rwanda with allegations of Rwandan
support to rebel Congolese troops. The UK consistently encourages
all sides to improve relations." This implies that the charge
against the Rwandans is unproven. In reality, the links are clear
between both Rwanda and Uganda, on the one hand, and armed groups
in the eastern DRC, on the other. The UK should put significant
pressure on Rwanda and Uganda to ensure that such support, which
is destabilising to the peace process, does not continue. Consistent
diplomatic pressure is needed, not sporadic interventions. A HRW
report Ituri: "Covered in Blood", Ethnically Targeted
Violence in Northeastern DR Congo, July 2003, discusses the involvement
of Rwanda and Uganda further http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/ituri0703/.
Uzbekistan, (pp38-41)
We welcome the clear and accurate statement:
"Over the past year, progress in the human rights situation
in Uzbekistan has been negligible, and this needs to be confronted."
We welcome, too, the statement that "human rights will remain
the primary focus of the UK's bilateral relations with Uzbekistan".
The report is right to argue that the Uzbek government must turn
"words and commitments made on human rights reform into action
on the ground". In some instances, the report itself does
not appear to make that distinction: thus, the national action
plan on torture is praised as "a positive step". In
reality, the plan has achieved little. As the report itself notes,
it fails even to mention the recommendations by the UN special
rapporteur on torture.
The British government appears eager to demonstrate
that the US government is equally concerned about the state of
human rights in Uzbekistan. Thus, the report praises the US government
for announcing plans to cut $18 million in military and economic
aid because of human rights concerns. The report says the US action
is "consistent with messages conveyed to many countries,
including the UK". The report does not mention the fact that,
shortly after that $18 million cut, the Pentagon gave an additional
$21 million of aid to Uzbekistan, thus wiping out the previous
cut and more. HRW 319 page report "Creating Enemies of the
State: Religious Persecution in Uzbekistan", March 2004,
documents a campaign of torture and religious persecution against
nonviolent Muslim dissidents http://hrw.org/reports/2004/uzbekistan0304/.
Russia (Chechnya), (pp44ff)
The report addresses many of the main issues,
including the continued abuses on both sides, spillover of the
conflict, and lack of accountability. But it resists drawing broader
conclusions. A political process is unlikely to succeed without
the trust of the population. The Government claims that it hopes
to draw the population into these processes. And yet, government
troops continue abusive practices; there is no meaningful accountability.
The Ombudsman has said that there were 1,700
disappearances this year, a figure that is both astounding and
unsurprising. Meanwhile, very few servicemen have been convicted
of crimes committed against civilians in Chechnya since the conflict
broke out in 1999. If so few people are punished for disappearances,
torture, extrajudicial killings, and other crimes, it is unreasonable
to expect the figures on abuse to decline.
The Government seems unwilling to speak in the
plain terms that are needed. As the report notes, in the referendum
in March 2003, "The Russian government claimed an 89% turnout
and a 96% vote in favour of the constitution." The unwitting
reader might remain unaware that independent observers agree these
figures to be misleading, at best. It would be helpful if on this,
as on many other issues concerned with Chechnya, senior ministers,
including the Prime Minister, were to speak out. This has not
happened. The Prime Minister has repeatedly appeared reluctant
to express even implicit criticisms of President Putin's policies
at home.
China (pp50ff)
Human Rights Dialogue
Human Rights Watch is not against dialogues
as such. They may have a useful role to play. But the UK-China
dialogue, despite talk in the report of "incremental progress",
seems to have very little benefits to show. Dialogues should not
be continued for dialogue's sake. Real pressures must be brought
to bear.
Saudi Arabia, (pp65ff)
HRW shares the view of the report that there
has been "no significant improvement" in human rights
in Saudi Arabia since the last report. Last year's government
report accurately noted that HRW had been permitted to visit the
Kingdom for talks with senior Saudi officials, the first international
human rights group to do so. But HRW's requests to return for
the promised research mission have not, at the time of writing,
been granted—almost two years after the first set of talks
between HRW and Saudi officials in Riyadh.
Libya, (p67)
The report praises Libya for "reintegrating
with the international community", and rightly refers to
Amnesty International's visit to Libya in February. But this "reintegration"
has been only very partial. A Human Rights Watch visit to Libya,
scheduled for November 2004, was cancelled by the Libyan authorities
at the last moment. More must be done to ensure that Libya understands
the importance of human rights standards, and does not believe
that human rights are a mere optional add-on. This is especially
important in a world of international diplomacy where the British
Prime Minister is ready to praise Libya fulsomely for its alleged
progress.
Israel and the Palestinian Authority, (pp67ff)
The UK government's concerns closely overlap
with those of HRW. The most recent report Razing Rafah, October
2004, http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/rafah1004/ documents in
detail the illegality of the mass house destructions there. With
reference to the section entitled "Rejectionist violence":
A previous HRW report, Erased in a Moment, October 2002, http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/
focused on the suicide bombings, which represent grave crimes
against humanity, and named the organisers of such attacks.
Colombia, (pp72ff)
The report rightly characterises the continuing
"appalling situation and one in which human rights abuses
continue to occur consistently". The emphasis that "We
reminded the Colombian government that human rights NGOs were
part of the solution to the very difficult situation the Colombian
government faces, and urged them to reiterate their support for
NGOs and civil society" is welcome, in the face of public
suggestions by Colombian government leaders that human rights
NGOs can themselves be seen as the problem. In a situation where
human rights activists are murdered, this is a dangerous signal
to send. In the past, some UK government representatives have
appeared to echo those sentiments; the clear message that NGOs
should be "part of the solution" is therefore doubly
welcome.
The International Criminal Court, (pp123ff)
The UK describes itself in this report as "one
of the strongest supporters" of the International Criminal
Court. We wish this were true. The UK played a key role in the
creation of this important court. In the past two years since
the court came into being, the UK has, however, repeatedly failed
to defend the court from constant attacks by the United States.
Senior US officials have made clear that they would like the court
to "wither and die".
The report rightly notes that the US "decided
in June 2004" to withdraw a resolution seeking a renewal
of a special exemption for US military personnel from ICC investigation,
wherever the alleged crimes might be committed. There is no reference
here to the fact that the UK was alone amongst governments on
the Security Council which have ratified the ICC treaty which
was ready to vote with the United States on the renewal of such
a resolution. The resolution was only withdrawn when the US realised
that it was unable to gain the required number of votes. The UK
played no part in achieving this important result; rather, the
contrary.
A moment of historic importance may lie ahead
for the court, when the International Commission of Inquiry reports
on its conclusions in Darfur, at the end of January. Given the
gravity of the crimes committed, it can be assumed that a Security
Council referral to the International Criminal Court will be considered
appropriate. (A Security Council referral is required in order
to begin investigations and prosecutions because Sudan has not
ratified the ICC treaty.) The United States, because of its long
mistrust of the ICC, is unlikely to show enthusiasm for this prospect.
Equally, however, the strength of feeling in the United States
on the issue of Darfur (the Secretary of State has himself described
the killings there as "genocide") means that the US
may on this occasion be willing to put its mistrust of the court
to one side.
The British government can thus play a key role
in this connection, by insisting on the importance of the ICC
as the correct forum for prosecution. HRW believes that the creation
of a special ad hoc tribunal, useful though such tribunals have
been for crimes committed before 2001, would be inappropriate.
The use of such tribunals could be seen to undermine the reasons
for the very existence of the ICC. A strong British defence of
the ICC will be essential. The failure to defend the court could
have catastrophic consequences, in the short and long term alike.
Migrant workers in the Gulf states, (pp171)
The report rightly highlights the serious problems
faced by migrant workers in the Gulf. Saudi Arabia is not mentioned
in this list, but should not be forgotten. HRW's report Bad Dreams:
Exploitation and Abuse of Migrant Workers in Saudi Arabia, July
2004, http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/saudi0704/ documented the
appalling situation of migrant workers there, without any possibility
of redress.
Torture, (pp183ff)
The Government is right to say that "torture
is abhorrent and illegal", and that the prohibition of torture
is binding, "from which no derogation is possible".
We are pleased if the UK "is opposed to the use of torture
under all circumstances". HRW would argue, however, that
the new UK philosophy with regard to torture is less than absolute.
It appears to be that the UK is "opposed to the use of torture
under all circumstances—except where the fruits of that
torture, carried out by others, may prove particularly useful".
Human rights organisations are sometimes asked:
"What would you do if you had a piece of information in your
hand which told you about a planned terrorist attack in central
London, but which was gained under torture? Would it be possible
to ignore such information?" But this question begs another:
what about the next time, and the time after that? The hypothetical
about a one-off incident ignores the context in which such information
will be provided to the UK government. The regular acceptance
of intelligence obtained under torture will send a clear signal
to that country that the UK is indifferent about its use of torture.
This is a moral defeat, but one which has practical implications,
too. The abuses at Abu Ghraib, far from helping to defeat the
terrorists, have been a boon to the terrorist recruiters. By the
same token, the British tacit acceptance of torture by third parties
may have the same effect.
The British government has made clear that it
believes it is entitled as a matter of international and domestic
law to use the fruits of torture in court proceedings in the UK,
provided that the UK government "neither connived at nor
procured the torture". Initially, the Government claimed
the right to use torture evidence from third countries only in
individual reviews of the indefinite detention of foreign terrorism
suspects before the Special Immigration Appeal Commission, while
denying that had in fact relied on such evidence for the purpose
of those detentions. At the recent session of the United Nations
Committee against Torture in Geneva, however, the government went
further, claiming that the use of torture evidence in any court
in the UK was prohibited under international and domestic law
only where the UK was involved in the torture. The government
would say only that "it is hard to imagine circumstances
in which evidence proved to have been obtained under torture could
make its way into proceedings", but left the door open to
just such an outcome.
The matter is likely to be decided by the House
of Lords, and one must hope that the Lords will go back to first
principles and reaffirm the absolute ban on the use of torture
evidence in any circumstances. A ruling from the Law Lords should
not be needed, for the British government to make its position
clear.
The threat of terrorism is not a reason to go
soft on the principled ban on torture. On the contrary. It reminds
us of the principles we all need to stand up for. Otherwise, the
UK risks, in the words of Lord Justice Neuberger, "losing
the moral high ground an open democratic society enjoys."
In conclusion
We note again in conclusion that there are many
areas where the concerns of the UK government closely overlap
with those of HRW, and we welcome this fact. We look forward to
answering the Committee's questions on any of the issues raised
in this submission or other issues which may be of interest.
Steve Crawshaw
London Director
Human Rights Watch
December 2004
| 
