Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
MS KATE
ALLEN, MR
TIM HANCOCK
AND MR
STEVE CRAWSHAW
21 DECEMBER 2004
Q20 Mr Olner: Our Foreign Secretary,
Jack Straw, has obviously welcomed the report. I wonder whether
you welcome the report as well in that it would give a clear path
to take action by the UN against states that are not very good
on human rights. For instance, had this been in place before the
Iraq war, the Iraq war might have taken place with the full sanction
and permission of the United Nations to stem the human rights
abuses that you, Mr Crawshaw, said were taking place in Iraq.
Mr Crawshaw: To be exact, it gives
a framework. It might have done but there are very limited circumstances
where such strong action would be needed. More often, there are
diplomatic and political actions. From Human Rights Watch's point
of view, the failure to intervene in Rwanda in 1994, to take the
most notable example, was undoubtedly wrong. We broadly welcome
it but there is one thing that not only do we welcome but we hope
the British government would follow through. There is talk of
the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva and it suggested making
that a universal body. Although there are clearly problems with
the Commission on Human Rights, making it universal is a way of
weakening it rather than strengthening it. It would be a pity
to go in that direction. On the contrary, one wants to strengthen
the team rather than dilute it. One enormously important recommendation
which comes in the report on page 68 is that we ask the permanent
members of the Security Council in their individual capacities
to pledge themselves to refrain from the use of veto in cases
of genocide and large scale human rights abuses.
Q21 Mr Olner: Does that mean that the
Security Council—France, Russia and China—would not
be able to use a veto or threaten to use a veto in the action
against Iraq?
Mr Crawshaw: If I can move from
a hypothetical of the past where each of these would need to be
looked at very carefully, on Darfur where everybody is agreed
there have been very grave crimes against humanity, whatever name
they give them, one would really hope that action will be taken
in terms of accountability. It is possible that powerful Security
Council governments would think of using their veto against that.
Britain could play an important role in having an agreement
that Security Council governments would make a pledge precisely
as recommended in this report. If the British government were
to do that, it would be a very worthwhile action indeed. The Prime
Minister has already welcomed the report in broad terms.
Mr Hancock: It is quite important
with the high level panel report that there is going to be a temptation
to focus on some of the really big, headline catching questions
like humanitarian invention, Security Council composition as well
as the use of the veto. It is really important that some of the
less headline grabbing human rights elements are also examined.
Specifically, Security Council resolutions, where they contain
human rights related elements. The High Commissioner for Human
Rights should be able to follow up on those and report to the
Security Council how they have been implemented. The report welcomes
the degree to which the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner
have been trying to mainstream human rights and draws attention
to the very low level of funding. Humanitarian intervention and
Security Council membership are really important issues but we
need to look at the whole report and make sure we are looking
at that through a wide human rights perspective, not just the
big questions.
Q22 Mr Olner: Can I ask whether you think
that this high level report and what flows from it will one day
help to solve problems like we have in Palestine? One of the criticisms
that is raised is that there have been plenty of UN resolutions
made against Israel and its occupation of Palestine but very few
carried through. Would this be a way of strengthening whatever
action needs to be taken on behalf of the Palestinians?
Mr Crawshaw: It is possible. On
that particular issue the key starting point is that one does
not need more structural changes. If both sides had a full understanding
that there are no circumstances in which gross human rights abuses,
the killing of civilians in whatever circumstances, whether it
be the murder of them in a café or people walking along
the street being killed by the Army, and constantly framing the
issue in terms of what the other side has done justifying what
you have done is quite the wrong understanding. That would be
my starting point.
Q23 Mr Maples: Do you think the United
Nations Commission on Human Rights is doing much useful work or
are the bad offenders too often overlooked in the name of some
international political correctness so that no action motions
are very often filed? I forget who holds the chair this year but
in one of the last two years it has been one of the worst human
rights offenders of all. It is probably better to have it than
not to have it at all but does it do any useful work in terms
of the common agenda that the British government and your two
organisations have?
Ms Allen: We recognise the politicalisation
of the Commission that has taken place and that does make life
at the Commission difficult at times. The block voting is a difficulty
but the Commission is hugely important. If we look at this year's
Commission, we would certainly welcome the resolutions that took
place on the elimination of violence against women and the recognition
that the protection of human rights is a fundamental part of also
dealing with the issue of terrorism. We were disappointed on some
of the country resolutions, the no action resolution in terms
of Chechnya. We were also disappointed that there was the replacement
of the Special Rapporteur of the DRC[7]
with an independent expert and we were pretty dismayed that the
resolution on Sudan was such a weak one. It is very concerning
that as the events in that country are unfolding the Commission's
resolution was a weak one. It is a mixture but what we need to
do is find ways to strengthen the Commission because it is a very
important part of the work of protecting human rights and its
various mechanisms are hugely important in terms of the way in
which human rights are protected.
Mr Hancock: On a slightly pessimistic
note about the spread of the use of no action motions to the UN
General Assembly, a no action motion was recently brought up with
respect to Zimbabwe which prevented the UN Third Committee considering
that country's record. It is a tremendous shame to see that moving
from Geneva to New York so there is a frustration there. The Commission
does some useful work and it is something we have to try to make
work.
Mr Crawshaw: Perhaps having it
is better than not having it. It is an enormously problematic
institution. It could be useful. It is a kind of back handed compliment
that so many abusive governments are so eager to neutralise the
work of the Commission. They are absolutely not headline grabbing
but things like the appointment of the UN Special Rapporteurs,
for example, never get headlines but they do have a very important
drip, drip effect. The blocking of rapporteurs needs to be confronted
when it happens as it constantly does. Letting those rapporteurs
in, letting them see the various areas where there are captures,
prisons, executions or extraditions can be helpful. At the moment,
it is enormously regrettable that the body is not doing the work
it should do in the way that it should.
Q24 Mr Maples: Are there institutional
changes that could be made in the structure of the United Nations
human rights machinery that would help or are we just facing a
lack of political will or a political block opposing progress?
Ms Allen: I would say political
will and also funding for the Commission's work.
Mr Hancock: It is definitely political
will. There is a need for all the countries concerned to realise
that country scrutiny is an essential part of what the Commission
is meant to do. That will inevitably mean western countries taking
some uncomfortable decisions. This year we have an independent
expert on terrorism mandated to work for a year so it would be
good to see that extended on a more permanent basis. That might
be a signal that those countries most engaged in what is called
the war on terror are willing to have transparency in their activities.
That would be leading by example but there is definitely a political
need for many other regional blocks to stop behaving like blocks
and acknowledge the problems that are there in the world and address
them. With the machinery, there definitely is a need to look at
the funding of the High Commission for Human Rights because they
receive very little money as a percentage of the UN budget—I
think it is about 2%—and we have a situation where the committee
that deals with discrimination against women looks like it may
not be able to consider the UK's fifth periodic report because
it has such a backlog. We definitely need to look at the machinery
but solving the machinery problem is not going to sort out the
political problem.
Mr Crawshaw: I mentioned earlier
the suggestion from the panel that one might make it a universal
body which seems to be very weakening. On the contrary, it would
be some kind of soft criterion and at least you are signed up
in principle to some of the core international basics. One thing
it seems to us at Human Rights Watch might also be useful is if
it became a permanent body which may sound like yet more pen pushers,
but in practice we have a body which meets for just a few weeks
every spring and does not have any clout. If it was there permanently
throughout the year, a very good case could be made for suggesting
that when a crisis is breaking out that would become a forum of
authority which would be expected to respond and put things into
motion. That would be one possible step forward.
Q25 Sir John Stanley: I put this to both
your organisations. We are now into the Bush second term. Do you
anticipate that the American administration is going to be as
uncooperative with the International Criminal Court in the second
term as in the first and do you think that the British government
could be doing anything more to try and move the American position?
Mr Crawshaw: Yes and yes. In the
second term they are absolutely as determined not just to weaken
the Court, which has been their desire from the start, but to
kill off the Court. I would urge the Committee to be seized of
the importance of this moment. I referred briefly at the beginning
to the issue of Darfur where the US government has described what
happens in Darfur as genocide. Whatever you call it, we can all
agree this is precisely the kind of issue that the Court has been
created for. The core reason, horrors like this, is why the Court
was created, to be able to prosecute without the cumbersomeness
of creating a separate tribunal. If the American administration
succeeds in blocking a referral to the International Criminal
Court for Darfur, it is in danger of successfully sending the
signal: why do we need a court like this in any case? We had these
terrible crimes; the Court was not useful there. When the Court
comes up for review in a few years' time, it will have simply
run out of steam. In other words, this is now perhaps the most
important moment in the Court's history. The Bush administration
is very confident. Although I am glad to say it has been partly
blocked on many of the immunity deals it was trying to strike,
it still hopes that it can simply kill the Court dead. The coming
year is going to be a very important test for that.
Ms Allen: We would agree with
that.
Q26 Sir John Stanley: The second half
of the question was against what you have indicated is an unchanged
position with the Bush administration. This looks like a more
or less hopeless cause but do you think there is anything useful
that the British government could be doing in trying to shift
the American position?
Mr Crawshaw: Yes, absolutely.
Having put the pessimistic part of the story which is absolutely
true—there are many reasons for pessimism—it must
also be remembered that the US government has described it as
genocide. In other words, it has publicly stated the terrible
nature of the crimes being committed in Darfur, in large part
in its own constituency. It would like something to be done about
what is happening in Darfur. Human Rights Watch, as you know,
has headquarters in New York. American colleagues also believe
that the British government has the key role to play in this issue.
If one is fortunate and if there is consistent diplomatic pressure,
both private and public, the Americans could be persuaded simply
to abstain on that issue and to allow the referral to go through.
There have been other, much more detailed issues where it has
allowed the ICC to exist. If they can be persuaded to stand aside
and let the rest of the world and the rest of the Security Council
governments make the decision to allow these terrible crimes to
be punished, that will be very important. Unfortunately, although
the governments here and elsewhere have said what a strong supporter
they are which in many ways is true, throughout the last couple
of years and especially last June when there was a key moment
of confrontation, the British government refused to get involved
in any way so it was left to all the other governments on the
Security Council to block the Americans who eventually backed
down.
Q27 Sir John Stanley: I would like you
to elaborate a little more on what you said in answer to the first
part of the question. You said that the US administration was
trying to kill off the ICC. I think that was the phrase you used.
Is that something of an exaggeration? It is not open to any country,
even the United States, to kill off the ICC. Our Committee has
been to the ICC. We have seen it in the Hague and we were very
reassured by what we saw and its determination to try and carry
out its remit. Can you explain why you think that the US is in
a position unilaterally, for example, to block a reference of
what has been going on in the Sudan to the ICC, because mechanically
I do not think it is possible for the US to do that. Please explain
what is behind your thinking.
Mr Crawshaw: You will be aware
of why the US mistrusts the Court. It is partly because it thinks
it will gang up on it and partly it is a more generalised mistrust
of international justice. On the mechanical side, senior US officials
have said that they would wish the Court to wither and die. In
effect, if you make the Court seem pointless, there will no longer
be the impetus for it. The people in the Hague are trying very
hard to make it stronger and stronger so that it is no longer
possible for it to wither and die. On the Sudan case specifically,
if the Sudan was a member of the Court and ratified the ICC[8]
treaty, you are quite right. It could not be blocked. For example,
the referrals on the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda have
happened and the United States is unable to be involved in any
way. The only way it could be involved is by using what I might
call financial blackmail, saying, "We will withhold a large
chunk of aid unless you do this." The Sudan is different.
Because it has not ratified the treaty, special mechanisms come
in so that the special Security Council referral is needed for
the ICC to become involved. It is partly in that connection that
I referred to the UN paper as well, saying that government should
make a pledge never to use their veto in cases of genocide or
large scale crimes against humanity because one feels that the
United States might wish to use its veto at the Security Council.
As against that, it is important to remember there are very many
US voters who would like to think that their government would
do everything possible to prosecute the criminals who have been
involved. There is absolutely everything to play for and the United
States could back down gracefully. It would be a fine thing if
they did.
Q28 Sir John Stanley: The US administration
would face almost universal odium if it exercised its Security
Council position to block a reference on the appalling atrocities
in the Sudan to the ICC. Is that a realistic possibility?
Mr Crawshaw: Unfortunately, it
is, but I would be very pleased for all those in this room to
put that same point very clearly to the British government. There
is another possibility which has been suggested in Washington.
It is interesting to see which way the British government decides.
That is, instead of it being referred to the International Criminal
Court, for it to go to one of the ad hoc tribunals along the lines
of what we have seen in former Yugoslavia, Rwanda or the mixed
tribunal we see in Sierra Leone. Those ad hoc tribunals have served
a good purpose but frankly the British government itself has criticised
them for being very expensive, very unwieldy, they take a long
time to set up and they are time consuming. The ICC cuts through
all of the problems those ad hoc tribunals have which would be
a way of the US saving its own face, saying, "Yes, we want
a prosecution but not at this foreign ICC based in the Hague."
Put in crude terms, that would be a way that they might frame
it.
Q29 Mr Illsley: You say in your memorandum
that the British government were happy to support the United States
if they had not withdrawn their resolution in relation to the
International Criminal Court. Is that signalling that there is
now a change of heart on the part of the British Government in
relation to the Court, given that we were prepared to go along
with the United States in their attempts to avoid being subject
to it?
Mr Crawshaw: They would say not.
The Minister will be here and you could ask others within the
Government. They would say one needed to have patience. Maybe
this resolution might have gone through in June and perhaps next
year's resolution would not go through. The British government
continues to insist. I think, perhaps genuinely, it saw itself
as the honest broker between the United States on the one hand
which loathes the Court and the European Union who are very strong
supporters of the Court on the other. It felt that it was taking,
if you like, a middle road between those two. I would emphasise
that I include very strongly my US colleagues in our international
justice programme, who felt that the opposite was happening. By
allowing the United States to go away, it would encourage the
United States to be bold for the following year and the year after
that. It was a very important victory, the fact that the United
States was gently allowed to get its way.
Q30 Mr Illsley: When you say the UK is
somewhere in the middle ground between the United States who loathe
the Court and the European Union, a strong supporter, I seem to
recall a few years ago we were the strong supporters. To suggest
that we now occupy the middle ground tends to suggest that our
support for the Court is slipping as well.
Mr Crawshaw: As you have seen
in the Foreign Office report, it does say that Britain is one
of the strongest supporters. I would agree with what you said.
Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. Given their response
to the potentially lethal pressures on the Court, one can only
say that they are no longer the strongest supporters.
Q31 Ms Stuart: Can I turn to the relationship
with the EU and Turkey? We highlighted the importance of continued
monitoring of the observance of human rights. Particularly given
last week's position by the European Union Council, what is your
assessment of the progress in terms of human rights, not just
the changes made to the legislature of Turkey, but how it has
been implemented on the ground?
Ms Allen: We have been very encouraged
by the way in which Turkey is responding to the Copenhagen criteria.
There is a great opportunity here for the Turkish government to
improve human rights within its country quite massively. We very
much welcomed the abolition of the death penalty within Turkey.
As you say, there have been introductions of many reforms within
Turkish law over the last year and others are yet to come. Our
concern would be that those reforms have not yet turned into practice.
From our reports of the situation in Turkey, we are still concerned
about the issue of torture within that country. We are still concerned
that some of the policing methods particularly at demonstrations
have been unnecessarily violent. Disproportionate force has been
used. We remain very concerned about women's rights within the
country, the level of violence against women and the failure of
the state to respond to that. Also, minorities and the use of
minority languages. There is that range of concerns. We are in
one of those situations where the reforms that the Turkish government
is putting in place need to be turned into practice. Some of the
culture of human rights within the country needs to change. That
is something that will take some time and will need real leadership
from the Turkish government at all levels and support from the
European Union. We are at one of those times where Turkey could
be about to move quite massively in terms of its practice, but
we are still waiting to see that after the legislative reforms
have been put in place.
Q32 Ms Stuart: Is there anything very
specific you would be looking for to see real progress? It is
only about 20 years since we passed the Police and Criminal Evidence
Act in this country and made massive changes to the way in which
evidence was gathered and people were charged. Are there markers
you would be looking for which you would want to see in Turkey
over the next couple of years, say, to see that they go further
on the ground?
Ms Allen: If you took the issue
of torture, for example, what we have been concerned about is
that since the changes in legislation, at the moment what is happening
is that there is a change in the nature of the way in which torture
takes place, leaving fewer marks, frankly. If we could start to
see a real abhorrence of torture and a real move within the police
and other forces to put the use of torture to one side, to make
sure that it was not used within the country, you would turn one
of those particular corners. The other ones are in relation to
violence against women and the ability of minorities to use their
language and have their languages used so that minorities feel
that they can be part of civil society.
Mr Hancock: Something specific
is creating in Turkey something of an equivalent independent police
complaints commission or a human rights ombudsman that is genuinely
independent and genuinely able to investigate things properly.
If we get that kind of independent oversight within Turkey, that
will be a very important signal. Similarly, when we are looking
at violence against women, we would very much like to see the
Turkish government providing a lot more support services for victims
so that people have somewhere to turn when things go bad.
Mr Crawshaw: I echo what we have
just heard. In a way, it is one of the remarkable success stories
and 10 years ago it would have been difficult to imagine the extent
of progress. We had hundreds dying in custody. There were more
than 40 people in 1994 alone who died of torture. Now we still
have all those problems. We need those mechanisms for punishing
what is happening at police stations. There are still widespread
abuses on a quite different scale. One can take the glass as half
empty or half full. In many respects, it is half full but accession
to the EU should not be an end point. In your question you used
the word "monitoring". That needs to be pushed because
we have not reached the great place yet. Another issue is that
hundreds of thousands of Kurds were driven out of their homes
in the 1990s. That is now being reversed but there are enormous
problems with that and there needs to be an accountability for
the violence which is still going on in the security forces and
others. One of the key things so often is the mechanisms for these
things to be addressed and different forms of complaints commissions
where things could be properly investigated.
Mr Hancock: When trials take place
of people accused of torture, sometimes they proceed very slowly.
The offence reaches its statute of limitations. Another specific
thing that Turkey could do is strike statutory limitations away
from torture offences so that the trials can proceed, no matter
how slowly.
Q33 Ms Stuart: I was just thinking, Chairman,
given the negotiations about the accession which will start during
the UK Presidency, after this if there are any other specific
things which the UK Government may put on its accession shopping
list, please do so in writing.
Mr Crawshaw: I hope that, going
back to our list, despite what we see as the weakening of the
British position on torture, nonetheless it will be pressing hard.
Q34 Chairman: Clearly the European Union
will have an enhanced role in foreign affairs. I would like to
ask whether you are satisfied that Mr Solana with his two hats
is sufficiently well equipped in personnel and organisational
terms in your judgment to deal with human rights and does the
European Union consult organisations like your own in the way
that the British Government does?
Mr Hancock: On the consultation,
yes. We have got an office in Brussels which does consult quite
heavily. The thing is that there is a mixture of institutions
where you have got the Council and you have got Solana there.
No, there are not enough mechanisms behind Javier Solana, or at
least there is not enough political will. We have got these human
rights clauses and all the agreements and the EU strikes, and
one of the things that has concerned us for a long time is that
human rights may be mentioned in the odd meeting here or there
but you do not really feel that it is at the centre of the EU
policy towards these countries. One of the weaknesses is that
there is an inadequate degree of monitoring of country situations
and of recommendations that are reached by UN committees or the
Commission on Human Rights or follow-through of them by the European
Union. The EU has agreed a number of guidelines which are human
rights related. The death penalty guidelines appear to us to be
working not badly. A lot of the other guidelines are not really
being very effective. There is a real problem there with implementation
and I do not think there is sufficient capacity within the European
Union to follow through on that.
Q35 Chairman: So it is lack of capacity?
Mr Hancock: I think there is both.
There is a lack of capacity and there is also a lack of will in
some cases.
Mr Crawshaw: I would broadly echo
that. Certainly there is sometimes a mismatch between the self-perception
of being very strong on human rights and, exactly as was mentioned
there, discussions are held where, to be honest, human rights
issues simply get put to one side quite often.
Q36 Chairman: I am aware that Mr Solana
was unable to answer properly when I asked how many specialists
in human rights he had in his immediate entourage, and I think
there is a gap there.
Mr Crawshaw: Yes.
Q37 Sir John Stanley: If we could turn
to Africa where, sadly, reprehensibly, the international track
record again and again has been too little, too late, I would
like to start with Uganda. There it is fair to say that it has
been virtually nil too late and we have seen in Uganda child kidnapping
taking place on a monumental scale. We have seen, as has been
well documented by some professionally really excellent media
reporting and, going back to victims, girls being made to beat
other girls to death on pain of being beaten to death themselves
if they do not take part. We have had boys turned into ruthless
child killers. We have had rape used as a standard device against
women and children of every age. The international community has
to all intents and purposes been uninvolved. The question I would
like to ask you is why is it in the view of both your organisations,
after all the harrowing experiences we have had in other countries,
that the international community has remained absolutely detached
from these appalling atrocities that have been going on in northern
Uganda for years by the Lord's Resistance Army so-called?
Ms Allen: We need to get back
to you in some detail on that. The temptation from the international
community has been to see the successes in Uganda in the sense
of some of the responses to issues like HIV and AIDS and some
of the economic successes within that country and not to pay sufficient
regard to the human rights issues. As you say, the war in the
north is now in its 17th or 18th year. The abuses there are quite
shocking. We have documented and had reports about the use of
child soldiers. We have also been concerned about Uganda's role
in relation to DRC. On specifics we would probably need to get
back to the Committee with a more considered view on that country.
Mr Crawshaw: Echoing what Kate
Allen has just said and exactly what was behind your question,
I think there has been sometimes a startling reluctance to confront
the extent of the problems there. On the one hand you have the
truly horrific events in northern Uganda with the Lord's Resistance
Army and everything that it has done which, as you all know, has
now been the subject of the first referrals to the International
Criminal Court.
Q38 Sir John Stanley: At long last.
Mr Crawshaw: Absolutely so, and
indeed, going back to the Commission on Human Rights, in Human
Rights Watch we were pressing for the appointment of a UN Rapporteur
on this, which may not sound very much but actually would have
sent strong signals, it seemed to us. It did not happen but that
is beginning to come high on the agenda. There was a danger with
the ICC reform which was done, if you like, together with the
government, that the idea must be that they must be confronted
with all abuses, and there have been very serious abuses by the
army as well which do need to be seen as crimes. If this becomes
merely part of the government's action against the Lord's Resistance
Army that, we would argue, is not a helpful way forward. Again,
Kate Allen briefly referred to the Congo. It does seem to us remarkable
that, given that Uganda has played a remarkably destabilising
role through its support of rebel groups in Congo, from the British
Government we have had very little pressure. The British Government
is a major donor to Uganda and the issue of Ugandan support for
rebel groups in Congo, and of course the war has yet again flared
up in recent days and weeks, has been very regrettable.
Q39 Sir John Stanley: When you say you
will be coming back to the Committee with a more considered view,
my question is not asking you for more information. My question
is very narrowly pointed, which is that I would be very interested
in the views of both your organisations as to why the international
community has allowed this appalling abuse to go on for so long
and has pretty well washed its hands of it. Is it that we do not
have the powers or is it that we do not care or is it that we
are not prepared to make the effort to deploy forces into these
areas? Is it because we are giving too great a regard for the
independent rights of independent states? Those important but
human rights are universal and ultimately they have to be safeguarded.
That is really what I am asking you to put in front of the Committee.
Ms Allen: We will get back to
you.[9]
7 Democratic Republic of Congo Back
8
International Criminal Court Back
9
Ev 49 Back
| 
