Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-66)
MS KATE
ALLEN, MR
TIM HANCOCK
AND MR
STEVE CRAWSHAW
21 DECEMBER 2004
Q60 Andrew Mackinlay: So must the British
Government.
Mr Hancock: Absolutely.
Q61 Andrew Mackinlay: So what sort of
response do you look for from the British?
Mr Hancock: I do not know whether
these individual cases have been raised or not by the UK. I must
say that in quite a number of cases the UK has a reasonable record
of démarche in the case of death sentences, so it would
not surprise me if they have raised these cases. I hope they have.
Q62 Andrew Mackinlay: On that it seems
to me that we ought to think about how we can have a triggering
mechanism, both as a Committee and as Parliament to know
that we can make representations to whoever rather than just pressure
groups. I am thinking aloud here but it is something our colleagues
might think about when we come to the report. On China I notice
that the Foreign Office's report gives some genuflection to religious
persecution. It refers to continuing harassment of the adherents
of the Falun Gong spiritual movement. I read it and read it again
because it seemed to me that the authors of this had carefully
crafted it in that the illustration again was Falun Gong, but
they avoided, for instance, referring to the Christian religions
because it would have a resonance back here. Am I not correct
that there are these house churches, which I think are mainly
of the Protestant faith, the Catholic church is not part of the
patriotic association, and many other faiths continue to have
widespread persecution in China in the full knowledge of all concerned
in the central government as well as regional governments and
the United Kingdom Government demonstrated, as illustrated by
this report, that they wanted to sweep it under the carpet? What
would you like to say about that?
Ms Allen: Simply that our research
and knowledge in terms of China includes the Falun Gong in terms
of political harassment and targeting it; it also includes Christian
groups and it also includes religious minorities, in Xinjiang
the Muslim community, and in Tibet. There are few religions that
are exempt from this crackdown by the Chinese authorities.
Q63 Andrew Mackinlay: But what is the
United Kingdom Government's response from what you observe to
the extent that they make representations about this? Again, it
goes back to the continuing theme throughout this afternoon, which
is balancing, as we must, the wider commercial and political and
strategic interests with all these dictatorships. I wonder if
you feel that enough is being done in respect of these groups
and also whether or not they are hiding it? I am not referring
to the persecution of Christian groups which, as I say, rightly
or wrongly would have a greater resonance here perhaps.
Ms Allen: I think that would be
a good question for the minister when you see him in January.
What we are very much aware of is that the UK/China human rights
dialogue is entering its 11th round and I guess that our issue
would be to want the UK Government to be clear what it thinks
it is getting out of that dialogue and what are the moves in terms
of human rights issues and real improvements in terms of China
and its own government's record in terms of human rights that
are coming from that dialogue.
Mr Crawshaw: I would agree with
that. We are not against the dialogue as such but it does need
to be seen to be making progress. I think the British Government
is mindful of that. You are right, of course. Everything you have
described in terms of religious persecution is absolutely accurate.
One could make a case, and as you said the minister can respond
himself, but I think there may be a concern for the British Government
that precisely raising the Christian ones appears to be too much
focused on one's own concerns and that one may have better traction,
if you like, and more effect by saying, "This is nothing
to do with me any more, where I come from where there is a Christian
church, but in broad terms, with clearly the repression of political
freedom of expression and of religious freedom of expression is
still very serious". Just as a postscript to that, looking
at the European Union and the possibility of the lifting of an
arms embargo, it is extraordinary that their business does indeed
come in and it is most dismaying that there is the possibility
of lifting that without further ado fundamentally for commercial
reasons.
Q64 Andrew Mackinlay: My third and final
question is on Uzbekistan. It is in the public domain that we
do not now have an ambassador in Uzbekistan and we need not go
into that, but has there been any diminution in the United Kingdom's
capacity to monitor, to make representations, as we speak today
by the hiatus in our diplomatic representation? Has it been a
setback? Can you throw any light on this? I am not talking about
individual circumstances; that is not our remit, but it does seem
to me that here is a very important country which you referred
to earlier where I am a bit concerned that our man or woman is
not there today.
Mr Crawshaw: The British Government
has repeatedly said that the changes involving the ambassador
in no way detract from the fact that the British Government remains
with a very strong policy on the repressive regime in Uzbekistan.
I hope that is true and I know that the embassy is doing some
very valuable work. Our office in Tashkent, which you will not
be surprised to hear, has not always had the easiest of relationships
with the Uzbek government and the British Government has been
helpful in that regard. I would point, as I did in my submission,
to the fact that there is a design sometimes which again suggests
that the US administration is equally tough, which is simply incorrect.
In the human rights report it talks about the $18 million of aid
which has been withdrawn. It does not mention the $21 million
that was then given back and a little bit more by the Pentagon.
I think it is misleading to suggest that the most powerful government,
and clearly the US government is the most powerful foreign government
in terms of Uzbekistan issues, is not doing anything. I hope the
British Embassy will take a very strong role. Certainly it is
right to say that this situation has in no way got better in Uzbekistan.
Q65 Sir John Stanley: It is impossible
to cover all the countries that we are concerned about and I know
that your organisations are concerned about and for the record
I hope that those fighting for human rights, which are too many
to mention to cover in this two-hour session today, do not in
any way feel that their battles and their work are under-appreciated
by this Committee. I would just like to finish with Burma. I was
myself going to describe the British Government's policy and indeed
the EU policy as one of mild pressure. The question I would like
to ask your organisations is, do you think that mild pressure
is the right policy in terms of trying to get human rights progress
from the Burma generals or do you think we should be adopting
a tougher pressure policy or would a tougher pressure policy be
counter-productive? If you think that a tougher pressure policy
would be a better policy what form do you think the tougher pressure
should take?
Ms Allen: We agree with the FCO's
assessment that the human rights situation in Burma has not improved
substantially and that the minor steps in the right direction
have been offset by further repression of the main opposition
party. I think it may well be time to think about further concerted
action.
Q66 Sir John Stanley: What form should
that more concerted action take?
Ms Allen: I think perhaps with
the EU, and perhaps while the UK Government has the EU Presidency,
raising this issue more.
Mr Crawshaw: Obviously, through
ASEAN there has been something which has been partly tried and
so far very ineffectively there is the EU/US relationship. I do
not think there are easy solutions there. I would not suggest
that by ratcheting up indefinitely we would get exactly the desired
outcome. I do think that more pressure needs to be brought to
bear, I would think through the EU and indirectly therefore through
ASEAN and isolation of the leadership. Clearly things are not
going in the right direction at the moment.
Chairman: Ms Allen, Mr Hancock, Mr Crawshaw,
this may well be the last occasion in this Parliament when the
Foreign Affairs Committee will turn to you for advice, but may
I thank you for the help you have given over the Parliament as
a whole. May I wish you, and indeed my colleagues and the room
as a whole, a very happy Christmas and New Year. Thank you all
very much.
| 
