Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
MR BILL
RAMMELL MP, MS
PHILIPPA DREW
AND MS
ALEXANDRA HALL
HALL
11 JANUARY 2005
Q80 Mr Pope: Can I just confirm something
that you said a few moments ago in response to Mr Hamilton, which
was that we got useful information from people being held at Guantanamo
Bay and that that helped secure Britain against further terrorist
attack? Could you give the Committee an assurance that the UK
has never used information extracted by another country under
torture?
Mr Rammell: I will come directly
to that but let me start by saying that we emphatically and vehemently
oppose torture as a matter of fundamental principle. I think you
would find it very difficult to find a country that has got as
strong a track record as we have. For example, we were the third
country in the world to ratify the optional protocol to the Convention
against Torture. We oppose the use of torture ourselves. We would
never advocate anybody else using torture and to my knowledge
we have not knowingly received intelligence that we have known
has been gained under torture.
Q81 Mr Pope: With respect, I do not think
that is the precise answer to the question that I sought. I am
aware of the Government's position that it is opposed to torture.
The Foreign Secretary has told this Committee that the Government
is opposed to torture. What I want is a categoric assurance that
we have not received information that has been obtained by the
use of torture by one of our allies.
Mr Rammell: As far as I am aware
the answer to that is no, we have not received such information.
Q82 Mr Pope: Would it be possible for
you to check after the meeting? I accept that you are saying as
far as you aware; I accept that in good faith. Would it be possible
for you to check after this meeting and write to the Committee?
Mr Rammell: I am not saying that
because I am unsure. Certainly it is not a practice that we endorse
and we have no knowledge of such information coming into our hands.
It is not because I am not aware of the circumstances. I am simply
saying that as far as we are aware that is the case.
Q83 Mr Pope: Can I go back to another
point which Mr Hamilton raised which was about Guantanamo? The
Government has been criticised by Amnesty and Human Rights Watch
for not being more critical of America. I understand that we all
want to protect the rights of our own nationals but we did not
have a problem in criticising other countries' human rights records
quite publicly. Why have we not been more overtly critical of
our own ally?
Mr Rammell: I think we have been
critical. We have consistently said that this is not a process
that can continue indefinitely, that either they have to be tried
in accordance with fair standards or they have to be released.
In all cases with all countries we always make a judgment about
the language we use in order to elicit the most effective response
and I think we have been right to focus upon our own UK nationals.
When you look at the evidence we have been the most successful
country in securing their release. That does not mean that we
have not criticised the process. In fact, we have made clear throughout
that we have significant concerns about it.
Q84 Mr Pope: The last point that I wanted
to raise was a more general one. Amnesty and Human Rights Watch
have criticised human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib, in Afghanistan,
in Guantanamo, not as isolated incidents but as part of a pattern
of behaviour. How can we prosecute the war on terror, which in
part must be a campaign to promote human rights, whilst at the
same time being a party to the deprivation of human rights to
our opponents?
Mr Rammell: I do not think any
country or any Government anywhere in the world can say that there
will never under its remit be abuses of human rights. I cannot
think of any country anywhere in the world where that has been
the case. What divides the civilised world and those countries
that respect human rights from others is what you do about it
when you have allegations of human rights abuses. Let me take
first of all our actions. We have very clear procedures. As soon
as there is any allegation of abuse there is a thorough investigation,
for example, in respect of what happened in Iraq, and I am speaking
from memory. Among 65,000 troops that have been engaged in Iraq
there were ultimately about seven cases that have gone through
to prosecution. I do not think anybody has made the argument that
we have not dealt with that seriously. Similarly, the United States
has now held three inquiries into the allegations. People will
have seen the evidence that the new Attorney General going before
the Senate has undertaken in the last couple of weeks where on
the record he has confirmed what President Bush said last June
in terms of the US opposition to the use of torture. Undoubtedly,
I have to say, not just as a politician but also as an ordinary
human being, some of what we saw at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was
absolutely disgusting and shameful. At one level we are not
directly responsible for that but the fact that it happened as
part of a coalition that we were involved with does cause us concern.
What divides us is, are these individual incidents that we take
action about or is this something that we are institutionally
urging to happen? It most emphatically is not.
Q85 Mr Pope: Do you think the United
States and we have learned the lessons of Abu Ghraib and it will
not happen again?
Mr Rammell: I do not think either
we or the United States deliberately initiated or urged the committing
of those acts amongst our troops. Therefore, perhaps the lesson
to be learned is that the whole experience has hopefully reinforced
and made abundantly clear that those are practices, certainly
within our forces and I believe within the US forces, that are
completely unacceptable. Hopefully that message gets over.
Q86 Mr Mackay: Minister, can I take you
back to an earlier answer you gave to Mr Pope when you said that
to the best of your knowledge you did not think that you were
acting on intelligence information that had been obtained under
torture? Can I specifically ask you about our so-called ally Uzbekistan,
where it is widely believed that there is extensive torture and
under duress very often false intelligence information is given
to us which we should largely discount? Would you comment on that?
Mr Rammell: Let me say first in
respect of Uzbekistan that I have consistently backed up the criticisms
that have been made about the human rights record in Uzbekistan
and the Foreign Secretary has. Mr Mackinlay is nodding because
I know he questioned me explicitly at this Committee two years
ago on that issue. In respect of our former ambassador, I backed
up 100% the criticisms about human rights in Uzbekistan that he
was making. One of the difficulties is that other states do not
advertise the fact to you that information that may be coming
forward has been obtained under torture. Therefore, you have to
make judgments based upon the information that is coming forward
as to its reliability and the likely circumstances under which
it has been obtained, and clearly if you did have information
that came forward that had been obtained as the result of torture
you would I think give much less credence to that than information
obtained through legitimate means.
Q87 Mr Mackay: Obviously I accept that,
but do we therefore assume that in the case of Uzbekistan you
and I would be making a reasonable judgment that any information
was pretty unreliable because of the widespread human rights abuse
and torture which our so-called ally, Uzbekistan—I say "so-called"
because I thought it grated slightly, if I may say so, earlier
when you referred to Uzbekistan as an ally. I do not think everybody
in this room—
Mr Rammell: I do not think I did.
Q88 Mr Mackay: You did—Russia and
Uzbekistan.
Mr Rammell: I did not use the
word "ally"; I said "countries".
Q89 Mr Mackay: You said "countries
that we have as allies".
Mr Rammell: I will check. I do
not believe I did.
Q90 Mr Mackay: If you can correct me
I will be delighted.
Mr Rammell: Sorry: what was the
question again?
Q91 Mr Mackay: Presumably with your concern
about torture and human rights in Uzbekistan you would make a
reasonable judgment, as I would, that intelligence information
coming from Uzbekistan was almost certainly unreliable.
Mr Rammell: I am not going to
comment, and it is the longstanding practice of ministers in successive
governments, on detailed intelligence information. All I can say
to you is that we have a very strong record in advocating the
case against torture, urging other states not to use torture and
most certainly not urging states to use torture and pass that
information on to us. However, we can approach this at a purely
theoretical level but the primary purpose for which we need intelligence
on counter-terrorism targets is to avert threats to the lives
of British citizens. Where there is reliable intelligence bearing
directly on such threats I think it would be irresponsible to
reject it out of hand. This is a difficult balance to maintain,
but if you put that alongside the fact that we do not use torture
ourselves, and we actually launched a lobbying campaign last year
to get as many states as possible to sign up to the additional
protocol on the convention against torture, I think that is a
strong mandate and a strong track record of opposing torture.
Q92 Sir John Stanley: Minister, as you
are aware, there are currently in train criminal legal proceedings
against certain British servicemen in relation to alleged abuse
of Iraqi prisoners in Iraq. I do not expect you to comment on
those individual cases, but I want to return to an issue which
I have raised with you previously, which is what should be the
boundary between jurisdictions through the civil courts in this
country and the military court-martial proceedings in this country
in relation to criminal offences committed overseas by British
servicemen? You will remember that in the memorandum you submitted
to the Committee following our last exchange on this point you
indicated that where a serviceman was charged with a capital offence
(murder) that would be dealt with in the civil courts in this
country, but in other cases it would be dealt with through military
proceedings. I would like to ask you whether you feel that that
is still a satisfactory and proper demarcation from a human rights
and standards viewpoint. Given the fact that the civil courts
have different levels of transparency, openness and access as
far as public reporting is concerned, would you not agree that
from a human rights standpoint the boundary should be shifted
and, where a serviceman commits a serious criminal offence short
of murder—grievous bodily harm, sexual abuse, those sorts
of offences—do you not agree now that those offences should
be dealt with in the civil courts in this country and not through
court-martial proceedings?
Mr Rammell: No, I do not. I accept
that this is a legitimate area for public debate and scrutiny,
but I think there are inevitably particular circumstances involved
in the conduct of military activities and military operations
that do require a detailed understanding of how those procedures
work, and that is why the court-martial procedure has been developed.
I would say to you that my clear understanding is that the court-martial
procedures are tried and tested and broadly that the procedure
is similar to that as at a Crown Court. I am genuinely not convinced
that someone going through that process does not get recourse
to justice in the same way that they would within a civil court.
I welcome the fact that you do not want to go into it in too much
detail, but you highlighted the cases that the court-martial has
started in Germany this week, and I, like you probably, read the
newspapers this morning about how the judge had taken the decision
not to allow the press and public to take part in those, which,
on the face of it, raises all sorts of questions and concerns.
When I dug into it this morning in contact with the Ministry of
Defence, who are obviously leading on this, the reason the judge
took that decision is that there are two court-martials going
forward, and the judge, I think rightly, felt that if there was
to be detailed reporting of that first course of court martial
it could possibly prejudice the second one, which reverts to my
previous point that when you begin to look into some of these
stories and issues it is a bit more complicated than at first
sight.
Q93 Sir John Stanley: On the demarcation
issue, I would accept that there is a much stronger case for retaining
the present position where you are dealing with what you term
military operations, but I am focusing also on the area of the
custody of prisoners, and that raises a very different dimension.
It comes almost as a sort of grey area in between something that
is clearly within the civil courts and something which comes within
military jurisdiction. From a human rights standpoint, do you
not agree you have to take very much into account the huge vulnerability
of somebody who is a prisoner, who is a captive, who has no ability
to physically get out of their present situation and where those
who are guarding have a huge degree of control and therefore inescapably
a potential for abusing the prisoner in question? Do you not think
that is a very important dimension that needs to be taken into
account?
Mr Rammell: This is actually,
I think you are probably aware, a very live issue. I am genuinely
not convinced that we should move from the current procedure,
but you are probably aware of the al-Zeini case in Iraq where
the High Court has recently ruled in six cases that in five of
those cases, and those were five that involved combat operations,
the European Convention on Human Rights did not apply; in one
case, which specifically refers to detention, the court has decided
that it does involve the applicability of the European Convention
on Human Rights. I am not convinced on that issue, and I know
the Ministry of Defence and within government we are looking at
that issue at the moment to decide the way forward and whether
we appeal, but I still think that there are specific circumstances
and peculiarities involved in military operations, including detentions,
that mean they are better dealt with thorough a court-martial
procedure, but I do not accept the implication of your question,
that by going through the court-martial procedure we adhere to
a lesser standard of justice. The procedure is broadly similar
to that which applies within a Crown Court in this country.
Q94 Sir John Stanley: May I clarify that
point, Minister? I was not implying a lesser standard of justice
in the military court, but human rights also involve a degree
of public access and transparency (and I used those terms in my
earlier question) and a very significant dimension of that is
the extent to which the proceedings are brought into the public
domain. I put it to you that there is a human rights aspect of
that, and that is a particular feature that I would want to stress
in terms of consideration being given to a movement of the boundary
between civil proceedings and court-martials for criminal offences
committed overseas by servicemen?
Mr Rammell: I am not advocating
this, but that leads in the direction of an argument that you
should do something about ensuring that court-martial procedures
are opened up to the press and public rather than necessarily
pursuing matters through the civil courts. You are nodding. I
think that is where you are coming from.
Q95 Mr Chidgey: Minister, can I just
turn to the United Nations. As I am sure you are also aware, in
recent months the UN, particularly its leadership under Kofi Annan,
has been under quite a considerable amount of fire in a number
of areas. I give two examples: the claims from refugees in the
Congo that women and girls have been sexually abused by UN staff
and then, of course, the Oil-for-Food programme scandal in Iraq
where Saddam Hussein was skimming billions from a system, greatly
to success. I want to ask you about the significance of the appointment
of Mark Malloch-Brown as the Chef de Cabinet who himself has admitted
that staff morale is not at its highest—
Mr Rammell: Forgive me, Mr Chidgey,
could you speak up?
Q96 Mr Chidgey: Yes, I am sorry. Mr Malloch-Brown
has been recently appointed as the Chef de Cabinet. I am intrigued
to know how our government is viewing this. Do you see his appointment
as an admission by the UN that they are in serious difficulty,
given, for example, the way the UN was under the threat of being
sidelined for rescue and aid for the Far East in view of the Tsunami
crisis? What is happening there? Is his appointment going to be
a positive thing? Do you feel it is going to overcome these problems
or is it a panic measure? Are you in any sort of dialogue with
them?
Mr Rammell: Certainly with regard
to the Tsunami, I do not think there was a danger of the United
Nations being sidelined. We made it very clear from the outset
that we saw the lead role in terms of coordinating the aid effort
should be undertaken by the UN—that is the proper role for
the UN—and we strongly supported that. In terms of Mr Mark
Malloch-Brown's appointment, he is someone that I have worked
with and I have the highest regard for him. I think it is a positive
and a good appointment, and what I am going to say does not focus
on individuals. I think there is a concern, and anyone who is
committed to the United Nations knows there are concerns about
management and bureaucracy within the United Nations. I think
the Secretary-General has heroically led a reform programme, but
we need further improvements to come forward. In making that criticism,
I am not criticising the Secretary-General or the UN itself, because
the UN is not better than the sum of its parts. When we talk about
bureaucracy and inefficiency within the UN system, people's eyes
glaze over. The example I always quote is the decision that was
taken, I think, from memory, by the Security Council, to stop
the equivalent of Hansard reporting of every UN committee because
it was 27 years behind, and the UN General Assembly blocked it,
and that could have saved $2 million that could have been
put into aid programmes, or whatever. There are significant concerns
about bureaucracy and process within the UN, and I think we are
right to focus on those. You have got a Secretary-General who
is committed to reform and who is putting in place people like
Mr Malloch-Brown who are committed to that programme as well.
Q97 Mr Chidgey: That leads on to the
next question, which is in the context of the High-level Panel
on threats, challenges and change, which, as I am sure you know,
Kofi Annan brought in about 12 months ago to assist global threats
and recommend policy and institutional change. They have recently
reported, in December of last year, with over 100 proposals, and
you probably know from reading the transcripts of our evidence
that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty have brought our attention
to the elements that they consider most important in the report.
I would like to have your response to this. Do you see this report
of the High-level Panel as a positive development and is it really
going to be a major step forward? Would its implementation make
it easier to address those states which abuse human rights? Is
it a real good club to beat the ministries with or is it just
another bit of bureaucracy at the end of the day?
Mr Rammell: Firstly, overall I
think the High-level Panel report has been a positive one. I think
it focuses on the three principal threats that we face: proliferation,
terrorism and global poverty and inequality. That has been a very
difficult balancing act for the panel and I think they have done
it effectively. In terms of specifically what the High-level Panel
says about human rights, I think there are some positive proposals.
I think particularly the regular reporting from the Commissioner
on human rights to the Security Council is a positive one and
one that we welcome. I think the proposal on the responsibility
to protect, which is very similar to the arguments that we have
been making since about 1999 on criteria for humanitarian intervention,
is a very positive development and I think there is a very widespread
and increasing recognition that the settlement at the outcome
of the second World War was the primacy of sovereign states, and,
as long as you do what you do within your sovereign borders, nobody
else is going to take much interest in you. I think that situation
is very much shifting, and we are all saying that in terms of
certain fundamental human rights concerns, if you commit gross
violations, then the international community has a responsibility
and a right to act, and the focus of the High-level Panel's report
on that is particularly welcome. Others of the recommendations
we are looking at in detail, not only on our own but in concert
with EU partners, the universalising of the membership of the
Commission on Human Rights at one level has attractions, although
there is a risk, perhaps, that it might duplicate the work of
the third committee within the UN and you might see a downgrading
either of the third committee or the Commission on Human Rights
as well as a whole. I think also the ministries have gone to the
Commission on Human Rights for the last two years. I have to say
it is a body that does not always fill one with the greatest—
Q98 Mr Chidgey: I will come on to that
in a moment, Minister. We have other questions on that. Staying
with this for the minute, you are probably aware from the evidence
we have taken that World Vision raised the problem of paying for
post-conflict reconstruction and suggested that the UN should
take a lead. Do you perceive a problem with the disbursement
of monies for post-conflict reconstruction? Would it help if all
the funds were allocated to a UN mandated body for release at
appropriate times, as World Vision has suggested to us?
Mr Rammell: Whether it is within
the regular contributions or the additional contributions, which
I think is what this question focuses on; you do have an issue
of finance for the United Nations. I know that whenever that is
said people automatically think to the United States. In my experience,
the country, or one of the countries that is lobbying the heaviest
on this is Japan because of the very significant and, one might
argue, disproportionate contribution, or arguably disproportionate
contribution, that they make. I am not sure I could agree without
looking into it in much further detail that that is necessarily
easily a way forward, but certainly post-conflict reconstruction
does have to be a priority for us. The fact that within our own
system within the Government in the UK we have recently established
a post-conflict reconstruction unit cutting across MoD, FCO and
DFID, is a demonstration of our belief that you need to tackle
that issue, you need early warning, you need ultimate intervention
and you need all the agencies pulled together, and we would want
to see that replicated on the international stage.
Q99 Mr Chidgey: Finally, Minister, in
fact taking up one of your comments on the UNCHR, as you know,
they reported recently, their sixtieth session took place, not
quite so recently, almost a year ago now, in March/April 2004.
We were quite excited by the comments we got from Amnesty in their
evidence when they pointed out that the no-action motions are
a real anchor on progress with human rights, ones that are designed
to prevent CHR from considering resolution. It lets Chechnya off
the hook; it means we cannot address Eastern China, Zimbabwe and
Belarus and so forth. There is a huge amount of frustration for
repeated misuse of no-action motions in this way. What I am looking
to is for you to take forward your comments about how the Government
thinks the UNCHR can be made more effective. For example, do you
agree with the point made by Human Rights Watch to us that allowing
the UNCHR to sit all year round would improve its influence?
Mr Rammell: I am not convinced
on that one. I have to say under the existing structure you do
have a problem, and there is no point beating about the bush,
with the credibility of the Commission on Human Rights. We have
explored a number of ways of trying to tackle that: firstly, encouraging
states with good human rights records to stand for election within
their regional blocks. We have explored tentatively: could you
establish criteria for membership? I always sort of come back
and say, turkeys tend not to vote for Christmas in those circumstances,
and I am not sure states would sign up to those criteria. Could
we have voluntary commitments? I think that may be a way forward.
Certainly there is a really worrying trend about concerted actions
on the part of groups of nations to try to block a country-specific
focus—that is something we are concerned about—and
through intense diplomatic activity and high level lobbying that
is something that we are trying to counteract. We are also looking
at ways that we can try and work through some of the polarisation
that takes place on these issues that some countries automatically
will back a no-action motion—we need to cut through some
of that—but if the Commission on Human Rights is to mean
anything, then it has to be able to comment about the worst human
rights situations in the world. It was not specifically at the
Commission on Human Rights, it was at the General Assembly, but
the fact that there was a no-action motion on Sudan and Darfur
recently beggars belief that countries cannot bring themselves
to make that commitment.
|
