Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-119)
MR BILL
RAMMELL MP, MS
PHILIPPA DREW
AND MS
ALEXANDRA HALL
HALL
11 JANUARY 2005
Q100 Chairman: What specific proposals
do you have to counteract that and what are the prospects of success?
Mr Rammell: I am not going to
pretend to you that there are easy solutions to this and that
we have pristine off-the-shelf solutions that can resolve this.
I think to one extent you have to try to work across blocks, polarisation
between north and south, to try and overcome some of that. Part
of our engagement through the UN system is to try and build alliances
across those historical and instinctive blocks. We have to keep
making the case emphatically that if the Commission is to mean
anything it has to be able to comment on countries-specific situations,
but it is a very difficult situation. The one note of hope is
that when you get really depressed about the Commission on Human
Rights the very fact that a number of the worst human rights violators
in the world spend extraordinary amounts of effort on trying to
block resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights at least indicates
that it has some impact.
Q101 Sir John Stanley: Minister, do you
think there will be any change in the hard-line stance against
the International Criminal Court by the Bush Administration in
its second term?
Mr Rammell: I do not know, but
I hope so. I understand the US concern that malicious and unjustified
prosecutions could be brought through the ICC, but I do not accept
those concerns. I know when I was looking at the transcript of
your evidence session with the human rights NGOs, I have to say
I was perplexed. We are no less supportive of the ICC than we
have ever been, and we are one of their strongest supporters.
As an example, we have just concluded a sentence enforcement agreement
with the court. We are the second country in the world to do that.
I know there has been a debate about the roll-over resolution
on peace-keeping that took place earlier this year. In principle,
the reason we supported roll-over was that we had a real concern
about the impact if we did not get that on peace-keeping operations.
The origin of that roll-over resolution was the United States
obstructing and opposing the peace-keeping mission in Bosnia,
but we do believe, in terms of tackling impunity from prosecution,
the International Criminal Court is one of the most positive developments
in an awfully long time and it is one that we strongly support
and urge other states to support.
Q102 Sir John Stanley: Is your perception
of the present American administration's policy towards the ICC,
leaving aside obviously its concern to protect its own nationals
from the fears that it perceives but most other countries do not,
is one of neutrality, or do you think it is possibly seeking to
try to ensure that the ICC remains as inoperative as possible?
Mr Rammell: The United States
has concerns about the ICC and fears malicious prosecution and
unjustified prosecution of its citizens through the ICC—and
there is a debate to be had about whether this is seeking to undermine
the court or seeking to see a way through it—and actively
supports what are called the bilateral non-surrender agreements.
We have taken the view that those bilateral non-surrender agreements
are consistent with the ICC statute, as long as they meet a number
of key criteria that we have set out within the European Union
common position. Principally those are that if you are not going
to go through the ICC, there are, nevertheless, provisions to
ensure that people who have committed crimes falling within the
jurisdiction of the court would not enjoy immunity, and, secondly,
in terms of the exemption, that you should only consider those
sent on government business and not all citizens. That is the
principal vehicle through which the United States is seeking to
engage on this issue. We believe there is a way through that,
but it has to be in accordance with the EU common position. The
US came to us back in 2002 putting forward a draft bilateral non-surrender
agreement. We said we were not prepared to accept it because it
did not conform to those criteria, and the US has not come back
to us.
Q103 Sir John Stanley: As we all know,
there have been extremely serious human rights violations in Darfur,
and they are continuing, and, according to most reports, they
are probably getting worse. We also know that as Sudan has not
ratified the International Criminal Court Treaty, the only way
in which those human rights abuses in Darfur can be brought in
front of the ICC is by resolution of the Security Council. Will
you assure us, Minister, that if such a resolution comes forward
and the US seeks to block it, the British Government will be doing
everything it can to try to persuade the US Government to remove
its block?
Mr Rammell: The answer to that
is, "Yes", but I will explain the reasoning. On the
issue of genocide within Sudan we do not have the evidence as
to whether or not genocide has been committed, which is why we
have been one of the strongest supporters of the establishment
of a Commission of Inquiry. That is due to report very shortly.
If that does conclude that there has been genocide and urges a
reference to the ICC, we would strongly support that and would
urge other states to do so as well.
Q104 Sir John Stanley: Most specifically
from what you have said—
Mr Rammell: All other states.
Q105 Sir John Stanley: —the British
Government will be robust in trying to persuade our American allies
and friends to change their position and not block a reference
to the ICC of human rights violations in Darfur?
Mr Rammell: I have just said to
you that we strongly supported the Commission. If it concludes
genocide and urges reference to the ICC, firstly and most importantly,
we would support that ourselves, but we would urge all other states
to follow that path as well. Throughout this process we have made
clear our view that we do understand the concerns of the United
States. Their troops are probably more exposed, because of their
global position, than any other country. I understand those concerns,
but I do not share them, and I hope over time, as the ICC beds
down and it becomes clear—. Apart from anything else, under
the ICC statute, as long as you are taking action against these
crimes yourself as an individual country, it does not of necessity
have to involve the ICC. I would hope over time that the United
States becomes convinced that its fears are unfounded and it can
support the ICC.
Q106 Andrew Mackinlay: In this very good
report there is reference to Vietnam and particularly inference
anyway on religious persecution. I wonder if you could comment
what we are able to do as regards combating persecution of faith
groups in Vietnam. May I for the record, as it were, mention a
pastor of the Vietnamese Mennonite Church, Hong Quang, and also
Father Nguyen Van Ly, an Episcopalian non-Catholic in 2001, and
the Venerable Quang Do, a Buddhist priest, by way of example?
I am not necessarily expecting you to know about those particular
cases, but are we being sufficiently robust in our capacity to
influence Vietnam about the need to protect and promote the interests
of free church groups and faiths?
Mr Rammell: Freedom of religion
is something that we pursue right the way throughout the world.
In respect of one specific case that you raise, that of Pastor
Quang, my understanding is that the case is not straightforward.
He received a three-year sentence in November for obstructing
the police. We are continuing to discuss that with our European
Union partners, raising his case as a case of concern. The other
cases I am not immediately aware of. If you wish me to I will
put that in correspondence.
Q107 Andrew Mackinlay: I will put down
a written Parliamentary question perhaps.
Mr Rammell: The major concern
that we have within Vietnam at the moment is freedom of expression
and religious freedom, including, in particular, the situation
of protestants from ethnic minority groups in the Central Highlands
and particular we have been concerned following the unrest by
those groups in the Central Highlands. In April 2004 there were
significant clashes and some deaths were reported on either side.
One of the difficulties is open access and access for journalists
and NGOs, and we are pursuing that. We also pursued this issue.
Mike O'Brien, when he was then at the Foreign Office back in the
summer, raised this issue directly with the Vietnamese State President
during his visit to the UK in May, and religious freedom is one
of the concerns we have with Vietnam. On the positive side, the
Vietnamese government are responding to these issues and they
have certainly invested heavily in the Central Highlands and ethnic
minority areas to reduce poverty and address the causes of unrest,
and I know DFID are currently designing a programme to try and
help that process.
Q108 Andrew Mackinlay: Thank you for
that. You refer to the problems of access and so on, but actually
what is increasing in open society is the republic of China. There
is repeated heavily documented evidence of the persecution of
what are known as, I think, "house churches"—they
tend to be protestant faith—and also those Catholics who
do not subscribe to the patriotic Catholic Church Association,
the sort of state church. Could we do more to protect and promote
these groups, by way of example? Of course, there would also be
other groups—Buddhism and Islam and so on—but these
are not minor or incidental cases, it is widespread, and by definition
the people who organise the house church are meeting in houses
because assembly is so restricted, and also the church which adheres
to the Holy See is continually persecuted. What representations
do we make on that?
Mr Rammell: Religious freedom
is one of the issues that we take up regularly with the Chinese
government. Within the Human Rights Report we talk about a mixed
picture within China. Undoubtedly at some levels in terms of economic
emancipation, the fact that people can live and work where they
live within China in a way that was unthinkable 10 years ago has
been a positive development, but there are still a number of areas
where there are significant concerns, and certainly the position
of Christian minorities within China is one of those concerns.
We raised those at the most recent round of the bi-annual human
rights dialogue that we had with the Chinese government. We have
been reflecting in the Foreign Office. I think I am allowed to
say this. We are in an area of open government so I can definitely
say it. I received some advice that we should move to an annual
human rights dialogue with the Chinese government, and I decided
not to do that because I think it would send out a message that
we were downgrading our concerns, and I did not want to do that;
but one of the issues that I am reflecting upon, and if the Committee
have got thoughts on this I would welcome it, is at the moment
we raise every single issue with the Chinese through the human
rights dialogue, and I think that sometimes leads to a situation—.
We are concerned about all of those issues, but some inevitably
in the prioritisation are more concerning than others, and by
raising every one of them, I am not sure the Chinese government
always understand from us those issues which we are really concerned
about.
Q109 Andrew Mackinlay: On page 52 of
the report—but you do not need to rush to find the page—there
is reference to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, and the EU, working there with China and the Chinese Republic,
have said that they are not happy about basically one particular
clause which gives the right to join a trade union of your choice.
So it is a basic ILO issue. It seems to me that surely both the
European Union and ourselves ought to be flagging up not only
is it fundamental in terms of human rights but it has an issue
for competition policy. It is simply not right. Indeed, I emphasise
this, but do we not sometimes say to them, "Look, if you
are going to come into all the international trade, going to have
open markets, WTO, ILO, you have got to understand the free organisation
of representative labour organisations is absolutely paramount"?
Mr Rammell: An anecdote: I remember
being in China talking to a man who is a very able member of the
Chinese People's Congress. We were talking about development of
workers' rights, and I was saying, "Surely there should
be greater opportunities for constructive criticism by trades
unions", and he said, "We have got all these NGOs."
I said, "What do you mean by NGOs?" He said, "They
are business organisations." I said, "Let me understand
this correctly. Business organisations can constructively criticise,
but the trade unions, the representatives of working people cannot?"
He said, "You do not understand. We represent the workers
in China." I think that underlines—I am not unfairly
criticising—it is a different attitude and a different stage
of development and a different society, but we have to understand
that that is where they are coming from in order to engage with
them. Nevertheless, I do think that we have to press on the trade
union rights. Certainly one of the dialogues, the bi-annual dialogues
within the time I have been Minister responsible for China, has
focused on industrial relations. We are also urging the Chinese
government to ratify as soon as possible the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights; and in terms of our relationship
with China over human rights, if you go back to the summer dialogue,
we felt we were really making progress on, for example, re-education
through labour. There were strong indications that the Chinese
government looked at the UK and some of the points that we have
put forward and it was looking very positive. In December, at
the most recent round, it was a much bleaker picture and I have
most recently written to my counterpart seeking clarification.
Q110 Mr Mackay: Minister, I guess you
would agree with me that an area of the world where human rights
is deteriorating has to be Africa. You did mention this in your
opening remarks. I want to just touch on two or three different
countries and my other colleagues, including Mr Chidgey, may want
to take up other areas. Obviously the single biggest problem is
the break up of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I think
we can only just see the tip of the human rights abuse that is
going on there, and not even with all your expertise and help
can we fully understand the difficulties. I just wondered what
pressure you and the Government are putting on the government
of Rwanda who seem to be continuing to play a very negative role.
Mr Rammell: Firstly, I think the
DRC is a country that does not get the international media and
perhaps political attention it should. We are talking about a
country where over recent times three and a half, four million
people have died. It is absolutely staggering. I think there is
a concern that human rights continue to be abused, especially
in the eastern DRC, and we are regularly pushing the transitional
government to do more to prevent those abuses from happening.
I think impunity is key, and the ICC investigations are welcome.
In terms of the position of Rwanda, there is no direct evidence
that Rwandan troops have entered the DRC. We have made abundantly
clear to the government of Rwanda that incursions into DRC territory
would be unacceptable. I recognise their concerns about ex FAR[1]
/interahamwe that are opposed to regional peace and stability,
but that does not in any way, shape or form justify military action.
Hilary Benn most recently has taken this up directly with President
Kagame and made clear our very significant concerns, and, in terms
of our on-going aid commitment, we would most definitely want
to see this issue addressed.
Q111 Mr Mackay: That is helpful, and,
of course, you are right to say that the DRC is very underestimated
in the problem of human rights. Another rather different country
where it is also underestimated is Uganda. As I am sure we are
correct to see Uganda as a friendly Commonwealth colleague, the
work that the Government have done in combating AIDS is outstanding,
but the problems in the north are very great, where human rights
abuses, particularly if they affect children, are colossal. I
am sure you were as appalled as I was to see only last week that
the peace accord has completely broken down and the Lord's Resistance
Army seems to be continuing run amok. I am not comfortable, and
I hope you are not comfortable, are you, just because Uganda likes
to suggest that this is an internal problem, that we cannot become
involved in these human rights abuses which, I acknowledge, by
and large are not the making of the government, but is there not
more that we can and should be doing for this Commonwealth fellow
member?
Mr Rammell: This is interesting.
I was talking this lunch-time to Chris Mullin, the Minister for
Africa, and anticipating some of the questions that might come
up this afternoon based on your evidence session with NGOs, I
said to him Uganda was likely to come up. Chris is someone whose
judgment and integrity I respect. He was fairly robust on the
actions that we are taking at the moment. He was certainly saying
to me that our High Commissioner has taken a very leading and
active role in trying to push the Government and the parties towards
a talks process. Indeed, when the Lord's Resistance Army came
out of the bush, as it were, we were very closely involved in
trying to bring that process about. The key to this is what is
happening in northern Uganda, and we certainly want to see an
end to the conflict there, and of enormous concern is the position
of children, 20,000 plus children who have been abducted since
1988, 6,000 unaccounted for, and we are providing substantial
support for rehabilitation and reintegration of former child abductees.
We are also, through UNICEF and Save the Children, funding initiatives
to improve conditions for those children who congregate in the
town centre at night in order to protect themselves from abduction.
I think as well as that the ICC reference which we are supporting,
if we need to help in terms of information or any material or
diplomatic support to that, we will do that. One can always argue
you should do even more, but I think we are taking a strong lead
in the country. If you overlay that with the significant priority
that through this government we are giving to Africa as a whole
in terms of increased aid contributions, strong political support,
the NEPAD process, particularly the peer review mechanisms, to
improve standards of good governance, in a difficult situation
I think we are doing quite a lot.
Q112 Mr Mackay: I am sure the High Commissioner
is doing an excellent job, but you have to accept that the peace
settlement broke down on 3 January. Cannot we do more to persuade
the Ugandan government, which we have good and friendly relations
with, that they need to bring in help to ensure that matters are
resolved in the north and that they have singularly failed themselves
to achieve the objective of ensuring no longer an abuse of human
rights and the killing and the devastation of the huge number
of children that you have rightly just highlighted?
Mr Rammell: I am sure we can and
we are and we will do that, and I am not for a minute suggesting
that we will not be doing that, but sometimes solutions are not
in our gift, and that is why I think across Africa as a whole
the NEPAD process of building up standards of good governance
through the peer review mechanism, which is driven by the Africans
and is not perceived as being a colonial solution that is imposed
from the outside allied with significant expansions of western
aid, is probably the best long-term hope to resolve some of those
issues.
Chairman: Have you finished with Uganda?
Mr Mackay: Yes.
Q113 Chairman: I declare an interest.
I have been patron of a charity which is dealing with child abductees
in the North. Would it be fair to say that the main human rights
concern in respect of the government of Uganda is the indiscipline
of soldiers in the north?
Mr Rammell: I think that is certainly
a factor, and it is one that we have taken up and we will continue
to take up. In terms of what I was referring to in terms of the
importance of proposing good government throughout Africa through
the NEPAD process, I think that particularly focuses on those
types of concerns.
Q114 Mr Mackay: Concluding with one final
country of which we are very well aware, Zimbabwe, this is where
NEPAD comes somewhat unstuck, does it not? Like you, Minister,
I am a supporter of NEPAD and at some time Africa has got to take
control of its own destiny and deal with its own problems, albeit
with help and assistance from outside, particularly those like
ourselves who have a very real interest in many of the countries,
but the human rights abuses get worse in Zimbabwe. The regime
is despicable and the regional power who we have had so much confidence
in, namely South Africa, has singularly failed to deliver. What
else are we going to do?
Mr Rammell: Certainly one of the
arguments that we have consistently made is to urge other African
nations, and South Africa is key amongst those, to take a stronger
lead in challenging Zimbabwe for what has been an appalling deterioration
in human rights. I think I said when I was at this Committee last
year that there probably was not a country in the world in terms
of its deterioration in one year that had gone as adversely in
the wrong direction as Zimbabwe, and it certainly has not got
any better in the last year. Most recently we have had the NGO
Bill that is going through, which I think raises significant concern
about humanitarian relief and the position and ability of NGOs
to function within Zimbabwe. Again, we are urging African states
to take a lead. What is happening in Zimbabwe has nothing whatsoever
to do with a hangover from colonialism. It is everything to do
with the fundamental abuse of human rights and democracy that
we are seeing within that country. Before this Committee before
I have made strong criticisms about why we are not doing more
in international fora. I think we have seen most recently, particularly
at the UN General Assembly, and we saw it before at the Commission
on Human Rights where we had blocking motions, but it is not as
easy just to conjure up an easy international solution.
Q115 Mr Mackay: Just to conclude on Zimbabwe,
and I agree with every word that you have said, there is more
than can be done. Many of us have been calling again and again
on the floor of the House for smart sanctions against those who
fund the Zimbabwe regime, many of whom live in this country, whose
children go to school in this country. Smart sanctions which do
not affect the ordinary people of Zimbabwe would be immensely
effective against the regime, its army officers and, most importantly,
the business community around the world that sustains Mugabe,
and I do not feel sufficient is done there. I have had promises
in the past from other ministers within your Department where
action would be taken, and I deeply regret to say that the promises
have not been fulfilled. I would like you to reflect on that if
you would.
Mr Rammell: I am not aware of
that. I will certainly look at it. I am not convinced genuinely
that foreign aid-flows into Zimbabwe are a significant factor
in that: because of the actions of the Zimbabwe government, international
trade-flows virtually ground to a standstill. There is also the
EU measures that are in place, the travel ban, the assets freeze
and the arms embargo, which we strongly pushed for and certainly
in terms of the way that the regime reacts against that, I think
it has had some significant impact. By the sounds of it this has
been said before, but if you do have particular proposals, I would
certainly, as Minister responsible for human rights, look at those
to see if there is a better way, although I have to say I am not
convinced, on the evidence that I have seen, that there is an
easy way forward on that.
Q116 Mr Maples: Continuing with Africa,
if I may, Minister, and picking up on some of the points that
Mr Mackay has raised, you have mentioned already in your response
your concern about the inability of the CHR to be more decisive
and more effective, and I draw your attention, if I may, to the
comments of Amnesty and Human Rights Watch in relation to Darfur,
which, of course, has now moved on; but they made the point that
they were dismayed at the failure of this years CHR to take a
robust approach in examining the human rights situation in Sudan,
and they commented (as they said it) that the weakly worded decision
on Sudan is presented in the FCO report as a success, whereas,
in their words, in fact it was a very meagre response. I know
you will want to come back, but can I leave that thought hanging
for a moment: because several times you have mentioned the Government
support for NEPAD in fighting for human rights in Africa, but
may I suggest that a more interesting and important vehicle might
be a government decision or action to support the African Union.
In the human rights report you only mention, as far as I can tell,
dialogue with the African Union through G8s and perhaps supporting
the African Court on Human and People's Rights, yet it is interesting
that if one has a dialogue, as I have done recently through colleagues,
with the African Union Commissioners, they are moving forward
quite rapidly from the positions that were taken by the Organisation
of African Union. Your colleagues and advisers may recall that
the OAU in 1992 rejected a proposal for a peace-keeping component
as part of conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms, but
the AU is much more positive and they have adopted a concept which
they call an acknowledgment of the principle of non-indifference
as opposed to non-interference. The point I am making here, and
I am sorry about the length of time it has taken for the background,
is quite clearly the AU is taking a much more robust policy view
on an involvement in peace-keeping, peace-making and conflict
prevention and resolution. NEPAD is the philosophical arm; it
is a project of the AU. The AU is the body which makes the decisions.
Should it not be the case that our Government was working much
more closely with the AU as well as supporting the work down the
line, so to speak, of NEPAD?
Mr Rammell: We are working with
the AU and we strongly believe that in terms of bringing—.
We have touched on Sudan a couple of times today. The fact that
there has been the signing in the last few days of the peace agreement,
I think both for Sudan as a whole but for Darfur, is a very positive
development. It has to be, I think, the only way forward. Certainly
the AU observer commission we strongly support, backed up by a
political process, but I want to take you back to your opening
point. I know you said, "Let's leave it hanging in the air".
Q117 Mr Maples: For the moment?
Mr Rammell: Why have we not been
more robust at CHR over Sudan? We would certainly have preferred
a much stronger statement, and initially through the European
Union we tabled a much stronger condemnatory Article 9 resolution,
as we have done in previous years. However, it very quickly became
clear that if we wanted to achieve a consensus with the Africans
and establish a mechanism with which the Sudanese were likely
to cooperate—and these are the sort of balances and judgments
you have to make all the time—that was, frankly, worth more
to us than a linguistically tough resolution. That means we do
not get the plaudits for delivering on a very strong condemnatory
resolution, but if the net effect of that had been that the Sudanese
government would not have allowed observers in, would not have
allowed aid to get through, that would have been a worse set of
circumstances.
Q118 Mr Maples: Finally, if I may, Chairman,
back on this point about the AU's development. My understanding
is that we were certainly told that there is a strong real determination
now amongst African leaders that the AU should not remain indifferent
to these issues, that Member States cannot afford to remain indifferent
as to the conflicts and regional dimensions and therefore a much
more positive role for the AU in conflict prevention, in peace-keeping
and peace-making. Is the Government in any dialogue through the
EU, for example, with the AU on how we could help give them that
extra ability and resources to undertake those tasks?
Mr Rammell: I will be frank. This
is not an area of the world that I cover personally, and I will
happily follow up in writing, but my understanding is that, yes,
we do see the AU as key and we are looking at ways that we can
bolster physically and materially the work of the AU, but in terms
of the detail you are asking for—
Q119 Mr Maples: I personally would find
it very helpful, with the Chairman's permission, because it is
such an important issue. Given the Government's policy on Africa,
it is fundamental?
Mr Rammell: Absolutely. In my
defence the human rights report covers every country in the world,
and I do not cover all of those.
Mr Maples: If we could have a note specifically
telling us what the Government's relations and dialogue is with
the AU on peace-keeping through AU resources, AU initiatives,
taking over the UN/EU type of role within Africa?
1 Forces Armees Rwandaises Back
|
