Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-157)
MR BILL
RAMMELL MP, MS
PHILIPPA DREW
AND MS
ALEXANDRA HALL
HALL
11 JANUARY 2005
Q140 Mr Maples: What I am suggesting
is that, if one is going to make threats to other countries quietly
and diplomatically between the scenes that it is not acceptable
that our citizens should be treated like this, presumably the
French government, the German government and the Dutch government
might have similar cases and might feel the same way. If we collectively
make that point and say, "If this happens again there are
certain consequences that will follow." I do not want these
all over the front pages of the newspapers; I just want the people
concerned in other countries—Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe,
wherever it is—to know that there will be consequences from
this happening again. If we do this collectively as 25 states
in the European Union, "Not only will you not be able to
travel to Britain, but you will not be able to travel to the other
24 either." It just seems to me that that might be a very
powerful weapon to deploy in this battle and I wonder if we do
that or if we just talk to each other about it?
Mr Rammell: I think this is an
interesting area. As I said to you, for the first time this year
we are collating and coordinating that information.
Q141 Mr Maples: About individual cases?
Mr Rammell: No, we are asking
each ambassador for an EU government in a particular country to
produce a balance sheet of what are the human right concerns,
and that will include by its very necessity, "Have there
been concerns with your own nationals?" That gives us a starting
point potentially to begin to move down the road that you are
suggesting. I do not think we are there yet, but I think that
is an avenue to explore. I do want to get on the record as well,
and I respect where you are coming from because we have discussed
outside of this Committee your concerns about the detainees in
Saudi Arabia and the general situation. Again, it is an example
of the way that I think interaction with this Committee works
well. You have said to us in the past that we have not said anything
about human rights concerns in Saudi Arabia. We have responded
to that. If you look at the human rights report, it is much more
substantive in terms of our concerns about Saudi Arabia than it
used to be, which I know was welcomed by Amnesty and Human Rights
Watch most recently. I think in terms of the way we effect change
throughout the world, it is sometimes through learning, looking
at what we are doing and changing.
Q142 Mr Maples: This report has undoubtedly
got more elaborate and better over the years, and I do not think
anybody, even me, will question this Government's commitment to
human rights in general. I am suggesting to you that with a variety
of questions, and the same in last year's report, that we are
not very robust about this. It should be intolerable that our
citizens are tortured by governments abroad with whom we have
friendly relations and that they have to be made to understand.
I am not trumpeting this from the roof tops. I realise that if
you embarrass people publicly you lead them to entrench themselves
in their position, but these governments know it is wrong to do
this, and I am suggesting to you that we ought to be far more
robust in dealing with these individual cases where we do have
a locus, because we have a responsibility to these people in saying,
"If this happens again, some very costly consequences for
you will flow." I am surprised, in view of the two or three
specific things that you said we could do, that we do not seem
to have done very much?
Mr Rammell: Which things?
Q143 Mr Maples: The prompt impartial
investigations or the target sanctions?
Mr Rammell: As regards the prompt
and impartial investigations, I would not accept that we have
not done that extensively. I have not come along here with a detailed
list of every consular case that we have taken up in every part
of the world, and I am fairly certain that when I look into it
that there have been a wide variety of countries where that has
actually happened. I would not accept that we are not doing that.
I do agree with you also that it is, period, intolerable for any
country to torture our citizens, and that is a message both publicly
and privately that we do push very strongly; but when you have
British citizens who are incarcerated, there are incredibly difficult
judgments to be undertaken about what is the most effective way
to support them. I fully acknowledge as well, we do not always
get those judgments right.
Chairman: On what Mr Maples has said
about collective EU pressure in particular cases to prevent one
EU country being picked off, that may be something that the Government
can look at during our Presidency.
Q144 Mr Pope: I am momentarily at a loss
at Mr Maples calling for a common European foreign policy! I wanted
to return very briefly to China, which is a subject I have raised
with the Minister before. I think it is possible we have just
reached different conclusions about this, but I wanted generally
to make a point that I have made before that according to the
report there are still serious concerns about basic human rights
in China, on-going concerns about extensive use of the death penalty:
one estimate of 10,000 people sentenced to death last year; Tibet
obviously a major cause for concern; torture is still quite widespread.
My point is that this human rights dialogue is not really paying
dividends. Is not the time now right to say, "We tried the
dialogue. It really is not paying the kind of dividends that we
want"? China's human rights record is a disgrace. Let's say
so publicly openly and robustly?
Mr Rammell: I think we have a
disagreement on this. I genuinely do not think it is a disgrace.
It has not achieved all that we would have wished from it. I think
there have been some examples of progress. The fact that the Chinese
are prepared to sit down with us, and they have not yet agreed
it, and discuss how they can move forward on a timetable for ratification
of the ICCPR[5]
is a positive development; the fact that they are prepared to
engage with us on re-education through labour is a positive development;
the fact that there have been a number of changes within Chinese
society that are positive, and I referred to it earlier; the fact
that now you can go and live and work wherever you want within
China. Ten years ago that would have been completely unthinkable.
I think those are positive steps in the right direction. Nevertheless,
there are a number of remaining significant concerns. You are
right about the death penalty; you are right about the situation
in Tibet where we certainly regard the recent visit of representatives
of the Dalai Lama to Beijing as being a positive development and
want to see an engagement on that issue, but we have to make a
judgment about what is the most effective way to continue to get
change in China, and I am genuinely not convinced. What is the
logical implication of your suggestion? It is that actually we
go back to just tabling resolutions of the Commission on Human
Rights, an imperfect body for all the reasons that we have already
outlined, where you would probably get a blocking position on
the resolution coming forward and we really cannot engage with
the Chinese. I am genuinely not convinced that is the best way
to go forward.
Q145 Mr Pope: There is another way of
looking at this, that the dialogue suits the Government of the
People's Republic of China. They can engage in dialogue forever;
they do not have to answer all the cases that we raise; indeed
they do not answer all the cases that we raise, but may be, in
any event, we will continue this until one of us persuades the
other?
Mr Rammell: I think they do engage
with us. I had a recent experience of going to North Korea and
discussing direct human rights cases. If you want an example of
where you do not get progress and there is just almost a refusal
to discuss, that is very different from the situation you get
in China. I think what you are seeing in China is a process of
evolution that we have to encourage and support whilst at the
same time speaking out with criticisms, which we do. I recognise
that that opens us up to accusations that we are not being tough
enough, but I am not sure that there is a better way of doing
what we are doing.
Q146 Mr Pope: Could I ask a brief question
about another country which I am sure we can probably find common
thought on, and that is Burma. The Committee has received an amount
of evidence about human rights abuses in Burma, including allegations
that some citizens there are subject to systematic atrocities
carried out by the Burmese military, including summary execution,
rape, torture, forced labour, destructions of crops and villages,
and that is almost tantamount to genocide. This is a country which
is due to take over the Presidency of the Association of South
East Asian Nations in 2006. Could you outline to the Committee
what action the British government has been able to take on this?
For example, would it be appropriate for the UK to stress on the
agenda of the UN Security Council?
Mr Rammell: Certainly I think
there are real concerns about the situation in Burma, both in
terms of human rights and in terms of the overall political process.
There were in November the release of 45 political prisoners,
which was a step in the right direction but is nowhere near enough.
There are still 1,300, as I understand it, or over 1,300, political
prisoners in Burma. The political process, the decision to effectively
formally extend the incarceration of Aung San Suu Kyi and the
failure to engage with the NLD[6]
is a very significant concern; and there are very serious human
rights concerns, very serious in terms of internal displacements
within the country, concerns on that front as well. We were certainly
instrumental in strengthening the EU common position on Burma
in October of last year which has toughened up the smart sanctions,
for want of a better phrase, against Burma. Your point about the
Chairmanship of ASEAN, I think is important—it is the middle
of 2006, I think, where that comes into play—and we have
made clear to all the regional powers that were Burma to take
the Chair at that stage without progress from where we are, I
think that will be extremely concerning; and that is the message
that we are going to keep pushing forwards and I hope in the coming
18 months we can see progress on this issue.
Q147 Chairman: I did not quite get that.
Are you saying that if Burma were to be Chairing the ASEAN countries
without any significant improvement in human rights there would
not be a meeting of the EU ASEAN Group with Burma co-Chairing?
Mr Rammell: I am not going to
definitively prejudge that issue because we will have to see the
circumstances, but I think it would be very difficult—.
If there has not been progress within Burma, if we are facing
the same human rights and political situation that we are today,
I think that would be very troubling, and I think that reinforces
the need for the neighbours of Burma and the regional powers to
put pressure for change in the coming 18 months.
Q148 Andrew Mackinlay: I am one of the
minority of MPs that think that the United Kingdom has trimmed
terribly on Copenhagen criteria and other criteria in terms of
allowing Amnesty status to Turkey. I realise it is a minority
view, but the Foreign Office itself has acknowledged that in
Turkey the reform implementations are inconsistent, particularly
in relation to complying with the European Convention on Human
Rights. What say you on this? You have conceded that it is inconsistent.
At what stage will we be saying this really is not fast enough
that you can forget about European entry? There must come a point.
You do not take it right up to the wire, do you? You know my view,
as it were.
Mr Rammell: I do.
Q149 Andrew Mackinlay: I know it is a
minority view, but even with this foolish policy we have been
pursuing, presumably there comes a stage where you have to say,
"We are in no way achieving this. We are drawing a line.
We suspend candidacy status." I am not sure of the terminology,
but it seems to me it is not in Turkey's best interest that we
should go along pretending they have reached a criteria, that
they are making progress. What benchmarks are there for us to
gauge whether proper progress is being made?
Mr Rammell: I genuinely do not
agree with you, and it is not just me that says this, there are
many people who say there has been remarkable progress in Turkey.
In terms of the impact that the accession process of the European
Union can have in terms of raising human rights standards, it
is difficult to think of a country that has seen that process
work more than in Turkey. I think there is most definitely a willingness
on the part of the Turkish government to engage within this process.
They have already passed nine packages of EU harmonisation reforms,
there is a new penal code and a press law and I think there is
demonstrable and very positive progress. What there is is an irregularity,
if that is the phrase, in terms of implementation. I think in
any society where you are moving from a society in which human
rights is not accorded the greatest respect to one in which at
the highest level that starts to happen, you have the cultural
problem of how quickly change can happen in terms of the practitioners
on the ground. That does not excuse it, but it does mean that
the country is moving in the right direction; and if we continue
down the road in terms of the accession negotiations being opened,
as they will later on this year, that can only help in that process
further.
Q150 Andrew Mackinlay: I accept there
has been progress—it is ridiculous to suggest that there
has not—and I recognise the carrot and stick approach, but
even in this process where they are trying to reach compliance,
in their new penal code—I think there is a new penal code—they
enshrine or put in that "you face prosecution for insult
to state institutions", which is wide open. We are all sensitive
and take pride in our nations, but I think I would be fair in
saying that the European Union member countries tend to take on
the chin those people who belittle, deride or cause frustration
to the country, and yet this is actually going in. This is not
a hang-over, it is a new provision they are putting in their new
penal code. I think that this has been referred to by a number
of countries. I do not know, perhaps you are not familiar with
that, and if you are not do not be embarrassed, but I think we
need to look into it. The other thing about which I am concerned
is that there has been little progress on mother tongue teaching.
Surely that is fundamental, is it not, to European Union membership?
Mr Rammell: Certainly. The point
I would make is that I do not think we are at the end game in
terms of the evolution of the human rights situation within Turkey.
I think we have seen positive progress, but the accession negotiations
will start at the end of this year and, yes, we will hope to see,
through that process, further improvements in human rights. You
refer to the penal code. That has already led to a number of sentence
reductions, which I think is a positive development. In terms
of the Kurdish language, private language courses and broadcasting
in Kurdish has started. Is there further to go? Yes, there is,
but I genuinely believe that it is difficult to think of a country
in which, over such a relatively short period of time, the scale
of improvement has been as substantial as it has in Turkey. Do
we still need to raise the bar higher? Yes, we do, but I think
at the same time we should be encouraging and welcoming the fact
that that progress has been made.
Q151 Andrew Mackinlay: Amnesty have flagged
up with us the fact that there are indications from the United
Kingdom Government that we want to put Turkey on a so-called 'white
list' as regards asylum/refugee applications. Amnesty makes the
point, and it is a general point, that in a sense there should
not be a so-called 'white list'; the test should be whether or
not the person meets suffering or persecution. There should be
a presumption in favour of certain states that there cannot be
a wrong committed whereby a person should not have recourse to
an application for asylum/refugee status in the United Kingdom.
Am I correct that you want to put Turkey into this category?
Mr Rammell: I do not believe that
decision has been taken. I think what you are referring to, and
it is not called 'the white list' it is called 'the non-suspensive
appeal', and the difference is that an asylum claim is still judged
on its merits, but, if because generally there is a good standard
of human rights and generally people are not suffering from persecution
within that country—if that is the case—then you conduct
the appeal within your host country rather than in the UK, but
you still quite properly judge the asylum claim on its merits
in the first instance.
Q152 Andrew Mackinlay: I am obliged for
that. At this moment in time you do not think we are shipping
Turkey into this category?
Mr Rammell: As with all countries,
there are debates on-going. I do not believe, but I am looking
for guidance, that change has been agreed.
Ms Hall Hall: I do not know.
Q153 Andrew Mackinlay: Can we assume
that that change has not been agreed, and if there is an alteration
you can write to us perhaps?
Mr Rammell: Yes. If and when there
is an alteration, and my memory has failed me on this issue, either
way, I will write to you in clarification.[7]
Q154 Andrew Mackinlay: Finally, again
I recognise all states, even in the United Kingdom we put in institutions
to promote equality, and so on, but there is often a time lag.
We have seen this in employment as well, but in terms of gender
rights it is more than patchy in Turkey. There are whole provinces
where women are substantially disadvantaged: in education, in
property rights, and so on. Have we explicitly and robustly raised
this with Turkey? It goes back to the heart of how I opened. If
we are well on the way to this, so be it, but all the evidence
which has been given to us, and I think it is in the public domain,
is that apart from the big cities, Istanbul and the capital, women's
rights are really way behind European Union norms?
Mr Rammell: I think there are
concerns about women's rights within Turkey, and I think there
has been progress. The new penal code that I referred to earlier
significantly strengthens women's rights: for example, removing
sentence reductions for honour killings, which is, not only in
Turkey but across the world, one of the most serious concerns;
abolishing the article enabling rapists to escape jail if they
marry their victim. In the last week of last September there were
two landmark sentences of 30 and 36 years for honour killings.
I think those are positive steps in the right direction. Also
in October a law was passed to establish the new Directorate General
for women's status that is about developing and promoting women's
rights. So, again, I am not saying it is at the end game. I think
also we sometimes need to have care. I am a very strong supporter
of women's rights, but there are different cultures involved where
there is a different historical development. I am not saying that
you accept that, but you have to have an understanding of that
when you are engaging with that country. Nevertheless, I think
there has properly been progress on women's rights in Turkey.
Do we need more? Yes, we do.
Q155 Andrew Mackinlay: Again I acknowledge
what you say as true. Just one final point. I could not let it
go. Of course your point about cultural and historical circumstances,
yes, you have to be sensitive to it but not if you are going to
let people join your club.
Mr Rammell: That is why we have
not yet let Turkey join our club. I said earlier, we are not at
the end game in the evolution of human rights.
Q156 Chairman: One comment on Turkey.
I note that, yes, of course, there are concerns, but Human Rights
Watch told us in oral evidence that Turkey is "one of the
remarkable success stories" and that "ten years ago
it would have been difficult to imagine the extent of progress".
I doubt if we look 10 years back it is a different Turkey. The
transition accession period is going to take at least 10 years,
and therefore one can project forward as to the likely changes
over that time, but you did say, Minister, that there were concerns
about the monitoring capability of the European Union in respect
of human rights. Are you confident that the EU is geared in personnel
terms adequately to monitor those changes in human rights?
Mr Rammell: I think the appointment,
as I said earlier, of the human rights Personal Representative
within the EU will hopefully help to bolster capacity. Obviously
the Copenhagen criteria are judged through the Commission and
there are substantial resources there. There are also the resources
that are brought to bear by individual Member States. This is
not something that the Commission or the European Union on its
own undertakes—it cannot, because it is the body of the
Member States—but we are feeding into that process on a
regular basis as well and we are certainly monitoring?
Q157 Sir John Stanley: I know that you
will agree, Minister, that one of the most appalling human rights
scars around the whole world is the extent, which appears to be
growing, of the trafficking of women and children for sexual exploitation.
Can you tell us whether each and every post we have overseas will
be given a clear remit by the British Government to take the strongest
possible stand on this, and also the strongest possible line in
trying to give any help to overseas governments in bearing down
on that appalling abuse in their own countries and in the taking
of women and children either on a kidnap basis or on a false con
basis, which so often happens, until they can be in another country
and their passports removed when they become captives and to do
everything they can to try to stem this trade?
Mr Rammell: I hope I can give
you that reassurance, because this is an issue that has risen
up our agenda. I know within government with regards to the trafficking
of human beings we have recently established an inter-department
ministerial committee to oversee the work that we are doing on
this issue. Certainly at the international level we have signed
the UN Convention against Organised Crime and its three supplementary
Protocols, but I think you are right: we need all our posts to
be working on that issue, identifying what is happening within
particular countries. I think also the recent decision we took
to accede to optional protocol on the Convention on the Elimination
of Discrimination Against Women and allowing an individual petition—the
first time that has happened within the UK under any of the core
UN human rights treaties—sends out a positive signal about
the importance we attach to this issue. What I mean by that is
if that we are prepared to do that in respect of our own citizens,
then it hopefully sends out a message to other countries about
the importance that we attach.
Chairman: Minister, inevitably we have
been selective, but you have had to be prepared to cover the whole
world. May we thank you for that and say that the evidence which
you and your colleagues have given will inform the Committee in
our future report on the Human Rights Report. Very many thanks.
5 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Back
6
National League for Democracy Back
7
Ev 74 Back
|
