Supplementary written evidence submitted
by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
During my oral evidence session on the subject
of the FCO's Annual Report on Human Rights 2004 I undertook to
write to the Committee with more detailed answers to a number
of questions. I am pleased to be able now to provide the responses
requested.
African Union (Q.119-120)
You requested a note on what the Government's
relations and dialogue are with the AU on peace-keeping.
Supporting the African Union (AU) to develop
capabilities for conflict prevention, mediation and peacekeeping
is a central component of this government's conflict prevention
strategy for Africa.
The AU has agreed an overarching Common African
Defence and Security Policy (CADSP), an AU Peace and Security
Council (PSC), a Panel of the Wise (POW), a Military Staff Committee
(MSC), and an African Standby Force (ASF) consisting of five regional
brigades capable of undertaking peace support operations (PSOs).
The key challenge now is to move the Peace and Security agenda
from protocols, through policies to implementation.
Our approach is to support what is, rightly,
an African-led process. To this end we are heavily engaged at
country, regional and continental levels; providing training and
capacity building assistance primarily focused on developing African
peace support operations capabilities. In 2003-04 the UK provided
£12 million from the Africa Conflict Prevention Pool in support
of the African peace and security architecture, including building
PSO capacity. This support will continue throughout 2004-05 and
2005-06. In particular, HMG plans to use the UK's presidency of
the G8 and EU to build, consolidate and co-ordinate international
support for the AU. Once the AU has formally announced its plans
following the AU Summit in Abuja (30-31 January), we will engage
with both the AU and international partners to identify where
we can most effectively contribute to AU capacity building.
Through our Embassy in Addis Ababa, we maintain
regular dialogue with the AU to discuss both the longer-term peace
and security agenda and current issues such as the African Mission
in Sudan. HMG also enjoys regular high-level contact with the
AU. In December 2004 His Excellency Said Djinnit, African Union
Commissioner for Peace and Security, undertook a UK-sponsored
visit to the UK. In addition to meetings with the Secretary of
State for International Development and the Minister for Africa,
his programme included detailed discussions with senior officials.
Later this month the Secretary of State for International Development
and the Minister for Africa will attend the AU summit in Abuja
where they will engage with senior AU figures.
The Commission for Africa report, due for publication
in March, and which will strongly influence the UK's policy on
Africa, is also likely to recommend increased international support
for the AU.
In addition to these efforts, we are also engaged
through the EU. The European Commission view the AU as the main
conduit for EU-Africa co-operation. A major part of the EU's support
to the AU's peace and security agenda is the EU Peace Facility,
of which we are a key supporter. This 25Gm euro fund is being
used to finance capacity building programmes at the AU and specific
African peace support operations.
Ill-treatment of UK nationals detained overseas
(Q. 128, 132, 135 and 138)
I was asked for a note on:
(a) the occasions in the last 4-5 years in
which we have made a request for an impartial investigation into
allegations of torture or ill-treatment of UK nationals detained
overseas; and
(b) when in the last 4-5 years we have implemented
targeted sanctions against a country that has mistreated our citizens.
The Government has a clear policy in respect
of allegation of torture or ill-treatment made by British nationals
detained overseas. We take all such allegations seriously and
will raise our concerns with the governments concerned, taking
into account the specific features of each case. We may also request
that a prompt impartial investigation be carried out into the
allegations.
During my oral evidence, I explained that we
had made such requests for impartial investigations from the Egyptian
authorities concerning three British nationals in detention, and
from the US authorities, in relation to Mr Begg, detained at Guantanamo
Bay.
Requests made to undertake impartial investigations
into allegations of torture or mistreatment by British nationals
are kept on individual case files. We do not keep central records,
which would allow me to provide you with exact figures. However,
I am able to give you details of a number of requests made over
the last few years to reassure you that this is a policy that
is actively pursued.
— In June 2001 we raised with the Venezuelan
authorities the case of a British national who alleged mistreatment
at the hands of prison authorities. The Venezuelan authorities
agreed to conduct an official investigation into the case.
— Following an allegation of physical
and mental abuse made by a British national in detention in Kuwait
in late 2003, we made a request to the Kuwaiti government that
an official investigation be carried out
— Also in 2003, a British national
claimed to have been mistreated by authorities in Afghanistan.
We requested that the Afghan authorities investigate these allegations.
— More recently, we have requested
on more than one occasion that the Chinese authorities investigate
complaints of mistreatment made by a British national in detention
in accordance with their obligations under the United Nations
Convention Against Torture.
In many cases our requests for an investigation
result in one being carried out. You will understand, however,
that we have no control over the quality of these investigations,
and often the authorities in the country concerned will automatically
deny any wrongdoing. It is, in any case, very important that we
continue to register that we take these cases seriously and consider
any mistreatment of British detainees wholly unacceptable. We
believe that such representations do have an impact, even in cases
where the government concerned denies the charge. We would hope
that this goes some way towards preventing further incidents in
the future.
The UK is committed to the effective use of
sanctions as a way to restore international peace and security
in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter and of our
common foreign and security policy. The UK pursues its sanctions
policy through two main routes. Firstly, through the UN where
there is a threat to international peace and security. Secondly,
through the EU where either the UN route is not achievable for
political reasons, or the situation in the target country does
not pose the kind of threat which would be covered by the UN Charter.
The (wider) EU sanctions creation criteria include support for
efforts to fight terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction. EU sanctions can also be inspired as a restrictive
measure to uphold respect for human rights, democracy, the rule
of law and good governance. The UK therefore takes all these factors
into account when assessing the use of sanctions.
The UK has not used targeted sanctions on the
basis of the mistreatment of its nationals. Sanctions measures
are designed to influence positively the behaviour of a state
or individuals and are therefore of a coercive, rather than punitive,
nature. Additionally, arguments based on the treatment of one
state's nationals are unlikely to have the sufficient force in
multilateral institutions to create a sanctions regime. While
the UK does occasionally apply unilateral measures, the Government
believes there is clear benefit in the additional pressure which
can be brought to bear on countries through UN or EU collective
measures. Additionally, multilateral sanctions instruments place
binding obligations upon a wider membership of the international
community and the UK therefore pursues its sanctions policy primarily
through multilateral fora.
Turkey (Q.151-153)
I undertook to clarify whether or not Turkey
is being given "Non-Suspensive Appeal" (NSA) status.
Turkey is not currently on the list. We do keep the
list of designated countries continuously under review. Additions
to the list can only be made by Affirmative Order which is placed
before both Houses of Parliament.
Use of information gained under torture
Although I did not specifically agree to follow
this up in writing, I was asked at one point to give (Q.81-2),
". . . a categoric assurance that we have not received information
that has been obtained by the use of torture by one of our allies".
As the Foreign Secretary said in his letter to you of 15 November,
the UK vehemently opposes torture as a matter of fundamental principle.
The British Government, including the intelligence and security
agencies, never uses torture to obtain information. Nor would
we instigate others to commit torture for that or any other purpose.
The UK intelligence and security agencies evaluate carefully the
intelligence they receive against a range of factors; any concerns
about the source of the intelligence or the means by which it
may have been obtained would be taken into account. Where we are
helping other countries to develop their own counter-terrorism
capability, we ensure that our training or other assistance promotes
human rights compliance.
I hope that this satisfactorily resolves all
questions that I promised to follow up in writing and look forward
to your report on the FCO's Annual Human Rights Report 2004.
Bill Rammell MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
9 February 2005
| 
