Letter to the Chairman of the Committee
from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
When I met your Committee on 13 December,[2]
I undertook to provide more detailed answers to some of the questions
raised in the discussion. I attach answers to these questions,
and to the questions that the Committee didn't reach during the
session.
At Q30 in the transcript, Mr Keetch asked whether
British Overseas Territories including Diego Garcia and RAF Akrotiri
in the Sovereign Base Areas of Cyprus had been used for the purposes
of rendition of suspects by the USA.
The answer is "no", as I made clear
in my Written Ministerial Statement of 20 January.
At Q42 the Foreign Secretary undertook to offer
a reply to Sir John Stanley's question about whether Mr Benyam
Mohammed Al Habashi was handed over deliberately by the British
intelligence services to the CIA in Pakistan.
As I stated at the time, these are matters for
the Intelligence and Security Committee to investigate. I therefore
feel it would be inappropriate to go into further details in this
letter.
At Q51 Mr Straw offered to send the Committee
a note on "unfair treatment, less than torture" and
the way in which suspects are treated in the UK, in answer to
a question from the Chairman on whether certain interrogation
techniques permitted in the USA would fail within UK definitions
of torture.
At Q51 you expressed concerns that certain activities
may be permissible in the US in interrogations, which are not
permissible in the UK, because they are not defined as torture
by the US. I indicated that led us towards a consideration of
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, on which I undertook to
send the Committee a note.
First of all, it is important to note that the
US Detainee Treatment Act, enacted on 30 December 2005, provides
that no individual in the custody or under the physical control
of the US Government, regardless of nationality or physical location,
shall be subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment.
This legislation makes a matter of statute what President Bush
has made clear was already US Government policy. We have welcomed
this. We will keep in close touch with the US Government on the
implementation of the Detainee Treatment Act.
On the question of definitions, the United Kingdom
understands the term "torture" to have the meaning set
out in Article 1 of the UN Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). Article
1 CAT defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or
suffering whether physical or mental is intentionally inflicted
. . . ". It does not, however, give specific examples of
what constitutes torture. The understanding of the definition
of torture made by the US on ratifying CAT specifies the meaning
of "mental pain or suffering" in more detail than Article
1 CAT. The UK made no reservations or understandings on ratification
and has not adopted a formal definition of what constitutes mental
pain or suffering for the purposes of Article 1. Section 134
of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides that a public official
commits torture if he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering
on another in the performance of his duties, and does not define
"severe pain or suffering".
I would add that the US Secretary of State made
clear, again, in her statement of 5 December 2005 that:
the US does not authorise or condone
torture of detainees;
torture, and conspiracy to commit
torture, are crimes under US law; wherever they may occur in the
world.
On the question of definitions, I would also
note that under US legislation, the term "cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment" is to be interpreted according to
the US Constitution. But the essential fact is that "cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment" of any detainees held by
the US Government anywhere is legally banned under US law.
At Q90 Mr lUsley asked whether there had been
any progress regarding the Bulgarian nurses imprisoned In Libya.
We remain concerned about their situation and
want to see them released. With EU Partners we have made clear
to Libya that we want it to resolve remaining EU concerns, including
this case, as part of developing our engagement.
We have repeatedly raised this difficult and
longstanding issue at all levels with Libya, both bilaterally
and in our role as EU Presidency. With our EU Partners, the European
Commission, and the US, we have been actively encouraging the
parties to identify a solution acceptable to them both, including
through inter-governmental meetings, held in confidence.
Following such a meeting in Tripoli on 21-22
December the UK issued a press release (copy attached) on behalf
of representatives of the British, Libyan, Bulgarian and US governments,
and of the European Commission, about the establishment of an
International Benghazi Families Support Fund. It will collect
and allocate financial and in-kind assistance to the Benghazi
families, including continuing medical care to the HIV-infected
patients, help to upgrade to international standards the medical
facilities at which they receive treatment in Benghazi, and provision
of financial assistance to the families. More details about the
Fund are set out in the press release.
Following this progress, we welcome the ruling
by the Libyan Supreme Court on 25 December to overturn the death
sentences on the medical staff and return the case to the lower
court for a fresh hearing. We have encouraged Libya to ensure
this takes place soon. In addition, the UK is providing assistance
to alleviate the HIV crisis in Benghazi through the EU's "HIV
Action Plan for Benghazi". The focus of this assistance is
to upgrade the Benghazi Centre to become an HIV/AIDS centre meeting
international standards. The assistance will take the form of
training and in particular by sharing relevant European expertise.
The EU is fielding an increasing number of missions
abroad, with varying functions. Is this a deliberate trend and
are there any further such missions on the way?
The increase in the number of CFSP missions
is a natural progression. ESDP began a few years ago from a UK-French
initiative with the vision that it would grow into an important
tool that could be used in a variety of situations internationally.
It is now beginning to fulfil that role. The current missions
in Rafah and Aceh in particular show that the EU is now considered
by the international community as a key organisation for supporting
efforts to improve peace and security around the world. ESDP has
always had a number of priority areas, but it is only more recently
that it has started to activate them having gained necessary experience
and capabilities.
The only mission potentially on the horizon
is in Kosovo. There is broad agreement amongst EU partners that
some of the niche areas that the EU could fill in Kosovo include
an EU policing mission as well as justice and the rule of law.
This though is dependent on the outcome of the final status process.
The UK would expect to see ESDP play a role
within its remit wherever it made sense and it had the right capabilities
to actalways coordinating with other international actors
to try to achieve best added value and ensure the appropriate
instruments are deployed for each situation.
Is the Rafah monitoring mission a model which
the EU hopes to replicate, if all goes well?
The Rafali Border Assistance Mission is the
EU's second monitoring mission. The EU also has a monitoring mission
in Aceh, and the Commission runs a customs border monitoring mission
in Moldova. Monitoring is one of the priority areas for the EU's
security and defence policy and it is possible that the EU could
carry out a similar role elsewhere. However, each mission will
differ according to the task and the environment in which it is
operating. We will always be looking to ensure added value and
that EU capabilities are utilised where they make best sense and
make a real contribution.
Does the EU have any plans to intensify relations
with India, given its growing importance on the global stage?
The EU recognises absolutely the growing importance
of India. At the EU-India Summit in The Hague in November 2004
the EU and India established a strategic partnership. This was
followed up at the EU-India Summit in New Delhi in September 2005,
during the UK Presidency. The main focus was the agreement of
a wide ranging and ambitious EU-India Joint Action Plan, which
will form the framework for future EU-India engagement. This Joint
Action Plan was the product of close co-operation with India over
a number of months leading up to the Summit. Both sides hailed
this achievement, emphasising shared values and a common interest
in working together. Highlights of the Action Plan include closer
collaboration on counter-terrorism; the establishment of an EU-India
security dialogue covering regional security issues, disarmament
and nonproliferation; the launch of an EU-India Initiative on
Clean Development and Climate Change; establishing a High Level
Trade Group; and establishment of dialogues on migration and consular
issues, a s well as on human rights. The Prime Minister was accompanied
at the Summit by a large delegation of senior European CEOs who
attended a parallel annual Business Summit. EU and Indian CEOs
registered a strong level of interest in their respective business
communities for strengthening trade and investment opportunities.
Manmohan Singh, Tony Blair and Mr Barroso all addressed the Business
Summit. The general spirit of co-operation received an additional
boost with the announcement by Manmohan Singh at the Summit press
conference of an order by Indian Airlines for the purchase of
43 Airbus, worth USD 2.2 billion.
Since the Summit the UK Presidency has taken
forward a number of initiatives. The UK chaired the first meeting
of the new counter-terrorism working group; and led an EU team
in Delhi for an exchange under the dialogue on human rights. In
the run up to the Summit the UK worked hard with EU partners to
secure support for India's membership of the ITER international
nuclear fusion project. Since the Summit India has formally become
a member of ITER.
India's importance to the EU will continue to
grow, especially as India's own understanding of the EU expands
on greater engagement with the EU (the UK Presidency organised
a well received briefing seminar on the EU in Delhi for senior
Indian policy makers). At the Summit there was common recognition
that India's young, growing population makes it an indispensable
partner for the EU. Both sides are committed to report on progress
under the Joint Action Plan at the next EU-India Summit under
the Finnish Presidency in Helsinki in autumn 2006. In the meantime,
we expect that the Austrian Presidency will take forward other
elements of the Action Plan, including by hosting a Foreign Ministerial
Troika. The UK will continue to work with the Indians, Presidency
and Commission to further boost the EU-India relationship.
I hope all this is helpful to the Committee.
Rt Hon Jack Straw MP
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
31 January 2006
2 Mr Jack Straw appeared before the Committee in connection
with its inquiry into Developments in the European Union. Oral
evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 13 December
2005, HC 768-i. Back
|