Letter to the Clerk of the Committee from
the Parliamentary Relations and Devolution Team, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office
Thank you for your letter of 9 November, in
which you requested written answers to a series of questions.
For ease of reference I set out below the questions and our responses
to each in the same order as in your letter.
1. The FCO response to the Committee's request
last year for a definition of a "human rights project"
does not make clear the distinction between human rights and governance
or democracy projects, and does not make clear which projects
are so classified. Could the Government outline the distinction
between human rights and other projects?
The Government uses the definition that a human
rights project is one that furthers HMG's human rights priorities
and objectives in the country concerned. This means that projects
will vary from one country to another and from one region to another,
according to the human rights issues in that country. The Government
also believes that human rights, democracy and good governance
are interdependent and mutually reinforcing concepts, and that
it is not possible to draw a neat distinction between what is
a human rights project and what is a democracy, or good governance,
project. For example key aspects of democracy include freedom
of expression and assembly, equality and non-discrimination, which
are important human rights in themselves. Important elements of
good governance include the rule of law, which requires respect
for key human rights such as the right to a fair trial and freedom
from arbitrary arrest and detention. The Government does not therefore
categorise a human rights project according to whether or not
this is explicitly stated in the project title, but whether we
judge it will have a positive impact on the human rights situation
in the country or region concerned.
2. The establishment of the Council on Human
Rights has transformed the UN structures dealing with human rights.
What more needs doing before the Council starts its work? How
is the UK contributing to the Council?
We welcome the agreement by the World Summit
to create a Human Rights Council. However, precisely what the
Council will look like was left to the post-Summit negotiations.
The modalities of the Council, as well as what is required for
the transition between the current structures and the Council,
are still to be negotiated. We hope this will be achieved through
the adoption of a resolution before the end of the year to establish
the Council, as well as mechanisms to facilitate a smooth transition
from the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to the new body. It
is unclear at this stage whether this will require the CHR itself
to meet again to wrap up any unfinished business. We are currently
co-ordinating the EU's position for those negotiations and working
closely with the President of the General Assembly, his co-chairs
and partners in New York and through our posts around the world
to build support for a Council that represents a genuine improvement
on the current CHR.
3. The Government does not feel that the
EU High Representative on Human Rights in the area of Common Foreign
and Security Policy should conduct an internal review of the EU's
human rights work. Why not?
The EU has invested significant energy in recent
years in developing human rights tools for use in CFSP, and in
reviewing their effectiveness (we give some examples of on-going
review processes below). In our view, the main priority now is
to make active use of these tools, and to press on with implementation
of existing review recommendations. We would like to see Michael
Matthiessen direct his energies towards this active implementation,
with a particular emphasis on improving coherence and continuity
of EU activity.
We have involved Michael Matthiessen fully in
the regular, on-going internal review which has taken place during
our Presidency. While open to the idea of a fuller review of EU
human rights work at some point in the future, we note that—as
a Personal Representative of Mr Solana, with a mandate specific
to CFSP—Mr Matthiessen may not be best placed to carry out
any larger-scale review which encompassed EU human rights work
under other pillars.
On-going/recent review of human rights work
in CFSP includes:
— the Annual Review of implementation
of human rights policy, as follow-up to 2001 GAC Conclusions (next
review to be submitted to the December 2005 GAERC);
— regular (approximately annual) reviews
of the EU's human rights dialogues. There were large-scale reviews
of the EU-Iran and EU-China dialogues submitted to the GAERC in
late 2004;
— formal biennial reviews of the EU's
human rights guidelines (for example the review of the Children
and Armed Conflict Guidelines which will be submitted to the December
2005 GAERC). Additional informal evaluations of all guidelines
were carried out most recently in late 2004;
— the development of a biannual COHOM
(Council Working Group) overview of the EU's third country dialogues,
as they relate to human rights.
4. What is the Government doing to monitor
and ensure that the legislative changes on human rights carried
out by the Turkish Government are fully implemented?
The Government recognises that further progress
is required in ensuring consistent implementation of the reforms
passed, and we are monitoring the situation on the ground through
our Embassy in Ankara. The Minister for Europe raised the need
for Turkey to maintain the momentum of reform with the Turkish
Prime Minister when he visited the UK on 27 October.
The Negotiating Framework agreed by EU Member
States that will guide accession negotiations with Turkey states
that "to ensure the irreversibility of progress and its full
and effective implementation, notably with regard to fundamental
freedoms and to full respect of human rights, progress will continue
to be closely monitored by the Commission." It also says
that "advancement of negotiations will be guided by Turkey's
progress . . . against requirements including the Copenhagen criteria"
and provides for the suspension of negotiations "in the case
of a serious and persistent breach in Turkey of the principles
of respect for human rights". Enlargement Commissioner Rehn
has said that negotiations with Turkey will be the most rigorous
yet. The Government believes that all remaining concerns will
be addressed during the accession process.
5. Has the impetus towards human rights improvements
in Turkey been maintained now talks on its accession to the EU
have started?
The Government has every confidence that the
impetus towards human rights improvements in Turkey will be maintained
following the start of EU accession negotiations. In response
to the publication on 9 November of the European Commission's
2005 Regular Report on Turkey, the Turkish Foreign Minister said
"Our government is determined to implement the reforms, to
deepen and strengthen democracy. We know our own deficiencies
and we are determined to overcome them in the coming process."
The Commission report noted that "political transition is
ongoing in Turkey" but that "the pace of change had
slowed in 2005 and that implementation of the reforms remains
uneven".
In recent months there has been further evidence
of the Turkish Government's commitment to reform. For example
Turkey signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention against
Torture on 14 September and on 11 November launched a project,
co-sponsored by the UK, to establish a probation service in Turkey.
6. Has the Government or any public body
or agency, in any capacity, made use of information acquired by
other governments or agencies through the use of torture? If so,
when?
As the Government explained in the course of
the recent case before the Law Lords, it is not always possible
to know where all intelligence information has come from or the
precise circumstances under which it was obtained.
We evaluate all the information we receive before
it is passed into the assessment process. Where a report is known
to derive from a source under detention, that would be taken into
account.
The Government unreservedly condemns the use
of torture and works hard with its international partners to eradicate
this abhorrent practice.
7. Is the use of information by the British
Government or any other public body or agency acquired by other
governments or agencies through use of torture compatible with
the UK's international obligations on torture and other inhumane
treatment in particular, and with its other human rights obligations
in general?
The UK abides by its commitments under international
law. We do not condone the use of torture in any way. United Kingdom
law already contains extensive safeguards in relation to evidence
obtained by torture. Those safeguards are found in the common
law; they flow from the Human Rights Act; and they are contained
in statute.
8. What information does the Government have
about the US "black sites" where terrorism suspects
have been detained extra-judicially? Has the Government raised
the matter with Washington, and if so what was the outcome?
We are aware of press reports claiming that
there are CIA detention facilities in Eastern Europe. We raise
a range of issues with the United States on a regular basis.
9. What is the Government doing to ensure
that no aircraft containing detainees being taken for interrogation
to states where torture is practiced, known as "extraordinary
rendition", are passing through UK airspace?
We are not aware of the use of UK territory
or airspace for the purposes of "extraordinary rendition".
Nor have we received any requests, nor granted any permissions,
for the use of UK territory or airspace for such purposes.
10. The UK-China human rights dialogue appears
to make glacial progress. What are the main achievements of the
last year, and how does the UK measure them?
We agree that China's progress on human rights
is slow relative to the impressive economic changes in the country.
We do not believe that this lack of speed means the dialogue is
failing. We have carried out periodic in-house reviews of the
dialogue process and will continue to do so.
The FCO Annual Human Rights Report for 2005
illustrates a number of positive developments (eg a visit by the
UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to China in September
2004 and the decision by China's Supreme People's Court to take
back its authority to review death sentences). We are convinced
that our dialogue, together with similar engagement by other countries,
puts pressure on the Chinese Government and contributes towards
incremental improvements.
Since the publication of the Annual Report,
we have held another bilateral round of dialogue in June 2005.
At this event a representative from the Chinese Propaganda Department
participated in the exchanges—the first time that HMG has
had the opportunity to engage directly with this influential organisation.
It is most unlikely that this contact would have been achieved
without the dialogue. We also led the EU China Human Rights Dialogue
in October 2005. The focus of the exchanges was freedom of religion
and the role of the judiciary in the criminal justice system.
11. Would the implementation of a timetable
for the implementation of human rights measures improve the effectiveness
of the UK-China human rights dialogue? If not, why not?
The dialogue has long term and ambitious goals,
which are set out in the Annual Report. We assess China's progress
towards these goals through the dialogue process, through our
project work on the ground in China, through regular ministerial
exchanges and through reporting on human rights in China to Parliament.
We do not believe that establishing a timetable
for the dialogue would improve its effectiveness. There are some
human rights issues on which the Chinese Government is interested
in making progress and might work with us towards agreed improvements.
But there are other areas on which the Chinese Government is not
interested in co-operation or is extremely hesitant about engagement—issues
such as freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom
of religious belief being particular examples. In such instances
we find ourselves pursuing a role of moral advocacy rather than
working with the grain of change in China. Against this background
it is our view that agreeing a timetable with the Chinese Government
for change would mean setting the target very low or—in
some cases—it might prove impossible to set a meaningful
target at all. While advocacy may not yet have yielded concrete
results, it is important, nevertheless, to do it.
On the other hand, if we do not agree a timetable
with the Chinese Government and we simply set our own targets
and timetable, the question arises of what we should do if/when
China has missed our time scales. Any possible response would
need to have widespread international support, if it were to be
effective.
12. What human rights guarantees would the
Government request from its Chinese counterparts in exchange for
lifting the EU arms embargo? Would ratification of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights satisfy the Government?
The EU agreed in December 2003 to launch a review
of the EU's arms embargo on China, which was imposed after the
demonstrations in China in 1989. The Government and indeed the
EU have made no decision yet on whether to lift it. The review
continues and will take all relevant factors into account. We
do not wish to pre-empt the conclusion of the review and in the
meantime we continue to implement the Embargo fully.
Clearly, within the context of possible embargo
lift, it would be helpful if the Chinese Government were to make
visible progress on human rights issues. Such progress would help
the atmosphere in which other relevant discussions take place.
However, human rights progress is only one part of the discussions.
One cannot say that, for example, ratification of the ICCPR would
automatically lead to Embargo lift. Lift is a political decision,
a judgement, in which all relevant factors must be taken into
account.
13. How is the Government placing pressure
on the Burmese government to improve its human rights standards?
Has the UK raised the question with ASEAN, and is it encouraging
its EU partners to do the same?
We remain deeply concerned about the political
and human rights situation in Burma. We have been at the forefront
of efforts over many years to bring pressure to bear on the military
regime to reform and to respect human rights. We regularly raise
our concerns directly with the military regime. Most recently,
our Ambassador in Rangoon raised our concerns with the Home Minister
on 26 October and the Ministers for Labour and Foreign Affairs
on 31 October.
Through the EU's Common Position on Burma we
have imposed a comprehensive programme of targeted measures on
the regime. We regularly review the Common Position with our EU
partners and believe that the use of multilateral sanctions send
the strongest and most coherent message to the regime. We renewed
the Common Position in April this year.
The UK and the EU recognise the importance of
working with ASEAN and other countries in the region to promote
reform and democratisation in Burma. We take, therefore, every
opportunity to raise our concerns with ASEAN countries. Most recently,
both the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary discussed Burma
with the Thai Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister on 13 October.
The EU also regularly discusses Burma with ASEAN partners. The
EU and ASEAN discussed Burma at the ASEAN Regional Forum on 17-19
October.
Chris Stanton
Parliamentary Relations and Devolution Team
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
22 November 2005
| 
