Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-179)
IAN PEARSON
MP AND MS
ALEXANDRA HALL
HALL
23 NOVEMBER 2005
Q160 Chairman: Yes, and that is looked
at by the Quadripartite Committee.
Ian Pearson: With those two points
in mind, can I take your request away and if I can write something
that is sensible that I can send to the Committee, I am happy
to do so.
Mr Horam: That is helpful, because the
fact is, in certain answers you give it is easy to generalise
and in that way conceal all that needs to be revealed, however
well-meaning you may be. Therefore, if we get a bit of detail
it will assist?
Chairman: We will look at whatever your
response is and, if necessary, come back to you in future, or
may be the Quadripartite Committee will ask the Foreign Secretary
about it at some point, but one way or another we way will get
further answers on this.
Q161 Ms Stuart: Minister, I think we
are asking you to wear so many hats that I am beginning to get
worried about your human rights?
Ian Pearson: That is very kind
of you.
Q162 Ms Stuart: I am also very conscious
that your colleague, Alexandra Hall Hall, has not had a chance
to say anything at any stage as we take you round this Thomas
Cook tour around the various parts of the world where we still
have concerns, so feel free to draw in your colleague. Can I take
you to part of what used to be the Soviet Union and, in particular,
if you were to look at the Ukraine, Georgia and Kurdistan. The
Foreign Office's own report actually, I think, makes observations
about progress which were made in terms of the spread of democracy.
We had in the Ukraine the Orange Revolution, we had in Georgia
the Rose Revolution, but there are one or two concerns, particularly
in terms of changes in the nature of the law which happened in
Georgia, there are still problems with freedom of information.
The basic thrust of my question is that whilst these developments
are welcome, we still have much further to go, but, given that
those areas geographically are strategically extremely important
to us, can you reassure us that we are not trading unduly their
strategic importance, i.e. the war on terrorism, and that we would
further push for human rights in those areas?
Ian Pearson: Yes, I can give you
that assurance. Recently I attended the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation
Meeting. I did not stay there for the full fortnight of it, but
I was there sufficiently long to get a very strong impression
of the level of detail and the scrutiny that goes on when it comes
to raising human rights issues with just the countries that you
are mentioning. I think the OSCE is an effective body actually
in terms of its work in promoting democracy and providing the
challenge to countries that have poor human rights records, and
we as a UK government very strongly support it. You are right
to point to the strategic significance of countries like Ukraine
and Georgia, and we recognise that, but, as with other countries
in the world, we always feel very strongly and make our representations
when it comes to human rights abuses.
Q163 Mr Purchase: We have continuing
and considerable concerns about Turkey. It is on the brink of
Europe, it is on the brink of getting permission to apply, and
all the rest of those things. Would you like to tell us what the
view is of Turkey's human rights record vis-a"-vis its European
status?
Ian Pearson: Yes, I had the opportunity
to do an adjournment debate on Turkey very recently, and we do
have concerns that continue about the human rights situation in
Turkey. The debate in question was prompted by the prospect of
a well-renowned author, Orhan Pamuk, being brought to trial on
part of Turkey's penal code, and we are very concerned about this
situation. I will not rehearse the speech that I made then, but
let me just say that Turkey has made considerable progress when
it comes to human rights, and that was recognised as part of the
decision which the UK strongly supported to open accession negotiations
to the European Union. Turkey still has some way to go. There
was a report produced very recently—in fact it is called
the Regular Report, which is really an annual report—and
the Commission's 2005 Regular Report on Turkey was presented on
9 November and it noted that political transition is on-going
in Turkey, but it said that the pace of change has slowed in 2005
and implementation of the reforms remains uneven. I think that
is a good summary of the situation. Turkey has gone quite along
way, but it needs to go further, and, what is more, its government
knows and accepts that it needs to go further and it is actively
trying to put measures in place to do just that. As a government
we have been doing a number of things to try and support Turkey
and its development. We have been doing quite a lot of work in
terms of training judges, for instance. Again, I think that is
part of the democracy in human rights building work that is on-going
there. It is going to take some time, but we are certainly very
optimistic that it is on the right path.
Q164 Mr Purchase: Human Rights Watch
have reported that the authorities continue to try to close down
gay and lesbian organisations—close venues. How important
do you think that is to Turkey's efforts to become, if you like,
a more civilised country in terms of human rights?
Ian Pearson: Turkey will have
to address all of these issues if it is to realise its ambitions
to become a member of the EU. I believe very strongly that opening
the door to Turkey, which is what we did on 3 October when an
agreement was reached to open negotiations, is very much the right
thing to do. It is a huge challenge for Europe as well as a huge
challenge for Turkey, but to say that we are prepared to open
the EU to a Muslim country that has a population that is bigger
than any other EU Member State, I think is a good statement to
make.
Q165 Mr Purchase: It is a bit incompatible
with European views on gay and lesbian rights, though, is it not?
Ian Pearson: Turkey will have
to conform to EU standards and practices when it comes to human
rights and its obligations. Turkey is on a path of transition,
and I do not think anybody is suggesting that that path is going
to be absolutely smooth and there are going to be no problems
in it, because that would be not true; and there are quite lot
of areas where Turkey still does need to sort things out, but
I think what we need to do is to encourage the Government to be
active in those areas, like the areas that you have mentioned,
and to provide what reasonable support we can as it makes that
transition.
Q166 Andrew Mackinlay: You used the words
"Turkey makes great progress", but that is a formulation
of words which we hear all the time. Surely human rights are indivisible.
It is not like an option where you gradually go there. I find
it incredible. Your own report—I think it is in this report—says
that impunity continues to exist in the security forces, and in
Question Time recently I asked another Foreign Office minister
about the case of the man who had written about the Armenian massacres,
was then prosecuted and your colleague minister said, "Oh,
but the man charged, he still wants to support Turkey's entry
into the European Union", as if that made it all right. What
I find amazing is that both the United Kingdom Government and
the European Union are probably not spelling it out sufficiently
that this is not something you can gradually reach, a good human
rights record, it is required now?
Ian Pearson: You are absolutely
right to say human rights is indivisible, but it is not an on/off
switch. I think it is important to recognise that very often it
is a whole range of legislation that needs to be introduced, training
that needs to be done and a mindset amongst the population as
well that needs to be changed, and Turkey is under no illusions
about the EU's position when it comes to human rights. It knows,
I believe, full well that the EU expects to see major developments
and major improvements in the human rights situation in Turkey,
but I think you have in Turkey, as in other countries as well,
to recognise that there is not just a sort of magic button and
a country can suddenly become human rights completely over night.
Q167 Andrew Mackinlay: No, but I think,
Minister, there is an important point here. I want to acknowledge
what you said. You have to change people's attitudes, and so on.
I think everybody acknowledges that. Even in our own jurisdictions,
for instance, we have had in the past two decades to work to change
people's attitudes, but what we did is put the legislative arrangements
in place saying, "That is the law", and then you have
to educate people on equal rights, equal opportunities, PACE reforms
and so on. We have had to do that, but the Parliament and the
Government said this is what the position is, and I think that
is where you are blurring the two things. You are quite right.
You have got to change attitudes throughout Turkish society in
some cases, probably in some institutions like the Army the Police
Force, probably expectations with regards to education rights
for women, et cetera, but what could and should be does is Turkey
implementing those things in legislation now?
Ian Pearson: It is actually doing
a number of those things. Abolition of the death penalty, new
protections against torture, greater freedoms of expression, association
and religion, greater cultural rights for Kurds and for others
have all been part of measures that the Turkish Government has
implemented, a number of them requiring legislation. That is why
I say Turkey is on the right path. It has introduced a lot of
the legislation. Some of the criticisms at the moment in the problem
areas, like Orhan Pamuk that I referred to, but because some of
the new legislation that has been introduced has been either poorly
interpreted by the courts or maybe there is some suggestion that
the legislation itself could be improved on, but it is not the
fact that Turkey is doing nothing. It is making significant steps.
As I say, the Regular Report does moot that the progress has slowed
somewhat this year, and we will continue to put pressure on Turkey
to make improvements to the human rights situation within the
country.
Chairman: I am conscious of the time.
We have got about 20 minutes more and lots of other areas to cover;
so we are going to have to move on.
Q168 Mr Keetch: Minister, on this Thomas
Cook tour that Miss Stuart referred to, can I ask you to join
me on the aircraft and fly north from Ankara up towards Moscow.
Obviously what is happening in Russia is of concern to the Government,
and rightly so, and there are some very worrying aspects in terms
of media freedom, NGO community, for example, which you heard
about yesterday, changes there, growing racism and xenophobia.
Can you say a little bit about how we are trying to persuade our
Russian friends of the need for human rights because this is a
very powerful country with a very proud and fine history, and
our negotiations dealing with that have to be done in perhaps
a slightly different way than we with other countries that we
may be discussing today; so we welcome your comments on Russia.
Ian Pearson: The first thing I
want to say is that Russia is a key partner for the UK. We want
it to be stable, prosperous and an important member of the international
community. I think we need to recognise that Russia has come a
long way and that the progress on the back of significant reform
has been remarkable. What we want to do is to continue to work
with Russia to ensure that the momentum of reforming is not lost
and that change moves in the right direction, but there are a
number of concerns that we have. You mentioned a number of them
in the question. We remain concerned about the human rights situation
in Chechnya, in particular there are still reports coming from
the valuable work that is done by NGOs, reports of extra-judicial
killings, arbitrary detention and torture, and we are also concerned
at reports that instability is growing in other regions than in
North Caucasus as well. We discussed these with Russia in an open
way. During President Putin's visit to London as part of the EU/Russia
summit both he and the Prime Minister conducted high level talks
regarding human rights issues, and we do have an EU/Russia and
a UK/Russia human rights dialogue as well where we raise specifically
our issues of concern with them.
Q169 Mr Keetch: Specifically we have
heard concerns in the past about the activities of the British
Council in Russia being hampered to a degree. I know it is not
specifically in your responsibility area, but certainly it would
be the view of the British Government that all aspects of government
working in Russia should be able to work in a free and open way
and that we would not want to see any constraints on the activities
of organisations such as the British Council or indeed other NGOs?
Ian Pearson: You are right to
say that it is not my area, but I am happy to agree with you that
certainly the British Council should be allowed to operate in
an open way, as it does in other countries right across the world.
Q170 Mr Pope: We can now go south-east
to Tashkent. I wanted to ask about Britain's relationship with
Uzbekistan. It seems to me that there is a difficult trade-off
between your own interest in this in human rights and the Foreign
Office's more strategic interest given the important geo-political
significance of Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan does appear to have one
of the worst human rights records in the entire world. Could you
assure us that Britain is no longer providing military assistance
to the Uzbek Government? For example, the British Government did
provide marksmanship training to Uzbek forces, and I just remind
you that Uzbek forces did shoot dead 500 civilians in Andijan
in May of this year. Can you assure us that we are no longer providing
that kind of assistance?
Ian Pearson: I can provide the
assurance that we are no longer providing that sort of assistance.
As I think you might be aware, on 3 October the EU foreign ministers
decided to implement an arms embargo and visa restrictions on
those deemed to be responsible for the disproportionate use of
force in Andijan. It was also agreed that there should be suspension
of all technical meetings under the partnership co-operation agreement.
We supported the reorientation of the Commission's funding programme
in Uzbekistan to support an increased focus on poverty reduction
and information of democracy and human rights in a civil society.
I mentioned earlier that a resolution on Uzbekistan has been passed
in the UN General Assembly. I have got a copy of this in front
of me today. I do not think I would be helpful, given the time
constraints, to read it.
Q171 Chairman: We can read it if you
send it to us.
Ian Pearson: But I am happy to
provide the Committee with a copy of it, but it strongly calls
on the Government of Uzbekistan to implement fully and without
any delay the recommendations of the report of the Mission of
the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and a whole
range of other things including, I think, importantly asking for
a full and independent review of what went on in Andijan; so we
are at a UK level and at an EU level pressing very strongly on
the issue of human rights and I think the UN resolution indicates
that.
Q172 Mr Pope: Our last ambassador to
Tashkent, Craig Murray, not a great fan of the Secretary of State,
I understand, has given some evidence in writing to the Committee
suggesting that the Foreign Office had subordinated human rights
underneath strategic concerns, and what I would really like is
some assurance that that is not the case. Could I ask you what
practical steps we can further take to tackle Uzbek's human rights
failings? Just as an example, I think Uzbekistan is still involved
in the NATO partnership for peace, and one of the things that
we might usefully do is raise whether or not it is appropriate
for that to continue with our NATO partners.
Ian Pearson: I think that is a
very helpful suggestion. When it comes to any country that has
little or no respect for its human rights or an imperfect human
rights record, we always judge matters on a case by case basis,
and in some cases we will have an arms embargo, in some cases,
such as Burma, we will have a common position that is agreed at
an EU level that will implement a range of sanctions. There are
a range of ways in which we can express our views and the views
of the EU and the views of the world community through the UN,
through general resolutions through the Security Council, as you
are well aware. As I say, we have just only agreed a UN General
Assembly resolution on Uzbekistan. We are now calling very strongly
on Uzbekistan to abide by what the UN resolution actually says,
but it is helpful to look at other ways in which we might want
to bring pressure to bear on the Uzbek Government and to express
our displeasure about what is going on there.
Chairman: We were going to ask a number
of questions about a number of countries in Africa, including
Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea and Ethiopia. I think we are
going to have to communicate with you in writing on those, but
I would like to bring in Sir John Stanley on Zimbabwe.
Q173 Sir John Stanley: Just a couple
of questions, please. I am not suggesting that the blame here
lies by any means exclusively at the door of the British Government,
but is it not the case, in reality, that the pressure exerted
thus far on the Mugabe regime as far as human rights is concerned
by the British Government has so far yielded zero results?
Ian Pearson: What is happening
in Zimbabwe is a disgrace. You have got a ruler of that country
who seems to pay no heed to the needs of his people and is acting
in a way that ignores human rights, is completely in breach of
the rule of law and holds in contempt the sorts of values that
we in the UK strongly believe in. We have tried, through a range
of means, to bring pressure to bear on the Zimbabwean regime,
and Mugabe is very clear indeed about what the UK's position is,
but you are right to point out that all the words, all that we
have said has not had the impact that we would like to see. We
just want to see a democratic government that does the right thing
by its people, and that is not what is happening in Zimbabwe at
the moment. We are doing all we can to talk to Zimbabwe's neighbours,
because potentially South Africa and other states, the members
of SADC, for instance, potentially might have more influence over
Zimbabwe than the UK or the EU, and certainly Mugabe sees the
UK almost as beyond the pale as far as he is concerned; so it
is a reflection of the strong criticisms that we have made in
the UK about his regime, and we do not apologise for that, but
we will use whatever avenues and opportunities there are to continue
to express displeasure about the regime and to try and encourage
others who might have more leverage with Mugabe to try and get
him to change his ways.
Q174 Sir John Stanley: Minister, is it
not the case that the scale of human rights violations by the
Mugabe regime, the severity of them, the near genocidal impact
that this is having on the lives of hundreds of thousands if not
millions of Africans in that country, does this not make Mr Mugabe
a prime candidate for consideration of being brought before the
International Criminal Court?
Ian Pearson: Certainly the scale
of what is going on in Zimbabwe, we believe as a UK government,
is something that we have extremely serious concerns about. Whether
what is going on would meet some of the specific legal criteria
to justify referral to the International Criminal Court is something
that I would not be legally qualified to give you a view on, but
certainly we want to look at every opportunity we can to continue
to put pressure on the Zimbabwean regime to see change in that
country which is so desperately needed.
Q175 Sir John Stanley: As I have had
letters from members of your ministerial team in the Foreign Office
on this particular issue of Mr Mugabe and the possible basis of
a reference to the ICC, I wonder whether you could let us have
a note setting out the Government's present position on that point?
Ian Pearson: Yes, I would be happy
to.[5]
Chairman: Thank you. We have got five
minutes left. Two quick areas, and they will have to be very brief.
Q176 Sandra Osborne: In relation to Colombia,
despite the demobilisation process, there are still strong links
between the military and the paramilitary groups. Some of the
NGOs believe that the UK Government should assist UK military
assistance to Colombia. What is your view of that and what monitoring
mechanisms does the Government have on its military assistance
to Colombia?
Ian Pearson: I am advised that
UK military assistance to Colombia focuses on mine-disposal training
and human rights training, and this is the point that I made before
when we were talking about countries of concern. UK military training
introduces security personnel to British defence concepts, including
the importance of accountable and democratic action, and we use
the best information available to assure ourselves that Colombian
military personnel benefiting from UK assistance are not engaged
in activities that violate human rights or that aid internal repression
and that they are not in collusion with paramilitary organisations.
This goes as far as including personal interviews and background
checks, and really the focus on what we are doing is on providing
assistance, focusing, as I say, on mine-disposal training and
training in human rights, which we think is a good thing to do.
I know that sometimes these things get classified as something
else that might appear to be a bad thing to do, but I happen to
think human rights training and how to dispose of mines safely
is something that we ought to be supporting as a government.
Q177 Mr Pope: Could I just raise China
and the UK/China Human Rights Dialogue. I have been very critical
but the Committee has been quite critical of this dialogue in
the past, because we believe that the existence of the dialogue
provides a cloak of respectability for the Chinese Government
to give the impression that it is taking human rights concerns
seriously, but simultaneously not much is happening. This is a
country making rapid economic progress but there has been no progress
on human rights. Personally would scrap it, because I think it
is not worth it, but I realise that is not the Government's position.
Could I ask that the Government consider setting some goals for
the dialogue, a timetable for those goals to be met and to then
assess the usefulness of the dialogue against some kind of benchmark?
At the moment, it seems to me, we are just engaged an endless
dialogue without really a point. I think we should set some targets
for what we want to achieve, a timetable to achieve those targets
and an assessment that, if we do not reach those targets, we reassess
the viability of the dialogue?
Ian Pearson: First of all, can
I say something about China's economic development, because over
the last 20 years China has taken one-third of a billion people
out of extreme poverty, and I think that is a huge achievement,
and it is providing better living standards for people in China,
which I think is a basic human right; so it is an important development
and we need to recognise that. I think China itself recognises
that it needs to do more in the issue of human rights, and we
have seen slow progress. There is often, when we look at countries,
a choice to be made. Should we engage with a country and have
a human rights dialogue or should we go down the route of UN resolutions
and expressing our concerns in that way? I believe that strategic
engagement is very much the right path to follow as far as China
is concerned. I understand the points you are making about giving
it a specific timetable, but what I would want to say in response
is that we actually assess these things on pretty much an on-going
basis. We evaluate the response that we have to each part of our
human rights dialogue, and the same happens with the EU/China
human rights dialogue as well. I also think it is useful to note
as a sign of progress that the UN special rapporteur on torture
is actually in China at the moment, and, again, I think that is
a positive development that China is opening up, and I think that,
as China develops economically, we will also see improvements
in the human rights situation there.
Q178 Mr Pope: Can I ask the Minister,
would he at least consider this concept of a timetable setting
goals and not rule it out completely?
Ian Pearson: I am happy to consider
it, but, as I say, we tend to evaluate these things on an on-going
basis. I think what is important is that we continue the process
of strategic engagement. Yes, we would obviously like to see progress
being made, but trying to hold people to targets is perhaps not
the best way to do it, but I will certainly reflect on what you
say on this.
Q179 Chairman: We are going to come back
to China in the quite near future as a committee when we will
be doing an inquiry next year. I am sure we will be raising a
lot of these issues in detail with you, both in writing and hopefully
on other occasions. Can I also say, you have had two hours and
your human rights do need to now be preserved. There are a number
of countries we did not mention—Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan,
Nepal, Indonesia—and, I think, there are some other areas
that we may well be writing to you about. Clearly your remit is
huge, as we questioned you at the start, and you also have your
trade responsibilities. I think the fact that we have not been
able to get through all of these areas is an indication of the
vast scope of your job. I am sure we will have other opportunities
to question you. We are grateful for you coming along today. Thank
you and Miss Hall Hall for being with us.
Ian Pearson: Can I just thank
the Committee for inviting me today. I think it is absolutely
right that you should hold us to account on what the UK Government
is doing with regards to human rights. I am sure the Committee
will be pleased and, indeed, relieved to know that it is not just
my responsibility. Although I have lead policy responsibility
for human rights, as I hope I made clear, Foreign Office ministers
will regularly raise human rights for the countries for which
they have ministerial responsibilities; so to that extent human
rights responsibilities are shared right across the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office ministerial team. I certainly look forward
to having the opportunity to talk to you about your work on China.
I was looking at the terms of reference that you set for the inquiry,
and I think we can have a very interesting discussion on what
is a very important and topical foreign policy area. Thank you
very much indeed.
Chairman: Thank you
5 See Ev 67 Back
|
