1 Introduction
1. In 1998, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO),
in collaboration with the Department for International Development
(DFID), published the first of what has become a series of Annual
Human Rights Reports.[1]
Robin Cook MP, the then Foreign Secretary, and Clare Short MP,
the then Secretary of State for International Development, introduced
the first Report by stating their intent to work "for a
more just and peaceful world, in which human rights are genuinely
universal", and emphasising that "we cannot afford to
treat human rights as an optional extra".[2]
2. In 2005, the eighth Annual Human Rights Report
was published.[3] As has
been our practice since the publication of the first Report in
1998, we have scrutinised the Report in order to evaluate its
successes and identify its shortcomings. We announced our inquiry
on 7 October 2005 and received a wide range of written evidence
from Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and other interested
parties. We also took oral evidence on 16 November 2005, from
Kate Allen, Director, and Tim Hancock, Head of Policy and Government
Affairs, Amnesty International UK, and Steve Crawshaw, London
Director, Human Rights Watch, and on 23 November 2005 from Ian
Pearson MP, Minister of State for Human Rights and Minister of
State for Trade, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We would like
to thank all those who assisted us in this process by submitting
evidence to the inquiry.
3. The Human Rights Annual Report 2005 begins with
a chapter examining the challenges posed by some of the world's
most problematic states, followed by thematic chapters covering
the multiplicity of Foreign and Commonwealth Office work on human
rights. Over the years we have been pleased to see our comments
on the form and content of the Human Rights Report reflected in
the finished product. This year we were gratified to note that,
in accordance with recommendations we made in our last Report,
a number of positive changes had been made.
4. Commenting on the Report, Amnesty International
wrote: "The 2005 Report is a slimmer document than its two
immediate predecessors. Nevertheless, it is still a comprehensive
report providing a thorough overview, on the whole, of the work
that the government has been doing to protect and promote human
rights worldwide."[4]
5. We conclude that the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office's Human Rights Annual Report 2005 makes a substantial contribution
to the transparency and visibility of the Government's work in
this important area. Notwithstanding these remarks, there
are aspects of the Report which we feel could be improved, which
we discuss below.
6. Two general concerns were expressed to us about
the FCO's work. First, Amnesty International pointed to the FCO's
decision to subsume human rights within sustainable development
work, which they felt indicates that human rights work does not
"warrant treatment as a stand alone strategic priority."
[5] We asked the
FCO how it defined a human rights project. The FCO told us 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 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 that country
or region concerned."[6]
This definition is the same as provided last year, and raises
the same fears for Amnesty International: "It is difficult
not to interpret this to mean that a human rights project is what
the FCO says it is."[7]
We share these concerns.
7. Second, the Minister of State who is responsible
for human rights has two seemingly contradictory roles. He is
also the Minister of State for Trade. He therefore combines the
two jobs of on the one hand prosecuting the United Kingdom's trading
interest and on the other hand advocating human rights. It is
inevitable that these two roles will sometimes stand in sharp
contradiction. The Committee asked the Minister about his dual
responsibilities. He said: "I think that it is pretty much
standard practice that UK Ministers have raised human rights issues
but raised a lot of other issues as well…I certainly do not
have any problems in raising the issue of human rights at appropriate
opportunities and then also raising trade matters."[8]
8. In the light of these developments we share some
of Amnesty International's concerns, when they said: "The
manner in which the 2005 report has been produced, the less than
rational inclusion of human rights under sustainable development,
changes to the funding arrangements for human rights projects,
and even the less central location for the Human Rights, Democracy
and Good Governance Group within the FCO all point to what we
consider to be the declining influence of human rights in shaping
UK foreign policy."[9]
9. We conclude that the Government risks downgrading
its human rights work by combining human rights responsibilities
with trade in the person of the same minister and also by subsuming
human rights work into the more general category of sustainable
development.
1 Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for
International Development, Annual Report on Human Rights,
April 1998 Back
2
Ibid, p 5 Back
3
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report
2005, Cm 6606, July 2005, hereafter Human Rights Annual
Report 2005 Back
4
Ev 2, para 2 Back
5
Ev 2, para 6 Back
6
Ev 47, para 1 Back
7
Ev 3, para 7 Back
8
Q 72 Back
9
Ev 3, para 11 Back
|
