Written evidence submitted by Campaign
Against Criminalising Communities (CAMPACC)
OVERVIEW STATEMENT
An objective of the Foreign Affairs Committee
is to "examine the expenditure, administration and policy
of the FCO". In order to do this with regard to Human Rights,
the Committee has already taken up issues of rendition and torture
abroad in the "War on Terror", eg in its 6th report
on the FCO Human Rights Report 2004.
Below we extend some of those points for a broader
purpose: to draw links between the "war on terror" as
an oppressive, anti-democratic agenda at home and abroad. As well
as a human rights abuse, torture should be seen as a political
strategy which links UK intelligence services with its foreign
counterparts. The UK is not simply an innocent recipient of statements
resulting from torture; rather, UK agents collaborate with those
who violate human rights abroad and even encourage such violations.
Dubious "information" gained from
torture abroad is used to label more and more people here as "terror
suspects", thus justifying the domestic "war on terror",
including detentions and prosecutions. More generally, UK "anti-terror"
laws are used to terrorise migrant and Muslim communities in this
country, especially to deter dissent against oppressive regimes
allied with the UK, and to deter any support here for resistance
abroad (as we have documented elsewhere[13]).
Torture abroad is one important component of that strategy; when
refugees flee here, they then fear being deported back to torture,
beyond their brutal treatment by UK immigration authorities.
As an integral part of your remit for UK foreign
affairs, the Committee should investigate foreign-domestic links
in systematic torture and its multiple political roles. The Committee
has a responsibility to hold the Government accountable for those
roles.
SPECIFIC EXAMPLES
The rest of our submission provides specific
examples of UK complicity in torture abroad and its plans to extend
that complicity, even encouragement.
(1) The UK supports US practices of
"extra-ordinary" rendition.
A recent investigation has found that the UK
is offering logistical support to the US practice of "extra-ordinary
rendition", the abduction of terror suspects and the taking
of them to countries, most notably Egypt, for interrogation, where
they are likely to be tortured ("Destination Cairo: human
rights fears over CIA flights", The Guardian, 12/09/2005).
CIA-manned aircraft involved in these operations have flown into
the UK 210 times since the 9/11 attacks and the 26 strong fleet
run by the CIA has used 19 British airports and RAF bases, including
Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Belfast airports. Egypt is a country
where torture against political dissidents and ordinary citizens
is widespread, according to Human Right Watch ("Empty promises
can't protect people from torture": Joint letter to Tony
Blair from Human Rights Watch and Liberty, The Guardian,
23/06/2005).
The logistical support this Government offers
to the CIA practice of rendition requires investigation and condemnation.
The abduction of individuals is illegal and the act of knowingly
supporting the sending of persons to countries where they will
be tortured is a violation of Article 4 of the UN Convention Against
Torture, which requires signatories to make complicity with torture
a criminal offence, and a breach of the international prohibition
on the return of persons to countries where they face a risk of
torture.
(2) The UK Government obtains and uses
"intelligence" from liaisons with foreign security services
who practice torture.
The UK co-operates with governments who regularly
practise torture against detainees, thus acting in complicity
in those acts. This liaison provides an incentive for such countries
to torture their detainees.
Craig Murray (former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan)
has described how the UK liaised with the authorities there in
order to obtain regular intelligence for use in the UK's "War
on Terror." This is again a violation of Article 4 of the
UN Convention against Torture. When he protested against the British
foreign policy of liaison with the Uzbek security forces, Craig
Murray was told that Jack Straw and the MI6 chief had decided
that torture intelligence is important in the War on Terror (The
Independent, 27/10/2005).
Moreover, British agents have been present in
foreign jails when torture has occurred. In his article on the
liaison between UK and Uzbek security forces, Craig Murray reports
that detainees abducted and flown to countries where they have
been tortured, under the practice of rendition, have spoken of
the presence of British personnel in the prison in which they
have been detained. Members of the British security services questioned
the Algerian key prosecution witness in the "ricin-plot"
trial, who is held in Algeria, and who had probably been subjected
to ill-treatment by the Algerian authorities. When the case went
to trial, the prosecution offered no credible evidence of ricin,
nor of a conspiracy; so the torture "evidence" provided
a weak substitute.
(3) The UK Government wants evidence
obtained under torture to be admissible in courts here.
The government has been arguing before the House
of Lords for the right to act on intelligence obtained by the
torture of persons abroad. It wants to be able to use that material
to detain people in the UK and to use as evidence before the courts.
Although ostensibly an element of domestic policy, it has links
to foreign policy. If torture evidence becomes admissible here,
then this will further encourage torture by regimes abroad. The
ability to use torture evidence in court will go hand in hand
with continued and increased liaison between those countries'
security services and our own, because the fruits of foreign torture
will then become useful to the domestic "War on Terror".
Furthermore, the admittance of torture evidence to court gives
these countries a green-light to continue using torture. It will
be conducive to their relations with the British Government, in
the sense that it will be a component of the co-operation between
the two governments.
(4) The Government deports people to
countries where they are likely to face torture.
The Turkish and Kurdish community have reported
that the Home Office has massively stepped up removals of people
to Turkey over the last few weeks. There have been raids on homes
and shops with people being snatched in the early mornings. Many
individuals are being detained and then given letters of refusal
for their asylum applications, and some have judicial reviews
or appeals outstanding. Not only is this an abuse of due process
but again, these individuals are being sent away to face a real
risk of ill-treatment and torture. According to Human Rights Watch,
torture remains commonplace in Turkey. For instance, the Turkish
Human Rights Association reported 692 incidents of torture and
ill-treatment by police in the first six months of 2004. Repression
of Kurds and Kurd-sympathisers is particularly severe (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/04/27/china10549.htm).
A European Parliament delegation visiting Turkey
to check on its progress in human rights has found "shocking"
reports of murders and mutilations, a British MEP said yesterday.
The findings, which come a week after Brussels launched membership
talks with Turkey, highlight the scale of progress the predominantly
Muslim country needs to make in its quest to join the European
Union.
Richard Howitt, part of the mission by the parliament's
seven-member human rights subcommittee, told The Guardian:
"What we heard was shocking. There were accounts of soldiers
cutting off people's ears and tearing out their eyes if they were
thought to be Kurdish separatist sympathisers . . . You can't
hear these things without being emotionally affected."
The MEP, Labour's European foreign affairs spokesman
and a champion of Turkey's EU accession, said the abuses had been
corroborated by human rights organisations.
The British Government intends to obtain diplomatic
assurances against torture in order to deport terrorism suspects
to countries where they are at high risk of torture. This practice
is in breach of the international prohibition on the return of
persons to countries where they face a risk of torture, and torture
itself is absolutely prohibited under Article 3 of the European
Convention on Human Rights incorporated into UK law by the Human
Rights Act 1998.
It is understood that the British Government
is seeking to deport a number of Algerian nationals certified
under the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001. Some were
acquitted by a jury in the so-called "ricin plot" trial.
The Government is negotiating with the Algerian government for
diplomatic assurance that these individuals will not be subjected
to ill-treatment on their return. Algeria is a country in which
a range of repressive practices is employed against those involved
in political dissent. These practices include arbitrary detention,
summary executions and torture. The FCO itself noted in 2004 that
"the overall level of human rights abuses [in Algeria] remains
high". Amnesty International reported in 2004 that those
suspected of "acts of terrorism or subversion [are] systematically
tortured" ("UK: Empty promises can't protect people
from torture", Joint letter to Tony Blair from Human Rights
Watch and Liberty. 23/62005).
Furthermore, torture is itself a clandestine
activity which is illegal in most countries, and to which they
would not admit. It is therefore absurd to assume that a diplomatic
statement can be taken as assurance that an individual will not
be tortured.
The UK has been asking foreign governments (such
as Algeria, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia) for assurances that deportees
will not be subjected to torture. Such efforts warrant scrutiny
and condemnation. If assurances are obtained, there will be more
deportations to these countries, probably to face torture, despite
diplomatic assurances to the contrary. Hence the British Government
will be complicit in the torture and ill-treatment of individuals
abroad. Thus an element of domestic policy (deporting refugees)
will effectively become a part of foreign policy. Conversely,
the deportations may be driven partly by foreign policy, as a
means to silence dissent against oppressive regimes allied with
the UK.
Campaign Against Criminalising Communities (CAMPACC)
6 November 2005
13 CAMPACC (2003) Terrorising Minority Communities
with "Anti-Terrorism" Powers: their Use and Abuse, Submission
to the Privy Council Review of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security
Act 2001, www.campacc.org.uk/ATCSAconsult-final.pdf Back
| 
