14 Restrictive measures against Uzbekistan
| (28053)
—
| Common Position renewing certain restrictive measures against Uzbekistan
|
| Legal base | Article 14 TEU; unanimity:
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 21 November 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | None; but see (26927) and (26928): HC 34-vii (2005-06), para 18 (26 October 2005)
|
| Discussed in Council | 13-14 November 2006 General Affairs and External Relations Council
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
14.1 On 12-13 May 2005 armed men attacked a number of military
barracks and government buildings in the city of Andizhan in Uzbekistan.
They broke into the city prison, where they freed hundreds of
remand and convicted prisoners, and later occupied a regional
government building on the main city square and took a number
of hostages. From the early hours of 13 May, thousands of civilians
— mostly unarmed and among them some who had escaped from
the prison — gathered in the city square, where many spoke
out to demand justice and an end to poverty. According to witnesses,
there were sporadic incidents of the security forces firing indiscriminately
into the crowds, killing and wounding demonstrators. In the early
evening, the security forces surrounded the demonstrators and
started to shoot indiscriminately at the crowd. The demonstrators
attempted to flee. According to witnesses, hundreds of people
— men, women and children — were killed.
14.2 The government's version of events differed
significantly from that of refugees who fled to Kyrgyzstan in
the direct aftermath of the events in Andizhan and to the testimonies
of other eye-witnesses. The government maintained that the security
forces did not kill any civilians and that all those civilians
who lost their lives were killed by armed "terrorists".
According to official figures, 187 people were killed in the violence.
The Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe's Office for Democratic Institutions
and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) estimated that between 300 and 500
people were killed. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights (OHCHR) reported that up to several hundred people
may have been killed.[31]
14.3 At the 23 May 2005 General Affairs and External
Relations Council (GAERC), Ministers strongly condemned the reported
excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by
the Uzbek security forces in Andizhan and expressed their deep
regret at the failure of the Uzbek authorities to respond adequately
to the UN's call for an independent international inquiry into
the events there. At the 13 June 2005 GAERC, Ministers again reiterated
their conviction that an independent international enquiry should
be held and urged the Uzbek authorities to reconsider their position
by the end of June 2005. On 18 July 2005 the Council expressed
its regret that the Uzbek authorities had not reconsidered their
position by the given deadline of the end of June and agreed to
consider measures against Uzbekistan following a visit to Uzbekistan
by EU Special Representative Mr Jan Kubis on 8-10 September.
14.4 In light of the continuing refusal of the Uzbek
authorities to allow an independent international inquiry into
the events in Andizhan, the 3 October GAERC decided to introduce
an embargo on exports to Uzbekistan of arms, military equipment
and equipment which might be used for internal repression, and
to implement restrictions on admission to the European Union aimed
at a number of listed individuals directly responsible for the
indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force in Andizhan.
The Council decided to implement these measures for an initial
period of one year. In the meantime, the Council would review
these measures in the light of any significant changes to the
current situation, in particular with regard to:
i) the conduct and outcome of then-ongoing trials
of those accused of precipitating and participating in the disturbances
in Andizhan;
ii) the situation regarding the detention and
harassment of those who had questioned the Uzbek authorities'
version of events in Andizhan;
iii) Uzbek co-operation with any independent,
international Rapporteur appointed to investigate the disturbances
in Andizhan;
iv) the outcome of any independent, international
inquiry; and
v) any action that demonstrated the willingness
of the Uzbek authorities to adhere to the principles of respect
for human rights, rule of law and fundamental freedoms.
14.5 We reported this background cleared the Common
Position and Council Regulation giving effect to this decision
on 26 October 2005.[32]
The Minister's letter
14.6 On 25 October 2006, the Minister for Europe
at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Geoffrey Hoon) wrote
to tell us that, with the sanctions due to expire in November,
the Uzbek authorities had belatedly offered to discuss Andizhan
and a separate human rights dialogue; these promises had not been
accompanied by any action to improve the human rights situation
on the ground; nevertheless, some Member States wanted to delay
a final decision until after the EU-Uzbekistan Co-operation Council
meeting on 6 November, with the following three options under
discussion:
i) extension of all sanctions for 12 months (UK
preferred option);
ii) extension of the arms embargo and visa list
for 12 months; and
iii) extension of the arms embargo for 12 months.
14.7 The Minister went on to explain that a sanctions
text was due for adoption at the GAERC on 13/14 November; given
this, the date of the Cooperation Council meeting and of the next
Committee meeting thereafter on 8 November, a final proposed text
would not be available in enough time for us to scrutinise the
Council Decision before it was adopted. There was, he said, a
need for the unbroken enforcement of EU sanctions against Uzbekistan;
he therefore hoped that we would understand, were he to agree
the Council Decision before scrutiny had been completed.
14.8 We felt that, on this occasion, the situation
was clearly not of either his or the Council Secretariat's making;
nor could this last minute offer have been confidently foreseen;
and that the right course of action was to see if the Uzbek authorities
had changed heart, or otherwise. In these very particular circumstances,
we therefore told the Minister that we would not object to what
he proposed, provided that he deposited the final text of the
Council Decision along with a full exposition of the background
to and reasons for the course of action chosen. He has now done
so in his Explanatory Memorandum of 21 November 2006.
The Council Common Position
14.9 The Minister says that debate on how to renew
the measures was "contentious, with wide divisions on the
appropriate steps", and that agreement was not reached until
Thursday 9 November. Consequently, the 13-14 November 2006 General
Affairs and External Relations Council agreed:
- in the light of no progress
against the October 2005 criteria and "against Uzebkistan's
appalling human rights record over the past year", to extend
the visa ban and arms embargo for 6 and 12 months respectively,
with both to be reviewed in 3 months time; and
- in recognition of the recent offers of dialogue
on the Andizhan events and on human rights, to lift the suspension
of technical meetings under the Partnership and Cooperaton Agreement.
The Government's view
14.10 The Minister says that "the UK stood firm"
at the 9 November discussions, persuading Member States that extension
of the visa ban and arms embargo was central to the credibility
of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy and sanctions policy,
but agreeing to lifting the suspension of technical meetings to
"take forward a structured dialogue on human rights under
the PCA through which to achieve substantive progress against
the October 2005 criteria". He also says that "the EU
will also take forward the proposal for a meeting on the Andizhan
events", and "will review progress in three months time
in the light of these discussions".
Conclusion
14.11 It is far from clear at present that there
has been a genuine change of heart on the part of the Uzbek authorities;
and also, given what the Minister calls a "clear deterioration
in the human rights situation", all too clear that it will
have to be significant over the next three months if any further
easing of EU policy is to be warranted.
14.12 In the meantime, we endorse the position
taken by the Minister for the reasons given, and are reporting
it to the House in view of the widespread concern at the events
in Uzbekistan with which it deals.
31 Information obtained from the Amnesty International
website: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR620212005. Back
32
See headnote. Back
| 
