Afghanistan
93. The United Kingdom started to deploy troops in
Helmand Province in the south of Afghanistan in February 2006
as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF);
full operational capability was reached on 1 July. The FCO Report
makes reference to the "more demanding" security situation
in the south as compared to the rest of Afghanistan.[125]
94. The Report goes on to outline the Government's
human rights work in Afghanistan, including the promotion of women's
rights through the Global Opportunities Fund and (during the British
Presidency of the EU) two formal demarches concerning opposition
to the death penalty and free speech. Since 2001, DFID has spent
£390 million in Afghanistan, which makes the United Kingdom
the second largest donor.[126]
95. In its written evidence, Human Rights Watch raised
concerns about the reliance of the Afghan government and its international
allies on "war criminals, human rights abusers, and drug
traffickers."[127]
Amnesty International highlighted the appointment of individuals
with "well-known records of human rights abuse" to various
posts, including governors or heads of provincial police forces.[128]
In a meeting with the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission
during a visit to Afghanistan in November 2006, members of the
Committee were told that 90% of Afghans would like to see real
justice and would view the removal of warlords as a step in the
right direction. In our Report on the FCO's 2005 human rights
report, we noted "major concerns" at the lack of judicial
process against human rights abusers in Afghanistan.[129]
96. President Karzai approved the Action Plan for
Peace, Reconciliation and Justice on 12 December 2005. This includes
a justice and accountability mechanism. However, The Times
reported on 2 February 2007 that,
warlords in the Afghan parliament have granted
themselves an amnesty from human rights charges in a move that
has shocked the country's Western backers. [
] The rule states
that anyone who fought against the Soviet Army in the 1980s cannot
be prosecuted. If approved by the Upper House, the legislation
would trigger a review of international human rights treaties
signed recently by Afghanistan, and anyone who described an MP
as a warlord would risk prosecution. [130]
The
Times report also noted that the UN had issued a stinging
rebuke. It said: "The suffering of victims must be acknowledged
for national reconciliation to succeed. No one has the right to
forgive those responsible for human rights violations other than
the victims themselves." The United Kingdom apparently believed
that President Karzai would veto the law.[131]
97. When we asked Ian McCartney to comment on the
new law, his response was very forthright:
It is extremely unhelpful and in the long term
it does not engender what we need to engender, which is trust
and respect for the new, emerging democratic structures in Afghanistan.
[it] goes against the whole grain of what we are trying
to do and to work with, of what the international community is
trying to do and of what [President Karzai] and this Government
are committed to do.[132]
We share the Government's concerns about steps to
declare an amnesty for warlords in Afghanistan's parliament, and
we welcome the strong position Ministers have taken on this issue.
98. However, we remain concerned by the
lack of progress in achieving basic human rights in large sections
of Afghan society and we recommend that in the Annual Human Rights
Report 2007, the Government provide statistics on incidence of
rape, honour killings and other abuses against women in Afghanistan.
CIVILIAN CASUALTIES
99. Another area of concern is the impact on the
civilian population in Afghanistan of increasing military engagement
between NATO forces and the Taliban and other militia groups.
The US Air Force dropped more bombs in the six months leading
to December than in the whole first three years of fighting the
Taliban, according to Pentagon figures.[133]
100. Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai wept in
the course of a televised speech in December, saying: "We
can't prevent the terrorists coming from Pakistan. We can't prevent
the [NATO] coalition from bombing terrorists. And our children
are dying because of that."[134]
An estimated 4,000 people died from violence in Afghanistan in
2006; roughly 1,000 of these were civilians. A NATO spokesperson
has said the organisation is looking to curb civilian casualties
as a matter of urgency.[135]
Despite six pages on human rights in Afghanistan in the FCO Report,
there is little reference to this disturbing situation.
101. In evidence to us, Tom Porteous of Human Rights
Watch discussed civilian deaths caused by NATO actions. He argued
that "it is very important that compensation should be paid
promptly to the families of those who were killed and injured,
in order not to alienate entirely the civilian population in those
areas."[136] Human
Rights Watch has previously noted that the US already runs a compensation
programme in Afghanistan, which does not assign blame but provides
condolence payments to families that have suffered losses in US
operations. Human Rights Watch said "there's no reason it
shouldn't be NATO policy as well."[137]
102. We asked the Minister why NATO did not have
a policy of compensation comparable to that operated by the American
forces in Afghanistan.[138]
The Minister wrote back to us,
It is the national responsibility of each ISAF
troop-contributing nation to pay compensation for valid claims
related to civilian casualties. The UK believes it important that
compensation claims are considered quickly by allies and compensation
is paid promptly in accordance with legal liability. To assist
in the thorough and expedient resolution of claims, it is normal
procedure for the Ministry of Defence to deploy an Area Claims
Officer (ACO) to those NATO operations where the UK is a contributing
nation. The ACO is responsible for handling all but the most serious
compensation claims. Those claims involving death or serious injury
are handled by the Ministry of Defence in the UK because of their
complex and sensitive nature and to ensure a consistent approach
in their handling.[139]
103. We recommend that in its response to this
Report the Government set out how much compensation it has paid
to civilian victims of British military operations in Afghanistan,
to how many persons such payments have been made, and in what
circumstances. We also recommend that the Government state what
steps it has taken to remind its NATO allies of the need to pay
compensation in appropriate cases.
72 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights
Annual Report 2006, Cm 6916, October 2006, p 180 Back
73
Ibid, p 189 Back
74
"Ministers accused of sidestepping torture ban", The
Guardian, 2 November 2006 Back
75
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Nineteenth Report of session
2005-06, The UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), HC
185/HC 701, paras 126-131 Back
76
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report
2006, Cm 6916, October 2006, p 181 Back
77
See "Undermining the Torture Ban", www.hrw.org and "UK
human rights: a broken promise", www.amnesty.org Back
78
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Nineteenth Report of session
2005-06, The UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), HC
185/HC 701, paras 126-131 Back
79
Q 29 Back
80
Q 30 Back
81
Q 65 Back
82
Q 66 Back
83
Ev 84-85 Back
84
"UK/Algeria: Deals must not mean returning suspects to face
torture", www.amnesty.org Back
85
Ev 85-86 Back
86
Ev 58 Back
87
Foreign Affairs Committee, First Report of Session 2005-06, Human
Rights Annual Report 2005, HC 574, para 58 Back
88
Q 67 Back
89
Ev 87 Back
90
See, for example, Foreign Affairs Committee, Fourth Report of
Session 2004-05, Human Rights Annual Report 2004, HC 109,
paras 94-106; Foreign Affairs Committee, First Report of Session
2005-06, Human Rights Annual Report 2005, HC 574, paras
54-58 Back
91
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report
2006, CM 6916, October 2006 Back
92
Speech of 6 September 2006; see www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-3.html Back
93
Ev 95 Back
94
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report
2006, Cm 6916, October 2006, p 181 Back
95
Foreign Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2006-07, Visit
to Guantánamo Bay, HC 206 Back
96
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Second Report of Foreign Affairs
Committee Session 2006-2007, Visit to Guantánamo Bay, Response
of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs,
Cm 7063, March 2007 Back
97
Report of the Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European
countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention
of prisoners, p13, (2006/2200(INI)), available at www.europarl.europa.eu Back
98
Q 68 Back
99
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report
2006, Cm 6916, October 2006, p 182 Back
100
Ev 5, para 25 Back
101
Ev 49 Back
102
See www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/intelligence Back
103
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report
2006, Cm 6916, October 2006, p 68 Back
104
Ibid, p 69 Back
105
Report of the Iraq Study Group, p10, available at www.usip.org/isg Back
106
Ev 27 Back
107
Ev 98, para 8.2 Back
108
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report
2006, Cm 6916, October 2006 Back
109
Ibid, p 70 Back
110
"Marines charged in alleged massacre of Iraqis", Financial
Times, 22 December 2006 Back
111
"Marines in Haditha: Locals not focused on alleged '05 massacre",
Stars and Stripes, 4 March 2007 Back
112
Ev 50; Ev 54 Back
113
Written evidence from the Ministry of Defence to the Defence Committee
and Foreign Affairs Committee,
HC (2006-07) 209-i, Ev 20 Back
114
Ev 49 Back
115
Q 24 Back
116
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report
2006, Cm 6916, October 2006, p 77 Back
117
Foreign Affairs Committee, First Report of Session 2005-06, Human
Rights Annual Report 2005, HC 574 Back
118
Ev 27 Back
119
Ev 20, para 139 Back
120
"Saddam hanged: Reaction in quotes", BBC News, 30 December
2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk Back
121
"Government hails Saddam verdict", BBC News, 5 November
2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk Back
122
Q 71 Back
123
Q 70 Back
124
Q 73 Back
125
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report
2006, Cm 6916, October 2006 Back
126
Ibid, pp30-35 Back
127
Ev 27 Back
128
Ev 14, para 94 Back
129
Foreign Affairs Committee, First Report of Session 2005-06, Human
Rights Annual Report 2005, HC 574 Back
130
"Warlords declare amnesty on their murderous past",
The Times, 2 February 2007 Back
131
Ibid Back
132
Q 74; Q 76 Back
133
"Wave of civilian deaths hit Afghan support for NATO",
Financial Times, 16 December 2006 Back
134
"Dark days ahead for Kabul", The Guardian, 20
December 2006 Back
135
"Wave of civilian deaths hit Afghan support for NATO",
Financial Times, 16 December 2006 Back
136
Q 28 Back
137
http://hrw.org Back
138
Q 76 Back
139
Ev 86 Back