Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
RT HON
IAN MCCARTNEY
MP, SUSAN HYLAND
AND STUART
ADAM
7 FEBRUARY 2007
Q80 Richard Younger-Ross: Moving
on to Israel and Hezbollah, the FCO report provides the number
of Israeli dead in the section of Israel, but it makes no mention
of the scale of the Lebanese suffering. Indeed, Human Rights Watch
notes that, during the fighting, the UK "refrained from serious
criticism of Israel", "resisted calls for the humanitarian
ceasefire" and "gave a green light to the transfer of
American weapons to Israel through the UK". It argues that
the Lebanese see the UK as complicit in the violence they suffered
and claims that "this lack of balance is perpetuated in the
FCO report". Considering that and considering that the Human
Rights Watch report does not include that information on the human
rights impact, including the hundreds of deaths of civilians as
a direct result of the military action in Lebanon, why is the
FCO report missing that detail? Why is it not more balanced? Usually,
such reports are excellent in their even-handedness.
Ian McCartney: I will answer both
points. I reject totally the description of the Government's engagement
in the Israel-Lebanon crisis. From the moment the crisis commenced,
we used all our diplomatic efforts in a range of forums to help
to end it. Indeed, in the end, this country was one of those that
had the capacity to get an international agreement within 31 days—that
is a terribly short time in which to get a sustainable international
agreement to end a crisis.
The annual human rights report covers the period
July 2005 to late August 2006. We said at the time of its publication—the
question was raised then fairly by some, but by others just to
produce knocking copy—and at the time of writing that many
of the details of the conflict were still unclear. Therefore,
we were able to insert a section about our efforts to bring about
the ceasefire, and I recommend people to look at it, because it
gives the lie to what has been said about us.
On our plans to help with the reconstruction,
we have added paragraphs to the section on Syria, rightly remarking
on its unhelpful role in supporting Hezbollah. We had concerns
about Israel's actions during the conflict, which we made public
at the time, and there is a large section in the report covering
other matters of concern in relation to Israel.
We gave a commitment on publication of that
report that in this year's report there will be full coverage
of the conflict and its consequences. There is no dodging that.
This year's report will include all the information on the whole
period and what has happened since.
Q81 Richard Younger-Ross: So the
next report will go into the detail of the impact on human rights
and of the civilians who died on the Lebanese side?
Ian McCartney: You will note that
all the reports in the past have been open and transparent; they
do not pull punches, and we did not pull punches at the time.
What we said, how we said it and what we have done since is all
in the public domain. Another aspect of this is that we are committing
ourselves to a substantial sum of money for security reform projects
in Lebanon. That is to help the Lebanese armed forces to respond
effectively to internal security issues. We are helping the Lebanese
Government to sustain themselves as an effective, democratic Government.
That has got to be important.
Q82 Richard Younger-Ross: Will the
report explain why the UK Government seem to be unable to use
the word "disproportionate" in relation to the Israeli
actions?
Ian McCartney: I will be frank:
that is a pejorative remark. The report will set out in graphic
detail a fair, effective, honest assessment of the issues involved
in the crisis, what our role was and what it has been since, some
of which is already in the public domain.
Chairman: Thank you. We turn now to Saudi
Arabia.
Q83 Mr. Purchase: The FCO report
on Saudi Arabia said that there is still cause for serious concern.
This Committee, rather more outspokenly, said that the human rights
situation in Saudi Arabia falls far short of universal standards,
yet Saudi Arabia remains on the United Nations Human Rights Council.
I should be asking whether it deserves its place. Before you answer
that, could I put it to you that, because you have the dual role
of being a Trade Minister and taking responsibility for the human
rights agenda, some people might see a conflict there?
I illustrate that by citing the recent difficulty,
which is now being debated in the House, of the al-Yamamah contract,
the investigation into which has now been put to one side. How
is it that we can say that we have serious concerns for human
rights in Saudi Arabia while at the same time the Prime Minister
says that the investigation into the al-Yamamah matter would be
"devastating" for our relationship with an important
country, and then continues to support Saudi Arabia on the UN
Human Rights Council? Some would call in aid the Scottish poet—was
it Burns?—who said, "Oh what a tangled web we weave,
when first we practise to deceive." Have we got into that
kind of mess?
Ian McCartney: No.
Mr. Purchase: Thank you for that answer.
Ian McCartney: On the issue of
my role, as I said at the outset, every Minister has got a role
and a responsibility for human rights, whether they are a Minister
dealing with agriculture, leisure or, in my instance, trade. The
truth of the matter in this globalised world is that human rights
are interwoven into all other foreign affairs activity. You cannot
have sustainable trade with a region or a country unless it has
effective, stable policies and the capacity for its citizens to
participate in enjoying the human rights that we sometimes take
for granted here.
If we were a Government who were in any way
unwilling to discuss with Saudi Arabia issues on human rights,
why have we got it in our annual report? If that was the case,
there would not be a section about Saudi Arabia in the report;
Ministers would not be talking to Saudi Arabia about its need
to improve its human rights activities. The report itself is the
answer. We engage with all countries about human rights and I
have never ducked one yet. I have not been to Saudi Arabia yet
but if I were to go, you can rest assured we would have an interesting
discussion.
Some countries will want to discuss human rights
with you in an open, transparent way and some countries are less
willing to do so, but it is important that we do. It is important
that they understand the reasons why we want to discuss human
rights with them. In the same way as discussing it with them,
it is also important to try to have a relationship and a dialogue
that will take forward human rights issues. Sometimes you can
count successes and sometimes you cannot.
We are trading nation with 1% of the world's
population in a globalised economy. We trade on an ethical basis.
That is why we have OECD rules; that is why we sign up to international
conventions; that is why we were one of the first countries in
the world to have a national contact point. By the way, I will
be announcing soon that that national contact point will be the
first Government body to include NGOs. It will report to the Government
on issues of investment in those areas where investments may have
been made in a way that was counter-productive to the needs of
the population—conflict diamonds in Africa, for example.
We are very much committed on an international
basis to a fair and transparent system, at the same time ensuring
that there is dialogue on issues such as human rights. What we
set out in the report about Saudi Arabia was quite wide ranging.
We talked about its judicial system, frequent reports of torture
and the ill-treatment of prisoners, corporal and capital punishment,
restriction on the freedom of religion and assembly and discrimination
against women and non-Muslims. That is a pretty long list to be
in a report in the public domain from a Government who are frightened
to talk to Saudi Arabia about human rights.
Q84 Mr. Purchase: Thank you for that
answer, Minister. I happen to have been to Saudi Arabia and I
was quite surprised at the enlightened attitude of the Saudi Arabian
business community in general. They were very anxious to cast
off the problem worldwide that they are seen as dodgy traders.
In fact, they would like to join the mainstream of world business
and they think they would do very well. But internally in 2005,
92 people were executed as opposed to 31 the year before. I was
lucky to avoid being the 93rd with my views on religion but, at
the same time, it is hardly a defensible record. However you set
out what the Foreign Office said in its report, and there is a
very strong smell of hypocrisy about the two positions we appear
to take on this matter.
Ian McCartney: I know you have
got to repeat your question, Mr. Purchase. The other thing that
it should have covered was the periodic review of the Human Rights
Council, which is an important tool in the hands of the international
community. To be able to be a member of the council, for the first
time ever countries such as Saudi Arabia will have to have a review
of their human rights record, their programme to improve it and
the time scale for doing so. That is a powerful international
weapon. I am concerned about improving relationships and creating
opportunities for the citizens of Saudi Arabia, and I would rather
they participate effectively and fully. With that participation,
in the next few years, we will see ongoing improvements in their
rights.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. We are
now going to make a brief foray into Latin America, and Sandra
Osborne is going to begin with Colombia.
Q85 Sandra Osborne: The armed conflict
in Colombia continues, as you know. It has been ongoing for over
30 years now, resulting in millions of people being displaced,
human rights abuses and murders, not least of trade unionists—something
that has increased in the past year. In 2005, the Colombian Congress
approved the justice and peace law, which it says is designed
to "balance the need to disarm, demobilise and reintegrate
ex-combatants from illegal armed groups with the rights of the
victims of the conflict to truth, justice and reparation".
The Colombian Government are one of the Governments who say that
they are prepared to engage with other countries in discussions
about their human rights record and their aims to improve it.
The FCO report states: "By August 2006, over 30,000 paramilitaries
had demobilised under the law." However, it notes that there
is "strong evidence to suggest that some demobilised paramilitaries
are forming new criminal groups". The justice and peace law
has been called into question by a number of people, including
the Justice for Colombia in the UK, which is strongly supported
by the trade union movement, not least because of the number of
trade unionists who have been murdered. The EU has supported that
law with reservations. I wonder whether you agree with Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch that the EU's financial support
for Colombia's justice and peace law should be conditional on
concrete results on genuine demobilisation and full accountability
for past abuses.
Ian McCartney: That is a fair
question. First, we are engaged, along with our EU partners, not
just with the Government but with civil society and trade unions
in that country. In fact, I believe that yesterday there was a
delegation here in the UK. Unfortunately, I was before the Select
Committee on Welsh Affairs talking about globalisation and was
unable to meet the delegation. We have a commitment to work closely
with them.
My colleague, Lord Triesman, visited Colombia
last September to have discussions with the Government about the
context of humanitarian law, the activities that we are undertaking
with them and the EU to develop approaches for them to rid themselves
of human rights abuses, and the action that they need to take
on effectively prosecuting not just those in the regime but those
outside it over a number of years. We have conducted discussions
with the Colombian Government, and we want them to put greater
emphasis on supporting the role of civil society in protecting
and encouraging the development of human rights defenders, and
to encourage and to stop undermining the role of trade unions,
the media and community leaders.
I am prepared to take your suggestion back to
our European colleagues and consider it. I was not party to the
original agreement—this may well have been part of it—but
the point that has been made in good faith is not that we do not
want to put money in, which we should, but that we need to ensure
that the money and dialogue are effective. We must get some movement
on that. I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the people
who made the comment, because I was not here. I am more than happy
to take back the comments that have been made with regard to the
situation.
I am not sure of the time scale of when a fresh
mandate comes in terms of EU and UK money, but I will come back
to that in any event. However, alongside that is another important
thing: we have supported the role of the office of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights. The mandate comes up this year,
and we want to make sure that Colombia agrees to extend it. It
is vitally important that it is extended, and the role of that
commissioner is crucial in that. I shall come back to that in
any event, but I take in good faith what has been said to the
Committee, and we will look at the matter to see whether something
practical can be done. Like the Committee, I want to try to ensure
that we get a return on the investment that we put in—not
in the financial sense, but in terms of human rights and civil
rights.
Sandra Osborne: That would be appreciated.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. We shall
now move on to Africa and we shall begin with Sudan.
Ian McCartney: I am suffering
from jet lag. Can I have 10 minutes?
Q86 Mr. Pope: I want briefly to talk
about Sudan, where the British Government have played an active
role, which is widely welcomed. As we all know, however, violence
and rape are still endemic as weapons of war in Darfur, and I
think that we all agree that a UN force of sufficient size to
make a difference needs to be deployed there with a remit to enforce
peace, but that seems some way off. I wonder whether you can tell
us the British Government's view of the likelihood of the deployment
of a UN force in Darfur. If such a force could be deployed, would
it be fatally comprised and undermined by the terms on which the
Sudanese Government would allow it to be deployed?
Ian McCartney: I think that that
is why the Human Rights Council decided to establish an expert
mission there; it gives an opportunity for the different stakeholders
in the region to take the steps for which we have been asking
for so long. There have been occasions on which we have almost
been there, but it has been rebutted and rebuffed and complications
have arisen. However it ends up, it always ends up with the people
of Sudan left in a worse place than they started. That has gone
on for far too long.
The mission is being led by Jody Williams, who
is a respected international activist, and it will travel to Sudan
this month and report back to us next month. We are encouraged
that the assessment mission, inadequate as it sounds, will help
us get to a different place, and I will advise the Committee as
soon as I can about that.[6]
4
There are still 2 million people in camps and
4 million needing aid and food, and they are still under attack
from both the Government and rebels. We will continue to be one
of the biggest donors of humanitarian aid in the area, if not
the biggest. We have been closely co-operating with African Union
peacekeepers and we are looking at UN re-enforcement. If that
fails, we will look to encourage even tougher measures. It is
important that we work with the African Union Mission in Sudan
and support it. Indeed, we have made an initial payment of £15
million pounds to AMIS to help it to play a more effective role,
so we are doing all that we can from the humanitarian end and
the logistical end, and in trying to find an agreed way forward
by utilising the latest effort by the Human Rights Council.
Q87 Mr. Pope: Let us turn now to
Zimbabwe. I know that you have an anti-apartheid background, as
do I. I well remember celebrating with exiles from southern Africa
on the night that Mugabe came to power in Zimbabwe. My first question
is: do you share the sense of betrayal—I cannot think of
a better word—that I feel about the fact that someone whose
victory we celebrated over a couple of decades ago, is now reduced
to torturing trade unionists? Is that not an absolute disgrace?
My second question relates to the role that
the British Government are playing in applying more pressure on
the squalid Mugabe regime. I know that we are doing a lot—and
we are also doing a lot behind the scenes—but do you think
that we are hindered in doing more by our colonial past? Is that
not a difficulty with diplomacy in southern Africa? It is difficult
to stand up and speak out for democratic change in Zimbabwe without
people making charges of colonialism against us.
Ian McCartney: I occasionally
invite to the Foreign Office ambassadors and high commissioners
from countries that we need to talk to about continuing problems
in their countries—that is the best way to put it—and
those are usually private discussions.
I am prepared, however, to share with you a
discussion that I had with the Ambassador from Zimbabwe. I put
to him the vital point made earlier about the continued charge
of the old empire kicking into Zimbabwe. Instead of allowing him
to play that card, as child of the Commonwealth, not of the empire,
and as a young activist, I told him of the joy I had in my heart
when Zimbabwe threw off the yoke of colonial rule. Millions of
survivors—men and women—came out of the bush to create
a new world for themselves. Many others we shall never meet because
they died.
I said to him, "You were a man in the bush.
You took part in those troubles. Why are you now turning your
guns, your secret police, army and other forces on the men and
women who created Zimbabwe?" It is a unique regime because
it is destroying the people who created it in the first place.
Unlike the ambassadors from North Korea and Burma who will defend
their Governments, it is interesting that his body language showed
that he knew that it was wrong. I do not want to get him into
trouble with Mr. Mugabe, but he knows that it is wrong.
I recently met some Zimbabwean trade union leaders.
Those men—one in particular—were still suffering from
the physical damage done to them. We are in regular contact not
just with the trade unions, but the women's movement, whose members
are increasingly suffering violence. Apart from the violence,
it seems incredible to me that a country that once might have
been a democratic nation in the world of nations, and which could
not only feed itself but the rest of Africa, can no longer feed
its own people.
I do not think that this is about our colonial
past. The fact that the trade union, civil rights and women's
movements and others in Zimbabwe look to us to support and help
them, gives the lie to that. They know that that is a ploy being
deployed by Mugabe and Co. and that it is a bankrupt ploy. And
his rhetoric is bankrupt rhetoric. We are doing all that we can
with our colleagues in southern Africa and other places who have
logistical levers—I am not talking about armed forces—that
could help resolve the situation sooner rather than later.
Both myself and the Foreign Secretary will be
going to southern Africa, although not together—I suspect
that she is going before me. One of the reasons I am going is
to talk to the key people about what other steps can be taken
to resolve the situation in Zimbabwe. Alongside that, it is important
for the future development of economic ties between the states
of southern Africa and the European Union that we have a comprehensive
and effective trade arrangement that takes into account economic
development and builds the capacity of those countries in southern
Africa to develop human rights awareness. I believe that there
is an appetite in that region for developing such a strategy,
and I hope that we can develop one. I am not yet privy to the
Secretary of State's full programme, but I am certain that she
will take the opportunity, as will I, to try to find ways and
means to assist the Zimbabwean people to end their nightmare.
Q88 Chairman: As you know, Minister,
human rights in China featured prominently in last week's Westminster
Hall debate on the Committee's report entitled "East Asia",
and I should like to return to an aspect of that.
The critical human rights requirement is undoubtedly
to ensure that the outside world—the non-Chinese world—is
informed about human rights abuse in China. The role of foreign
journalists and foreign news agencies is critical in that, and
the Committee is deeply concerned about the degree of restriction
that is still being imposed on them. There are indications that
the Chinese authorities want to get their house slightly more
in order in that area, in the run up to the Olympic games, when
they will be under unprecedented scrutiny in every respect.
Will the British Government, with other free
democracies around the world, take every possible step to ensure
that any relaxation of such restrictions that the Chinese authorities
agree for the Olympic games is not just on a transitory basis
for the period of the games, followed by a clampdown, but permanent?
Ian McCartney: We have just been
having our latest human rights dialogue sessions with China, and
I can give a quick picture on that.
There has been a three-day dialogue, and on
one day I met the Chinese delegation and raised eight issues.
There is continuing work with the Chinese on abolition of the
death penalty, and I want a moratorium while the work continues.
We are having some success on changes, transparency, and reduction
in the number of capital crimes. A parallel issue is that of the
rights of public defenders—investment in them, protection
of them, cessation of harassment, and provision of public defenders
for ethnic minorities in China. We have asked the Chinese to put
in place a work programme on implementation of international covenants,
including that on civil and political rights. I told them that
we welcome the work that has been done, including technical and
practical work in which we have invested. At some point, however,
we want to see implementation. We have achieved some progress
on opening the role of civil society, and we are seeking to undertake
a project with them on the engagement of civil society.
On press freedom, I specifically asked the Chinese
to consider one point, which I will follow up at ministerial level.
8 October is the date before the Olympics from which press restrictions
will be relaxed, and I told them that they should take that as
an opportunity to start the process of not reimposing such restrictions.
The Chinese delegate listened politely.
I know that Greg Pope showed frustration when
he made his contribution. I do not mean that negatively—he
is passionate about the dialogue and when it should end. I want
to say, however, that there are some elements that would love
the dialogue to end. Difficult as it is, we are obtaining progress.
There are projects in place, we are investing resources, and we
are getting returns. Later this year, when I have my next discussion
with the Committee, I will provide an update both about discussions
on that and on human and civil rights—a number of which
I have not raised today but which are relevant to the Committee.
Chairman: Thank you.
Q89 Richard Younger-Ross: I know
that you are talking about China and Africa but I just urge you
in your discussions also to raise the situation in Tibet.
Ian McCartney: Yes, I actually
sent a letter to Sir John—yesterday, I think—inviting
him and Committee Members to meet me for a detailed discussion
about Tibet so that I can decide whether to put it more at the
core of the issues that I will be discussing with the Chinese
community. Sir John, that letter to you is in the system somewhere,
so I look forward to that meeting.
Q90 Richard Younger-Ross: Thank you.
China is also a big international player, particularly in Sudan,
as mentioned earlier. What discussions are we having with China
to try and get them to play a more proactive role in guaranteeing
human rights in Africa—in countries such as Sudan? While
it clearly has no influence over the Sudanese Government, it could
help bring some relief to that beleaguered country.
Ian McCartney: Yes, we are putting
in place a working group of officials as a first stage for, not
just a dialogue, but as much co-operation between China and the
rest of the international community as we can get, on conflict
resolution and openness about trade and trade negotiations, investments
and loans.
China is a legitimate player in Africa and we
would all welcome its investment in infrastructure. We need to
make sure that any arrangements it makes are WTO compliant and
do not undermine the short to medium-term ability of the countries
concerned to build up their own capacity, indigenous work force,
businesses or trades.
It is also important that China recognises that
responsibilities as well as rights come with being a member of
the United Nations Human Rights Council, the World Trade Organisation
and the World Health Organisation. It played an active part in
the Commission for Africa. This weekend I had discussions with
the Chinese ambassador on this matter, to work out how to take
this work forward.
I know the gentleman well and have a good working
relationship with him. He is a great advocate for his country
but is also a very honest and transparent diplomat. From our discussions,
I am certain that there is genuine willingness in the Chinese
community to have, not just an appropriate dialogue, but to see
if we can co-ordinate, alongside other international efforts,
a long- term investment strategy for Africa and for the other
matters that I have raised.
My final point is that China has, for the first
time in a long time, put additional resources into peacekeeping.
That is an important development for which we should thank and
congratulate it. It is a major step forward as is China's involvement
with North Korea and the six-party talks and on Iran. We are still
not quite there on Burma, although, even in that case, there is
an open and transparent admission that something has to happen.
Dialogue does work in the end and I am not being too optimistic
or glassy-eyed when I say that.
The point about Africa is not just well meant,
we have to ensure that we do not get into another cycle of soft
loans leading to the problems that we have seen with other issues.
As we speak, the President of China is on an extensive tour of
a range of countries. That tour follows up China's Africa conference
in Beijing last November, which was attended by 48 countries and
at which decisions on just over £5 billion, in soft loans
and other agreements, were reached.
One of the concerns is that a substantial proportion
of their oil reserves come from conflict zones. These are big
issues, but I am certain that China will have that dialogue and,
hopefully, I will report back to the Committee on the details.
It is not just a dialogue with ourselves; it is a dialogue with
others as well.
The Chairman: Thank you, Minister. You
mentioned Burma, which we will now come to.
Q91 Mr. Keetch: In Burma the situation
is bad and getting worse. The FCO report said that there has been
a deterioration in the human rights situation in the past year
and there are continuing, credible reports of torture. Can I turn
to the international community's response to Burma, specifically
to the two UN votes?
I applaud what the UK Government did on resolution
16233, which was passed by the General Assembly in, I think, December
2005. Yet, a few months ago, in January, a US draft resolution
was vetoed by China and also by Russia. Human Rights Watch told
us that it believes that that US resolution was brought too soon,
that its wording almost invited a veto from Russia and China and,
as a result, the Burmese Government are now able to hide behind
Russia and China in some kind of defence of their position. Do
you share that concern, or do you think that it would, perhaps,
have been better to have waited until China and Russia were at
least in a position of abstaining, rather than pushing for a vote
that did not force them but invited them to veto it?
Ian McCartney: No, I do not share
it and I shall explain why. Despite the vote, which was disappointing,
the fact was that even among those that voted against—one
abstained, I think—there was still an overwhelming expression
of the need for Burma to make a move towards working with the
UN, not just the Security Council, but the range of UN rapporteurs
that it needs to work with. Yes, there is always the risk, with
a veto, of a particular country trying to use that, and I am quite
certain that Burma will attempt that. But it is interesting, alongside
that, to consider the ASEAN conference.
ASEAN has said little, until recently, about
Burma. At the meeting in Finland, it acquiesced with a very strong
resolution on the need to move. But it went a bit further than
that, as I understand it, and the President of the Philippines
and others made it absolutely clear to Burma that it cannot use
the veto, that time is running out and it needs to do something.
Therefore, it is important. If you simply run around on the basis
that in all circumstances of a veto you do not speak out, you
might as well sit on your hands. Extensive discussions and negotiations
took place—as always happens in these cases—and you
can rest assured that the words spoken there were that it should
be given the best shot possible. There are other international
pressures at play in the region—China and India—for
different reasons. It is important, overwhelmingly, that we keep
putting Burma in the spotlight and that we keep the United Nations
putting Burma in the spotlight.
Recently, Mr. Gambari went to Burma on behalf
of the UN. I met him afterwards. It is important, after his visit,
that we continue the pressure, if it is going to try to persuade
the international community that the discussions that it is having
about moving to democracy are real—looking at the proposals
that it is putting forward—and it still prevents any viable,
democratic institutions from being created or any viable, democratic,
accountable independent elections taking place. It is still keeping
Aung San Suu Kyi and others in custody. It is an appalling regime.
A few days ago, I met some very brave people
from two areas of Burma—who have left for a moment where
they were—along with NGOs. These people, by the way, go
back into Burma and have families in there. I have no doubt that,
if they were caught by the Burmese, they would suffer the consequences.
They were absolutely delighted that we had stuck our neck out
and want us to continue to do so, because it gives them hope that
people are still listening to them. It gives them hope that one
day soon the Burmese Government will move into the 21st century.
Q92 Chairman: Before we leave Burma,
should any credence be given to the press reports that the Burmese
authorities are seeking to remove the remaining Christian community
from that country?
Ian McCartney: I have met representatives
of the Christian community, and they are certainly under a great
deal of pressure. As I understand it—I say this with caution
because I am giving you second-hand information that comes from
Christian activists and NGOs working in the region—on religious
freedom, there was a move recently in at least one province to
close down churches in villages and townships and to utilise a
large number of non-Christian religious leaders who have the support
of the Burmese regime to go into those areas to speak to and intimidate
Christians. I received that unconfirmed report a few days ago
when I met some representatives of the Christian community.
Q93 Mr. Pope: Pakistan is obviously
playing a crucial role in the fight against the Taliban, and it
is safe and fair to say that the Pakistan army is probably taking
more casualties than any of the allies in the fight against the
Taliban. There was particularly fierce fighting in the South Waziristan
and the Afghan border areas, involving the Pakistan armed forces.
The downside to that, of course, is the knock-on effect on human
rights in precisely those areas around the Pakistan-Afghan border.
We have heard reports of torture being endemic, people disappearing,
and the Pakistan security force, the ISI—Inter-Services
Intelligence—acting with impunity.
That is a matter of real concern because, if
the war on terror is anything, it is a battle for human rights
and extending human rights into Afghanistan. It cannot possibly
be right to pay the price by allowing human rights abuses to take
place in the fight for human rights. In that context, I was puzzled,
and some of the people who gave evidence to this Committee were
perplexed, that Pakistan is not listed as a country of concern
in the Foreign Office's annual human rights report. It seemed
to us—it was, at least, arguable—that other countries
with a slightly better human rights record were listed, whereas
Pakistan was not. Could you say a word about that?
Ian McCartney: I recently visited
Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, but had to come back to the House
before I went to Sri Lanka. Before I went out, I met NGOs covering
all four countries and had a detailed discussion about their priorities
and the issues to be raised in each country.
In Pakistan, I met Prime Minister Aziz and followed
that up with a detailed letter and notes about the issues of concern.
I also expressed in the letter that those concerns had been expressed
to us by communities in the UK that are committed to Pakistan
and its well-being. I am waiting for a response.
While I was there, it was interesting that a
great deal of discussion took place, and the Government held firm
and passed the Women's Protection Bill. That was a significant
step for women's rights. They were very firm about that, and about
the potential for doing other things, although public meetings
were organised and demonstrations were held against the Government
for having passed it. I was encouraged by that. When I was there,
I welcomed their agreement to address the issue of blasphemy legislation
being used against minorities and to encourage a programme of
further reform on discriminatory legislation. They are working
very closely with us—we have provided resources—to
deal with forced marriage, abductions and honour killings.
There was an interesting decision a few weeks
ago, when a court decided that a child should be returned to the
UK for the determination. Pakistan has not yet recognised The
Hague convention, but that decision was in line with it. If I
had been asked even two or three years ago whether I expected
that to happen, the answer would have been no.
A great deal is going on in Pakistan; we are
engaged with it and will continue to be. At the same time—not
just because of the Taliban coming in from Afghanistan—the
Government their have to deal with very effective internal terrorist
organisations. The Government are committed to general elections,
to parliamentary elections, and to a forward programme—not
linked to human rights, but important in terms of international
commitments—for the opening up of financial services in
other sectors of the economy. That is an important process in
terms of interesting inward investors not just in general investment
but in investment involving corporate responsibility.
It was a short visit, but I was more encouraged
than I had been before I went. Since then, I have sat down with
the NGOs for the four countries concerned and shared with them
the discussions that I had and the work programme that I put in
place.
The final point—I know that you did not
ask about it, but it is on an initiative that I have taken—is
on Bangladesh. I am trying to put a programme in place.
Q94 Chairman: We want to cover two
more countries, and a Division is coming up, so could we come
to them?
Ian McCartney: Yes, I am not trying
to divert you. I shall come back another day.
Chairman: It is just the time factor.
We want to cover Russia now, and then we will come to the overseas
territories.
Q95 Mr. Purchase: The FCO clearly
gives great significance to Russia—12 pages in the report.
I scarcely need remind you of the issues: Chechnya, the restriction
on NGOs, the deaths of Politkovskaya and Litvinenko. Those are
serious matters, clearly indicating that all is not well in Russia
in terms of human rights, as are the move of Putin to become more
authoritarian, the greater secrecy, the development of oligarchies,
the imprisonments and so on. However, I must say that Putin is
a fantastic improvement on Yeltsin, who was yet another choice
of the west with our unerring ability to pick up drunks and warmongers.
We last recommended that the Government should
make it clear to President Putin and other Russian authorities
that the creeping return to authoritarianism that is regularly
reported is not an acceptable policy to pursue. Can you tell us,
first, what action, if any, was taken as a result of that and
secondly, whether you accept—in a way we are back to the
Saudi Arabia question—that serious and difficult compromises
have to be made with Russia, particularly as an energy supplier,
and that that might be at the expense of the human rights agenda?
If so, how can we best protect that agenda?
Chairman: Briefly, please.
Ian McCartney: I shall be brief.
I shall come back another day to speak about energy being used
as a hard foreign policy option by Russia; that is another debate.
On 22 January, I participated in a human rights
dialogue with Russia's human rights negotiator. It was a full
and frank discussion, as they always are. We are engaged on a
whole range of issues. For brevity reasons, I will write a note
to the Committee.[7]
5
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. Now, the
question that you have been waiting for.
Q96 Andrew Mackinlay: The human rights
policy of this Labour Government is that we should combat gender
discrimination. In Bermuda, the commander-in-chief is the Governor
and the Deputy Governor, who is a Foreign and Commonwealth Office
diplomat, is ex officio on the Defence Board of Bermuda. Bermuda
currently has conscription, which is exclusively for males who
are chosen by ballot. I put to you, Minister, that even if we
consider conscription to be acceptable, how is it consistent with
our Labour Government's gender anti-discrimination policies that
we should have the conscription of just males?
Ian McCartney: First of all, the
European convention on human rights allows for conscription, in
that there is an exclusion in the section that deals with slavery
and forced labour. I think that is because some countries in the
European Community still have national service.
Q97 Andrew Mackinlay: May I just
interrupt? I was aware of that. The issue is the Labour Government's
policy on gender discrimination, not the ECHR.
Ian McCartney: I was setting it
down in the context of the question that I thought you were alluding
to. Secondly, the position of the Bermuda Government and Parliament
is a matter for them. We do not have conscription here and we
do not have discrimination. We have a very strong view of that.
There are discussions with other countries where we are almost
encouraging them to look at what we are doing. We have a good
record. This is a matter for the Bermudian Parliament and Government
to determine, not ourselves.
Q98 Andrew Mackinlay: But Minister,
your appointees—one, the Governor, who is the commander-in-chief,
and the other, the Deputy Governor, a Foreign and Commonwealth
Office diplomat—are on the defence board.
Ian McCartney: The responsibility
for the regiment is with the Ministers of Bermuda, and has been
since 1989. It is not our responsibility. Why should it be? We
are not a colonial power in that respect. They have the legal
right to establish this force, and they have established it. They
have a legal right to set out who can be conscripted into it and
who cannot. That is a matter for them and will remain a matter
for them.
Q99 Andrew Mackinlay: If you recall
the discussions earlier, when we touched upon Zimbabwe, it reminded
me of the fact that Harold Wilson's Government deeply regretted
that they did not exercise their powers of competence over the
Rhodesian armed forces, which was a similar situation. They had
the power, they did not use it and that left them in some difficulty.
That is a matter for history, but the constitutional position
is that you have ultimate responsibility for this issue and you
are acquiescing in a discrimination that you would not tolerate
in Dunbartonshire or West Lancashire or Thurrock.
Ian McCartney: You are a bit short
in your geography and in your history. Comparing the Bermudian
force of 300, which is used in times of problems from hurricanes
and stuff, with the Rhodesian uprising against the whole black
community is a ridiculous point to make. The reality here is that
the Bermuda Parliament and Government have a constitutional and
legal right to establish this force. They have done and they are
entitled to do so. They also have a legal right to determine who
they will recruit to it. That is their right. From my point of
view, that is the end of the matter.
Chairman: Minister, thank you very much
indeed. We hope that we have not left you too giddy with jet lag
as you have gone round the world several times.
Ian McCartney: I will need a new
passport.
Chairman: We are grateful to you, and
to Miss Hyland and Mr. Adam for accompanying you. Thank you very
much indeed.
6 4 Ev 129 Back
7
5 Ev 86 Back
| 
