Letter to the Parliamentary Relations
Team, Foreign and Commonwealth Office from the Committee Specialist
When he gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs
Committee for its inquiry into Global Security: Japan and Korea—on
2 July, Lord Malloch-Brown agreed to provide further information
on two points. You and I agreed that I would write to clarify
the information required. As the Committee's inquiry draws to
a close, I would also like to take the opportunity to request
further information on two additional points arising from Lord
Malloch-Brown's evidence. The Committee would be grateful for
a reply by 1 September.
The issues on which the Committee would like
further information are as follows:
1. China's human rights obligations
regarding North Korean emigrants. In his evidence, Lord Malloch-Brown
acknowledged that China treated North Koreans discovered in China
as illegal economic migrants, and habitually returned them to
North Korea without consideration of individual cases. Lord Malloch-Brown
said that it was for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to
determine whether China's practice in this respect represented
a breach of its obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention
and 1967 Protocol, but that he was "happy to go back and
look at this again" (Q 125) and would "find out where
the UNHCR is on this" (Q 126). Please could the FCO set out:
the mechanism whereby the UNHCR would make any determination that
a State Party was in breach of the Refugee Convention or its Protocol;
the mechanisms available to the UNHCR or other UN bodies for enforcing
observance of the Convention and its Protocol; whether the UNHCR
or any other UN body has publicly expressed a view on China's
practice regarding North Korean emigrants; and what action the
UK has taken on this issue in UN forums. It would also be helpful
if the FCO could confirm whether the Government considers that
China is obliged to observe the principle of "non-refoulement"
with respect only to persons it has recognised as refugees, or
to all non-nationals on its territory.
2. UN Command (Korea). In Qq 127-30,
the Minister and his official discussed with Members the future
of UN Command (Korea) and the UK's role in it. Ms Gisela Stuart
MP said that she was happy for the Minister to write to the Committee
with further information on this issue. In particular, the Committee
would like information on whether and how the US and South Korea
are informing or consulting with the UK, as a member of UN Command
(Korea) and UNCMAC, on the reconfiguration of the US-South Korea
Combined Forces Command in the run-up to its planned disbandment
in 2012. In addition:
— The Committee understands that the
UK has on occasion provided junior officers to the UNCMAC Joint
Duty Office in the Joint Security Area. What is the Government's
policy on the future provision of such officers?
— The Committee understands that until
December 2007 the UK provided the international officer whom UN
Command (Korea) is obliged to have stationed at its rear headquarters
in Japan, but that the UK officer has now been withdrawn and that
members of the Command are now providing the officer for one year
at a time in rotation. What is the Government's policy on the
future provision of the Command's international officer at the
Command's rear headquarters in Japan? Has a commitment been secured
from a UN Command member state to provide the officer in 2009?
3. South Korea-EU Free Trade Agreement
negotiations. In his evidence, Head of Eastern Group Stephen
Lillie confirmed that the negotiations on the South Korea-EU free
trade agreement had not yet reached a point where the UK or the
EU had been required to take a view on the treatment which the
agreement should extend to goods produced at the Kaesong Industrial
Complex. Lord Malloch-Brown invited the Committee to express a
view on this issue (Qq 150, 151). It would be helpful if the FCO
could indicate its anticipated timetable for the further negotiations
on the agreement, within the EU and with South Korea. When does
the Government expect to have to reach a firm view on this question
for the purposes of agreeing the EU's negotiating position?
4. Japanese inward investment and the
points-based immigration system. In his evidence, Lord Malloch-Brown
said that he "personally spend[s] an awful lot of time lobbying
the Home Office" so as to prevent the UK's introduction of
a point-based immigration system from having a negative impact
on Japanese inward investment (Q 143). Please supply more detailed
information about the potential problem, and about the FCO's work
with the Home Office on this issue. What representations has the
Government received from third parties, in either the UK or Japan,
about this matter? Is the FCO confident that the issue has been
or is being resolved to its satisfaction?
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
31 July 2008
| 
