Submission by Amnesty International UK
to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Consultation: New Diplomacy-Challenges
for Foreign Policy
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Amnesty International is a worldwide membership
movement. Amnesty International's vision is of a world in which
every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights
instruments. In pursuit of this vision, Amnesty International's
mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing
and ending grave abuses of these rights.
Amnesty International welcomes the opportunity
to comment on the thinking on a new diplomacy within the Foreign
Office and the foreign policy challenges facing the UK today.
The global challenges facing the UK are both many and disparate.
We would identify three broad interlocking challenges: insecurity,
inequality and interdependence. Most obviously, insecurity stems
from the threat of terrorism and armed groups, but it also derives
from the dangers of poor governance, availability of weapons and
poverty. Poverty also lies at the heart of inequality, as do resource
disparities, gender imbalances and conflicts between individuals
and minorities on the one hand and states and powerful multinationals
on the other. Finally, interdependence now means that what the
UK does affects the rest of the world, and what happens many miles
away can have serious and far-reaching consequences for British
interests. One theme common to all these challenges is human rights
abuse.
FCO PRIORITIES
Our primary concern is that promoting human
rights should once again be made a core strategic priority at
the FCO. The government urgently needs to reassert the UK's standing
in the world and this will require principled leadership and vision.
What the UK is seen to do around the world is important. With
many countries looking to the UK, it really matters if the UK
compromises its position on human rights.
Human rights should be asserted as a core part
of the foreign policy framework. Instead of allowing human rights
to be the scapegoat of populist appeals, the enduring worth and
importance of human rights should be reasserted. This would include
recognition that promoting human rights both domestically and
internationally is in the UK's best interest; there is no just
or durable alternative framework. This approach would work to
undermine the disingenuous logic behind arguments that human rights
are somehow superfluous in this time of heightened security threat
and are a luxury that can be disposed of as soon as people feel
threatened.
The issues identified by the Foreign Secretary
(tackling the causes and consequences of extremism, radicalisation
and conflict; shaping a sustainable global response to the challenge
of climate change and the need for low carbon economic development;
and building a more effective EU to help build prosperity and
security) all have a human rights dimension. To take just the
first, human rights have an important role to play in resolving
some of the conflicts around the world and in the approach adopted
by the UK government. Setting clear human rights benchmarks will
be essential if there is to be any end to the bloodshed in Iraq.
The Iraqi government, and those who support it, must work to disarm
the militias, reform the police, review the justice system, stop
sectarian discrimination and ensure the equal rights of women.
To date, the Iraqi government has shown little commitment to protect
the human rights of all Iraqis. The Iraqi police force is feeding
violations rather than restraining them, while the justice system
is woefully inadequate. Similarly, human rights will be key to
any lasting resolution of the conflict between Israel and the
Palestinians. No truce will survive and no political process will
succeed in the Middle East if impunity is not addressed, and human
rights and security of people are not prioritised. As the most
influential EU member on Middle East policy, the UK must demand
concrete and measurable action from Israel and the Palestinian
Authority.
Human rights should always be a priority in
the UK's relationship with key strategic partners and international
players. This should hold true whether this entails telling difficult
truths to close allies or pushing unpopular agendas with obstinate
international states. Taking the example of China, in the run
up to the Olympics, it is critical that the UK government press
China to uphold commitments made when it won the bid to host the
games. There is a time and place for quiet private diplomacy.
However, at times what is required is robust and forthright public
criticism of human rights abuses. In its relations with states
that abuse human rights, the government should develop a dialogue
with specific benchmarks against which to measure progress on
abuses with an agreed timeframe.
COOPERATION ACROSS
UK GOVERNMENT
It is critical that foreign policy work on human
rights is not restricted to the FCO. As well as being prioritised
at the FCO, human rights should be incorporated into the strategic
plans of the Home Office, Cabinet Office, DFID and the Department
of Business and Enterprise. There is a clear need for more joined
up government in this area. Thought should also be given to how
to bring together work on equalities and human rights and make
it more cohesive across government. Human rights training across
government (not just the FCO) should be widened and deepened and
extended to advisers. A joint FCO/DFID working group could be
set up to increase the impact of human rights in development work
and take forward work on legally enforcing Economic Social and
Cultural rights. Human rights should be a part of the whole of
foreign policy and not delegated to junior ministers. The personal
commitment of individual ministers to human rights is welcome,
but is not an adequate foundation for the UK's human rights policy.
The government's commitment to human rights should be more explicit
and fully integrated.
BETTER ENGAGEMENT
BEYOND WHITEHALL
It is important that the government continues
to work to strengthen its engagement with NGOs, faith groups,
business, academics, think tanks, trade unions and others. As
the biggest human rights membership organisation in the world,
Amnesty Jnternational represents a large, energetic and engaged
constituency. Amnesty also has a wealth of experience and expertise
on the global state of human rights, including the impact of governments'
foreign policies around the world. At the same time, we are not
a lone voice; we are part of a broader community of NGOs which
all bring to the table knowledge of what works on human rights
and ideas for how to make policy more effective.
One way to improve engagement "beyond Whitehall"
would be to regularise the existing dialogue between NGOs and
government, which can at times be ad hoc and varies greatly in
depth and usefulness. This could include regular high-level exchanges
between NGOs and the FCO to ensure that human rights remain part
of its strategic thinking; regularised meetings and briefings
with staff going out to foreign postings to consider how best
UK posts can promote human rights (for example by upholding the
EU Guidelines on Human Rights); briefings with lead civil servants
ahead of key ministerial visits; and the reinvigoration of advisory
panels.
The advisory panels could be a critical element
of engagement, but at present their performance is patchy. The
Freedom of Expression Panel has done good work, for example on
human rights defenders during the UK's EU presidency. However,
other panels (for example on Children and the Rule of Law) meet
infrequently and have little continuity. Neither the subject areas
covered by panels, nor their membership, appear as well thought
out as they should be.
AREAS TO
CONCENTRATE THE
UK'S GLOBAL
EFFORT
In addition to putting human rights at the heart
of foreign policy, the UK government should concentrate its global
effort on reinvigorating multilateralism and promoting the rule
of law.
Multilateralism. It is critical that the government
work with the international community wherever possible. To encourage
other states to do the same, the government must lead reform efforts
to ensure that the multilateral infrastructure is fit for purpose:
— There is a clear need for continuing
reform of the UN system in order to make it more effective in
addressing human rights concerns. One crucial step that could
make a real difference to the way the international community
tackles human rights abuses would be the development of a strong
and effective Human Rights Council. The Council's success will
depend on the political will of its members and its ability to
establish effective mechanisms for addressing human rights. The
UK government has made a positive contribution to the Council,
working to ensure that it is an effective body. This is welcome
but the government must continue to use its influence to build
on the foundations that have been laid in its first year, ensuring
that its mechanisms and procedures continue to be strengthened.
— In September 2005, the UN World Summit
agreed the concept of the "responsibility to protect"
and in April 2006 the UNSC adopted Resolution 1674 on the Protection
of Civilians in Armed Conflict. However, the international community
continues to fail to meet this responsibility; this much is clear
from the situation in Darfur, where over 200,000 have died as
a result of the conflict, tens of thousands of people have been
killed raped and assaulted, and almost two million people forced
from their homes. Darfur is the litmus test for the international
community to show its resolve in addressing egregious human rights
violations and to date it has failed to meet this test. The UK
government must show commitment to translating the responsibility
to protect into a willingness to act in all instances where states
fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic
cleansing and crimes against humanity. It must use its influence,
in particular as a permanent member of the Security Council, to
ensure that prompt and decisive actions are taken to protect civilian
populations in all instances.
— There is a need to develop progressive
UN agreements on arms, such as the ATT, and ensure that they become
strong and robust agreements based on international law.
— Women can and should play a far greater
role in promoting global security. Too often they are absent from
peace negotiations or multilateral fora. While women consistently
suffer disproportionately from conflict and violence, they are
forgotten in solutions. The government should prioritise mobilising
political will to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1325
to enhance women's role in peace and security. Working through
multilateral frameworks, the government should also work to address
violence against women internationally by ratifying the Council
of Europe Convention Against Trafficking.
Rule of law. It is critical that the government
ensure that its foreign policy is firmly anchored in respect for
the rule of law:
— In its counter-terrorism strategies,
the UK should reject the security approach based on fear and distrust
and anchor its policies firmly in the rule of law based on justice
and due process, with all this entails in terms of evidence and
proof. The government should stop seeking to deport people to
countries that have a known record of torture; instead it should
focus on international ratification and respect for the Convention
against Torture. (Similarly, the government should concentrate
on developing an effective asylum policy that does not forcibly
remove asylum seekers to countries that are unsafe.) The government
should also investigate fully all allegations of "extraordinary
rendition", and work hard for the closure of Guantanamo Bay;
it should immediately take up the cases of the UK residents still
held there.
— The UN General Assembly adopted the
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from
Enforced Disappearance in December 2006. This was an important
step in tackling impunity and protecting human rights. Under the
Convention, the widespread or systematic practice of enforced
disappearance is qualified as a crime against humanity. State
parties to the Convention undertake to prohibit secret detention
and unofficial places of detention. Secret detention and enforced
disappearance are clearly crimes under international law. The
UK government has spoken in favour of this Convention, but has
not yet signed it. The government should sign this Convention
immediately. The UK government has also failed to make clear its
position on the legality of secret detention as practiced by the
US, despite President Bush's admission that the US has a network
of secret prisons which have been used by the CIA to administer
an "alternative set of interrogation techniques".
— Similarly, the government should
continue to support the ICC and efforts to achieve justice and
full reparations for victims under international law. Under no
circumstances should the government give in to pressure for the
UN Security Council to defer prosecutions and investigations,
invoking Article 16 of the Rome Statute of the ICC. Invoking this
article would constitute an act of political interference with
the independence of the ICC prosecutor. It would have lasting,
negative, effects for peace and justice anywhere where crimes
under international law are committed. It would also provide those
responsible for such crimes an easy means to avoid individual
criminal responsibility by the simple threat to continue or to
resume hostilities. The government should also continue to lobby
for the ratification of the ICC Statute.
— The government should work to ensure
that economic, social and cultural rights, not just civil and
policy rights, are taken into account when developing policy.
This means ensuring that they respect, protect and fulfil human
rights in carrying out their international development and investment
programmes and taking effective steps to monitor the human rights
impact of their development and investment work (including their
relationships with EU and UN bodies); supporting efforts taking
place at the UN Human Rights Council to develop an effective complaints
mechanism to provide an international remedy for victims of violations
of economic, social and cultural rights who are denied a remedy
in their own country and ensuring that economic, social and cultural
rights are enforceable in national justice systems and regional
human rights courts and commissions; and establishing strong legal
frameworks to hold companies, particularly extractive and pharmaceutical
companies, to account for any human rights abuses they may carry
out in the course of their work.
— Multi-national corporations, which
in many cases are more powerful than governments, have long resisted
binding international standards. Multi-nationals will continue
to have a huge impact on human rights. There is an urgent need
for global standards and effective accountability. There needs
to be a recognition across government of the need for greater
regulation. One case in point is the proliferation of private
military companies; there is a pressing need for regulation of
this sector. There is also a strong case for active engagement
in internet governance initiatives. Government engagement is required
to support the development of a vibrant global civil society by
ensuring that the internet remains a tool of expression not repression.
September 2007
|
