Letter to the Chairman of the Committee
from the Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Thank you for the letter of 3 March from the
Clerk of the Committee, regarding my response to the Committee's
Second Report of Session 2007-08, Global Security: Russia, which
requested further information on our Russia policy.
Recommendation 2 (FAC Report Paragraph 31, Paragraph
8 of the Foreign Secretary's response): the Committee would like
a written assessment of the conduct of Russia's 2 March Presidential
election, including comment on the conditions provided for international
election monitors and on the decision of the OSCE's Office for
Democratic Institutions and Human Rights not to send an observation
mission.
Dmitry Medvedev won a landslide victory in Russia's
presidential elections on 2 March, taking 70.3 per cent of the
vote. The main Russian election-monitoring NGO, GOLOS [Voice],
reported a variety of violations, including instances of ballot-stuffing,
non-admittance of accredited observers to polling stations, and
procedural irregularities. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe (PACE) observers, noted that the results were "a
reflection of the will of an electorate whose democratic potential
was unfortunately not tapped". Although the international
community recognises that the elections took place in a calm and
peaceful atmosphere, we along with the EU and international observers
questioned the degree of democracy exhibited throughout the election
period.
Of particular concern were the unacceptable
conditions Russia placed on international observers from the OSCE's
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), limits
to restrict the field of candidates and the lack of equal media
access for opposition candidates. As in the run-up the parliamentary
elections, the Russian Central Election Commission presented ODIHR
with restrictions in late January that did not allow for the presence
of long-term observers. It would not have been possible for ODIHR
to fulfil their mandate under such conditions and they withdrew,
citing the importance of a thorough long-term mission to determine
overall how free and fair the election was. Although regrettable,
HMG fully respects this decision.
Another key concern was the lack of democratic
choice offered to the Russian people. Pressure from the authorities
on the liberal opposition meant that they were unable to field
a candidate. Gary Kasparov, leader of the Other Russia opposition
alliance, withdrew his candidacy after encountering significant
bureaucratic barriers. Boris Nemtsov, one of the leaders of the
liberal Union of Right Forces party, was registered as a candidate
but subsequently withdrew, complaining that candidates had been
denied a level playing field. Mikhail Kasyanov, a former Prime
Minister and opposition leader, was barred from running after
the authorities concluded that 13 per cent of the 2 million signatures
he gathered in support of his candidacy were false.
Russian media coverage of the candidates was
unequal at best and dominated by support for Dmitry Medvedev.
In his statement on 29 February, the Head of the Russian Central
Election Commission agreed that media coverage had been unequal
but maintained the process overall had still been fair.
Recommendations 4 (FAC Report Paragraph 39,
Paragraphs 10-14 of the Foreign Secretary's response) and 14 (FAC
Report Paragraph 124, Paragraphs 33-37 of the Foreign Secretary's
response): the Committee would like an update on the review of
the UK's co-operation with Russia which the Foreign Secretary
announced on 16 July 2007.
In my statement of 16 July 2007 to the House,
I announced a number of measures against Russia as a result of
its failure to answer satisfactorily our request for co-operation
in seeing Andrei Lugovoy tried in the UK for the murder of Alexander
Litvinenko in November 2006.
I tightened the visa regime for Russian Government
officials travelling to the UK on official business. These officials
now receive single entry, time limited visas in the same way as
British officials travelling to Russia do. However, these changes
do not target ordinary Russians travelling to the UK as tourists
or businesspeople. Indeed we provide an express service for business
travellers and since 1 March all applications are made online
making our visa issuing operations in Russia more effective.
We reduced our bilateral co-operation with Russia
on counter-terrorism, We will, of course, communicate any information
we receive regarding a serious terrorist threat to Russia, and
expect Russia to reciprocate, We continue to work with a number
of Russian agencies and Ministries such as the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Ministry of the Interior and the Foreign Intelligence
Services in international fora such as the G8 Roma Lyon Group
developing a response to the global threat from terrorism, We
concluded also the need to place on hold the development of a
Military Technical Co-operation Agreement.
Recommendation 5 (FAC Report Paragraph 70, Paragraphs
15-17 of the Foreign Secretary's response): the Committee would
like to know the date of the next bilateral UK-Russia meeting
on human rights, scheduled for the first half of 2008, and to
receive a written update on the outcome of the meeting when it
takes place.
Our Embassy in Moscow wrote to the Russian Government
at the beginning of March, regarding suitable dates for the next
bilateral human rights meeting. We are currently waiting for the
Russian Government's response. We will inform the Foreign Affairs
Committee when the date has been agreed and will also, in due
course, provide a note of the meeting's outcome.
Recommendation 7 (FAC Report Paragraph 74, Paragraphs
19-20 of the Foreign Secretary's response): of the projects which
were being run in Russia by DFID prior to the closure of its Russia
programme in March 2007, the Committee would like to see a list
of those which have been discontinued, and a list of those which
have been continued in some form. The Committee would also like
to receive an indication of the ways in which the FCO plans to
take forward its project work with groups from the professions
in Russia in the 2008-09 financial year.
DFID projects
DFID closed its bilateral development programmes
in Russia in March 2007, as a traditional development programme
was no longer appropriate given Russia's rising wealth, its upper-middle
income country status, and its membership of the G8 Group of Countries.
Russia is also now an emerging donor and has been increasing contributions
to the multilateral aid system. The UK's development relationship
with Russia has shifted to reflect that Russia has an enormous
potential to contribute to the reduction of global poverty.
From 2002 until the bilateral programme closed
in 2007, DFID spent over £77 million in Russia. The programme
focused on five main areas:
— Russian participation in global institutions
— Improving the capacity of state institutions
— Social policy, including health and
HIV/AIDS
— Improving access to livelihood opportunities
— Improving access to justice
Rising wealth in Russia has produced rising
expectations for improved public services, which is why DFID continues
to support efforts aimed at Public Administration Reform (PAR)
in Russia. DFID has supported PAR programmes from 2003 and have
committed further resources until 2010. The Programme aims to
support the Government's efforts to make public administration
in Russia more efficient and effective. Support will be targeted
at working with regional authorities, especially in the Southern
Federal Districts. Poor districts in Russia's Far East are also
showing interest in the Programme.
DFID is also supporting Russia as it builds
up its aid programmes. As members of the G8 Group of Countries,
Russia and the UK have shared responsibilities to help combat
global poverty. There is good scope for co-operation. Both Russia
and Britain have committed to provide aid in ways that:
— is aimed at reaching the Millennium
Development Goals;
— is aligned with partner countries'
own economic development programmes; and
— is provided in close collaboration
with other donors, both multilateral and bilateral.
FCO Projects
The FCO programmes are not targeted specifically
at working with the professions, although we work most closely
with the legal and journalistic professions within the Human Rights
field and some of our projects aim to improve the knowledge or
working practices of these professions. We aim to find the best
possible project partner for activities that meet the FCO's strategic
objectives—this could be an NGO, an international organisation,
a government agency, or professional associations, Details of
projects planned for 2008-9 involving the professions are as follows:
(a) European Club of Professionals
Providing regional civil activists, NGOs representatives,
lawyers, and journalists with authentic and positive information
about European Court of Human Rights' activities to enable them
to make better use of it.
(b) Kaliningrad Resource Informational Analytical
centre
Training lawyers of the Kaliningrad region in
European standards of human rights to develop gradual inculcation
into the practical activity of courts and local authorities.
(c) Slavic Centre for Law and Justice
Addressing the issues of religious and ethnic
discrimination in Russia with lawyers and law students through
the use of European Convention mechanisms.
(d) Lawyers for Constitutional Rights and
Freedoms
Building the legal and operational capacity
of the Russian state to combat discrimination by introducing best
practice from foreign jurisdictions, raising awareness of Russian
lawyers in international and domestic remedies, disseminating
the successful litigation strategies in discrimination cases and
promoting legislative changes.
Recommendation 26 (FAC Report Paragraph 236,
Paragraphs 62-64 of the Foreign Secretary's response): the Committee
would like to request that it be given sight, in confidence, of
the EU's negotiating mandate for the proposed new EU-Russia agreement,
when the mandate is finalised and ready to form the basis for
the negotiations. While the Committee fully understands why--in
line with normal practice—the EU negotiating mandate is
not public, it regards as problematic the Government's reliance
on a non-public document in order to justify its stance with respect
to the Committee's recommendation; the Committee would therefore
like to be able to see the document.
The draft mandate is a restricted EU document.
In such cases, it is our usual practice to write a letter to the
European Committees outlining the content of a mandate after it
has been agreed. The European Committees have approved this approach.
I would be very willing to send you a copy of the letter to the
European Committees, which will set out why we can have confidence
in the mandate.
But I also recognise that, in view of the specific
nature of the EU-Russia negotiations (which are likely to be lengthy,
high profile and complex), it would be right to keep Parliament
informed of developments. The Minister for Europe will keep the
Chairs of the European Committees updated on progress in the negotiations
and, provided the chairs of those committees are content, will
copy those letters to you.
Recommendation 37 (FAC Report Paragraph 314,
Paragraphs 88-89 of the Foreign Secretary's response): the Committee
would like an update on the Government's engagement with Russia
in pursuit of an Arms Trade Treaty following the first meeting
of the relevant UN Group of Government Experts in February 2008.
FCO officials met with the Russian expert nominated
to the UN Group of Government Experts (GGE) on the Arms Trade
Treaty (ATT) during its first session from 11-15 February. The
GGE mandate is to examine, commencing in 2008, the feasibility,
scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding
instrument establishing common international standards for the
import, export and transfer of conventional arms.
Russia set out its concerns in our bilateral
dialogue and within the confidential exchange of views among the
28 national experts who had been nominated by States selected
by the UN. These views, along with the views of the other 27 national
experts, will be taken into account in discussions over the next
two GGE sessions (12-16 May and 28 July-8 August). We remain engaged
with the Russian authorities on this issue through contact with
their representative to the Conference on Disarmament, within
the UN ATT process and bilaterally via our Embassy in Moscow.
31 March 2008
| 
