Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
KATE ALLEN
AND TOM
PORTEOUS
30 APRIL 2008
Q20 Mr. Hamilton: Thank you, Chairman.
I am sure both of you will recall that in September 2006 half
the members of the Committee visited Guantanamo Bay as guests
of the State Department of the United States Government. We spent
one day in Cuba—in Guantanamo and Camp Delta—and shortly
afterwards, in early 2007, we published our report.
One of the things we were told at the time was
that President Bush really did want to close Guantanamo as soon
as possible, so we were delighted that he agreed with us. Subsequently,
he has gone cold on that idea and the impression is that he would
prefer to leave it to his successor. Do you think that there is
any realistic prospect, first, that President Bush will see Guantanamo
closed before the end of his term of office and, secondly, that
any successor, whether Republican or Democrat, will close Guantanamo?
Tom Porteous: Well, you are right
that Bush has indicated quite clearly that he is going to bequeath
this stain on the reputation of the United States of America to
his successor. Of course, we do not yet know who that successor
will be, but a lot of people on both sides of the American political
system—Republicans and Democrats—have made it clear
that they want to see it closed. But it is still there and there
are still 275 inmates in Guantanamo Bay. I think there are some
real obstacles to closing it.
The UK and the rest of the EU could play a very
helpful role in aiding whoever succeeds President Bush in closing
that facility. The question is how they could help with what to
do with those who have been cleared for release because there
are no serious charges against them—let us remember that
a lot of the people in Guantanamo Bay are apparently quite innocent
of any crime—but who cannot be sent back to their homes
because of fears for their safety in those countries.
We have already documented how people have been
returned from Guantanamo Bay to Russia and to Tunisia, and have
been seriously mistreated in both cases, so there is clearly a
problem here. There are a number of Chinese Muslims—Uighurs,
from Xinjiang province in China. Clearly, they cannot be returned
to China because there is a very high risk that they will be mistreated.
Q21 Mr. Hamilton: But many, I understand,
were returned to Albania by agreement.
Tom Porteous: They were.
Mr. Hamilton: Not returned, sent.
Tom Porteous: Sent to Albania.
That is a useful way of dealing with the problem.
We feel that the EU should step forward and
offer sanctuary to these people. As for those in Guantanamo Bay
who clearly have committed crimes, they should have been charged
and put on trial a long time ago. They should be tried in the
US federal courts system, and we hope that that is what is going
to happen. We still do not have a very clear idea of what the
intentions of the various candidates are for closing Guantanamo
Bay, but we feel that the EU and the UK in particular can play
a useful role in offering to help close it. As I think everybody
agrees, this is very damaging to the reputation of the United
States, but also damaging to the international efforts to deal
with the problem of terrorism.
Q22 Mr. Hamilton: But do you not
think that part of the problem here is something that was made
clear to us when we were there: that Guantanamo was brought into
existence as a detention camp because the United States Government
regarded the people they captured as prisoners of war, to be held
under the Geneva Conventions? In Europe, we regard people that
we accuse of terrorism as criminals and we put them on trial through
our criminal courts system. The Americans have been clear that
they do not regard these people as criminals; they regard them
as prisoners of war captured on the battle field, because this
is a war after all. That is a real problem because, to try them
in their court system, they must then decide that they are not
prisoners of war, but accused of a specific crime.
Tom Porteous: In fact, they are
not treating them as prisoners of war. They have created a special
category for them that effectively will leave them in legal limbo,
which means that their status has not really been defined properly
or under due process. They do not have the privileges that are
normally granted under the Geneva Conventions to prisoners of
war. That is why many people describe Guantanamo as a legal black
hole. If we add to that the abuse that has been suffered by many
people in Guantanamo Bay, that is why everyone recognises that
Guantanamo Bay has been such a mistake in the global effort to
deal with the problem of terrorism.
Chairman: Ms Allen, do you want to add
anything?
Kate Allen: I want just to add
one very small point to the comments of Human Rights Watch with
which we completely agree. The UK Government recently changed
their position in relation to some of the UK residents in Guantanamo,
and four came back to the UK. There are still three UK residents
in Guantanamo—Binyam Mohammed, Shaker Aamer and Ahmed Belbacha.
It is absolutely vital that the UK Government play a role in advocating
the return of their residents. There have been discussions about
two of them, but certainly not about Ahmed Belbacha. In terms
of all three, we think that, as a starting point, the UK Government
should make representations about those who have residency here
in the UK. I completely agree with the comments of Human Rights
Watch on the role of the UK, the European Union and others in
assistance to close Guantanamo.
Q23 Sir Menzies Campbell: I agree
with the description that it is a legal black hole. The categorisation
of illegal combatant was last used in 1944 about some Japanese
prisoners who fell into the hands of the United States Government.
Have you derived any encouragement from the fact that the United
States Supreme Court has shown a willingness to challenge the
Government's categorisation and treatment of people at Guantanamo?
Do you think that it is an encouraging sign or is the Administration's
position—for the moment, at least—so powerful that
not much is likely to change?
Tom Porteous: What has pushed
the Administration to make the concessions that they have made
on military commissions, for example—and we are still waiting
to hear about the next Supreme Court judgment on that—has
been exactly the pressure from the Supreme Court. Its work has
been exemplary and it is an indication of how American democracy
works, in spite of the problems that have been raised by Guantanamo
Bay and other issues.
Sir Menzies Campbell: A number of us
have been asked to be amicus curiae on the applications that have
been made.
Q24 Sir John Stanley: When we went
to Guantanamo, we were surprised to discover that—as I recall—between
one quarter and one third of the people detained there were people
whom the American Government wanted to release, but the countries
from which they came would not have them. That represents a very
significant proportion of people who are there. It is perfectly
reasonable to say that that bears out that they should not be
there in the first place, but the fact is that we had about 130
people—from memory—whom the Americans at that particular
point of our visit wanted to release.
Ms Allen, you referred to the fact quite rightly
that the British Government did a U-turn on the issue and were
persuaded to take back the particular individuals to whom you
referred. Can either or both of you give us any views about what
more can be done to enable those people who are simply sitting
there—because no other country will take them—to get
other countries to change policy as the British Government have?
Tom Porteous: It is important
that the detainees themselves should be consulted about how they
feel about going back to their home countries. As I have indicated,
many of the detainees come from countries where there is a serious
problem with human rights, particularly torture. There is a risk
that people who have been detained in Guantanamo Bay, for whatever
reason, will be mistreated when they return home. We have documented
how that has been the case for a number of people who have been
returned from Guantanamo. As for whether countries where there
is no risk of torture will accept those detainees back, certainly
pressure should be put on them to accept them if there is no risk
that they will be mistreated when they return.
Q25 Andrew Mackinlay: A predecessor
Committee did a report on private security companies some years
ago and we were also promised some legislation through a Green
Paper. A Green Paper was published but nothing has happened. I
would like your general views on the issue. One of the things
that the Committee has been concerned about in the past is that
London seems to be a capital for recruitment and marshalling of
such companies, which are unregulated. There is the opportunity
for denial if anything goes wrong, no tracking of individuals
who might have perpetrated wrongdoing, and seemingly an absence
of legislation in the United Kingdom with the territorial extent
to prosecute people in private military companies who are either
British nationals or in companies organised from the UK. Can you
amplify your mutual concerns on those matters?
Kate Allen: We are very concerned
about the situation of private military and security companies.
You are absolutely right. In 2002, a Green Paper was published—the
same year that this Committee made some very far-reaching recommendations
about the way in which private military and security companies
should be treated. In 2005, there was the Government review of
options. Since then, there has been nothing. It is completely
unacceptable. We are seeing increasing use of those companies
in various parts of the world, not least in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is also a strong industry in this country, and we estimate
that 70% to 85% of the companies are based in the US and the UK.
Therefore, there is an absolute imperative for the UK Government
to act here.
There is a situation of complete impunity at
the moment. People are not being brought to account for their
actions. In Iraq, companies such as Blackwater and DynCorp International
have been involved in situations where civilians have been killed,
yet not one allegation has been heard in a court. It is completely
unacceptable that this situation is allowed to remain. Amnesty
would like to see private military and security contractors being
brought to justice in the UK for the crimes that they commit abroad
and for there to be complete transparency and oversight over the
activities of these companies. That was something that you, as
a Committee, put forward as long ago as 2002. We wrote to the
Foreign Secretary in March, again asking for a timetable for when
there would be some moves here. We hope that the Committee will
raise the matter with the Minister when you have him before you
soon.
Tom Porteous: The 2002 Green Paper
is rather thin on the issue of accountability which, as Kate has
just indicated, is the crucial issue. Obviously, these companies
tend to operate in places of weak governance and conflict where,
if they or their employees commit abuses, they can get away with
impunity. In Iraq, you have the additional problem that the Coalition
Provisional Authority explicitly gives impunity to private military
companies. That is why there has been no investigation since Blackwater,
the private military company that Kate Allen just referred to,
shot dead 17 civilians in September last year. There is currently
no prospect of any kind of prosecution. We are calling on the
Iraqi Government to lift that immunity. We think that that is
essential in Iraq. We are calling on the US Government to prosecute
the crimes under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act,
which enables US courts to prosecute crimes committed overseas.
In the UK, we have not done the necessary research to say whether
there is any legislation that could be used. If there is not,
that gap needs to be filled.
Q26 Andrew Mackinlay: Just following
on from that point, we need to do our homework. Perhaps you can
contribute to that to see if that lacuna does exist. In any event,
even before you can make a conscious decision to make a prosecution,
you must have an investigation. It seems to me that there is a
void here. The Royal Military Police, for instance, would have
no jurisdiction in such a case. What law enforcement agency is
there in the UK to investigate a crime perpetrated by such a company
or misconduct by individuals? It seems to me that there is no
mechanism for such an investigation.
Tom Porteous: We are beginning
to do some research on the activities of PMCs in Iraq and hopefully
we will be able to get back to you with the results of that.
Q27 Sir John Stanley: It is not difficult
to point to material that can be discussed in human rights terms
following our invasion of Iraq. Equally, it is quite clear that
there have been some very significant and disturbing human rights
losses. I suggest that the biggest losers have been women. We
have seen recently the utterly appalling murder by her father
of a 17-year-old young lady who fell in love with a British serviceman.
The father was arrested for two hours and released without charge
because it was a so-called "honour killing". It has
been reported that over a hundred women have been murdered in
the Basra area, for which we have had responsibility, because
they were not covering their hair in compliance with the Islamic
dress code. We have seen any number of illustrations of the employment
and educational rights of women being curtailed.
Iraq has moved from a vicious Ba'athist secular
state to a sort of democracy in which sharia law appears to be
holding an ever greater sway. What is your assessment of the rate
at which women's rights are deteriorating outside the Kurdish
areas in Iraq and what do you think the British Government should
try to do about it?
Kate Allen: I think that you have
very eloquently described the situation for women in Iraq. Some
promises were made to women in Iraq at the time of the US and
UK intervention. Those promises have not been kept and the situation
for women has deteriorated dramatically and violence has increased.
You are absolutely right that provision exists in the Iraqi penal
code for lenient punishment for honour killings. I think that
the UK Government could take up that issue with the Iraqi Government
and demand that they uphold women's rights.
The problem is not just outside Kurdistan. There
are increased numbers of so-called honour killings in that part
of Iraq. Women and girls are also now at greater risk of rape
by armed groups and members of the Iraqi security forces. The
ability of women to be economically independent and to move about
the country and their own villages or towns is very restricted.
The situation for women has deteriorated massively and the UK
Government need to take that seriously and address it with the
Iraqi Government.
Sir John Stanley: Human Rights Watch,
would you like to comment on that?
Tom Porteous: Only to say that
if you go into a country as a matter of choice, dismantle its
Government and create a civil war, women will be among the first
to suffer: the most vulnerable in any society suffer in times
of chaos. I would not like to think that the discussion on Iraq
is only focused on the particular suffering of women without looking
at the responsibility of the United States of America and the
UK for creating the conditions in which women are suffering.
Another very vulnerable group—one that
we consider to be probably the most serious consequence of the
war—is the 4 million men, women and children who have been
displaced from their homes as a result of the situation in Iraq.
About half of those are displaced within Iraq and the other half
are refugees in neighbouring countries. The United Kingdom has
spent about £1 billion a year on the Iraq war, but has spent
just a few million on addressing the problem of refugees. It has
not given any bilateral support to Jordan or Syria, which are
bearing the brunt of this crisis. In addition, that sends a message
to Jordan and Syria that it is effectively okay just to send Iraqi
refugees back to Iraq and close the door on them, because the
British Government do exactly the same by forcibly returning failed
Iraqi asylum seekers to Iraq.
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and the Refugee
Council started a campaign last year to get the British Government
to do more about refugees. One of the issues that we focused on
was the treatment of former Iraqi employees of the British Army.
As a result of our efforts and those of our colleagues in the
media to put the spotlight on that issue, the Government—until
then they had been totally negligent in their duty of care to
those people—announced a chance to the policy last autumn.
However, that policy has not been properly implemented, and a
lot of former employees of the British Army who have put their
lives on the line on behalf of the British in Iraq are still falling
between the cracks and at great risk, both inside Iraq and in
neighbouring countries.
We urge the Committee to put pressure on the
Government to speed up the process of implementing the new policy
of providing aid to those people and to do more to address the
general crisis of refugees in Iraqi. That is for not only moral
reasons, but good, sound, practical strategic ones, because refugees
spread conflict, radicalisation and instability. The last refugee
crisis in the Middle East was the Palestinian refugee crisis,
which is obviously still unresolved. A recent article in The
Independent, which surveyed suicide bombing in Iraq, identified
the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon as one of the chief sources
of suicide bombers operating in Iraq.
Q28 Mr. Purchase: I want to move
on to a similar matter in Afghanistan. Human Rights Watch has
pointed out that the sins against women, if I may put it that
way, such as violence, forced marriage and setting fire to people,
in fact got worse during 2007. It is an incredibly difficult situation,
and many abuses have been pointed out by Foreign Office reports,
such as the execution of 15 people in Kabul by firing squad and
the amnesty agreed by the President for Afghans involved in war
crimes over the past 25 years. It seems to me that all of that
is creating a position in which violence against women in particular
is just an everyday thing that people accept.
The one thing that I do want to say is that
when I was there with Sir John Stanley we heard many heroic stories
of NATO personnel, particularly British soldiers, moving heaven
and earth to ensure that girls went to school. But in a way, that
was an indication of just how badly women and girls are treated
in countries that carry the Muslim religion to such ludicrous
extremes. We have an amazingly difficult position in Afghanistan,
which is not getting any better. What steps should the international
community—I do not regard this as a British problem—take
to marginalise the warlords, who exert so much pressure and influence
in Afghanistan? How can we marginalise their position?
Kate Allen: I agree that it is
a bleak situation, and you have described it for women. In terms
of the warlords, there is a major problem. There are moves around
amnesties, which we at Amnesty would absolutely oppose. It is
vital that those warlords who have been involved in human rights
abuses are brought to account. In Afghanistan, after 25 years
of war, there needs to be a bringing to account and long-term
solutions. We would like to see increased pressure in terms of
building up the police, prison and court systems. That is vital,
and we fear that it is not getting the degree of investment and
support that is needed.
In addition, the Government of Pakistan have
a role in terms of how warlords can be marginalised. They have
a role in condemning the abuses by the Taliban, by preventing
their territory being used by anybody who has provided military
assistance in that way and by bringing to account anybody who
they suspect has been involved in human rights abuses. There is
also a role for the religious and community leaders, both within
Afghanistan and in the wider diaspora, in terms of their influence
with the Taliban and the warlords. There are those ways of helping
to end the impunity.
In terms of marginalising the warlords, earlier
this month we at Amnesty were at a NATO summit in Bucharest, where
we drew attention to the fact that 409,000 more small arms had
been imported into Afghanistan since 2002. This is a country that
is already completely saturated with arms. That amount of arms
going into the country is disturbing. It is interesting that there
are only 182,000 members of the Afghan security forces—that
covers the military, police and security forces—and there
are over 400,000 additional arms going into the country. Getting
control over that trade would also help to marginalise the warlords.
While those arms continue to flow into the country and into those
hands, life is impossible for ordinary people and civilians in
Afghanistan.
Tom Porteous: There is a quite
straightforward answer to the question of how to deal with impunity.
There is already a road map to deal with impunity called the peace,
reconciliation and justice action plan. It was initiated in December
2005 and is a three-year plan. I believe that it is in five stages;
we are not even at stage one. There has been no pressure from
the international community on the Afghan Government to implement
the plan. The Committee should ask the Foreign Office whether
the issue of impunity has simply dropped off the agenda. There
is an important meeting on Afghanistan on 12 June. We think it
absolutely vital that the issue of impunity is put right back
at the front of the agenda. We hope that it will figure prominently
in whatever document emerges from that June meeting in Paris.
The problem in Afghanistan is not just a problem of terrorism
but a problem of impunity. Unless both problems are addressed,
there is not going to be a solution. It is absolutely essential,
therefore, as a matter of really winning this war, that the problem
of impunity is addressed. The problem is that many of the international
community's strategies in Afghanistan up until now, far from marginalising
the warlords, have actually empowered them.
Q29 Sir John Stanley: My colleague
Ken Purchase rightly pointed out that as far as women's and girls'
rights in Afghanistan are concerned, we have a long way to go.
Would you agree that the comparison that needs to be made is the
situation today with the situation when we invaded Afghanistan
and removed the Taliban regime? We must make a comparison with
when there was a Taliban regime bent on the total extinguishing
of the rights of girls and women to education or to any form of
employment, making them effective captives in their own home for
the overwhelming proportion of their time. Against that benchmark,
we have made a significant advance in women's and girls' rights
since we invaded Afghanistan.
Kate Allen: It is absolutely important
that women and girls have access to education. That is, and was,
one of the advances for women after the removal of the Taliban.
One of the difficulties now, in terms of the climate that exists
in Afghanistan and the nature of the security issues that affect
that country—in similar ways to what we have talked about
in Iraq—is how women come under huge pressure when there
is such instability in the country. One of the issues is that
schools that teach girls and have women teachers are being targeted.
It is increasingly unsafe for students to go to school and for
teachers to teach girls, so it is not a gain that has remained:
it is under massive pressure as the security situation becomes
very difficult and as the human rights climate becomes bleaker—it
is bleaker than it has been for many years. These things do not
stay still. They do not exist in isolation from the context of
what is happening in the rest of the country. They make it extremely
difficult for women to exert their independence, even with the
opportunity of education, or when the disbarment from education
is removed.
Q30 Mr. Purchase: I have a point
of clarification. I agree with what John Stanley said, and that
the comparison should be with what existed before. I do not wish
to cast aspersions on the motives, or interests, of Britain, NATO
or America in trying to liberate women and girls from the Taliban's
appalling practices. The point that I was putting to you—and
this is from your own report—it appears that after initial
gains, matters are getting worse again for women and girls. I
want to reiterate that we heard about the work in Afghanistan
of, particularly, the British troops, which was quite heroic,
as they were trying to get girls into school. However, it is clearly
not enough and it appears that matters are getting worse.
Q31 Chairman: We have to move on,
as we have a number of countries that we would like to focus on.
Can I take you to Burma? Last year there was a huge, international
media focus on the repression there, the protests by the monks
and the demands for the restoration of democracy. Yet now there
is almost no media coverage at all of the repression, the arrests
and the clampdown that is going on. As for the international observers
and representatives, as far as I know Mr. Gambari has little prospect
of making any progress, and the EU special envoy, Mr. Fassino,
was not even allowed to go to Burma. What is your assessment of
the current human rights situation in Burma?
Kate Allen: You have described
some of that assessment. The FCO's human rights report is a good
one, and we recognise the work of the British Government with
regard to the situation in Burma, and the strong terms in which
the Prime Minister condemned the abuses taking place there. You
are right about international media attention, but that reflects
the fact that international pressure is not at the same level,
and that it has not been maintained on the Burmese authorities.
We would like to see that pressure increased.
At least 700 people who were arrested during
those demonstrations still remain in prison. That is in addition
to over 1,150 people who were already imprisoned as political
prisoners prior to the protests, and 80 people who have disappeared—that
is what our research shows. We would like the British Government
to continue to press the Burmese Government to allow the access
that you talk about. We want to see the UN special rapporteur
and others allowed into the country. We want to see the release
of those monks who are confined to their temples, and obviously
we want the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, and a separate timetable
for that to happen. We would also like to see the EU embargo on
arms to Burma become a UN Security Council embargo, and we want
the UK Government to do what they can to ensure that. We need
a refocusing of international attention on the situation. The
Burmese Government have, very astutely, managed some of this,
and the pressure needs to be maintained.
Q32 Chairman: May I throw in another
point, and then I will bring you in? Is not the real problem,
given that you are Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch,
that the international community is not an international community
with regard to pressure in this case? I have met Association of
South East Asian Nations parliamentarians from the Philippines,
Thailand and Malaysia who are extremely frustrated about the fact
that some of the neighbours of the Burmese military regime are
complicit in its behaviour, and others are not prepared to speak
out publicly. There is pressure in western Europe, people in north
America are concerned, as they are in other parts of the world,
but the real people who can make a difference are the neighbouring
countries which, for their own reasons, choose not to do so.
Tom Porteous: In fact, ASEAN came
out with quite a strong statement at the time of the repression
of the protests last autumn, and we were pleased with that. Human
Rights Watch has been doing a lot of advocacy in east Asia on
Burma, as well as on other Asian issues. There is no doubt that
the key players in Burma are China, India and the other neighbouring
states. Any effort by the rest of the world to get China to put
pressure on Burma is now off the table, because of what has happened
in Tibet and the Olympics. That is not going to happen, and we
must accept that.
The UK has been right out in front in calling
for targeted, financial sanctions against members of the Burmese
regime, and that is really good. The problem is that it is now
having difficulty getting some of its traditional partners in
the EU, or even the US, to get behind that in an effective way.
Our feeling is that the UK should go with its gut feeling. It
is going in the right direction, and it should not wait for a
lowest common denominator position from the EU. It should stay
out in front, push—and push hard.
The other point that I want to make is about
the referendum. Human Rights Watch has a report about that coming
out tomorrow. The British Government recognise, I believe, that
this referendum is a total sham and should not be given any credibility
whatever. Obviously, the Burmese are going to try to get a little
bit of credibility for this referendum, and they will probably
succeed in doing that. The British should be right out in front
in undermining any credibility that the Burmese are trying to
win for this referendum, because it is a complete sham and should
be exposed as such in the eyes of the world. We hope that our
report, which will come out tomorrow, will go some way towards
doing that.
Chairman: You mentioned China. Sir John
Stanley?
Q33 Sir John Stanley: Could you tell
us whether you believe that China, as part of its Olympic bid,
gave undertakings to improve the human rights situation if the
games were awarded to it?
Kate Allen: It absolutely gave
those undertakings, and it has absolutely failed to meet them.
I think that we are now in a position in which we at Amnesty would
say that the human rights situation in China has become worse
because of the Olympics and that the way in which the Chinese
regime is behaving has hardened. More people are being rounded
up, and the human rights situation has become more difficult for
people. There are cases that we could talk about of people who
have been arrested and sentenced to five years or more for talking
about human rights at the same time as the Olympics.
What needs to happen now is a look at how our
Government will decide to confront some of these issues with the
Chinese Government. Over the past 10 years, there have been 16
rounds of a human rights dialogue that we at Amnesty cannot see
the results of. To us, it almost feels as though the ironic result
of that dialogue—all that it has achieved— is to silence
public criticism of the record of the Chinese Government. We are
in a situation now where events are rapidly overtaking the entry
in the human rights report, and the UK Government need to toughen
their stance.
It feels to us at Amnesty that the UK Government
are more interested at the moment in the legacy of the Olympics
for the London Olympics than in their legacy for the human rights
situation of the Chinese people. We absolutely want to see that
changed. We are not calling for a boycott of the Olympics—we
have never called for that. What we want is to see our Government
speaking out really loudly, really clearly and very publicly about
their expectations of human rights in the period of the Olympics.
Now is a moment when there is the potential
not for massive, earth-shattering change but for incremental change
and for people in China—who are very proud of the fact that
they have the Olympics, but many of whom are also fighting for
human rights in their country—to see that the international
community and our own Government are not standing by and watching
a sporting event while executions, re-educations through labour,
forced abortions and all the abuses that I could talk about for
some time take place in China. It would be intolerable if this
were treated as a sporting event and the British Government did
not make clear their view on the human rights situation in China.
Sir John Stanley: Mr. Porteous, do you
want to add to what Ms Allen has said?
Tom Porteous: I agree with it
entirely. On the point about the UK Government's approach to the
Olympics, we have been told for several years by human rights
activists working under immense pressure in China, in Tibet or
Xinjiang, or by Chinese activists in the rest of China, that they
want to use the games to draw the world's attention to the human
rights situation in China, which is pretty dismal. We think that
that is a very good plan and have been trying to help them to
do it. We think that the Olympics represent a brilliant opportunity
to draw attention to the human rights situation in China.
The British Government are using the Olympic
games as a means of promoting the London Olympics, which we think
is an incoherent strategy. The protests in London against the
torch relay ceremony showed the depth of feeling among Londoners
over the situation in Tibet. We think that it will backfire on
the Government if they insist on trying to use the Beijing games
to promote the London games. On the contrary, the Beijing games
risk tainting the London games, unless the British Government
dissociate the two. We think that it is very important that the
UK stands up at this point and makes it very clear that Gordon
Brown, in particular, should not go to the ceremonies—neither
the opening nor the closing ceremonies—unless the Chinese
Government honour, or go some way to honouring, the pledges that
they made on human rights when bidding for the Olympic games.
In addition, because of Tibet, we also think
it important that another condition should be that the Chinese
Government allow an independent, international inquiry into the
recent events in Tibet. That should be another condition on Gordon
Brown going to the opening ceremony. Given that there is virtually
nil chance of the Chinese Government agreeing to such a thing,
we are basically saying that he should not go.
Q34 Sir John Stanley: May I ask a
specific question about Tibet? As you will have seen from a recent
Committee press release, we will shortly be taking public oral
evidence from the Dalai Lama, who has made it very clear publicly
that he is not seeking independence for Tibet. He has also made
it absolutely clear publicly that he is a man of peace and does
not in any way favour, advocate or support violence. He is simply
seeking to open up a sensible, peaceful dialogue with the Chinese
Government. What do you think that the British Government should
do to try to support and endorse that entirely reasonable request
from the Dalai Lama and to get the Chinese Government to comply
with it?
Tom Porteous: First, congratulations
on getting the Dalai Lama to come to give evidence to the Foreign
Affairs Committee. I think that that is a very good initiative.
I shall be very interested to see what he says in response to
your questions.
On the question of what the British Government
should be doing, all Human Rights Watch can say is that we think
that the answer to the problem of the human rights situation in
Tibet is an independent international inquiry. The British Government
should be pushing for that, even though it is very unlikely to
come about. On the political negotiations between China and the
Tibetan activists, it is beyond our mandate to comment.
Kate Allen: We would recommend
that the UK Government press the Chinese authorities to allow
immediate access to Tibet by UN investigators and independent
observers, because we need that scrutiny of what has been happening,
and what could continue to happen, during this extremely tense
time.
Q35 Mr. Hamilton: Before moving on
to Zimbabwe, given what you have already said about whether the
Beijing games should be boycotted, do you agree with what the
Dalia Lama: that the games should not be boycotted? I am looking
for simple answers.
Kate Allen: Amnesty is not suggesting
that the games should be boycotted. We think that they provide
a focus for international attention and effort to improve the
human rights situation in China. Unlike Human Rights Watch, we
are not calling on Gordon Brown not to attend. We are calling
on him, wherever he is—London or Beijing—to very clearly
and publicly make clear his and the UK Government's view of the
human rights situation in China and the kind of change that we
would like to see.
Tom Porteous: We also do not support
a boycott of the games. We think not only that they are a good
way of drawing attention to the human rights problems in China,
but that such action would be counter-productive, because the
games are very popular in China and we do not want to create any
sort of backlash against human rights among the Chinese population.
Q36 Mr. Hamilton: It is important
that people understand that the Dalai Lama is not calling for
a boycott either.
May I move us on to Zimbabwe, which has been
much in the news recently? I think that it saddens all of us that
Zimbabwe, after South Africa, was one of the wealthiest countries
in Africa, because of its natural resources and the fertility
of its land, but we now know that Zimbabwe currently has the lowest
life expectancy in the world and the highest rate of orphans.
Some 3,000 people or more die of AIDS-related illnesses each week.
Those are shocking statistics. In a statement on 21 April, the
Foreign Secretary said that "President Mugabe persists in
his ambition to steal the election." The results of that
election have still have not been announced, and it is quite easy
to guess why.
Following a meeting with President Mugabe, President
Mbeki of South Africa stated that there was no crisis in Zimbabwe.
All that adds up to the most appalling abuse of democracy, of
the rule of law and of human rights. We know about the destruction
of people's property, the arbitrary arrests and murders of opponents
of the regime. What can be done? I am not just talking about the
United Kingdom, which is in a difficult position. How do we persuade
regional states, such as South African and Zambia, that they must
put pressure on Mugabe to at least publish the results of the
election—if we can believe those results—and preferably
to step down?
Kate Allen: It is extraordinary
to think that it is four and a half weeks since the election and
we still do not know the results. It is deeply disappointing that
the UN Security Council was divided last night and early this
morning over a resolution to send an envoy to Zimbabwe. It is
hugely disappointing that that resolution was opposed by China
and South Africa. It was supported by the UK and the US. It is
hugely disappointing to see the approach of the South African
Government, who have relied on quiet diplomacy. After seven years
of that, Amnesty cannot see that it has achieved any progress.
Such a policy is completely inappropriate for the current situation.
South Africa is not the only silent African country; many others
are silent at this stage.
Amnesty would suggest that it is important that
the UK works through Tanzania, as Chair of the African Union,
and continues to put pressure on South Africa. It must find as
many ways as possible to put pressure on South Africa as the regional
powerhouse in Africa. The UK should work through Zambia, which
is already doing some good work, trying to create a regional consensus.
I think that the UK Government worry that their speaking out is
counter-productive. The moment for such thinking has gone. This
is such an appalling situation, and it has been good to hear the
Prime Minister make clear the Government's view of the election.
It is important that all that happens. Those are the suggestions
from Amnesty.
Tom Porteous: Zimbabwe shows what
little leverage the international community can have in some situations.
The international community has been relying on the Southern Africa
Development Community to put pressure on Mugabe to resolve the
problem. Four and a half weeks ago, SADC endorsed the elections
as free and fair, even though there was nothing to warrant that.
Since then, Thabo Mbeki has said, "Crisis? What crisis?"
There are now some signs that SADC's unity of cowardice is beginning
to fracture, and Zambia is coming out with rather stronger statements.
We think that the AU should be playing a greater role. It should
unite and tell Mugabe that the game is up, and that he must go.
If he does not, it must think about imposing serious economic
and political sanctions on him to go.
Q37 Chairman: Another country in
Africa where there has been lack of progress is Sudan, and I would
be interested in your assessment. We have waited a long time for
the so-called hybrid force to be fully deployed. It is still not
fully deployed—far from it—and the AU again is either
not willing or not able to do what needs to be done. What can
we do, and how can we deal these obstacles, so that we have effective
peacekeeping forces, and what should the British Government be
doing in the current situation with regard to Darfur and the wider
question of dealing with Sudan? Clearly, there is a potential,
perhaps some way down the road, in relation to unresolved issues,
such as the referendum, southern Sudan and all those questions.
Tom Porteous: On Darfur, there
are three main obstacles to the full deployment of the UNAMID
hybrid peacekeeping force. One is the obstructionism of the Sudanese
Government; another is lack of support from the international
community to provide the equipment that the peacekeeping force
needs, especially helicopters, and the third thing is that this
is a hostile environment and there is not much of a peace to keep
at the moment. Earlier this year, there were further attacks by
Janjaweed militia, supported by the Sudanese Government, in parts
of Darfur. The humanitarian situation and human rights situation
remain appalling, which is why it is necessary to get the force
deployed properly.
Clearly, one obstacle is within the reach of
the international community to do something about—namely,
to provide the peacekeeping force with the equipment that it needs
to deploy fully. The international community must do more. There
are obviously other concerns in the world and other priorities,
but this is a serious humanitarian crisis that certainly needs
to be addressed. The UK has played a largely constructive
role politically, but it has not stepped up to the plate with
regard to equipment. It says that it has its own military problems
elsewhere and therefore does not have the necessary equipment.
It is crucial that the UK and others do more
to put pressure on the Sudanese Government to co-operate with
the work of the International Criminal Court on Darfur. That is
the way to address the problem of impunity. The Sudanese Government
have been wholly unco-operative with the Court's work. The Court
has issued two arrest warrants, but the Sudanese Government are
not only protecting both the individuals against whom the arrest
warrants have been issued, but have promoted one of them, who
is a Minister in the Sudanese Government.
There is also the issue, which complicates matters,
of the comprehensive peace agreement between north and south.
If you remember, one reason why the Darfur crisis was not initially
dealt with with the urgency it required in 2003 when the conflict
broke out was concern that it would undermine the peace process
between north and south. There is now a peace agreement between
north and south, but that is coming under pressure in turn, partly
because of the situation in Darfur. There have been worrying signs
recently about implementation of the comprehensive peace agreement,
and we think that it is important that the British Government
get behind an international effort to ensure that that peace process
stays on track.
Kate Allen: The only thing that
I would add is that the conflict has spread to Chad and the Central
African Republic. We have had two missions to those areas recently,
and we have seen and heard about the cross-border attacks by the
Janjaweed militia and other armed groups. It is hugely concerning
that the conflict has spread.
Amnesty would also welcome assistance from the
UK Government in gaining access to Sudan. We have been refused
access. The last time that we were in Sudan, as opposed to on
the borders, was in 2004. The then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw,
assisted us in gaining that access from the Sudanese Government.
Any support that the Government could give us would be gratefully
received.
Chairman: I am conscious of the time.
I warn my colleagues that I do not intend to go on for longer
than 10 minutes. We would like to touch briefly on a number of
other countries.
Q38 Mr. Hamilton: Okay, I will be
as quick as possible. The report of the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office does not include Somalia as a country of major concern.
Only three paragraphs are dedicated to it in the section on conflict
prevention, yet we know that Somalia is a state that has collapsed
almost completely. We know that the Union of Islamic Courts has
taken control of Mogadishu. The most that members of the public
tend to know about Somalia is learnt from the film "Black
Hawk Down", if they have seen it. And yet, massive human
rights abuses are going on, particularly in the Ogaden region,
which Human Rights Watch has drawn our attention to. There is
a massive crisis following the civil war, with 2.5 million people
needing assistance or food. My question is quite an easy one.
Do you think that the Government have not fully appreciated the
scale of the crisis and the danger to human beings in Somalia?
Tom Porteous: Indeed, that is
our conclusion. Allow me to correct you on a couple of points.
The Ogaden region, in which there are serious problems at the
moment, is in Ethiopia. The Union of Islamic Courts was in control
of Mogadishu but was dislodged by the Ethiopian forces in early
2007.
Q39 Mr. Hamilton: And your accusation
is that the Ethiopians are perpetrating human rights violations?
Tom Porteous: All sides in the
conflict have perpetrated very serious abuses and violations of
international humanitarian law, in our opinion amounting to war
crimes. We therefore think it extraordinary that, in the section
on the conflict in Somalia of the report by the Foreign Office
on human rights, there is no mention of the Ethiopian presence
in Somalia, let alone the conduct of its forces. We think that
that is very serious. The Government are now a little more seized
of the matter than they were. In our interactions with him, Lord
Malloch-Brown has been more sympathetic to our views about Somalia
than his predecessor.
The fact remains that the UK, the US and the
EU got it wrong on Somalia when they came down in support of the
Ethiopian intervention. The Union of Islamic Courts was dislodged,
but there was no consideration of the humanitarian consequences
of the conflict that was bound to break out. The consequences
are now very clear. The humanitarian situation has been described
by the UN as the worst in the world. We regard the human rights
situation there as absolutely terrible.
Politically, the abuses that have been perpetrated
in the course of the military operation have provided a propaganda
coup to Islamist extremists in the region. Militarily, the situation
is probably deteriorating. The Ethiopians are unable to get on
top of the situation and withdraw, which is what they need to
do, because there is no real strategy in Somalia as far as we
can see.
We are calling for a commission of inquiry to
look into the abuses that have taken place in Somalia. We would
also like to see a mapping of the abuses that have taken place
over the last decade or so. As in Afghanistan, part of the problem
is terrorism, but a major part of the problem is years of impunity.
That problem must be tackled. We are not saying that it will be
easy to do so in the current security atmosphere. It will be very
difficult, but unless that problem is tackled, the crisis in Somalia
will continue to fester and to breed regional instability. So
we think that the Foreign Office needs to address Somalia with
a great deal of urgency and not just to see it through the prism
of counter-terrorism, but to see it through a prism of accountability
and human rights.
Kate Allen: Briefly, there have
been 1 million dead since 1991, more than a million people displaced
internally, no rule of law, and again, for women rape is just
a common occurrence. I look forward to hearing the Minister's
reply to your question as to why it is not a country of concern.
| 
