Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-48)
KATE ALLEN
AND TOM
PORTEOUS
30 APRIL 2008
Q40 Mr. Hamilton: Pakistan obviously
gives some cause for concern. I know that Human Rights Watch has
been very worried, especially, I think, about the way in which
the courts and the judges have been undermined by President Musharraf's
arrest and sacking of members of the judiciary in Pakistan. Your
Human Rights Watch submission claims that the UK may have been
complicit in a number of human rights abuses linked to counter-terrorism
in Pakistan. How confident are you that these are accurate allegations?
What sort of evidence do you have?
Tom Porteous: First, there is
obviously a problem here. Let me give you a little bit of context.
We are trying to pull together the evidence, and obviously it
is very difficult to come by, because these are serious allegations.
But it is pretty clear that the US and the UK are relying rather
heavily on the well-known abusive Pakistani intelligence agency,
the Inter-Services Intelligence, in their counter-terrorism operations.
We have documented the abuses of the ISI for many years. It has
well-known links with extremist elements in Afghanistan, with
the Taliban, in Pakistan and in the Arab world. In fact, it was
behind the Taliban initially, as you will remember. It is one
of the most brutal intelligence agencies in the world and yet
the US and the UK have been relying rather heavily on it in their
counter-terrorism efforts in that particular region and, as far
as the UK is concerned, in its counter-terrorism efforts at home,
because obviously there is a large British community of Pakistani
origin.
We also know from this report, among other things,
that the UK is grappling with the dilemma of what to do about
evidence that is important for combating terrorism but is also
suspect because there is a suspicion that it has been extracted
under terrorism. It is pretty clear, reading between the lines
of that section in the Foreign Office's report, that it is referring
to Pakistan here. It is obviously having to deal with this problem.
That is the sort of background.
When it comes to the detail, you probably read
the front page report of The Guardian yesterday which identifies
two men, British citizens, Salahuddin Amin and Zeeshan Saddiqui,
who were arrested in Pakistan at the request of the British authorities.
They were then allegedlythere is quite good evidence for
this, not only their own statements but also medical evidencequite
brutally treated over long periods and tortured and interrogated.
Now it seems that in these cases, and in a couple of other cases
that we are also aware of, British Security Service officials
were brought in to interrogate them during their period of detention
by the Pakistani authorities.
In these two cases, the detention appears to
have been illegalthey were not charged and there was no
due processand the treatment was allegedly very brutal.
We were a corroborative source for the Guardian story in
both those cases. We are aware of two other cases where the British
appear to have been involved in interrogating suspects in Pakistan
who, according to their lawyers, were allegedly tortured. One
of them is Rangzeib Ahmed and the other Rashid Rauf, who was allegedly
an important player in the Heathrow bombing of last year.
As one of the lawyers for these men, Tayab Ali,
said in The Guardian, "at the very worst, the British
Security Service instigates the illegal detention and torture
of British citizens, and at the very best turns a blind eye to
torture." It is incredible that British agents would not
be aware of the kind of treatment these men could expect at the
hands of the Pakistani intelligence agency. Either way, the circumstances
seem to amount to complicity and collusion in the mistreatment
of these men.
To conclude, there might appear in the short
term to be some advantage in relying so heavily on such abusive
tactics in counter-terrorism but, in the longer term, we feel
that it will be a disaster, because your are just piling up the
grievances and the sense of injustice that fuels radicalisation
and acts as a recruiting sergeant for terrorism. Condoning torture,
therefore, even if it is only implicit, is a question of national
security. The other point is that, if we are going to get to the
bottom of what these suspects are supposed to have done, which
is a crucial question, and if we are to give them proper trials,
the fact that they were tortured will prejudice that process.
Q41 Mr. Hamilton: These are very
serious allegations. Have you had any response from the British
Government or Government Ministers?
Tom Porteous: We have raised some
of these concerns with the British Government over the past months
and we have met with denials.
Chairman: I am conscious of the time.
Ms Allen, is there anything you wish to add to that?
Kate Allen: Just one point: the
entry in the FCO's human rights report on Pakistan is very disappointing.
It is hugely uncritical. It barely mentions the impact of the
state of emergency on human rights. It is an example of a lack
of consistency of approach by the FCO. Friend or foe, there should
be a consistent approach when tackling human rights and not a
pretence that issues do not exist.
Q42 Chairman: Thank you. I would
like to briefly touch on the situation in Israel and the occupied
Palestinian territories. No doubt, we will have other opportunities
to talk about this issue, but what is your assessment of the current
situation? The FCO says that the situation has not improved over
the course of the last year. Would you regard that as an understatement?
Kate Allen: Yes, we consider that
there has been a marked deterioration in the last year. A range
of issues, such as the collective punishments that are being meted
out to Palestinians by Israeli actions, should be brought to an
end. The issues surrounding the continuation of the settlements
and the existence of the fence, or the wall, need to be brought
to some conclusion. Amnesty condemn indiscriminate rocket attacks
from Gaza into Israel. We think that there is a complete deterioration
in the relationship between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.
Ordinary citizens are suffering as a result.
Chairman: Do you want to add anything?
Tom Porteous: Yes. The situation
in Gaza is particularly bad, and we think it is important that
the British Government should call it what it is: collective punishment.
We had a conversation recently with a Foreign Office official,
and he privately agreed that it was collective punishment, but
said that for political reasons it was impossible for the British
Government to say, as the EU Commissioner has done, that that
is what it is. It is important to use this language of collective
punishment and indiscriminate military action when talking about
the situation in Gaza, whether it is a question of measures that
the Israelis take against the Gazans or attacks by Palestinian
militias against Israelis, which are also indiscriminate.
Q43 Chairman: What about Palestinian-on-Palestinian
violenceinternal Palestinian violence? Have you any assessment
of that? Is that situation getting worse?
Tom Porteous: Obviously, with
the split between Hamas and Fatah, it is certainly getting worse.
There is not much that the UK, the EU or the US can do to exercise
any sort of influence over Hamas, because they do not talk to
Hamas. At least, there is no political, diplomatic leverage. I
think that it is very important for the EU and the UK to use their
influence over Fatah, which is considerable. The EU is providing
support through a project called EU COPPSthe EU Co-ordinating
Office for Palestinian Police Supportand I think that human
rights should be put at the heart of that support effort.
Q44 Chairman: Can I now switch focus?
In your written evidence, both of you have commented on the inadequacy
of the references to Saudi Arabia in the FCO's human rights report,
and you in Human Rights Watch have specifically made comparisons
with Zimbabwe in terms of the level of language used. Why do you
think we pull our punches with regard to Saudi Arabia?
Tom Porteous: It is no secret;
it is because of strategic, counter-terrorism, commercial and
energy security interests. Saudi Arabia is a very important ally
of the UK, as we saw during the visit of King Abdullah, when the
red carpet was rolled out. We think it is important for the UK
to engage on all those issues, but we think that the UK should
also engage on the issue of human rights.
In Saudi Arabia, there is not even, really,
a pretence of democracy. As we said in a report that came out
last week, women there are treated as minors for the whole of
their livesthey are legally treated as children. Hundreds
of security detainees are held without charge for months or years
on end. Torture is widespread. There is very little accountability
for abuses by agents of the state. Critics of the Government and
political dissidents are routinely harassed, whether they are
on the radical Islamist side or on the moderate reformist side.
Precisely because of the UK's strategic interest in Saudi Arabia,
we think it important that the UK should be addressing squarely
these questions of reform, because the long-term stability of
that country depends, we feel, on progress with regard to human
rights.
Kate Allen: I would just like
to add to that picture. The use of the death penalty has increased
in the last year. In 2006, we saw 39 people executed. In 2007,
the figure was 158. That included the execution of Dhahian Rakan
al-Sibai'i, a 15-year-old who was beheaded on 21 July last year.
We at Amnesty International campaigned to stop that execution,
obviously unsuccessfully. As has been said, torture is routinely
used. The highest number of lashes imposed that we have know of
was on two men accused of sodomy who received 7,000 lashes. We
know of at least three people who had their right hand amputated
above the wrist.
Trade and security issues are important, but
these abuses take place within the Saudi regime. The UK Government
need to raise these issues with the Saudi Government and not just
in the Two Kingdoms' Dialogue. Again, it is difficult with these
dialogues. When they have no set ambitions, they go on and on
and become an excuse for a lack of public debate and accountability
for Governments who treat their people in such an appalling way.
Chairman: I am going to move to another
continent.
Q45 Andrew Mackinlay: For speed,
I will just mention the countries: the Maldivessmall but
important, but remote; out of sight and out of mindColombia
and Iran. If we have no more time, can I just bounce those three
off them?
Kate Allen: Can I get back to
you on the Maldives?
Tom Porteous: I do not have any
comment on the Maldives. I do not know much about it.
Q46 Andrew Mackinlay: Okay. Colombia
and Iran are big things, are they not?
Tom Porteous: Kate, shall I do
Colombia and you do Iran?
Chairman: Can you do Colombia?
Tom Porteous: I will do Colombia
and Kate can do Iran to save time.
The important issue the Committee should focus
on is UK military aid to Colombia. We think the British Government
could be doing more to use aid as a lever for improvements in
the record of the Colombian military. The military has a record
of being associated with paramilitaries, which are responsible
for very serious abuses. It also has a record of being involved
in extra-judicial executions.
Those paramilitaries have been involved in the
assassination of large numbers of trade union activists over recent
years. That should be of concern for the Labour party in particular
but also for anyone who cares about human rights. The problem
is that the military aid the British Government grant to Colombia
is unconditional with regard to any kind of human rights improvements.
We think that that sends a bad message. The military in Colombia
will go on getting these military goodies without having to do
anything in return with respect to human rights. So we would very
much like the British Government to make its aid conditional on
an improvement.
In fact, the UK seems to be being saddled with
a policy that even the American Government have moved beyond.
After the Democrats took control of Congress last year, they froze
some military aid to Colombia on human rights grounds. We think
that the UK should at least get back into step with the policy
of the Americans.
Chairman: Iran.
Kate Allen: The entry in the human
rights report remains critical of Iran and highlights serious
deterioration. Amnesty would agree with that. Again, talking about
the death penalty, in 2007, at least 335 people were executed,
including at least six child offenders. So far this year, 80 people
have been executed, including at least one child offender.
Torture continues. There are also huge concerns
about the nature of trials and the way in which people are dealt
with. In terms of arrests and detention, human rights defenders,
political activists and minority communities are targeted.
Freedom of expression continues to be under
real pressure, including access to the internet and press freedom.
Many newspapers have been shut down. NGOs are harassed. As I said
earlier in terms of women organising, there is a campaign for
equality, which women in Iran are very bravely pursuing. The aim
is to collect 1 million signatures calling for an end to legalised
discrimination against women, and many of the women involved in
that have been arrested and imprisoned. It is a bleak situation.
In the absence of an EU-Iran human rights dialogue,
the UK Government continue to work through international partners
and NGOs, and also through the UN, to maintain a spotlight on
the country. We hope that work will continue.
Chairman: Thank you.
Q47 Sir John Stanley: As you may
have seen, we had a full-scale debate in Westminster Hall two
or three weeks ago regarding our last report on Russia. We covered
a number of human rights issues in that debate. I want to focus
on just one of those. In a country where, sadly, human rights
seem to be going backwards, one of the few flickerings of hope
is the enormous courage of a limited number of people in the media
who are determined to write as accurately as they canto
write, in particular, because television is pretty well blocked
and radio is mostly blocked as wellabout what has gone
on under the Putin regime and what will now go on under his successor.
A number of those people have lost their jobs
and some have been kicked out of the country. Some, sadly, have
died in unknown circumstances, and there would appear to be strong
circumstantial evidence that the fact of their having written
critical comments about the Putin regime was not unrelated to
their deaths. What, if anything, do you think the British Government
can do to try to support this small group of very, very brave
people who are standing up in the media forand putting
themselves at personal risk forfreedom of expression in
Russia?
Tom Porteous: I think the British
Government are not in a very good position to take the lead in
the EU on speaking out firmly to the Russians on the issue of
freedom of expression, because of the poor relationship at the
moment, for various reasons with which you are familiar, between
the UK and Moscow. However, I think that, behind the scenes in
the EU, the UK should be encouraging its EU partners to speak
out very clearly on these issues and to send a very strong message
to Russia that this kind of treatment of the mediathis
kind of quiet but rather lethal restriction and repression of
freedom of expressionis something that the EU takes very
seriously, and will put at the front of its dialogue with Russia.
Unfortunately, this is not the only problem
in Russia. There is also a severe crackdown on civil society,
also rather quiet but rather lethal. They have been tying up NGOs
in endless bureaucracy so that they cannot get on and do their
work. There is also, of course, the problem in the north Caucasus,
which remains in spite of the fact that the war fighting in Chechnya
has come to an end. The conflict is there, and it is spreading
from Chechnya into the rest of the north Caucasus, so there is
a strategic issue there as well.
There is one flicker of light, which is that
the President-elect, Dmitry Medvedev, has pledged to uphold the
rule of law, but, unfortunately, if you look at his history and
the history of his career, he has been a very close associate
of Putin and closely connected to Putin's policies over the last
few years. In fact, Putin himself, when he came to power, made
exactly the same pledges, which were, sadly, disappointed. However,
the pledges have been made and the EU should build on those and
insist that those pledges should be honoured.
Kate Allen: I have a very small
point to add. At Amnesty, we obviously work with many individuals
who are under pressure. We have worked with journalists who have
been working in Chechnya and we have had them here in the UK.
We have brought them to the attention of the UK Government, and
on a very individual level there is a cloak of protection that
can be given to individuals when that takes place and when support
is seen to be given to individuals who are working in that way.
Q48 Sir John Stanley: You referred
earlier to the very serious human rights abuses that have taken
place in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the abuses you
were referring to were African against African, basically. I just
want to highlight another issue because, very sadly, some of the
abuses that have taken place there have been committed from within
the UN contingents.
We have had very serious allegations of sexual
abuses and, more recently, we have had allegations of abuses and
exploitation of minerals and illegal mineral trading of the country's
minerals by both the Indian contingent and the Pakistani contingent.
Could you give us your perspective on how adequate or not you
judge the UN's present capacity to look honestly, objectively
and rigorously at disciplinary failures and possible criminal
activities by members of UN contingents? Because any military
force that is unable to do this will never be able to stand up
for human rights.
Tom Porteous: The UN has the capacity
but it does not necessarily have the political will to conduct
the necessary investigations. In fact, in the case of the recent
scandal over the trade of arms for minerals by certain contingents
within the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, there was an investigationthere were several
investigations; there were several reports, but they were suppressed.
Each time the matter went up the chain of command, the report
was watered down. That is why, in the end, it had to come through
the media rather than through the internal processes of the UN,
because it was clear that the UN was trying to whitewash this
whole situation. But we hope that with this kind of media attention,
this will actually shame the UN into taking the rigorous action
that is required to deal with this issue.
On the issue of sexual abuse, the UN does have
more political will to act, because these are very serious taboos
and so we are more hopeful. On the issue of corruption, the UN
really needs to get its act together and find the political will
to do what it is perfectly capable of doing.
Chairman: Thank you very much. We are
grateful to Ms Allen and Mr. Porteous. Once again, we have covered
a large area, and this has been very helpful to us. Next week,
the Minister, Lord Malloch-Brown, will be giving evidence to us
and we will also be pursuing our inquiries later when we come
to write the report. Thank you very much.
|