Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
60-79)
KATE ALLEN
AND TOM
PORTEOUS
10 JUNE 2009
Q60 Andrew Mackinlay: Are there
international conventions on this?
Kate Allen: Not that I am aware
of.
Q61 Chairman: The Government's
consultation ends next week, as I understand it. Have either of
you made a submission to the Government in response to it?
Kate Allen: I am not sure that
we have yet, but we shall certainly make our views known.
Chairman: I think that 17 July is the
closing date. It was announced in a written statement in April.
Tom Porteous: We have not. Like
everyone, we are affected by the economic crisis, and our capacity
is limited.
Q62 Chairman: Obviously, the Committee
has taken a long-standing interest in this matter and has pressed
for regulation for many years. The Government have now come up
with this voluntary scheme, but they will have to introduce proposals
to Parliament later in the year, based on the outcome of the consultation.
So obviously we will continue to take a close interest. I want
to move on to the general situation of human rights in the world.
In previous years and reports, we have discussed with you the
move within the UN system to a Human Rights Council. When it was
first established, people said that it was too early to judge
whether it was an improvement on the previous system under the
commission. We were told by the FCO that we needed to give it
time to settle down. What are the implications of the appalling
ineffectiveness of the UN Human Rights Council with regard to
the terrible human rights abuses in Sri Lanka? The council has
clearly shown not only that it is unprepared to criticise a Government,
but that it is prepared to explicitly endorse the position of
a Government that is allegedly, and in my own view definitely,
carrying out actions leading to the death and injury of thousands
of civilians.
Kate Allen: Shall I pick up on
the points about the Human Rights Council and leave Tom to talk
about Sri Lanka? We agree with the human rights report that the
Human Rights Council continues to be politicised and to struggle
to fulfil its potential. That is all too evident. But there are
also reasons for optimism about the Human Rights Council and we
at Amnesty are supportive of the universal periodic review mechanism
that is in place. We have seen some 64 states go through that
review. We at Amnesty are making various proposals to the Human
Rights Council about the ways in which that periodic review can
be strengthened and how we can ensure that concrete, measurable
actions are suggested to countries that come out of the reviews,
thereby encouraging states to accept the recommendations to let
the Human Rights Council know of the positions that the country
is taking on those recommendations, including practical measures
around how those measurable recommendations could be implemented,
and timetables and other mechanisms to see some progress on those.
It is interesting that, when looking at some of the responses
of different countries to the universal periodic reviews, you
see some moves in some places. Although Cuba, for example, has
rejected many of the suggestions on freedom of information, it
has said that it would consider letting human rights organisations
into the country. So with the nature of these reviews—getting
into really specific recommendations that can then be followed
up by the Human Rights Council—it is possible that we may
see some progress. But we still remain vigilant, obviously, about
the Human Rights Council. We are quite disturbed by the lack of
competition for places: this is sort of sewn up ahead of the actual
elections, so that we do not see votes taking place. That practice
could come back to bite the Human Rights Council over time and
we could start to see the likes of Zimbabwe and Sudan back here.
But we also welcome the USA's election to the council. That is
a change in terms of engagement that will, hopefully, start to
provide some real support there.
Tom Porteous: I agree with that.
It is a mixed bag. Of course, the UN Human Rights Council is politicised;
it always will be, for as long as it exists. The Security Council
is also politicised.
Chairman: And the General Assembly.
Tom Porteous: And we don't suggest
that it should be closed down as a result. The performance of
the Human Rights Council this year has been particularly dismal,
particularly over Sri Lanka, as you mentioned. The resolution
in May was absolutely appalling. It was an opportunity for the
Human Rights Council to do what it is supposed to do, which is
to protect human rights, but it completely failed and, as you
noted, it actually congratulated the Sri Lankan Government on
its victory over the LTTE—which is not to say that the LTTE
themselves are not serious abusers of human rights. But the Human
Rights Council undermined its very purpose. Apart from that, I
agree with Kate's analysis. Another positive thing about the Human
Rights Council is that, in spite of the fact that most of the
regions presented clean slates for the election, in those regions
where there was not a clean slate there was an opportunity to
vote bad candidates out and to keep them off the council. That
happened with Sri Lanka last year, which was extremely good, and
it happened with Azerbaijan this year. However, unfortunately,
Saudi Arabia, China and Cuba were all elected, albeit at the bottom
of their regional slates. So the election process is positive.
Q63 Chairman: On the question
of Sri Lanka, I am interested in whether the wording of the motion
that was adopted sets a dangerous precedent by referring to the
conflict as a "domestic matter that does not warrant outside
interference". Presumably, any country in the world could
then use a similar argument for action relating to what they allege
to be real or alleged threats to their state from insurgents,
terrorist groups, or whatever, on the basis that how they deal
with that is a domestic matter and nobody should interfere.
Tom Porteous: There is increasing
polarisation in the world, particularly between the west and the
south, on the subject of sovereignty. As we see a redistribution
of global power from the west to the east, the rise of China and
the rise and influence of other states that do not have particularly
good human rights records and that are keen to assert the principle
of total sovereignty, we will see more of this kind of thing.
Yes, it is a bad precedent, and the Human Rights Council is there
precisely to look at human rights abuses which, by their very
nature, occur within the context of the domestic politics of different
countries around the world. Often these countries say, "Well
this can't be a matter for the UN Security Council, because it
is not a matter of international peace and security. Let's refer
it to the Human Rights Council." It is the job of the Human
Rights Council to look at these sorts of issues.
Q64 Chairman: You referred to
China and the shift in power in the world. It was not just China;
India and Egypt—both very big countries—were also
part of that 29-12 vote on the issue. The majority represents
the clear majority of the population of the world, if you add
them all up. Is there not now a significant shift away from the
position a few years ago, with the responsibility to protect and
those kinds of issues? Are we not now moving back, with human
rights being pushed back?
Tom Porteous: That is the case,
and it is certainly a concern of ours. It is partly a result of
global economic trends, but it is also, to be frank, the result
of very bad decisions taken by western policy makers in the past
eight years. The abuses that have been committed by the US and,
to some extent, collaborated in by the UK over the past eight
years, have led to a significant decrease in the ability of the
west—particularly the US and the UK—to present themselves
as champions of human rights.
Q65 Mr. Hamilton: May I move on
to the Durban review process—the conference that was held
in Geneva in April to look at the first Durban conference? On
the first day of that conference, 21 April, President Ahmadinejad
of Iran delivered a speech which our Foreign Secretary described
as "offensive, inflammatory and utterly unacceptable."
He said that the President's comments "describing Israel
as a `racist government' established on the `pretext' of Jewish
suffering", were deeply offensive to many, and the UK delegation
left the hall, but the Foreign Secretary justified Britain's continued
participation on the ground that, "The fight against racism
remains a global struggle. Victims of racism deserve better than
political squabbling and intolerant polemics." My question
to you both is, do you think that the Government were right to
continue to participate in the Durban review process? If so, does
that not lend credibility to people such as Ahmadinejad, who tried
to hijack that conference for their own purposes?
Tom Porteous: No. We do not take
a view on the wisdom of walking out of Ahmadinejad's speech—that
was a decision for the British Government. However, we were certainly
very keen that the UK Government should take part in the conference.
I don't need to remind you in this week, of all weeks in British
politics, of the importance of combating racism in all its forms.
The Durban review process, albeit flawed and difficult, is the
only process at the international level that makes that effort
to address the problem of racism. It is an issue that we especially
cannot afford to ignore in a time of global economic recession.
I do not need to give you history lessons about the 1920s and
1930s.
Q66 Mr. Hamilton: Mr. Porteous,
let me interrupt you for a second. I accept everything that you
say and I think that it is a very important process. I agree with
you, but how would you respond to my constituents—I represent
the largest Jewish community in Yorkshire—who say that British
participation in a conference that denigrated the Jewish people
and was clearly anti-Semitic is deeply offensive to them?
Tom Porteous: The conference did
not denigrate the Jewish people. One individual—the President
of Iran, whose views are well known around the world—decided,
for his own political purposes, to come to that conference and
deliver a speech. He was the only Head of State, as far as I am
aware, who came to Geneva to attend that conference. The important
thing is that states such as the UK should be there, and they
were there. We urged the UK to overcome its hesitation at the
beginning of the year, and to go to Geneva and attend the review
conference. It was extremely important for the UK and other like-minded
states to attend, to ensure that the outcome of the conference—the
document that came out of it—was internationally acceptable
and did not contain any of the sorts of outrageous comments that
were made in the sidelines of the conference, if I may put it
like that, by people such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Q67 Mr. Hamilton: And others who
claimed that Zionism was equal to racism.
Kate Allen: Just to make Amnesty's
position clear, we absolutely reject and condemn what was said
by the President of Iran, but we were pleased that the British
Government were there to argue and face down those kinds of issues
and to engage in discussions about racism and how to tackle it.
It was necessary to stay at the conference and confront those
issues, not ignore them. That could be one answer to your constituents:
it is worth facing down that form of racism, to ensure that there
are ways to move forward on the issues that Durban was talking
about.
Q68 Mr. Purchase: I have a question
about the Human Rights Committee. Sandra, I and others, met with
the Chair earlier this year, and it was perfectly clear that she
was well aware that this is an arena of national interest and
international alliances. The areas I was concerned about, where
Britain appears to think that it has made a difference, is the
rights of gays, lesbians and other sexual minorities. Although
we have obtained a form of wording, do you believe that attitudes
in Islamic countries will change in the slightest while they retain
those fundamentalist views, or that gay people—if I may
use an umbrella term—will be less discriminated against?
Kate Allen: It is not only in
Muslim countries. There are many other countries where it is very
tough to be gay and be open about that. Problems of discrimination
do not rest with one faith or religion; we at Amnesty we have
seen that discrimination in many parts of the world. Ongoing struggles
are taking place and we at Amnesty are proud to be part of them
and to work with people globally to raise these issues and take
up that battle. It is part of the work that we do in many countries,
supporting individuals who are forcibly taking forward these matters.
Recently, we at Amnesty were part of the gay pride demonstration
in Riga, where there was massive abuse of people in that country
who were demonstrating for their rights. At the same time, the
Russian authorities banned the gay pride march and literally set
the police on demonstrators in Russia. That goes to show that
we are not talking about one particular part of the world and
its prejudices, but about a much broader range of prejudices that
need to be confronted.
Q69 Mr. Purchase: I understand
absolutely that this is not just an Islamic problem. I am talking
about fanatics everywhere of every persuasion—not general
people who hold religious views, but the fanatics and fundamentalists—who,
everywhere that they are found, are opposed to the rights of fellow
human beings who are gay or lesbian.
Tom Porteous: It is not just religion.
One place where we find serious discrimination is the Caribbean.
Mr. Purchase: But it is religious in
the Caribbean.
Andrew Mackinlay: Go on, because this
is our responsibility—the Caribbean Overseas Territories.
Tom Porteous: You are familiar
with the allegations of homophobia and so on against some of the
black rappers—they are not particularly inspired by religion.
Q70 Chairman: I think Mr. Purchase
is opening up a generalised debate about culture and society worldwide.
There are international covenants and standards, but they are
not universally applied. In many countries—even in ones
that have signed up—the practices are not permitted.
Mr. Purchase: It creates serious problems
for fellow human beings.
Chairman: It does indeed.
Kate Allen: It is not so long
ago that we in this country had section 28, which was another
discriminatory provision.
Chairman: One that was repealed just
under 10 years ago. We will move on to a different international
issue: the International Criminal Court. Do you want to come in
on that?
Q71 Ms Stuart: Yes, but before
I do, may I warn you not to be politically naive about the Iranians?
Whether in Geneva or two months before in Munich, it suited the
Iranians' domestic political purposes to be seen to be walked
out on. On the International Criminal Court, the notion that we
must bring certain international crimes to trial was very much
based on the example of the Nuremberg trial.
Tom Porteous: Which trial?
Ms Stuart: The Nuremberg trial. The important
thing about that was that it happened on German soil. The geography
was important to the cleansing process. We now have the International
Criminal Court, but in certain parts of the world, particularly
in Africa, it is perceived as a body that is quite alien to their
frameworks and as interfering. Is that your perception? If so,
what can we do about it?
Tom Porteous: There is certainly
a growing pushback from the opponents of international justice
against the principle of securing accountability for serious crimes
of war through mechanisms such as the ICC and ad hoc tribunals,
which have been held not only in Africa, but in Yugoslavia. We
are concerned about the way in which international justice has
been misrepresented, particularly in Africa, as a tool of western
neo-imperialism. The ICC currently has four dossiers on African
states: Sudan, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the
Central African Republic. Of those four, three were self-referred—that
is, the African states asked the ICC to investigate and to carry
out prosecutions, if that is what the investigations led to. The
fourth, as you well know, was referred by the Security Council,
which is the highest UN body. If you look at the facts, you see
the truth that the ICC has not, on its own initiative, gone into
Africa to sort out African human rights abuses and suspected war
criminals. The fact remains that Africa is the theatre of some
of the worst human rights abuses carried out in armed conflicts
in the world. It is in some ways not surprising that Africa has
been a focus for the ICC. It is important for countries such as
the UK to point out those facts when confronted with arguments
about the ICC being a tool of western imperialism and so forth.
Of course there are legitimate questions about whether, in some
circumstances, the pursuit of justice can upset and get in the
way of the pursuit of peace and stability. Such questions have
emerged recently in the cases of Sudan and the Congo. Those are
legitimate concerns. However, one must bear in mind that in some
parts of the world, the pursuit of justice has helped to consolidate
peace and security. That has happened in the Balkans, arguably,
and it has happened in west Africa, where international justice
was an important component of the British Government's conflict
resolution programme for Sierra Leone. We now have Charles Taylor
in The Hague before the Special Court for Sierra Leone. If you
look at the inverse argument, it is true that when suspected war
criminals go unpunished and sit with great influence in government,
as is the case now in Afghanistan, it is a source of delegitimisation.
It is a propaganda coup for the enemies of that Government, namely
the Taliban, who, I believe, are also our enemies in Afghanistan.
One should not forget the advantages of international justice,
as well as the alleged risks. We have come a long way with international
justice, particularly with the setting up of the International
Criminal Court. We need to consolidate those gains. Overall, the
trend is positive. Of course there are shortcomings—the
ICC does not have the power of enforcing its arrest warrants,
as we are seeing in the case of Sudan. That is unfortunate, but
it is important that countries such as the UK continue to support
international justice wherever possible. On the whole, they have
done so. The exception, I am afraid, is the case of Rwanda. We
have sought very hard to have the International Criminal Tribunal
for Rwanda try suspected war criminals, not only on the side of
the genocidaires—the people who carried out the 1994 genocide—but
on the side of the RPA, which later became the Government. There
are very serious allegations, backed up by credible evidence,
that certain members of the RPA committed very serious war crimes—not
on the same level as the genocide, but none the less worthy of
being examined by the ICTR. I am afraid that the British Government's
position is that those people should be tried in Rwanda, but in
Rwanda no one can get a fair trial for those kinds of crime.
Ms Stuart: Kate Allen, do you agree with
that?
Kate Allen: I do. It is worth
remembering that something like 108 states have now ratified the
Rome Treaty. Thirty of them are African countries, so there is
real support for that treaty in that continent. The International
Criminal Court was set up in 2002, so it is still a very young
court that needs the kind of support that Tom was talking about,
to ensure that it is able to do its work.
Q72 Ms Stuart: I think it was
in 2002 that we went to US and asked John Bolton why the US had
not signed up. He famously replied, "Do you seriously think
I am having an American soldier tried by a Belgian?" Do you
think there is a slightly more enlightened view in the Obama Administration
and that they might actually sign up?
Kate Allen: It is interesting
that Hillary Clinton has reportedly welcomed the arrest warrant
for President al-Bashir. I am sure that those instincts about
the court remain, in terms of what it is doing, there seems to
be a different approach.
Tom Porteous: I thought you would
ask that question, so I got in touch with our office in Washington
to find out what the position is. The fact is that they do not
have a policy on the ICC yet.
Ms Stuart: Thank you. That was helpful.
Q73 Mr. Purchase: I want to ask
you a little about international trade, ethical standards and
how Britain reacts to the extraction industries, in particular.
We have just seen the long awaited justice for relatives of Ken
Saro-Wiwa and others involved in that case. Do you have any concrete
examples of unethical activities by UK companies overseas? Do
you see it as a widespread problem?
Kate Allen: To answer in a broader
sense, I think that the UK Government have no overarching strategy
on business and human rights. What we have are a Government who
conflate human rights with corporate social responsibility. They
do not understand or support the statutory element of the need
to protect human rights and the ways that that needs to be done.
We also have privately owned companies based in the UK that cannot
be held to account for their actions overseas. The Ken Saro-Wiwa
case conclusion this week shows the difficulties involved in people
being able to get justice—it has taken 14 years of struggle
to get an out of court settlement. We simply do not have the means
to bring those companies to account in the UK. We at Amnesty have
proposed the creation of a UK commission on business, human rights
and the environment, which would have the ability to operate as
a broader hub of networks of actors working in the UK and abroad.
The commission would look at good practice and play a co-ordinating,
capacity-building role, but it would also be able to deal with
complaints against UK parent companies, address those issues and
ensure that they were remedied. We would like the British Government
to take much more of a leadership role, because we feel that they
do not do so at present. They seem to be much more of a mind of
voluntary initiatives, rather than anything with more teeth. On
the opening part of your question, we think that the UK Export
Credits Guarantee Department, in its initiatives, does not show
respect for protecting human rights in the context of business
activity. It reports to the Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills and does not operate projects itself, but it has facilitated
projects that have resulted in great concern for us about the
protection of human rights. A particular example in relation to
host government agreements centres on a pipeline through Azerbaijan,
Georgia and Turkey. A consortium led by BP negotiated to protect
itself from any changes in either national or international law
during the lifetime of that pipeline, which was expected to be
40 years. We would like the ECGD to behave differently.
Q74 Mr. Purchase: May I run you
down the well worn path—particularly well worn at a time
of economic downturn—where the idea that a Government, particularly
a Labour Government, would impose new obligations on companies
is seen as yet another burdensome problem? We hear that regularly
in relation to the arms trade, but in this specific matter, how
would a Government and ECGD officials answer that charge, which
is bound to be made if we went down your proposed route? It seems
very sensible to impose quality checks and to monitor, but how
would we answer the charge that it would be anti-competitive for
British business because no one else is doing it?
Kate Allen: By raising those issues
an international level and trying to get a common playing field.
For example, the route that the Government took on arms—UK
legislation, European guidelines and now an international arms
trade treaty—shows that there are ways of taking up issues
that internationalise them. I would argue very strongly against
the fact that, in the global economic downturn, human rights—not
only in relation to business, but in many ways—should be
put to one side as a luxury that cannot be afforded. Amnesty's
recently launched annual report strongly urges world leaders,
particularly G20 leaders, which is a group that our Prime Minister
has played a role within, to put human rights at the centre of
their decisions. Any attempt to deal with economic issues that
does not also consider and protect human rights issues could lead
to even greater repression in the world, to the greater detriment
of human rights. The World Bank has already told us that 150 million
more people entered poverty last year. We have seen the impact
of that in terms of riots in various parts of the world over food
prices and other issues. If we do not put human rights at the
centre of some of our considerations, we will see more and more
of that.
Q75 Sandra Osborne: In last year's
human rights response to the Government, we asked them to ensure
that the key issues of women's rights, children's rights and the
promotion of democracy were given greater prominence. In this
year's report, they have devoted separate sections to each of
these and appended examples of bilateral work that they have carried
out. How would you assess the recent record of the Government
in relation to these issues?
Kate Allen: Shall I start off
on women's rights, and then perhaps Tom can pick up on children's
rights? On women's rights, the Committee asked last year that
women's rights be given greater prominence in the report. I think
that what we see in the Government's report is much clearer reporting
on the situation of women, and I think that the Committee should
be congratulated on getting that response from the Government.
I think what we still need to see in terms of the issue of women's
rights is greater strategic thinking in the way that the Foreign
Office adopts policy and practice. What I would like to see there
is about the way in which the United Kingdom Government can contribute
to and support the implementation of two very important UN resolutions.
We have resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, and resolution
1820 on sexual violence in conflict zones. I think that the UK
Government could play a really vital role internationally in seeing
those two resolutions have some real muscle attached to them.
Resolution 1325, as I said, is about post-conflict situations.
Quite clearly, the UK Government, both in terms of Iraq and Afghanistan,
has a central role that it could play about the way in which women
are at the centre of the decisions that are made in the situation
of post-conflict there, and I know that the Government have been
working on action plans around that particular resolution. Resolution
1820 is a more recent resolution. It is one that talks about sexual
violence. We have seen, for example, that in Sierra Leone, a third
of women faced sexual violence during that conflict, and the Government
there have not addressed those issues or the aftermath of those
issues in terms of the services that women need. So we would like
to see the British Government put real diplomatic and political
muscle behind those two resolutions. They should be developed
in consultation with women, not just in the traditional ways in
which the Government works in these areas but through independent
women's voices. I think that the Committee could have a real impact
if it championed these issues in its discussions with the Foreign
Secretary and could have a real impact in seeing even further
progress in next year's report when it tackles women's issues.
Tom Porteous: On women's rights
and children's rights, the UK does a pretty good job. I would
just highlight one area where we are concerned about not just
the UK's but the European Union's role, and that is the issue
of unaccompanied migrant children and unaccompanied child asylum
seekers. In 2008, over 1,000 unaccompanied children entered Greece.
Many of them were coming from Iraq, fleeing from the mayhem there.
These kids end up in Greece, on the streets, in a daily battle
for survival, looking for food and money, often living on the
streets, facing daily abuse from the Greek police. Their aim is
to get further into the European Union, where maybe they will
be treated a little better, but under the Dublin II regulation,
the first country where an unaccompanied child makes its application
for asylum is in charge of that application. Because of that,
any other European country that picks that person up, even a child,
can send them back to the original country, in this case Greece.
This is the fault of the European Union. The European Union should
address this problem, particularly with relation to children.
The European Commission should take legal action against Greece
for its treatment of unaccompanied minors who are seeking asylum
in that country, because it is absolutely appalling and unacceptable
that this kind of thing is going on in the European Union. I think
the European Union bears common responsibility—obviously
Greece is responsible for the behaviour of its security forces
when they abuse children, but the European Union's policies are
also to blame. It is not just Greece, by the way, it is also other
southern European countries. On the issue of the promotion of
democracy, I think there are a couple of really important questions
that come out here. One is related to the question of countries
emerging from conflict—countries like Afghanistan, Iraq,
Sudan and so on. A question that is often asked in foreign policy
circles, especially in relation to human rights, is how much democracy
can a country that is emerging from such a conflict actually afford.
Is not it sometimes better to install some sort of strong figure
who can create stability? The second question about democracy
that is often asked in this respect, especially with regard to
the Middle East, is what do we do if we want to promote democracies
in countries where it is likely that the victors of any elections
are going to be Islamists? Often, for good measure, it is added
that those very Islamists are going to be no respecters of democracy,
and no respecters of human rights, either. I think there is obviously
a lot that can be said about these two very crucial questions
of foreign policy, but I shall just confine myself to a couple
of things. First of all, I think the UK probably sets too much
store by the actual process of elections in countries like Congo,
Iraq or Afghanistan. Elections are obviously a sine qua non of
democracy—you cannot have a genuine democracy without them.
But unless democracy is underpinned by the rule of law and respect
for human rights you are going to run into trouble—problems
with regard to peace and security. That is why we have seen in
a place like Congo, you have had elections and that has not created
peace and stability. Too often I think that policy makers see
elections as a barometer of progress in getting countries out
of the chaos of conflict, and they pay too little attention to
the human rights that need to underpin those democracies if we
are to avoid tipping those countries back into conflict. On the
issue of democracy in the Middle East I think we need to accept
very clearly that the UK and its allies face two very clear alternatives.
Either we support the emergence of genuine democracy—and,
yes, that may well mean the emergence of Islamist parties, because
they are the most popular and dynamic forces in those societies,
and we have seen the emergence of an Islamist party to power in
Turkey, for example, and the sky has not fallen on people's heads—or
we continue to support autocratic regimes in places like Egypt,
Libya and Saudi Arabia, which are highly repressive, where torture
is widely practised, and where there is a lot of corruption. This
latter path has been pursued for the last several decades, and
what are the results? I believe we can see the results that we
are reaping in the middle east at the moment, in the form of radicalisation,
extremism and so forth. I quote—it is a short quote but
an important one—from a book by the former Middle East editor
of the Financial Times, someone who knows what he is talking
about: David Gardner. He says in his book, which has just been
published last month, "Unless the middle east can find a
way out of this pit of autocracy, their people will be condemned
to lead bleak lives of despair, humiliation and rage for a generation,
adding fuel to a roaring fire in what is already the most combustible
region in the world."
Q76 Sandra Osborne: I think some
of these issues would probably come up under countries of concern,
but I wanted to ask you about Afghanistan. You discussed post-conflict
situations, and, indeed, the same things apply in conflict situations.
There has been substantial progress in Afghanistan—for example,
in progressing access to education for girls—but recently
the President brought in a religious law that was a deeply retrograde
step in relation to women's rights. We had heard from various
quarters that the priority for the involvement of the international
community in Afghanistan should be anti-terrorism and the safety
of citizens of the UK and elsewhere, that somehow women's rights
were second order or third order in terms of priorities and in
some cases could be expendable and that given the history and
culture of Afghanistan, there was some sort of trade-off to be
made in relation to women's rights. Do you feel there is a danger,
particularly in post-conflict situations in the future, that people
having gone into countries and raised the expectations and hopes
of women, these could be dashed because the international community
has other priorities?
Kate Allen: I do not think there
is a danger—it is happening. If you look at the situation
in Afghanistan—you have talked about it in terms of compromising
on women's rights to reach out to conservative forces that President
Karzai wants to have alliances with—quite clearly women's
rights are not being given any real regard. That is shocking.
That is where UN resolution 1325 in a systematic approach to the
role of women in post-conflict societies could be something of
importance for the future. But in Afghanistan at the moment, all
those promises were made to women and it was not just about being
able to go to school. It was much more than that and they are
not being met. Women are impacted by those security issues. Women
are suffering in exactly the same way as men in relation to all
those issues. It is a betrayal. Women in Afghanistan were told
that women's rights would be at the centre of what happened in
post-conflict Afghanistan, and there is a President now who is
willing to trade women's rights to say no to their husbands, to
be medically examined and to leave their homes without their husbands.
These are issues on which the UK Government have a major role
in Afghanistan. We should be hearing more. There should be more
being done to work with President Karzai's Government: these are
not acceptable trade-offs to be being made.
Sandra Osborne: Our Prime Minister did
condemn the new law, but I agree with you generally.
Chairman: We are producing a big report
on Afghanistan and Pakistan in the next few weeks and we will
no doubt go into those issues. I want now to shift the focus to
some specific countries of concern.
Q77 Mr. Hamilton: May I start
by looking at Zimbabwe? On 30 January this year, as you will remember,
the national council of the opposition Movement for Democrat Change—the
MDC—in Zimbabwe announced its intention to proceed with
the power-sharing deal that was agreed in September 2008. I think
we are all aware that life expectancy in Zimbabwe is the lowest
in the world. More than 2,500 people a week are dying from AIDS-related
illnesses, and there have been 1,900 deaths from cholera. More
than 5 million people, which is nearly half the population, now
need food aid, and essential services have largely ceased to function.
Human Rights Watch criticised the FCO human rights report for
not focusing sharply enough on "the need for increased pressure
on Zimbabwe". Mr. Tsvangirai, who is now the Prime Minister
and is the MDC's leader, told Dutch television recently that he
had a working relationship with Mr. Mugabe and said, "As
far as I know today, there are no political prisoners in Zimbabwe."
I want to ask both of you whether you think there has been any
recent progress in tackling the appalling humanitarian situation
in Zimbabwe.
Kate Allen: It is early days since
that agreement to share power. You have very accurately summarised
the situation in that country. In terms of no political prisoners,
I would simply point out that the MDC itself talks about at least
seven of its activists who have disappeared and remain unaccounted
for. So there is an enormous legacy there. There is undoubtedly
a real political imperative on the leaders of the country at the
moment to make the alliance work. I think that what we need to
see from the UK is pressure maintained. Donors must continue to
ensure that their humanitarian aid reaches the people for whom
it is intended, and that it is at good levels. There is a real
risk of a complete failure of the health and education sectors,
and that could play into the hands of some of the hardliners in
that country. So there are still roles that the UK Government
can play, but, as you have outlined, it is an appalling humanitarian
situation.
Q78 Mr. Hamilton: Is there really
any serious prospect of re-establishing human rights in Zimbabwe
as long as President Mugabe is there?
Tom Porteous: There is no prospect
of having a proper solution to this massive humanitarian crisis
until the human rights-related political problems are addressed.
The power sharing agreement is certainly a step forward, but the
situation remains extremely precarious. Let us be clear: Mugabe
is definitely a problem, but it is not just Mugabe. It is also
a number of his cronies in ZANU-PF who are desperate to hold on
to their privileges and are prepared to use whatever means to
cling to power. They are probably afraid of the sort of punishment
that they would receive once there has been a full transition
to a new political dispensation. So it is not just Mugabe. Human
rights problems remain extremely serious. Just last month, 15
opposition members and human rights activists were rearrested
after having been released on bail. There is clearly an effort
on the part of ZANU-PF to destabilise the transitional Government
and undermine the little power that the MDC has in it. Let us
not forget that the MDC does not control the key ministries. ZANU-PF
still controls the army, the key police units, the penal system
and so forth. The army remains completely under ZANU-PF's control,
and there are continuing invasions by militias supported by ZANU-PF
of commercial farms, leading to serious displacement. That is
one of the main causes of the humanitarian crisis, and, of course,
repressive legislation remains on the statute book. What is very
important from the point of view of the UK Government, the EU
and other states that are concerned about the future of Zimbabwe
is that they should attach very strict conditions to the resumption
of full Government-to-Government aid. It is very important that
the humanitarian aid should be going into Zimbabwe through the
[non governmental] agencies, avoiding any agency that is controlled
by ZANU-PF. It should be going in through NGOs and so forth on
the ground. Some of that is actually happening, although, as Kate
mentioned, there are real concerns about the sewerage system collapsing,
which has led to the terrible cholera outbreak. A clear message
needs to be sent that there will be no resumption of Government-to-Government
aid until there has been an irreversible change in the human rights
situation in that country. I am quite confident that we will get
there.
Q79 Chairman: I am conscious of
the time, and the fact that there are lots of countries in the
world where there are serious human rights abuses.
Andrew Mackinlay: Colombia.
Chairman: We will get to that—just
let me finish. We do not have time now to ask probing questions
about the countries listed in the Government's human rights report,
but we have had written submissions from both of you which will
be taken into account in our report. In the time that is left,
there are a few issues that I would like to raise with you. We
have already mentioned Sri Lanka. Do you have any assessment of
the scale of the humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka at this time,
given that the Sri Lankan Government have, following the defeat
of the Tamil Tigers, not yet allowed international observers or
representatives in to large parts of the country? The British
Government referred to a "culture of impunity" towards
human rights abuses that have been going on in Sri Lanka for some
time. Is our Government doing enough and should Sri Lanka have
been included in their list of countries of major human rights
concern? There is a section in the report about Sri Lanka, but
it is not listed in that section of countries of major concern.
Should we have major concerns about what is happening in Sri Lanka?
I am talking about not just the way in which the Tamil Tigers
use human shields or fire at civilians but the way in which the
Sri Lankan Government seem to have carried out a pretty brutal
attack on a number of areas populated by civilians.
Tom Porteous: Sri Lanka should
be included as a country of concern, perhaps in next year's report.
The human rights situation is about not just the behaviour of
the Sri Lankan Government forces and the Tamil Tigers in the zone
of conflict in the north, but the overall situation in the country.
Critics of the Government—whether they are in the north
or the south—tend to get into trouble. They are targeted
in one way or another, and that is a source of real concern. The
real problem is the humanitarian crisis in the north that has
come about as a result of the conflict. We are pleased that the
conflict is over because it has caused such terrible loss of life
and destruction. As you mentioned, it is very difficult to get
a very accurate picture of what is going on because the Sri Lankan
Government have consistently denied access to journalists and
other independent observers, including human rights observers.
However, the UN is there on the ground. Quite a bit of information
has got out. Some people have managed to get out information.
We know that about 300,000 Sri Lankan Tamils have been displaced
by the recent fighting. We also know that they have mostly been
screened and processed into what the Sri Lankan Government call
"welfare villages" but which are, in fact, long-term
internment camps. Given the history of enforced disappearances
in Sri Lanka, we are very concerned about the signals that we
are getting that Tamil civilians who are suspected of having links
with the Tamil Tigers may be "being disappeared" in
one form or another.
|
