Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
180-194)
RT HON.
DAVID MILIBAND
MP, SIMON MANLEY
AND SUSAN
HYLAND
16 JUNE 2009
Q180 Chairman: What about this
review conference that took place in Geneva—the so-called
Durban review? Will you answer the critics who said that the British
Government's presence there—some other Governments withdrew—added
credibility to those who sought to hijack it for their own ends?
Not least among them was President—or perhaps it is late
President, I don't know, but President at the time—Ahmadinejad,
with his disgraceful remarks about the holocaust.
David Miliband: To have left the
conference, or to have not participated, would indeed have been
to allow Ahmadinejad to hijack it. If we get into a situation
where his participation means that we have not to participate,
then we will not be in the General Assembly either. So the answer
is clear. We set two red lines. First, the text that emerged should
brook no doubt about the unique nature of the holocaust, anti-Semitism
and a range of other issues. Indeed, the text that came out, with
Iran isolated for part of the negotiations, did meet that red
line. Secondly, we were not prepared to be part of a circus, and
what happened in Durban in 2001 was a bit of a circus. In Geneva,
there was one very bad, insulting and repulsive speech, but there
was actually concerted effort by the vast majority of countries
to behave in an appropriate way. That justified our participation.
Ahmadinejad's attempt to steal the show by driving everyone else
out of the hall failed. All he did was expose his own isolation,
including within the Islamic world, because one of the most significant
things that happened at the conference was that important Islamic
countries did not side with Iran, they went with the majority
of the rest of the world.
Q181 Mr. Pope: Are we going backwards
on the International Criminal Court? It is two years since the
arrest warrants were issued for President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan,
the Sudanese Ministers and leaders of the Janjaweed militia. Those
warrants have not been acted on, they have just been ignored.
At the same time, three of the five permanent members of the Security
Council are not state parties to the Rome statute. Do you think
the process has, arguably, not just stalled but is going backwards
or, alternatively—I know you have these conversations with
Hillary Clinton, which you would be pleased to tell us about—are
there encouraging signs coming from the new US Administration
on the ICC?
David Miliband: It is a really
important area. The implementation of the Rome statute is clearly
not going forward in the way that we would like. There have been
some notable successes. As you say, the Sudanese issue is one
where the court has been rebuffed by the Government of Sudan,
which we deplore. You may be implying that if we don't start going
forward with the ICC, effectively, we are going backwards, which
is an interesting way of putting it. That is quite a good and
challenging way of putting it. I think that the new US Administration
is distinctly more multilateralist although I don't think that
the ICC is at the top of their list of multilateral re-engagement.
What is important is that we recognise that the ICC is now 10
years old. It has established itself and it faces some very important
test cases. The Bashir case is an important test case, and Haroon,
who is the previous indictee, has been made governor of one of
the states of Sudan.
Mr. Pope: Thank you.
David Miliband: It is worth saying
that Sudan is a very difficult test case for anything. I use the
phrase "test case", but it is a country with huge challenges.
There is not just the Darfur issue, but the whole comprehensive
peace agreement. It is a very tricky case to end up deciding the
future of the ICC. We have to be careful there.
Q182 Chairman: I am conscious
that there are still a number of countries that we want to touch
on, and in the time we have left I should like to highlight the
human rights report in which your Department talks about major
countries of concern. Why was Sri Lanka not listed as a country
of concern in the report?
David Miliband: Probably because
of the timing of the work on the report. Obviously at the height
of the fighting in March and April there would have been very
serious concern. The issue for Sri Lanka now is whether it can
live up to the commitments that the President of Sri Lanka made
in his speech the day after the end of the civil war—to
find a way of giving an inclusive political role to all the communities
in Sri Lanka. That is the test, or challenge. There is also a
massive IDP issue. There are 270,000 IDPs who need to be resettled.
There are villages with land mines, so massive de-mining has to
take place. There are also real concerns about the position of
IDPs and their treatment in the camps.
Chairman: We will no doubt continue with
that issue over the coming weeks.
Q183 Sir John Stanley: May we turn
to Zimbabwe?
David Miliband: I am sorry, Sir
John, but I have just been given a very helpful point. Sri Lanka
will feature as a country of concern next year.
Chairman: Another success for our Committee.
We had a discussion about Syria a few years ago. We are pleased
that you responded so quickly.
Sir John Stanley: Foreign Secretary,
Morgan Tsvangirai's entry into the Mugabe Government does not
appear to have produced any material improvement in the human
rights situation in Zimbabwe. Indeed, as we have all seen widely
reported, the Mugabe police state, which it can pretty well be
called, appears to be preparing a new round of possibly targeted
assassinations against those who are supporting constitutional
change and the restoration of democracy in that country. Do you
believe that the British Government are effectively—again
I use the words deliberately and rightly—wholly powerless
in this continuing appalling human rights situation?
David Miliband: No, I don't actually.
It's a tale of two halves in Zimbabwe at the moment. You are absolutely
right about the security forces still being in the grip of the
ZANU-PF machine, but the economic, educational and social welfare
institutions of the country are not in their grip but under the
command instead of Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai. I will be
spending Saturday morning with Prime Minister Tsvangirai, who
is coming here, then meeting him officially next Monday. It seems
to me that Britain, with its strong humanitarian commitment in
Zimbabwe—£60 million-odd a year being spent there—and
its links, has an important role to play. Equally, it is very
important that we remember that it is an independent country and
has a Government of its own. Talking to Finance Minister Biti,[10]
who was here three weeks ago, and with Prime Minister Tsvangirai
at the weekend, we will be making it very clear, first, that we
want to make sure that the cross-party agreement that was the
basis for the two parties to enter the Government is actually
implemented, and that there are benchmarks and staging posts for
its implementation, because it says some important things. However,
we know from Mugabe's history that he says all sorts of things
and then does the opposite, or does not do them. We have to support
and hold that Government to the implementation of their commitments.
Secondly, it is a transitional Government, established to pave
the way for elections, because our clear view is that Mugabe did
not win the elections of March 2008, and that is the view of the
international community more generally. Thirdly, it is important
to continue to stand by the commitments to support the eventual
renewal of Zimbabwe. The economic situation has been brought remarkably
under control and the economy's dollarisation has helped a lot,
but eventually Zimbabwe will need a reconstruction programme,
which will need a Government in whom the international community
have confidence.
Q184 Sir John Stanley: Is it still
the British Government's policy that significant financial assistance
and humanitarian aid to Zimbabwe has to be conditional upon Mugabe
accepting basic human rights?
David Miliband: It is important
not to confuse humanitarian aid and reconstruction. The test for
humanitarian aid is whether it will help people in dire need,
and throughout the worst of the Mugabe years we have continued
to deliver aid to desperately poor people in Zimbabwe. There is
always the danger, or the allegation, that by ameliorating their
terrible situation one is somehow making it better for the regime;
I have taken the view, as has Douglas Alexander, that it is absolutely
right to continue to spend £50 million to £60 million
a year there. Reconstruction is a different issue. The money must
not go into the pockets of Mugabe's cronies; it must be used for
the purposes intended, and Zimbabwe needs to embrace its democratic
and human rights commitments.
Q185 Mr. Purchase: Can I go on
to Pakistan? There is such a focus on how the recent crisis in
the north-western area seems to have impacted particularly seriously
on human rights, especially the way in which women have been the
subject of problems there. Is there anything we can do to help
to alleviate that situation in north-west Pakistan, amongst all
the other difficulties? In particular, there is the behaviour
of the army in clearing areas at very short notice, meaning that
women and their families have had considerable difficulties and
have not been able to live anything like a decent existence. I
know the imperative is doing work with the Taliban, clearing this
and doing that, but at the same time the simple basics of human
existence have been badly affected.
David Miliband: You are absolutely
right to call attention to that. There are 2.5 to 2.8 million
IDPs from the Swat valley, in a rather unusual situation where
75 or 80% of them are lodging with relatives or friends, rather
than in camps. That creates a different set of strains from the
simple burden of dangers for people in camps. Last week, I met
the British NGOs who are active in Pakistan, including Oxfam and
Islamic Relief, and there are three distinct challenges. First,
there are the IDPs in the camps, where proper aid needs to be
delivered. The Americans have delivered a lot of money, we have
delivered some and the European Union is delivering. Secondly,
there are the IDPs staying with friends or relatives in villages.
To make an obvious point; the schools in those villages have not
been built for the number of kids who are now in them, and food
and other supplies are a massive issue.
Mr. Purchase: The television pictures
are really horrendous.
David Miliband: The third issue
is what is happening in the Swat valley and the arrangements that
are being put in place for policing and security to allow people
to return, because unless you can establish some confidence in
the security, then they are not going to go back. Equally, let
us not kid ourselves: 1,000 civilians and 300 army personnel have
been killed by Pakistan Taliban this year alone, so it is the
devil and the deep blue sea really.
Q186 Mr. Purchase: And can we
do anything?
David Miliband: We make our contribution
politically and economically. Pakistan is implementing its IMF
loan, rightly. It has significant humanitarian aid from us. There
is now a group called the Friends of Democratic Pakistan, which
brings together the Americans and us, and also the Chinese, the
UAE and others. Pakistan is now at the centre not just of our
concerns, but American concerns, significant Saudi and UAE concerns,
Chinese concerns—
Q187 Mr. Purchase: I am not going
into the instability and the problem there—it is just a
question of the simple humanitarian concerns.
David Miliband: We can do a lot
and we do. Remember, Pakistan is receiving £660 million of
DFID assistance over the next three years, so it is, I think,
our largest aid donee.
Q188 Sir John Stanley: We have
a significant Pakistani population in Britain. We also have a
sizeable number, in relation to the totality, of parental child
abductions from this country into Pakistan. Pakistan is not a
signatory to the 1980 Hague convention on child abduction, but
we have, at governmental level, successfully negotiated the judicial
protocol with the Pakistan judiciary to try to achieve the results
that would occur under the Hague convention—the return of
the child to its country of normal residence. In our discussions
with the consular staff in our high commission in Islamabad—who
are doing really outstanding work in this area—they expressed
to us their very real difficulty in getting widespread acceptance
of the judicial protocol in Pakistan. Can you assure the Committee
that the British Government will do all they possibly can to support
our consular staff in Islamabad and try to get greater understanding,
support and subscription for the terms of the judicial protocol
in Pakistan?
David Miliband: Yes, but in addition
may I thank you for what you have said about the efforts of the
consular staff? One of the things we have been trying to do over
the last few years is boost the prestige and recognition of the
outstanding work that consular staff do around the world in some
very difficult and dangerous places. They do not often hear Members
of Parliament express appreciation for what they do and I am very
pleased to hear you say it. I think that the people in Islamabad
are good examples of increasingly effective practice around the
world, which, to return to what we were talking about at the beginning,
expresses the best of British values: sensitive to the situation
"in country", but also very clear about the rights of
British citizens. We certainly take our consular work very seriously.
I think our relatively new head of consular services was in Islamabad
and other parts of south Asia last week, or the week before. I
saw a note in the box over the weekend about the work that he
had been doing and seeing there. I think your commendation is
very well merited and I assure you that we will continue to give
that work priority.
Q189 Sir John Stanley: May I turn
to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which the
Committee visited in March? I was part of the group within the
Committee. We divided into three separate groups for part of the
visit to Gaza. We saw the enormous scale of the destruction that
had taken place there: the burning out of an entire hospital;
the widespread destruction of entire orchards and food-growing
capacity; and a whole, huge industrial estate laid absolutely
flat—flattened. Now the UN Goldstone inquiry has made it
clear that it will look both at Palestinian—that is, Hamas—human
rights violations as well as Israeli violations of human rights.
Why do the British Government not support the Goldstone inquiry?
David Miliband: We do. We were
concerned when it was only on one side, but as you say, I think
that it is now looking at both sides. The difficulty, as you know,
relates to our earlier conversation about the Human Rights Council.
The problem that underpins this is that the Human Rights Council
is seen as a politicised body and its inquiry, notwithstanding
the huge distinction of Judge Goldstone, is perceived, though
not by us, to be prejudiced. I think that Judge Goldstone is someone
of enormous distinction and fair-mindedness. We are not opposed
to the inquiry. I think that the politicised nature of the Human
Rights Council, which was exposed in the Sri Lankan case, makes
it very difficult for the HRC to carry the confidence of the Government
of Israel on this issue.
Q190 Sir John Stanley: It is one
thing to say that the British Government are not opposed to the
Goldstone enquiry, but the question I am putting to you, which
is founded on the basis of evidence that the Committee has received
from other parties, is whether, now that the Goldstone inquiry
is clearly going to look, dispassionately I trust, at both sides,
the British Government will give the inquiry their full support
and co-operation.
David Miliband: With respect,
Sir John, I did say yes, at the beginning of my last answer, in
respect of your question. We are perfectly happy to support the
inquiry, but it cannot do its business unless it gets co-operation
from Hamas and the Government of Israel. We can support it until
we are blue in the face, but until it can investigate the allegations
it will be struggling. There is no doubt about our position. It
is a perfectly legitimate inquiry and Judge Goldstone is an extremely
distinguished person, but at every stage we say that all allegations
of these kinds need to be credibly investigated. There is a UN
inquiry and there are Israeli inquiries, but there is now the
Goldstone inquiry. There is also a crushing need that exists in
Gaza—I am very pleased that you went to Gaza. One of the
things that we were talking about yesterday in the General Affairs
Council of the European Union was precisely the issue of access
and barriers to the delivery of materials and other aid to Gaza.
That is a huge issue for the Palestinian Authority, which is short
of money because some of the Arab donors have not paid up. It
is a very complicated picture.
Q191 Sir John Stanley: I am glad
to hear what I understand is your clear assurance of full support
for and co-operation with the Goldstone inquiry.
David Miliband: With respect,
the point is whether we urge others to co-operate with it. The
inquiry does not particularly need our co-operation; it needs
the co-operation of people who are on the ground.
Chairman: Foreign Secretary, we have
had a very long session. We have one final question.
Q192 Mr. Pope: I have a brief,
specific question about Colombia. Since the Democrats took control
of Congress a couple of years ago, American military aid to Colombia
has been a lot more transparent than British military aid is.
Would you consider that issue, and the issue of the transparency
of British military aid to Colombia?
David Miliband: Can I come back
on that now? I think this is important. First, I do not accept
this concept of military aid. That is a very loaded way of putting
it, because when you talk about military aid, what you think of
are bombs, bullets and soldiers. We have supported—there
is transparency about this—two specific things: de-mining
and human rights training, so that the Colombian army, for the
first time ever, has a set of human rights commitments that it
is meant to adhere to—I say "meant to" adhere
to—partly as a result of the engagement that we have had.
It has never had that before. We have now completed that work.
We have finished our human rights engagement with the army and
we are going to make sure that our demining work is part of a
multilateral process. So, regarding that allegation of "military
aid" in those two areas, I would argue that we have been
transparent about it. It has been finished, and the money is now
being put into tackling impunity, which is a huge issue. There
is a separate issue, which is counter-narcotics. I think that
the counter-narcotics issue raises a different set of questions,
which we should talk about perhaps on another occasion. It is
really important that people donot get the wrong idea about what
has gone on. Gillian Merron, the Minister in the Department, was
in Colombia last month, and I put out a written ministerial statement
about how our funding was being refocused.
Q193 Chairman: We have had evidence
from Human Rights Watch and others about this area, and your officials
will no doubt be looking at what they have said—
David Miliband: Yes, but no evidence
of anything that we have done being linked to human rights abuses.
Chairman: If there is any—
Mr. Pope: Sorry, the aim of my question
was not to suggest—
David Miliband: But that is where
it has been taken now.
Q194 Mr. Pope: But it is fair
to point out that some of the evidence that the Committee has
received from Human Rights Watch and Justice for Colombia has
raised concerns about the human rights situation in Colombia and
the fact that there is this relationship with the UK. That is
a fair point.
David Miliband: It is wholly legitimate
to say that there are massive human rights issues in Colombia,
but it is not legitimate to say that British engagement is party
to human rights abuses in Colombia.
Chairman: We could have continued and
talked about the other 16 countries of concern, but we are not
going to.
David Miliband: You spent much
longer on this country, which you were concerned about. You spent
three quarters of the time on our country.
Chairman: Foreign Secretary, as you know,
this was a rather unique session, because we wanted to have the
questions about rendition and other matters. I am very grateful
to you, and to Mr. Manley and Miss Hyland for coming along today.
It has been a very valuable and wide-ranging session. Thank you
very much.
10 Note by witness: The meeting between the
Foreign Secretary and Finance Minister Biti took place on 30 April. Back
|
