Conclusions and recommendations
Human rights policy at the FCO since 2010
The new Government's approach
1. We
conclude that support for human rights overseas has become an
established element in statements of UK foreign policy under successive
governments. We welcome the Government's stated commitment to
the promotion of human rights overseas as one of its central foreign
policy objectives, and we commend the work that the FCO does to
further this aim. We recommend that the Government demonstrates
this commitment in its foreign policy decisions. (Paragraph 12)
2. We recommend that,
in its response to this Report, the FCO explain why it does not
plan to publish the forthcoming strategy—promised in its
2011-15 Business Plan—to enhance the impact of various tools
of UK 'soft power', including the promotion of human rights. We
further recommend that it should do so. (Paragraph 14)
3. We conclude that
the events of the 'Arab Spring' should stand as a reminder to
the FCO that failing to take a stronger and more consistent stance
against human rights violations by overseas regimes can carry
risks for the UK. In particular, any suggestion that the FCO downplays
criticism of human rights abuses in countries with which the UK
has close political and commercial links is damaging to the UK's
reputation, and undermines the department's overall work in promoting
human rights overseas. We recommend that the FCO takes a more
robust and significantly more consistent position on human rights
violations throughout North Africa and the Middle East. (Paragraph
21)
4. It is difficult
for us to support the Government's approach to human rights engagement
with China in the continuing absence of any evidence that it is
yielding results, and when the human rights situation in China
appears to be deteriorating. We recommend that in its response
to this Report the Government set out any hard evidence it has
that its current approach is effective. We further recommend that
it engages in more explicit, hard-hitting and consistent public
criticisms of human rights abuses in China. (Paragraph 27)
The 2010 FCO Human Rights and Democracy Report
5. We
welcome the FCO's decision to continue producing an annual human
rights report. (Paragraph 32)
6. We conclude that
the FCO's decision to switch to a plain, text-only format for
the hard copy of its annual human rights report was justified.
We welcome the savings in printing costs achieved in this way.
We recommend that the FCO restore the index, to ensure that the
hard copy is easily useable as a stand-alone document. (Paragraph
37)
7. We recommend that
the FCO's annual human rights report set out more clearly the
department's key objectives for its human rights work in the coming
year, along with the rationale for their identification and the
means by which the department proposes to pursue them. We further
recommend that the report include a section reflecting on the
extent to which the department achieved its objectives for the
preceding year and on explanations for its success or otherwise.
We do not wish this recommendation either to result in the FCO
giving undue weight to human rights objectives that can be easily
measured, or to generate additional data-collection requirements
for the department. We recommend that, at least as regards the
FCO's bilateral work, a single list of the human rights objectives
set out in the Country Business Plans for states identified as
"countries of concern" should be compiled. (Paragraph
42)
8. We recommend that
the FCO's annual human rights report once again include a consolidated
list of human rights projects in receipt of FCO programme funding
during the year in question, so as to facilitate access to information
and thus further strengthen the report's role in ensuring accountability.
(Paragraph 44)
9. We recommend that
the annual human rights report remain an FCO-only publication,
in order to maintain a clear mechanism of accountability for the
department's human rights work. However, we further recommend
that the report devote greater attention to setting out areas
of FCO co-operation with other departments on overseas human rights
matters. We regard this as especially appropriate given the department's
lead responsibility, under its Business Plan, for the strategy
to enhance the impact of the UK's promotion of human rights overall.
(Paragraph 47)
10. We recommend that
the FCO continue to include a section in its annual human rights
report covering selected individual countries in detail. While
we agree with the Minister that some countries' inclusion is probably
self-evident (namely that of the most egregious human rights abusers),
we recommend that the FCO explain much more clearly the criteria
adopted and the decision-making process employed in arriving at
the annual selection of "countries of concern". In particular,
we recommend that the FCO indicate the extent to which countries
have been included because they have been a particular focus of
FCO and/or UK Government action. We further recommend that the
FCO include countries where human rights standards have improved
markedly over the preceding year, particularly if the FCO was
active in encouraging the improvements. (Paragraph 54)
11. We welcome the
initiation of quarterly online updates of the "countries
of concern" section of the annual human rights report. (Paragraph
55)
12. While we do not
support the idea that the annual human rights report should cover
all countries, we welcome the fact that human rights information
is included in the country profiles of many countries on the FCO
website. We recommend that this practice be extended to all countries,
and that the information refer to all relevant issues and be regularly
updated. We further recommend that the FCO ensure that the availability
of this information is flagged on the human rights pages of its
website. (Paragraph 56)
13. Inasmuch as they
are all countries where human rights are being seriously violated,
we have no quarrel with the FCO's selection of "countries
of concern" in its 2010 report, though we consider Bahrain
should have been included. We share the FCO's deep concern about
the human rights situation in all these states. (Paragraph 57)
FCO personnel and funding
14. We
welcome the Foreign Secretary's decision to increase the FCO presence
in a number of the "countries of concern" identified
in the department's 2010 human rights report. We recommend that
the increased staff be used in part to expand the FCO's human
rights work in those states. We recommend that in its 2011 human
rights report the FCO report on the difference which increased
staff resources in some parts of the overseas network are making
to its human rights work. We further recommend that, in its response
to this Report, the FCO set out how it plans to sustain its human
rights work in Iraq despite the planned reduction in the UK presence
there. (Paragraph 62)
15. We conclude that
excluding countries which are not eligible for Official Development
Assistance from funding under the FCO's human rights and democracy
programme risks excluding projects in countries where there are
serious human rights issues and where the FCO has previously been
active. This decision places an even greater premium on support
being available for human rights-related projects from other funding
streams. We recommend that, in its response to this Report, the
FCO set out what support it is providing in 2011/12 for human
rights projects in countries where projects were previously being
funded from the human rights and democracy programme, but which
are now ineligible for such funding. We further recommend that,
when the FCO reports at the end of 2011/12 on projects supported
under all its programme funding streams for the year, it pay particular
attention to reporting on human rights-related aspects, and to
reporting on projects supported in the 2010 "countries of
concern". (Paragraph 64)
Advisory Group on Human Rights
16. We
welcome the Foreign Secretary's decision to establish an Advisory
Group on Human Rights. We recommend that, in its response to this
Report, the FCO report on the work of the Group to date. We further
recommend that a review of the activities and achievements of
the Group be included in future issues of the FCO's annual human
rights report. We also recommend the establishment of a third
subgroup on internet freedom. (Paragraph 69)
Cross-Government work
17. We
recommend that, in its response to this Report, the FCO tell us
how it is working with DFID to ensure that its human rights policies
are taken into account in the overseas development work of that
department, and whether it will request DFID to give no less high
a public profile to human rights than is the case with the FCO.
(Paragraph 74)
18. We recommend that
in its response to this Report the FCO set out the timetable and
process for this year's review of the Government's protection
of civilians strategy, including an indication of whether these
will be affected by the international military action to protect
civilians in Libya. (Paragraph 77)
UK human rights practices: counter-terrorism
policy
19. We
welcome the Government's recognition that the UK's own human rights
practices, in particular with respect to counter-terrorism policy,
affect its international reputation and ability to pursue effectively
improvements in human rights standards overseas. We therefore
welcome the publication of the consolidated guidance to intelligence
and service personnel on the interviewing of detainees, and the
initiation of the Gibson Inquiry into possible UK complicity in
the mistreatment of detainees after 2001. Given the importance
of the Inquiry for the UK's international reputation, we are concerned
that a year after it was announced there is little sign of it
being able to begin its work. (Paragraph 90)
20. Given the importance
for the UK's international legal obligations of ensuring that
the countries with which the UK has Deportation with Assurances
(DWA) arrangements do not practise torture, and given these states'
poor records in this respect which prompted the DWA arrangements
in the first place, we find it odd that the section on torture
prevention in the FCO's 2010 human rights report barely mentions
the countries concerned. We recommend that, in its response to
this Report, the FCO tell us what work it is doing with Algeria,
Ethiopia, Jordan and Lebanon to ensure that they do not practise
torture. We expect to see the FCO's forthcoming updated global
torture prevention strategy pay particular attention to countries
with which the UK has DWA arrangements. We further recommend that,
in its response to this Report, the FCO identify the further countries
with which it plans to make DWA arrangements. (Paragraph 91)
FCO commercial work and human rights
Complementary or conflicting objectives?
21. We
are not as confident as the FCO that there is little conflict
between its pursuit of both UK commercial interests and improved
human rights standards overseas. We recommend that, in its response
to this Report, the FCO set out examples from its countries of
human rights concern of a significant UK international commercial
relationship or presence being associated with improved human
rights standards in recent years. (Paragraph 101)
22. Given the FCO's
claims about the continued importance of human rights in its work
and the complementarity of human rights and commercial objectives,
we were surprised and disappointed to see that the FCO's new "Charter
for Business" made no mention of the FCO's role in helping
businesses address the potential human rights implications of
their overseas operations. We recommend that, in its response
to this Report, the FCO explain why this omission was made. (Paragraph
102)
23. We recommend that
in its response to this Report the FCO set out the training and
guidance that it gives to its staff on how to balance their responsibilities
to promote both trade and human rights. We further recommend that
the FCO inform us specifically about the steps that staff are
directed to take, and the support available to them, in cases
where they feel that they face a conflict between promoting UK
commercial interests and upholding the FCO's human rights policies.
(Paragraph 104)
24. We recommend that
the FCO give higher priority to working to internationalise standards
for human rights in business behaviour. We conclude that this
is essential if the UK's efforts to promote human rights internationally
are not to be undercut by the behaviour of other countries and
their companies. We recommend that in its response to this Report
the FCO update us on the negotiations to revise the OECD Guidelines
for Multinational Enterprises. We further recommend that the FCO
set out its plans to engage with the Working Group established
by the UN Human Rights Council in June 2011 to take forward work
on Professor Ruggie's Guiding Principles on Business and Human
Rights. (Paragraph 107)
25. We conclude that
it is a matter for concern that less than two months before the
Bribery Act 2010 was due to enter into force, the FCO was still
assessing its implications for its own work. We welcome the fact
that the FCO has now issued guidance to its staff on the Act.
(Paragraph 114)
26. We recommend that
in its response to this Report the FCO inform us of any work it
is doing to encourage non-parties to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention
to introduce national legislation—of equivalent standard
to the OECD Convention—against bribery overseas. We further
recommend that the UK Government uses its powers under the Bribery
Act to pursue cases of alleged bribery overseas against both UK
and foreign companies carrying on business in the UK. (Paragraph
115)
Arms exports
27. We
conclude that the events of the 'Arab Spring' have revealed serious
shortcomings in the system of UK arms export controls as regards
the possible use of British-supplied equipment for internal repression.
As one of the constituent committees which make up the Committees
on Arms Export Controls (CAEC), we reiterate our support for the
conclusions and recommendations contained in CAEC's Report of
April 2011, namely that the present and the previous Government
misjudged the risk that arms approved for export to certain authoritarian
countries in North Africa and the Middle East might be used for
internal repression. We urge the Government to make speedy progress
in finalising the results of its current review of arms export
controls and sharing them with Parliament. (Paragraph 127)
28. We conclude that
the recent policy of revoking arms export licences to countries
in the Middle East and North Africa appears to have been inconsistently
applied, inasmuch as no licences to Saudi Arabia, Syria or Yemen
have been revoked, despite the fact that the risk of repressive
use of equipment sold by British companies to those countries
for their own use, or supplied by Saudi Arabia to other states
such as Bahrain, appears to be as high as in the countries to
which licences have been revoked. We recommend that the Government's
review address specifically the issue of policy towards Saudi
Arabia. (Paragraph 128)
Cross-Government working: UKTI and BIS
29. We
conclude that the absence of a reference to human rights or corporate
responsibilities overseas in UKTI's new five-year strategy suggests
that there is a lack of strategic co-ordination between the branches
of Government responsible for promoting human rights overseas
and for promoting British trade. We recommend that in its response
to this Report the FCO respond to the suggestion that there should
be a cross-Government strategy on business and human rights. (Paragraph
132)
Current issues in human rights policy
Thematic human rights issues
30. We
recommend that in its response to this Report the FCO set out
the work that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the
Home Office is doing in support of the National Action Plan on
Women, Peace and Security; and explain her role in relation to
the Plan, given that her home department is not one of the Plan's
three co-owners. (Paragraph 136)
31. We recommend that
the FCO ensure that the results of the 2011 review of the National
Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security are fully reported to
us, as its departmental scrutiny committee, when the review is
published in October 2011. We further recommend that the FCO's
2011 human rights report also report on progress in implementing
the Plan. (Paragraph 138)
32. We recommend that
in its response to this Report the FCO update us on the Government's
plans for signature and ratification of the new Council of Europe
Convention on preventing and combating violence against women
and domestic violence. (Paragraph 140)
33. We recommend that
in its response to this Report the FCO inform us what expertise
on children's rights is available within the Foreign Secretary's
Advisory Group on Human Rights. We further recommend that the
FCO inform us whether it plans to draw up a new child rights strategy;
and if not, why not. (Paragraph 143)
34. We recommend that,
in its response to this Report, the FCO update us on its assessment
of prospects for reform of the blasphemy law in Pakistan, and
on its wider work to encourage the protection of religious minorities
in that country. (Paragraph 146)
35. We conclude that
the Government is correct to oppose the adoption by the international
community of a new legal standard on the "defamation of religions".
(Paragraph 148)
International institutions
36. Although
the UN Security Council remains the decisive forum for international
action on human rights, we are encouraged by recent signs that
the UN Human Rights Council is beginning to operate as a more
effective international watchdog on UN Member States' human rights
records, and in particular that the international community is
beginning to use election to and suspension from the Council as
a mechanism to deploy against human rights violators. We recommend
that, in its response to this Report, the FCO update us on the
extent to which it achieved its objectives for the 2011 review
of the Human Rights Council. We welcome the Government's announcement
that it plans to stand again for election to the Council in 2013.
We recommend that the FCO provide more information on the arrangements
it has put in place to continue to engage effectively with the
Council in the period before 2013 following the end of the UK's
term of membership in June 2011. (Paragraph 153)
37. We recommend that,
in its response to this Report, the FCO set out its assessment
of any impact that the issuing of arrest warrants for Colonel
Gaddafi and other senior Libyan regime figures by the International
Criminal Court may be having on prospects for a resolution to
the Libyan crisis. (Paragraph 157)
38. We recommend that,
in its response to this Report, the FCO explain more fully why
it does not regard an international accountability mechanism as
appropriate to the Sri Lankan situation at this stage, and under
what conditions it might change its position. (Paragraph 160)
39. We commend Channel
4 for its documentary 'Sri Lanka's Killing Fields', which showed
horrific scenes of crimes carried out in 2009. We reaffirm the
view of our predecessor Committee and call on the UK Government
to press for the setting up of an international war crimes inquiry
to investigate allegations of atrocities carried out by both sides
in the Sri Lankan civil war. (Paragraph 161)
40. We strongly welcome
Ratko Mladic's extradition to the International Criminal Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia, as an important step in ending impunity
for grave international crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia,
and in continuing to move the Western Balkans away from its recent
history of inter-ethnic conflict. We congratulate all those, including
in the UK, who contributed to the long-running effort to see General
Mladic on trial in The Hague. (Paragraph 163)
Regions and countries
41. We
welcome the way in which the Government has put the UK at the
forefront of international support for political and economic
liberalisation in the Middle East and North Africa in response
to the 'Arab Spring'. We agree with the Foreign Secretary that
the 'Arab Spring' represents an opportunity for an historic advance
in human rights and political and economic freedoms. However,
the political outlook across the region is far from clear and
may yet deteriorate. The human rights agenda in the region is
now vast, ranging from urgent humanitarian and security risks
facing civilians to the necessarily slow embedding of human rights
norms in the security and other state institutions of democratising
states. In Bahrain, we welcome the regime's establishment of a
commission to investigate recent events, but we remain concerned
that immediate action is needed to ensure an end to torture and
politically-motivated detentions. We recommend that the FCO place
human rights—and in particular political and civil rights—at
the heart of its work with the Middle East and North Africa through
the 'Arab Partnership' in coming years. We further recommend that
the FCO devote a major dedicated section of its 2011 human rights
report to reporting in detail on the human rights work which it
is undertaking in the region. (Paragraph 170)
42. We reiterate our
previous support for a process of political reconciliation in
Afghanistan, involving talks with the Taliban. However, we conclude
that it is essential that the UK Government continue to use its
leverage with President Karzai's administration to ensure that
it carries through its undertakings in respect of human rights,
and in particular to secure implementation of the National Priority
Programme for human rights and civic responsibilities, the National
Action Plan for Women and the law on elimination of violence against
women. (Paragraph 177)
43. We conclude that,
given its past military and political involvement with Iraq, the
UK has a particular responsibility to try to secure improvements
in human rights standards in that country. We recommend that the
FCO continue to offer practical and financial support to the Iraqi
government and people to assist in the promotion of freedom of
expression and assembly, personal security, women's rights, protection
of religious minorities, amelioration of prison and detention
conditions, and other basic human rights. We further recommend
that the Government—in conjunction with its international
partners—take active steps to investigate conditions in
Camp Ashraf, and do all in its power to hold the Iraqi authorities
to their commitment to protect the rights of its inhabitants.
(Paragraph 183)
| 
