Foreign Affairs CommitteeWritten evidence from the Church of England’s Mission and Public Affairs Council

Summary of Main Points

We are encouraged that the Government has maintained its practice of publishing an annual human rights report rather than only producing an on-line report as previously suggested.

This is an authoritative report, and it is certainly more comprehensive than previous years. We find, however, that the government’s narrative of its response to the Arab Spring is incomplete.

We do not hold that human rights should always trump trade, but there needs to be greater clarity in the relationship between these two different strands of policy. The current strategy of using trade visits to engage in “dialogue at all levels, including human rights,” is confusing and needs revisiting.

We welcome Section II of this year’s report that sets out the Foreign and Commonwealth’s Offices’ Human Rights Priorities. We look forward to next year’s human rights’ report using this Section as its starting point and hope it will provide a frank assessment of how successful the Government believes it has been in meeting its priorities.

We remain concerned by the availability of overall resources for the government’s human rights work and the risks that areas like defending religious freedom around the world will be squeezed in the annual spending round. We continue to hold that a legitimate case exists for appointing, either at the national or European level an ambassador at large for religious freedom.

We welcome the detailed analysis of “countries of concern” included in the report, but we are surprised and alarmed to see Nigeria omitted from the list.

Introduction

About the Mission and Public Affairs Council

1. The Church of England’s Mission and Public affairs Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the House of Commons’ Foreign Affairs Select Committee’s inquiry into the Foreign and Commonwealth Offices’ human rights work, including the department’s 2010 human rights report, Human Rights and Democracy.

2. The Mission and Public Affairs Council is the body responsible for overseeing research and comment on social and political issues on behalf of the Church. The Council comprises a representative group of bishops, clergy and lay people with interest and expertise in the relevant areas, and reports to the General Synod through the Archbishops’ Council.

About the Church’s approach to human rights

3. The Church works proactively to ensure that human rights are not overlooked or forgotten in Britain’s foreign policy and development cooperation. It does this by constructive dialogue with the British government and the EU institutions. Internationally the Church works with and through the Office of the Anglican Observer to the United Nations.

4. As part of a wider Communion of churches, the Church of England is alert to those instances where human rights and human dignity is infringed. Its mission and development agencies try where possible to provide faithful support to those who find their human rights under stress. This involves providing both pastoral support and also challenging those unjust structures of society that impair human dignity.

About this submission

5. This submission draws on these global relationships. In so doing it builds on many of the same themes that the Church’ Mission and Public Affairs Council expressed in its submission to the Foreign Affairs Committee’s inquiry last year.

The Content and Format of Human Rights and Democracy: The 2011 Foreign & Commonwealth Office Report

6. This is an authoritative report, and it is certainly more comprehensive than previous years. We very much welcome the section specifically devoted to the Arab Spring as well as the inclusion of a statement of the Government’s priorities in the field of human rights. The inclusion of a set of case studies to complement the detailed analysis of countries of concern is also welcomed.

Report’s publication

7. We are encouraged that the Government has maintained its practice of publishing in hard copy an annual human rights report rather than only producing an on-line report as previously suggested. The report usefully documents much of the work that the government has done in this over the last year. Although an annual report can only look backwards it is a valuable tool in ensuring that there is public accountability and oversight at a time when human rights abuses across the world require Britain and others to show international leadership. We very much hope that this practice will continue in subsequent years.

The Arab Spring

8. However, we find though the government’s narrative of its response to the Arab Spring incomplete. The Report, for instance, makes much of the Prime Minister’s speech to the National Assembly in Kuwait on 22 February 2011 setting out the parameters of the UK’s approach to the Arab Spring. It omits, however, any mention that the Prime Minister was in Kuwait heading up a trade delegation to the Middle East primarily made up of arms exporters. How this fits in with the UK’s active support of a UN backed Arms Trade Treaty is far from clear.

9. This is not to imply that human rights should always trump trade, but there does need to be greater clarity in the relationship between these two different strands of policy. The current strategy of using trade visits to also engage in “dialogue at all levels, including human rights,” is confusing and needs revisiting. Separating out these strands of Britain’s foreign policy would allow a more structured dialogue on human rights and as well as on trade, which would be doubly advantageous.

Business and Human Rights

10. We very much hope that the cross-Government strategy on business and human rights, expected to be published later in 2012, will tackle this issue in greater depth. The government is rightly placing a heavy emphasis in its foreign policy on boosting prosperity by promoting British business overseas, but such a move should not come at the expense of human rights or the values underpinning Britain’s foreign policy. Without such underpinning values policy is at the mercy of circumstance and opportunism. That will mean a constant risk that policy will be driven by short-term factors and that governments will be tempted to seek narrow economic advantage for the United Kingdom at the expense of our wider interests and values.

A statement of HMG’s Priorities

11. In our submission to last year to the Foreign Affairs Committee we expressed our disappointment that the 2010 Human Rights Report did not provide a clearer strategic framework setting out the aim and objectives of Britain’s foreign policy in this area. We suggested that the absence of such a framework makes it that much harder to measure the effectiveness of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s human rights work.

12. We therefore very much welcome Section II of this year’s report that sets out the Foreign and Commonwealth’s Offices’ Human Rights Priorities. This section provides a helpful framework within which to evaluate progress in this area. We particularly welcome the Section’s attention to thematic concerns, such as freedom of religion or belief, and the inclusion within each of these sub-sections on material setting out the objectives for 2012.

13. The inclusion of this Section will make it easier to make sense of the on-line three monthly updates to the human rights report envisaged by the Foreign Secretary. We recommend, however, that next year’s human rights report uses this Section as its starting point and provides a frank assessment of how successful the Government believes it has been in meeting its priorities.

Freedom of religion or belief

14. We are heartened by the report’s attention to the question of freedom or religion and belief and recognise that this underlines the importance that the Government gives to this particular human right. For the Church promoting and protecting religious freedom is not simply a matter of self-interest.

15. As well as the intrinsic importance of the freedom to practice religion, a lack of religious freedom creates socio-economic discrimination and reduces citizens’ ability to come together and become agents for peaceful change. This can fuel intercommunal tension and extremism. Where religious freedom is denied human development and flourishing is impaired. For the Church promoting and defending religious freedom is an important element in the process of democratisation and poverty reduction.

16. We remain concerned though by the availability of resources for the government’s human rights work and the risks that areas like defending religious freedom around the world will invariably be squeezed in the annual spending round. We continue to hold that a legitimate case exists for appointing either at the national or European level an ambassador at large for religious freedom.

Countries of Concern

17. We welcome the detailed analysis of “countries of concern” included in the report, even if we find depressing that the list includes a total of 28 countries—the highest ever with the inclusion of South Sudan and Fiji. We recognise the complexity of the challenges facing different countries and the importance of not fixating too much on the simple characterisation of whether a country is of concern or not.

18. We were surprised, however, to see Nigeria omitted from the list. Deeply entrenched human rights problems, as well as the growing threat posed by a militant Islamist group, underscore the pressing human rights situation in Nigeria and the need for President Goodluck Jonathan to strengthen and reform the institutions that ensure security and the rule of law. In recent months we have witnessed Christian groups being attacked, churches burned and a large number of people killed, often with the most savagery. The importance of a secure and stable Nigeria for regional peace and prosperity cannot be underestimated and has often been noted by FCO Ministers.

Comprehensiveness of the report

19. Despite the comprehensive nature of this report we very much regret that unlike its American version, the report still does not cover every country. That is regrettable, particularly as much of the information provided in the report is drawn from reports provided by national embassies. We recommend that the government should look again at whether the report’s scope can be broadened yet further.

18 May 2012