Foreign AffairsWritten evidence from Human Rights Watch
Summary
Despite a commendable emphasis on human rights in many Ministerial statements and much good work by FCO officials towards particular countries, as well as on thematic issues like sexual violence in conflict, the FCO’s overall policy and practice on human rights lacks consistency and falls short of its declared policy statements and its international human rights obligations in some significant areas.
There is no justification for the continuing exclusion of Bahrain, Egypt, Ethiopia and Rwanda from the “countries of concern” section of the annual report, given the gravity of the rights abuses in these countries and given UK influence with these governments.
There are a number of countries where the FCO appears reluctant to press human rights concerns with sufficient vigour, despite the severity of the rights abuses there. This is perhaps because of competing economic, trade and security interests. In this category, Human Rights Watch would particularly highlight Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, China and Uzbekistan.
The UK is failing to fully adhere to its obligations under the UN Convention on Torture, as indicated in the recent report of the UN Committee against Torture. This report highlighted the continuing failure of the UK government to undertake a proper, fully independent inquiry into UK involvement in rendition and torture, expressed concern at the growing number of serious allegations of torture and ill-treatment as a result of UK military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan and the failure of the UK to properly investigate these, and condemned the UK’s use of “unreliable and ineffective” diplomatic assurances when seeking to deport people to countries where they risk being tortured. Human Rights Watch shares this analysis and believes that the FCO and UK government need to take urgent steps to address these issues.
The Committee against Torture also criticised existing UK risk assessment guidelines relating to asylum applications by Sri Lankan Tamils, given credible evidence that some Tamils, previously deported by the UK, have been tortured on their return to Sri Lanka. Human Rights Watch has documented some of these cases and we urge an immediate revision of UK guidelines.
Repeated attacks by senior UK government ministers on the concept of human rights, the UK Human Rights Act (HRA) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) damage the FCO’s credibility when raising human rights concerns with other governments. Both the Minister of Justice and Home Secretary suggested recently that a re-elected Conservative government might scrap the Human Rights Act, which incorporates the ECHR into UK law. The Committee against Torture said it was concerned that the Human Rights Act is the subject of negative criticism by public figures. The Home Secretary has also indicated that the UK should consider withdrawing from the Convention itself. The President of the European Court of Human Rights has said that UK withdrawal from the Convention would be a “total disaster”. FCO Ministers should be pressed on how these attacks on human rights domestically impact on their international work on human rights, perhaps particularly towards countries like Russia and Turkey.
“Countries of Concern”
1. In the course of 2012, the FCO undertook a review of its approach to “countries of concern” in order to refine the criteria for inclusion. Although the review concluded that the severity of human rights abuses and UK influence with their governments were both relevant factors, the annual report inexplicably and indefensibly continues to omit four countries that ought to be included. These are Bahrain, Egypt, Ethiopia and Rwanda. FCO Ministers should be pressed on why these countries have been left out.
2. Human Rights Watch has already submitted separately to the FAC on Bahrain, as part of the committee’s inquiry into UK policy towards Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. In summary, we believe that the FCO continues to overstate the extent of reform in Bahrain and downplay serious and continuing rights abuses there. While the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) published a highly critical report on the government’s handling of the protests in early 2011 and issued a strong set of recommendations in November of that year, the government of Bahrain has done relatively little to implement these. 13 detainees had long-term prison sentences upheld in January 2013, although there was no evidence that they had done anything other than exercise their rights to free expression and assembly. Furthermore, there has been no serious attempt to hold senior figures accountable for these and other abuses.
3. Human Rights Watch is very concerned about the human rights situation in Egypt and disappointed that the UK is not pressing human rights issues more strongly with the government there, especially in UK public statements. We are concerned about elements of the new Egyptian constitution, including parts that relate to women’s rights, the rights of religious and other minorities and freedom of expression. We urge the UK to press the issue of the Associations Law at the highest levels of the Egyptian government. This law—recently submitted to the Egyptian Parliament—threatens to seriously restrict the activities, funding and independence of NGOs. The UK should similarly be urging the Egyptian government to reform its police and security forces, which are responsible for very grave abuses over the last two years.
4. Despite the recent change of leadership in Ethiopia, the human rights situation in the country has not improved. The government routinely detains and prosecutes journalists, political opposition leaders and others under a deeply flawed anti-terrorism law, and uses the Charities and Societies Proclamation (CSO law) to limit independent human rights activity and scrutiny of the government’s human rights record. Human Rights Watch remains concerned about abuses associated with the Ethiopian government’s resettlement programme, known as villagization. While the UK government continues to deny that this programme is linked to rights violations, Human Rights Watch has documented multiple examples of abuse in Gambella, where the World Bank Inspection Panel (the Bank’s independent accountability mechanism) recently recommended an investigation into whether the Bank has contravened its own policies through its support for villagization. The UK should continue to push for a full and independent investigation into rights abuses associated with villagization, as well as the role of the World Bank in supporting the resettlement programme. Because of its close diplomatic and security ties and its large and growing development programme in Ethiopia, the UK has some real leverage with the government in Addis, which it should use more assertively in support of human rights.
5. In November 2012, the UK government made a significant shift in policy towards Rwanda, withholding £21 million of general budget support to the government of Rwanda because of clear and compelling evidence of Rwandan support for the abusive M23 rebel group in eastern Congo. Yet curiously, this very public UK acknowledgement of Rwandan support for human rights abuses did not lead to Rwanda’s inclusion in the “countries of concern” section. Human Rights Watch has documented these M23 abuses and Rwandan support for them in considerable detail. But we have also documented serious rights abuses within Rwanda’s own borders. Our research shows that members of opposition parties, journalists and other perceived critics of the government have been arrested, detained and tried, some solely for expressing their views, and that charges such as endangering state security and inciting public disobedience have been increasingly used to prosecute government critics.
Rights Versus UK Trade and Security Interests
6. FCO Ministers say that they raise human rights concerns “whenever and wherever” they arise. However, it appears to Human Rights Watch that the UK is more hesitant about pressing human rights concerns where important economic, trade or security interests are perceived to be at stake. In this category of countries, we would particularly highlight Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), China and Uzbekistan.
7. Human Rights Watch has already submitted separately to the FAC on Saudi Arabia, as part of the committee’s inquiry into UK policy towards Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. In summary, we are concerned that the FCO is not pressing human rights concerns strongly enough with the government of Saudi Arabia, despite a serious crackdown by the Saudi authorities on peaceful dissidents, the use of lethal force against demonstrators and ongoing and arbitrary detentions. In recent months, the Saudi authorities have imposed harsh sentences on two peaceful human rights activists, with sentences of 11 years and 10 years imprisonment respectively. Their organisation, the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association, was dissolved by the authorities and its assets confiscated, and the authorities ordered that its website and social media accounts be closed. This is an outrageous case and shows the extremes to which the Saudi authorities are prepared to go to silence even moderate critics. Despite some very modest reforms in respect of women, the essentials of Saudi Arabia’s male guardianship system also remain in place. This system subjects Saudi women to systematic discrimination and treats them as perpetual minors, requiring the permission of a male relative—husband, father or brother—if they are to travel or open a bank account. Given the emphasis that UK Ministers give to women’s equality in other international forums, they should be pressing the Saudis much more strongly on this issue.
8. The UK government has been largely silent in the face of a deteriorating rights climate in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). FCO Ministers should be pressed on whether lucrative potential arms contracts with the UAE are the explanation for their reticence to press rights concerns more strongly. The mass trial of 94 political dissidents with links to an Islamist group began in March and is expected to conclude on July 2nd. Human Rights Watch believes that the trial suffers from serious violations of due process, given the authorities’ successful attempts to prevent independent scrutiny of trial proceedings. All of the detainees were denied legal assistance until late February, even though some had been in detention for nearly a year. The detainees include prominent human rights lawyers, judges, teachers and student leaders, and many of them claim they were tortured in detention.
9. Human Rights Watch is concerned that human rights appear to come significantly behind trade and economic interests in UK relations with China. The UK-China human rights dialogue is described by the FCO as the UK’s main bilateral channel for raising human rights concerns at senior levels, but Human Rights Watch has seen little evidence that these dialogues have much impact in shifting Chinese policy on human rights and we are told consistently by Chinese human rights and civil society activists that public pressure and the public spotlight is often the most helpful way to support their efforts. The space for human rights work and civil society activity in China remains extremely limited, with a pattern of repression, abuse and harassment against those who question Chinese state policy or highlight rights abuses. We urge the FCO to press these concerns at the highest levels of the Chinese government.
10. Human Rights Watch remains concerned about the abysmal human rights situation in Uzbekistan and the reluctance of the FCO to press rights concerns more strongly with the Uzbek authorities. Over the last year, Uzbek authorities have intensified their crackdown on civil society, placing human rights activists under house arrest and incommunicado detention for peaceful protest, extending the prison sentences of peaceful opposition figures without due process, and deporting international journalists who attempt to visit the country. Torture remains endemic to the criminal justice system, the use of forced labour in the cotton sector is widespread, and Uzbek authorities continue to oppose an independent investigation into the Andijan massacre of May 2005, when Uzbek government forces opened fire on hundreds of mainly unarmed protestors, killing hundreds of civilians. Over a dozen rights defenders, and numerous independent journalists and opposition activists, are in prison in retaliation for their work or criticism of the government. Despite this record of abuse, the UK government announced in February that it had reached a deal with Tashkent to “gift” certain leftover military equipment from the war in Afghanistan, linked to the withdrawal of UK forces and equipment. We strongly urge the UK government to drive a harder bargain on human rights with President Islam Karimov, who seeks Western recognition and legitimacy and relies heavily on NATO’s military presence in Afghanistan, and to move to place Uzbekistan’s human rights situation back on the agenda of the EU foreign ministers at the EU Foreign Affairs Committee.
UK Obligations Under the UN Convention Against Torture
11. While Human Rights Watch welcomes some of the work that the FCO has done on torture prevention, there are a number of areas where its policy and practice fall short. We agree with many of the points made in the recent, highly critical UN Committee on Torture report on the UK. We would highlight our own four areas of concern.
12. Firstly, despite compelling evidence that some people working for the UK government have been involved in rendition and torture over the last decade, no one has yet been held accountable for this. Human Rights Watch uncovered evidence in September 2011 that UK security services were complicit in the illegal transfer (rendition) of two men to Libya under Gaddafi despite knowledge that they were likely to be tortured there. The two Libyan cases are the subject of criminal investigations in the UK, and this criminal process was used by the UK government as justification for shelving an existing inquiry (set up in June 2010), to look into UK involvement in rendition and torture, the Gibson Inquiry. The UK says it will launch a second inquiry once the Libya criminal investigations are resolved. But it has not acknowledged or accepted the serious criticisms made of the Gibson Inquiry, including its lack of adequate independence and investigative powers. Nor has it honoured its promise to make public as much as possible of the Gibson report, despite the fact that it was completed almost a year ago. A genuinely independent inquiry into these issues is an essential step to restore the UK’s moral authority and to prevent such abuses from recurring.
13. Secondly, Human Rights Watch is concerned that the FCO and the government are still pursuing and promoting internationally the policy of “deportation with assurances”—ie sending foreign terrorism suspects to countries known to practice torture, on the basis of paper commitments from those governments that these individuals will not be tortured on their return. Like the UN Committee on Torture, we believe that this policy lacks credibility. Rather than seeking to extend the policy, the UK government should instead be looking to prosecute terrorism suspects like Abu Qatada in British courts, while working with countries that have poor records on human rights, for example Jordan, to help bring about systemic reforms to end torture and that would genuinely facilitate the safe removal of terrorism suspects.
14. Thirdly, the new Justice and Security Act will extend the use of secret hearings known as “closed material procedures” to the civil courts on national security grounds. This means that it can now be applied in cases where applicants bring civil claims that the UK government was responsible or complicit in their torture. Victims of torture bringing cases against the UK government can be excluded from the court during their case, and be unable to see or hear the government’s evidence, meaning that the government can effectively prevent the disclosure of material showing that the UK was involved in wrongdoing by third parties. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has expressed concerns that the law will shield the UK from accountability for abuse.
15. Fourthly, the UK is still apparently denying that human rights law should apply fully to cases of abuse or torture by members of the British army outside of the EU. The UK’s global standing on human rights is seriously damaged by such abuses. Perhaps the most notorious recent case is that of Baha Moussa who died while in the custody of the British army in Basra, Iraq in 2003. In its recent report, the UN Committee on Torture said that it was “deeply concerned” that, to date, there have been no criminal prosecutions for torture or complicity in torture for UK officials involved in abuses against civilians in Iraq. Human Rights Watch shares this concern. The UK government should take urgent steps to ensure that British soldiers always operate within the framework of international human rights law and hold accountable those responsible for any abuses against civilians.
Sri Lankan Tamils —UK Deportations to Torture
16. Human Rights Watch has argued for some time, on the basis of our detailed research, that the UK Border Agency’s risk assessment processes for Tamil asylum seekers are dangerously inadequate. There is mounting evidence that some Tamils removed to Sri Lanka from the UK in recent years have been tortured or ill-treated on their return. The risk is particularly significant for those with a real or perceived association with the LTTE (the former terrorist group, the Tamil Tigers). Despite this documentation, FCO Ministers have asserted over the last year that they have seen no “evidence that substantiates the allegations” and Tamils within this risk category have been deported to Sri Lanka. Although the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal is in the process of hearing a case on the risk of return for Tamils, the UK has not suspended or changed the country guidance while this case is being assessed. We urge the UK to immediately revise the country guidance relating to Tamils and Sri Lanka, to better reflect the real risks they face and to prevent the UK from returning Tamils who would then be at risk of torture.
Attacks on Human Rights, the Human Rights Act (HRA) and the ECHR by UK Ministers
17. In the UK today, the idea of human rights and specific human rights instruments like the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights are under attack from some politicians, including some government Ministers. In the context of this FAC inquiry, it is worth highlighting just one specific, highly negative consequence of this—the damage done to UK credibility on human rights internationally. Human Rights Watch’s work across Europe and Central Asia has shown the real benefits of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights, which is perhaps the single most effective mechanism for human rights protection in the world today. The European Convention was drafted in the 1950s with the support of Winston Churchill and very extensive UK input. In the half century since, it has proved its worth in protecting and promoting rights for people across 47 countries in Europe. Its case law has contributed greatly to ending commonplace torture in custody, in moving towards equal treatment for women and lesbian and gay people, ending corporal punishment in schools, and abusive interrogation practices by the British army in Northern Ireland, and in upholding the freedom of the media to publish articles in the public interest, against the wishes of the authorities. To suggest, as some UK Minsters do, that the UK should withdraw from the ECHR would be a wholly retrograde step and a betrayal of many across Europe, for whom the ECHR is a critical forum in which they can press for their basic rights to be upheld. FCO Ministers should be pressed by the FAC on the consequences for their international human rights advocacy of these repeated attacks on human rights, the Human Rights Act and the ECHR.
5 June 2013