| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Have Ministers had any discussions with the international community on how it might apply pressure on the Government of Indonesia to harmonise their laws in line with the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? Are there any plans to enter into talks with other members of the international community so that a unified and properly considered diplomatic plan can be negotiated with regard to West Papua?
I very much look forward to reading the published findings of the UN special rapporteur on torture, Dr Manfred Nowak, on the state of West Papua. I hope that this House will have an opportunity to debate the report and recommendations that he gives to the UN Human Rights Council. I am pleased to see that the first informal signals show that while Nowak was concerned about abuses in a number of areas, there were some improvements. He noted an improved openness to prisons in West Papua, including for those charged with political offences, who are normally the worst treated. While the Indonesian President and his Government’s attitude towards human rights may still be very far from our own, requests for improved conditions for the West Papuan people seem not to have fallen on entirely deaf ears.
As was explained earlier, part of the difficulty of monitoring exactly what is going on in West Papua, and the level of injustice that people suffer, is its geographical location. As one half of an island that guards its border from the glare of international journalists, with many of its inhabitants tribes people living in the thick of the rainforest, it is difficult to establish quite what goes on. Therefore, I should be interested to know whether any foreign diplomats are
26 Feb 2008 : Column 631
The difficulties of West Papua are great but they are not insurmountable. It is only through continued attention and serious debate around the world that we might be able to pave a path to some sort of solution.
8.34 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for introducing this debate. It is an important issue in which he has a longstanding interest. In many ways I am embarrassed to be on the other side of the argument tonight. Certainly, I recognise much of what he says about West Papua. He raises issues that are not acceptable anywhere—not there or anywhere else that we were to find them. Yet if I can recognise and feel a common shame and concern at what has happened in West Papua, I do not recognise what the noble and right reverend Lord or other speakers have described tonight as Indonesia. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who knows President Yudhoyono, will also know that there has somehow been an enormously unfair characterisation of that country in this debate.
Indonesia is a country that has changed enormously over the past decade, including making significant improvements in the field of human rights. It is a country that now has an active parliament, an effective and outspoken civil society and a lively free press. Although your Lordships would not know it from tonight’s discussion, it has one of the most effective human rights commissions in the region, and played a key role in pushing for a human rights element in the Association of South-East Asian Nations charter.
The military, which dominated the country under Suharto, has evolved away from its traditional role. The formal participation of the military and the police in parliament ended in 2004. The peace agreement signed in Aceh in 2005 has been acknowledged in our debate, which, critically, continues to hold and is a major achievement. Certainly, we judge that the Indonesian Government are committed to further improvements in human rights. Like other speakers, I welcome the visits to Papua by Hina Jilani, the UN special representative on human rights defenders, in June of last year and Professor Manfred Nowak, the UN special rapporteur on torture, last November. Both, I might say, went at the invitation of the Indonesian Government. That openness to international scrutiny reflects the progress that Government have made in addressing human rights concerns.
However, I certainly acknowledge the points made by the noble and right reverend Lord and by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others, since both reports obviously acknowledge real concerns—notably the one on detainees and their conditions. Similarly, in her visit and report, Hina Jilani highlighted the continued challenges for human rights defenders. She
26 Feb 2008 : Column 632
I could go on with the institutional improvements that Government have made: accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as that on economic, social and cultural rights in 2006. Equally, however, I agree with those who have spoken in this important debate that many challenges remain. We share their concerns about the human rights situation in Papua, including allegations of human rights violations by the Indonesian armed forces, restricted access to Papua for journalists and NGOs and, indeed, a number of cases of prisoners being convicted of treason for displaying the Papuan flag.
Again, however, let us put that concern in context. The new special autonomy legislation for Papua makes provision for that flag to be flown. It has not been translated into local legislation, however, so at this point that change is half-pregnant or in abeyance, or whatever the appropriate metaphor would be. I would urge your Lordships to bear in mind that flags are provocative things even in democracies that put an absolute premium on freedom of speech. The confederate flag in the United States continues to cause eruptions in every presidential campaign that I can recall. So please let us show some understanding for a country, Indonesia, which is in a transition of its own as it moves towards being a full democracy.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, you do not go to prison for 20 years for flying the confederate flag in the United States.
Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, my point is that there is now legislation on the books in Jakarta that would allow the flying of the Papuan flag. But this is a process where there has to be continued political pressure as there was in Aceh to make sure that the spirit and letter of the special autonomy allowed in that legislation is met. Flags are, if you like, a good indicator of whether or not there is progress. So like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I will be watching for and will applaud the day that this flag can be flown.
I have followed Papua from outside and followed, as an international development official, the dramas around the exploitation of its gold resources that make it the richest part of Indonesia, and watched before that the massive migrations into Papua from other parts of Indonesia. This region has faced a turbulent development and has been left behind in terms of its political development and, indeed, the well-being of its citizens. These are issues that the central government in far-off Jakarta, which I suspect to some in Papua seems nearly as far away as Westminster, need to address and overcome. What I want to challenge is not the claim that there are major human rights abuses, and if my remarks in November were taken in any way as seeking to diminish or
26 Feb 2008 : Column 633
In terms of our tracking of this, the noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked about the international presence there. I do not know whether there are permanent embassy staff there. I shall certainly seek to give him an answer. Our own embassy in Jakarta follows the situation closely. An official from our embassy visited Papua last week and held discussions with local officials, NGOs and representatives of religious organisations on many issues, including, very centrally, human rights. We have sought to work through the United Nations envoys and local NGOs, and through our strong and good relationship with the Government of Indonesia, to press them on the agenda that all of us in the House tonight share.
When Hina Jilani was there last June, she raised with the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and chief of police threats against human rights defenders. Our embassy in Jakarta has raised the same issues with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which has confirmed that it has taken this up directly with the security forces and local authorities. Supporting the work of human rights defenders is a priority for the Foreign Office. That is reflected in our annual human rights report, which in 2006 was dedicated to human rights defenders. There is evidence that the Indonesian Government are focusing on not just words, new institutions and signing international covenants, but really on bringing justice home to Papua itself.
On 25 January this year, the Indonesian Supreme Court reinstated the conviction against the former Garuda pilot Pollycarpus for conspiracy to murder the human rights activist Munir Said Thalib in 2004. Pollycarpus was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment. On 11 February—just a couple of weeks ago—the former President of Garuda, Indra Setiawan, was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment for his part in the murder of Munir. So we are seeing real progress.
I was asked whether our Foreign Secretary has met his counterpart, Hasan Wirajuda. He has spoken to him twice on the telephone, although I am told it was not about Papua. I have also met with Hasan Wirajuda for the same reason that the Foreign Secretary has spoken to him. The modern Indonesia is one of our great allies in our efforts in Burma. It is a fellow member of the Security Council at the moment, not a small issue in terms of some of the tactical suggestions tonight. It is also, as it happens, a member of the Human Rights Council. Nevertheless, I imagine that Manfred Novak, in his report to the council the week after next, will be raising his visit to Indonesia. I will myself be at the council next week and hope to see Manfred Novak on the sidelines of that.
I was asked what we are doing in terms of development support. We look at the governor of Papua who visited recently and saw the Minister in the Foreign Office who covers this region, Meg Munn. He is very involved in development activities
26 Feb 2008 : Column 634
I think that we are as engaged as all the noble Lords who have spoken tonight would wish us to be. It is true that we are putting our confidence in this new democratic Government of Indonesia to live up to their responsibilities to their people. It is true that we continue, as have every British government, to accept the outcome of what happened in 1969. We recognise their shortcomings, but we believe that the way forward is an internal dialogue between the people of Papua and the Government in Jakarta. This is a process which delivered results in Aceh. We hope it can similarly deliver results for Papua. I will certainly express to my other colleagues in the Foreign Office the need that we continue in our dealings with the Government of Indonesia and President Yudhoyono to press the case for the people of Papua for human rights and justice and their right to a peaceful, prosperous development.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.52 pm.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.47 to 8.52 pm.]
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 13.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Offences specified for the purposes of sections 225(3A) and227(2A) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003]:
Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 82A to 82ZA:
26 Feb 2008 : Column 635
“22A (1) An attempt to commit an offence specified in the preceding paragraphs of this Part of this Schedule (“a listed offence”).
(4) An offence under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 in relation to which a listed offence is the offence (or one of the offences) which the person intended or believed would be committed.
“33A (1) An attempt to commit an offence specified in the preceding paragraphs of this Part of this Schedule (“a listed offence”).
“48 (1) An attempt to commit an offence specified in the preceding paragraphs of this Part of this Schedule (“a listed offence”).
(4) An offence under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 in relation to which a listed offence is the offence (or one of the offences) which the person intended or believed would be committed.
49 An offence under section 70 of the Army Act 1955, section 70 of the Air Force Act 1955 or section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 as respects which the corresponding civil offence (within the meaning of the Act in question) is an offence specified in Part 1 of this Schedule.
26 Feb 2008 : Column 636
50 (1) An offence under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales (within the meaning given by that section) is an offence specified in Part 1 of this Schedule.
(2) Section 48 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (attempts, conspiracy etc.) applies for the purposes of this paragraph as if the reference in subsection (3)(b) of that section to any of the following provisions of that Act were a reference to this paragraph.”
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Sentences of detention for public protection]:
Clause 15 [Extended sentences for certain violent or sexual offences: persons 18 or over]:
Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 83A:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Extended sentences for certain violent or sexual offences: persons under 18]:
[Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 not moved.]
Clause 17 [The assessment of dangerousness]:
[Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 89:
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |