Priority given to Human Rights
by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
11. In his introduction to the Human Rights Annual
Report 2004, the Foreign Secretary describes human rights as "central"
to Britain's foreign policy, for reasons both of "firm conviction"
and expediency:
The more [human rights] are respected, the more
stable and secure the world is - and that benefits not just others,
but ourselves.[12]
The Report also refers to the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office Strategy paper, published in December 2003, which gives
human rights a place in the structure of departmental priorities:
Strategic Priority 6 is "Sustainable development, underpinned
by democracy, good governance and human rights".[13]
12. Amnesty International, however, expressed its
concern to us that the positioning of human rights in the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office Strategy in this way may, in fact, be
a regressive step which will have the effect not of enhancing
the importance of human rights but of subsuming it in the wider
issue of sustainable development. In evidence to us Amnesty questioned
the direct relevance of human rights to the concerns of sustainable
development, as "violations of human rights persist in many
high income and middle income countries". Amnesty contends
that the concentration on development may preclude the funding
of certain human rights activities targeted at the political system
and civil society and argues that the FCO should allocate a 'Strategic
Priority' solely to human rights.[14]
13. In response to these criticisms, the Minister
was robust in his defence, stating that, rather than narrowing
its focus on human rights, as suggested by Amnesty, the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office had in fact worked to "mainstream
human rights concerns into all of [its] activities and actions",
in recognition of the fact that "countries that have good
human rights records tend to be ones that … we can have a
stable relationship with".[15]
14. Amnesty also had concerns about the financing
of human rights activities by the FCO.[16]
At the beginning of the financial year 2004-05 the Human Rights
Project Fund was folded into the broader Global Opportunities
Fund as the Human Rights, Democracy and Good Governance programme.
The Human Rights Report states that this change "will mean
that the FCO spends more money on human rights, good governance
and democracy projects", projecting an increase in funding
from £12.1 million in 2003-04, to over £14.5 million
in 2005-06 (with a dip during 2004-05 to £11 million).[17]
15. Amnesty, however, states that the change of funding
stream in fact denotes a move of resources away from pure human
rights projects to a broader range of activities, as "the
value of human rights work as separate from good governance and
democracy projects is not clear" in the new structure. Amnesty's
view is that "whilst certainly good governance and democracy
projects can promote human rights…they may in some cases
displace human rights projects, which will now not receive funding".[18]
16. Amnesty also contests the view put forward by
the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that the other thematic programmes
funded through the Global Opportunities Fund, such as Engaging
with the Islamic World, the Re-uniting Europe Programme and Strengthening
Relations with Emerging Markets, will finance additional human
rights projects. Amnesty states that "these programmes may
not have human rights protection as a central objective"
and the geographic scope of such funds "will cover many fewer
countries, continent by continent" than the original Human
Rights Project Fund. While this "may have the advantage of
focussing attention on specific areas" it will also lead
to "the withdrawal of support from small groups in many places
which were previously doing extremely good work".[19]
17. In response to our questioning on these issues,
the Minister emphasised the new money which has become available
since 2001-02. He also stated that the prioritisation which is
now taking place is "ensuring that those projects are focused
on the countries and the issues and the areas of the world that
are most important to us", in line with the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office departmental Strategic Priorities.[20]
18. We are not wholly satisfied by the Minister's
response, which has failed to assure us that the new funding structure
will not result in the downgrading of human rights work in the
wider spectrum of good governance and democracy activities.
19. We recommend
that, in its response to this Report, the Government provide a
description of which individual projects have migrated from the
old Human Rights Project Fund to today's Human Rights, Democracy
and Good Governance programme or to other programmes within the
Global Opportunities Fund. This explanation should include a definition
of "human rights project" and an elaboration of what
proportion of the new programmes is allocated to human rights
work and the extent of the geographical coverage of these projects,
as compared to the activity under the old fund.
1 
