United Nations

20. The Annual Human Rights Report 2004 recognises the UN as the "single most important body for promoting human rights worldwide" with a "unique and vital role in ensuring protection of human rights on the ground" and states that the 60^th session of the UN General Assembly during 2005 will be "a   key element of our human rights programme" during the UK Presidency of the EU.[21] The Report describes the gamut of United Nations activities, covering the work of the Commission on Human Rights, the General Assembly Third Committee, which deals with human rights, social development and humanitarian issues, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the application of UN Security Council sanctions with human rights implications, UN Peacekeeping missions and UN involvement with international justice mechanisms.[22]

21. During the months of 2004 and early 2005, the UN has faced a series of challenges which have threatened to undermine its authority. Serious allegations have been made accusing UN peacekeepers of engaging in sexual abuse of Congolese refugees[23] and a catalogue of revelations has cast doubt on the integrity of UN officials who operated the oil-for-food programme to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. In February the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Ruud Lubbers, resigned over allegations of sexual harassment.[24] These and other causes of concern have led to calls by Republican Members of Congress in the USA for the resignation of the Secretary-General Kofi Annan and to the establishment of a plethora of inquiries, in particular into the allegations regarding the oil-for-food programme.[25] In April 2004, the UN Secretary-General asked former US Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker to head an Independent Inquiry Committee to look into this issue.[26] The interim report of the Committee, which criticised Benon Sevan, the UN official in charge of the programme, was published on 3 February and a full report is expected in mid-2005.[27] We discussed this issue in our Report of last July on Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism and will return to it shortly in a further Report under the same title.[28]

22. When we questioned Amnesty and Human Rights Watch on these issues, we were told that, despite these problems, "turning away from the United Nations would be an absolutely disastrous step" and that "the UN is a hugely important institution in terms of security, peace and human rights" and should not be undermined.[29] The Minister reiterated these sentiments, saying that although there are "significant concerns about bureaucracy and process within the UN", the Secretary-General has "heroically" led the way to reform.[30]

23. We conclude that the UN is going through a necessary process of scrutiny and reform, but affirm that the work of this vitally important institution should be fully recognised. We recommend that the Government continue to support the very important work carried out by the United Nations in the field of human rights.

HIGH-LEVEL PANEL ON THREATS, CHALLENGES AND CHANGE

24. At the UN General Assembly in September 2003 the Secretary-General argued for a refreshment of the UN's role in providing security for all, as a response to the deep divisions over the war in Iraq.[31] He set up a High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change to "generate new ideas about the kinds of policies and institutions required for the UN to be effective in the 21st century".[32] The Panel reported in December 2004, identifying six "clusters" of global threats to be expected in the years to come, as follows:

a)  war between States;

b)  violence within States, including civil wars, large-scale human rights abuses and genocide;

c)  poverty, infectious disease and environmental degradation;

d)  nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons;

e)  terrorism; and

f)  transnational organized crime.

25. The Panel also recommended ways to prepare for, prevent, and if necessary deal with these problems as they arise, within a reinvigorated United Nations framework. In particular, the Panel recommended "restoring credibility to the Commission on Human Rights" and "increasing the credibility and effectiveness of the Security Council". It also endorsed "the emerging norm of a responsibility to protect civilians from large-scale violence", responsibility for which it placed "first and foremost" in the hands of national authorities. In the event that a state fails to protect its civilians, the Panel argued, it is incumbent upon the international community to act, "through humanitarian operations, monitoring missions and diplomatic pressure - and with force if necessary, though only as a last resort".[33]

26. When questioned about the importance of the Panel's findings, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch were cautious about the implications of the recommendations on addressing states which abuse human rights, and Human Rights Watch told us that the Report posited a framework for dealing with abusers in which military action would be justified only in "very limited circumstances".[34] Instead, both NGOs placed emphasis on the recommendations that human rights issues are brought to the attention of the Security Council each year and that permanent members of the Security Council should pledge not to use their veto to block action against acts of genocide or large scale abuses of human rights.[35]

27. The Foreign Secretary has said he is "fully behind the report" of the Panel and, in regard to addressing large-scale abuses of human rights, that if the proposed decision-making structure had existed a decade ago, "some of the major problems that we faced in securing agreement—for example, in respect of Kosovo, earlier; in respect of the genocide that was taking place in Bosnia; and in respect of Iraq—could almost certainly have been avoided".[36] Bill Rammell called the recognition of a responsibility to protect against abuses of human rights a "very positive development".[37]

28. The ramifications of the Panel's recommendations are yet to be fully explored and many issues will have to wait until at least the General Assembly in September. However, the Secretary-General has expressed the hope that "not all action will be frozen until September".[38]

29. We conclude that the recommendations of the High Level Panel are to be welcomed, and that they provide a basis for further debate on strengthening the international system for dealing with abuses of human rights. We recommend that, in its response to this Report, the Government set out its policy position on the implementation of the Panel's recommendations.

UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

30. The UN Commission on Human Rights sat for its 60^th session in Geneva from 15 March-23 April 2004. The Annual Report describes the work of the Commission as "pivotal" to the UN human rights system and lists some "important successes" for Britain and the EU during this year's session as well as some disappointments, ranging across the panoply of country and thematic resolutions.[39]

31. The successes include the EU-sponsored appointment of new Special Rapporteurs to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Belarus, and resolutions on Turkmenistan and Belarus. The EU also supported a consensus Chairman's statement on Nepal and the appointment of independent experts to report on the situations in Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan. Consensus chairman's statements were also agreed on Colombia and East Timor and further initiatives on Haiti, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Somalia, Burundi, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Chad and Cuba were supported by the EU. A resolution on the death penalty, lobbied for by the UK and EU, attracted a record number of backers, and a resolution on torture, tabled by Denmark, was passed by consensus. Other resolutions supported by the UK in the areas of economic, social and cultural rights were also passed.

32. Despite these positive achievements, the Annual Report notes with disappointment that 'no action' motions were tabled in respect of country resolutions on China, Zimbabwe, Chechnya and Belarus, the first two of which were successful. Moreover, a group chaired by China introduced a text proposing the linkage of the human rights of citizens to responsibilities towards the state, which was passed by one vote despite lobbying by Western governments. In the words of the Annual Report, this resolution posits that "individuals should only enjoy their human rights if they do not criticise or upset their governments", which "attacks the very foundation of human rights as universal and inalienable".[40]

33. The Report also highlights the "main area of disagreement within the CHR": the issue of how to address the human rights situations in individual countries. Whereas the UK feels that 'naming and shaming' countries for poor performance is a useful tool for increasing pressure on the governments of those states, many countries lobby hard against it.[41]

34. While expressing satisfaction at some successes of the session, Amnesty, in evidence to us, drew attention to the politicisation of the Commission and "repeated misuse of no-action motions" and expressed frustration at the "weakly worded decision" on Sudan, which is "presented in the FCO report as a success".[42] Amnesty also advocated that the UNCHR pay more attention to the human rights "scandal" being played out at Guantánamo Bay.[43] Human Rights Watch described the Commission as "enormously problematic", but of very significant impact in some areas.[44] Suggestions of ways to improve the Commission's effectiveness focussed on improving funding and mandating the Commission to sit all year round.[45]

35. We put these questions to Bill Rammell, who recognised that the Commission faced a problem of credibility. He was "not convinced" of the value of allowing the Commission to sit all year round, but agreed that the body needed to consider new ways of working. The Minister described the ongoing diplomatic work to break down the politicisation of the Commission's work, but could not offer specific markers of progress.[46]

36. We commend the Government's ongoing and uphill efforts to improve the work and credibility of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and recommend that, in its response to this Report, the Government set out specific objectives on which it will seek to make progress in 2005.

The International Criminal Court

37. The Annual Report describes the UK as "one of the strongest supporters" of the International Criminal Court, paying 11% of its £4.4 million budget in 2004. The Court "represents a major advance in international justice and the fight against impunity for perpetrators of international crimes".[47] Since the appointment of the first chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, in the summer of 2003, the court has received official referrals from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, and the Central African Republic and has launched formal investigation into the first two referrals.[48] We discussed the Court—and in particular, the negative attitude of the United States towards it—in our Report on Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism in December 2002.[49] We later visited the Court, in September 2004, and were pleased to see the progress being made.

38. The Court has, however, continued to face opposition from the United States, which has expressed itself in a variety of ways. The US has created a global network of bilateral non-surrender agreements to protect its service personnel from the Court's jurisdiction and in 2004 sought to extend UNSCR 1422 granting immunity from ICC prosecution to its troops acting as UN peacekeepers. In late January, Pierre-Richard Prosper, the US ambassador for war crimes issues, told reporters at the UN that "We don't want to be party to legitimizing the ICC," as he defended the United States' attempt to block referral of the crimes committed in Darfur, Sudan, to the Court.[50] In recent weeks, there appear to have been signals that the US softening its opposition to this referral.[51] The US has also objected to the Court's investigation of war crimes committed in northern Uganda.[52]

39. Human Rights Watch told us that the new American administration was "absolutely … determined not just to weaken the Court … but to kill off the Court". The attempt to block referral of Darfur to the Court should be interpreted as an effort to undermine the court's existence:

If the American administration succeeds in blocking a referral to the International Criminal Court for Darfur, it is in danger of successfully sending the signal: why do we need a court like this in any case? We had these terrible crimes; the Court was not useful there. When the Court comes up for review in a few years' time, it will have simply run out of steam.[53]

40. Human Rights Watch also expressed its disappointment that the UK has not stood up more robustly to the US on these issues. The Annual Report failed to mention the fact that the UK was the only state on the Security Council ready to vote with the US on extending the immunity of its troops.[54] Human Rights Watch sees this as symptomatic of a weakening of resolve on the part of the UK, telling us that "given [the UK Government's] response to the potentially lethal pressures on the Court, one can only say that they are no longer the strongest supporters".[55]

41. Bill Rammell offered a forceful rebuttal when these points were put to him in our evidence session, saying "the International Criminal Court is one of the most positive developments in an awfully long time and it is one that we strongly support and urge other states to support" and that "we are no less supportive of the ICC than we have ever been, and we are one of their strongest supporters".[56] The Minister also assured us that the UK had rejected a draft non-surrender agreement put to it by the United States, as it was judged incompatible with the Rome Statute, and that the UK would support a referral of the Darfur crimes to the International Criminal Court, contingent upon the findings of the International Commission of Inquiry set up by the Secretary-General.[57]

42. We recommend that the Government continue to give its backing to the International Criminal Court, and that it support the referral of the crimes in Darfur to the ICC, in line with the recommendation of the International Commission of Inquiry.

The European Union

43. The EU provides a multiplicity of channels through which human rights may be promoted. The Annual Report describes human rights as a "core concern" of the EU's work and states that action by the 25 Member States "can be more effective than bilateral action". [58] Opportunities for enhancing human rights are provided by the enlargement of the Union, the Common Foreign and Security Policy, funding for human rights projects through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, and trade and co-operation agreements with countries outside the Union, which, since the 1990s, have included a human rights clause. The EU has also conducted human rights dialogues with several countries of concern, such as China and Iran. In recent months the Council has decided to establish an EU Human Rights Agency and to appoint a Personal Representative for Human Rights to the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy.[59] The UK Presidency in the second half of 2005 provides an opportunity to shape the work of the EU in this area.

44. Amnesty International expressed its concerns to us about the coherence and implementation of work on human rights by the EU. Amnesty stated that "too often human rights have been dispensed with in the face of strong opposition or become negotiable when confronted with other interests".[60] In a memorandum addressed to the Luxembourg Presidency, Amnesty criticised the EU for failing to confront and deal with infringements of human rights within the Union. In terms of human rights outside the Union, Amnesty contends that guidelines designed to promote and protect human rights are inadequately implemented, that human rights considerations have not been resolved through the accession process in relation to the most recent states to join the EU, and that, with the demise of the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights in 2006, the future of funding for human rights projects by the EU is unclear. [61]

45. Amnesty made a range of proposals to improve the putting into practice of EU rhetoric on human rights, including:

a)  the formalisation of the monitoring of compliance with the human rights clause in EU agreements;

b)  the improvement of the implementation and monitoring of EU guidelines on human rights-related issues such as the death penalty; and

c)  the improvement of the protection of human rights within the Union.[62]

46. The implications of the new developments in EU human rights capacity—the establishment of an EU Human Rights Agency and appointment of a Personal Representative for Human Rights to the High Representative—are not yet clear. Bill Rammell told us that he was "pushing for early clarification of exactly what the remit of [the Personal Representative] will be so that we do not get duplication and we maximise our resources".[63] It will also be important to ensure that the EU's new External Action Service draws on the experience of the FCO in working with human rights NGOs and that the Service includes sufficient numbers of staff who are expert in human rights.

47. We recommend that the Government continue to put pressure on its European partners to come to a speedy resolution of the respective remits of the putative EU Human Rights Agency and Personal Representative on Human Rights in the Common Foreign and Security Policy, and to ensure that the new External Action Service takes full account of the human rights dimension of its work. We further recommend that the Government press for the Personal Representative to conduct, as one of his first tasks, a review of the EU's human rights work, with a view to rationalising and improving the implementation of its policies in this area. We recommend that, during the UK Presidency of the EU, the Government make one of its priorities improvement of the quality of the EU's work on human rights, without there being any diminution of the accountability of the British Government to Parliament in this area.

ENLARGEMENT

48. The EU's most powerful tool to increase respect for human rights is, arguably, enlargement and the leverage which it can exert on potential new member states. As the Annual Report makes clear, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms "are enshrined in the accession criteria for all new Member States". The Report cites the "extraordinary transformation" of the 10 new member states which joined the EU on 1 May 2004. [64]

49. Amnesty has expressed its doubts about this process, saying in its memorandum to the Luxembourg Presidency that "serious problems have persisted throughout the accession process in most if not all candidate countries" including the ten that joined in 2004 and the two scheduled to join in 2007.[65]

Turkey

50. The transforming power of accession will be put to its most serious test in the case of Turkey. The report of the Commission in October 2004, on the basis of which the Council decided in December to open accession talks with Turkey, stated that

As regards human rights, Turkey recognises the primacy of international and European law. It has aligned itself to a large extent with international conventions and rulings, such as the complete abolition of the death penalty and the release of people sentenced for expressing non-violent opinion. Although some practical restrictions still exist, the scope of fundamental freedoms enjoyed by Turkish citizens, such as freedom of expression and assembly, has been substantially extended.[66]

51. In oral evidence, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch welcomed the actions Turkey has taken in response to the Copenhagen criteria, and Human Rights Watch called Turkey "one of the remarkable success stories".[67] This assessment chimed with Bill Rammell's remark to us that "in terms of the impact that the accession process of the European Union can have in terms of raising human rights standards, it is difficult to think of a country that has seen that process work more than in Turkey".[68]

52. Both Amnesty and Human Rights Watch sounded a note of caution, however, about the degree to which legislative change has been implemented on the ground: Amnesty stated that "implementation of the reforms has been patchy and broad restrictions to the exercise of fundamental rights remain in law".[69] Various areas continue to give cause for concern:

a)  despite constitutional and legal reforms, "individuals can still be prosecuted for exercising their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights", provision remains to allow the prosecution of individuals for "insults" to state institutions, and implementation of legal reforms is "resisted" by state officials;

b)  torture and ill-treatment by security forces continue to be reported despite legal reforms and "non-marking" methods of physical coercion appear to be coming into usage; mechanisms for the monitoring and prosecution of abuse are inadequate;

c)  freedom of expression continues to be curtailed and to be subject to prosecution; use of minority languages is unnecessarily restricted and human rights workers are harassed at various levels; and

d)  levels of violence against women are "extremely high" and state officials are failing to implement legal reforms enacted to protect women.[70]

53. When we put some of these points to the Minister, he concurred with the assessment that Turkey had some way to go on implementing human rights reforms, but remained upbeat about the prospect of improvement and the positive effects of accession negotiations.[71]

54. We conclude that, despite Turkey's substantial and welcome progress towards adopting European norms of respect for human rights and freedoms, significant areas of concern remain. We recommend that the Government continue to press for satisfactory resolution of these problems by Turkey and, under the UK Presidency of the EU in the second half of 2005, ensure that human rights is a key part of accession talks when these begin in October 2005.

22   Ibid., pp 113--127 Back

23   See paras 147-8 below Back

24   "Lubbers resigns as UN refugee chief; Annan says move is in best interest of UN agency", United Nations Press Release, 20 February 2005, available at http://www.un.org/News/ Back

25   "Kofi Annan must go", Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2004 Back

26   "Annan Names Independent Panel to Probe 'Oil-for-Food' Allegations", United Nations Press Release, 21 April 2004 Back

27   Independent Inquiry Committee into the United Nations Oil for Food Programme, Interim Report, February 2005, available at http://www.iic-offp.org/ Back

28   Foreign Affairs Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2003-04, HC 441, paras 86-88 Back

29   Q 17 [Mr Crawshaw], 18 Back

30   Q 96 Back

31   United Nations, The Secretary-General: Address To The General Assembly New York, 23 September 2003, available at http://www.un.org/ Back

32   United Nations, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, Report of the Secretary-General's High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change - Executive Summary, December 2004, p 1 Back

33   Ibid., p 4 Back

34   Q 20 Back

35   Qq 19-21 Back

36   HC Deb 14 December 2005, cols 1514-1515 Back

37   Q 97 Back

38   United Nations General Assembly, A more secure world: our shared responsibility Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, Note by Secretary-General, p 4, available at www.un.org Back

39   Human Rights Annual Report 2004, p 115 Back

40   Ibid., p 117 Back

41   Ibid., p 115 Back

42   Ev 9; see also para 157 below. Back

43   Ev 9; see paras 71-9 below. Back

44   Q 23 Back

45   Q 24 Back

46   Qq 99-100 Back

47   Human Rights Annual Report 2004, p 123 Back

48   "Prosecutor receives referral of the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo", 19 April 2004, "President of Uganda refers situation concerning the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) to the ICC", 29 January 2004, "Prosecutor receives referral concerning Central African Republic", 6 January 2005, "The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court opens its first investigation", 23 June 2004, "Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court opens an investigation into Northern Uganda", 29 July 2004, International Criminal Court Press Notices, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/ Back

49   Foreign Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2002-03, Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism, HC 196,para 36 Back

50   "U.S. Fiddles Over ICC While Darfur Burns", Human Rights Watch Press Release, 31 January 2005, available at http://hrw.org/ Back

51   "Britain backs UN sanctions after losing patience in Sudan crisis", The Guardian, 8 March 2005, p 2 Back

52   See paras 149-154 below. Back

53   Q 25 Back

54   Ev 30 Back

55   Q 30 Back

56   Q 101 Back

57   Qq 102-3; see paras 155-160 below. Back

58   Human Rights Annual Report 2004, p 94 Back

59   European Council Presidency Conclusions No. 16238/1/04, 16-17 December 2004, paras 52 and 70 Back

60   Ev 9 Back

61   Ev 18-25 Back

62   Ev 9-10 Back

63   Q 72 Back

64   Human Rights Annual Report 2004, p 98 Back

65   Ev 23 Back

66   Communication From The Commission To The Council And The European Parliament: Recommendation of the European Commission on Turkey's progress towards accession, 6 October 2004, COM(2004) 656, available at http://europa.eu.int/ Back

67   Q 32 Back

68   Q 149 Back

69   Ev 48 Back

70   Ev 48-50 Back

71   Q 150 Back