Author: welland2

Citizenship day


Last week, three members of the Salisbury group visited South Wilts Grammar School for their day long Citizenship Conference held every year jointly with Bishop Wordsworth’s School.

We had the opportunity to present Amnesty to three groups of students, amounting to about 50 in all, who had chosen to hear from us, along with a number of other organisations from political parties to charities.

The impression we received was of a lot of interest in our work, and we emphasised the importance of the concept of human rights, and asked the students to think about how these might impinge on their own lives as well as on the prisoners whose causes we espouse.

The Power of the Signature

The short AI film ‘The Power of a Signature’ as always received a positive reaction as did the invitation to sign the Stop Torture petition cards.  We hope the students enjoyed the occasion as much as we did.

We will be taking the show on to St Mary’s School, Shaftesbury next month

3

The Chinese President’s visit


President’s visit prompts human rights concerns

This week saw the visit to this country of President Xi Jinping with a president ji xinpinghuge amount of ceremony and including a meeting with the Queen.  His visit was surrounded with considerable controversy concerning the human rights record in China.

Our government stood accused of suppressing concerns about human rights because they want us to do more business with China and because the Chinese do not like questions being asked about their activities.  They view this as interfering with the internal affairs of their country.

Human rights in China are truly dire and may even have got worse since President Xi came to power.  The essential deal in China is that the communists stay in power and in return, they deliver growth and prosperity to their people who have little say over how the country is run.  To maintain this system, there is little in the way of free speech, the internet is closely controlled, minorities – including religious minorities – are hounded and arrested, torture is common and more Chinese are executed than the rest of the world put together.

Chen Guangcheng – who was a prisoner of conscience with Amnesty and on whose behalf, the local group campaigned – fled China following his house arrest and now lives in America.  He is personally well acquainted with the human rights situation in that country.  In an article in the Independent he says:

There is no doubt human rights have worsened in his home country in the decade since President Hu Jintao’s state visit and believes that the UK must publicly criticise the regime if it wants to improve human rights in China.

I don’t think all this trade and business should be carried out as the UK sacrifices human rights in exchange for these deals.

Amnesty has noted that during a nationwide crackdown, 248 lawyers and activists were detained in the summer of whom 29 are still in custody.  Then there is the continuing story of Tibet where freedom for Tibetans is a long-lost dream.

Our media is constantly predicting the time when the Chinese economy will overtake the USA to become the largest in the world.  Projections are frequent but have recently taken a knock with the acute fall in the Chinese stock markets and devaluation of their currency.  But the essential question is: can the Chinese Communist Party’s trick of providing continuous growth whilst maintaining a monopoly on power be maintained for ever? This question is important because it points to the fact that the Chinese needs the West as much as we need them.  We provide them with a market for their goods.  They need our technologies and our expertise.  They will increasingly need our consumer goods.  They want to be able to trade the remnimbi in London.  They want greater access to the European market.

This is why the craven approach by our government to the Chinese is so misguided.  The Chinese Ambassador has claimed that mentioning human rights would be ‘offensive’ to China.  But all the people who suffer in China from house arrests; deprivation of liberties; forced sterilisations; executions of loved ones after brief trials; loss of religious freedom and no freedom to look at the internet, might also feel ‘offended’ that the man at the top of the country responsible for all this repression and cruelty, is being fawned over and given the red carpet treatment in London without any of our leaders uttering a word about these goings on.  The only thing that seems to matter is the business and investment.

It seems clear that the Chinese were seriously worried about the protests which might have marred his visit here.  A large and apparently orchestrated series of demonstrations organised by the embassy largely drowned out the few protests which manage to break through.

And what of our local MP Mr John Glen?  In the Salisbury Journal (October 22) we read:

[…] The UK takes its human rights obligations very seriously. I do not believe for one moment that having a mutually beneficial commercial relationship prevents us from speaking frankly about issues of concern.

In fact, close relationships around economic, political and security interests have a track record of enhancing our ability to positively influence governments helping to promote democratic reform and raise human rights standards

As we noted in an earlier blog in connection with Saudi Arabia, we have enjoyed ‘close relationships’ with them for some decades but there is no let up in the tidal wave of torture, beheadings, floggings and amputations being carried on there.  It is simply wishful thinking to claim close economic relationships enhances our ability to help promote democratic reform.

The whole point of the controversy around President’s Xi visit is that human rights concerns are not being mentioned.  To say also that commercial relationships should ‘not prevent us from speaking frankly about issues of concern’ – one can only reply quite so!  They fact that there was no frank speaking seems to have escaped Mr Glen’s notice.

And is Mr Glen suggesting that signing these various contracts will ‘promote democratic reform and raise human rights standards [in China]?’  In which case he must be almost the only person to believe this.  The communist party has no intention of relinquishing power and signing a few deals in London will not alter that fact one iota.  Indeed, looking at the The Global Times, the communist party newspaper in China, reveals no mention of human rights or freedoms in their report of President Xi’s visit.  Anyone who saw the BBC’s Panorama programme on 19 October would be left in no doubt that the prospects for freedom and democracy in China under this president are exceedingly remote.

Trade and investment are of course important but not at the expense of all else.  There is something unsettling about our willingness to grovel to the Chinese for the sake of money.  Perhaps at long last we are learning the true meaning of ‘to kowtow’.

Sources

The Independent; Salisbury Journal; The Global Times; The Guardian; Human Rights Watch

2

Vigil against the death penalty


Vigil
Vigil

On Saturday members of the Salisbury group held a one hour vigil in St Thomas’s church to highlight the use of the death penalty around the world.  The vigil was timely as the world’s leading executioner is China whose president is on a state visit to the UK now.  Second is Iran and then Saudi Arabia.

Numbers were very disappointing partly because we were unable to achieve any publicity.

2

Tapestry erected in Salisbury Playhouse


The tapestry – which has been put together by members of the southern region of Amnesty International – was erected today in the Playhouse.

Each panel illustrates one of the clauses of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.  It will be on display in the theatre for the next two weeks or so and while a series of plays are being performed on the subject of Magna Carta.

We hope to move it to the Cathedral, subject to their agreement, at the end of the theatre run.  The tapestry can be viewed on the first floor of the theatre.

Tapestry in the Playhouse
Tapestry in the Playhouse
0

Saudi arms sales and human rights


An about turn

Over the last three months we have been in correspondence with our local MP Mr John Glen over the issue of arms sales to Saudi Arabia.  This arose because the French President spoke out publicly against the increased use of the death penalty in Saudi and the barbaric way in which they are carried out.  We also expressed concerns about human rights generally, the use of torture and the dreadful treatment of women.

Mr Glen replied and arranged for a Foreign Office minister to reply as well.  The burden of their replies was that the government took the issue of human rights very seriously and raised the issue of human rights with the Saudis at every available opportunity.  It began to unwind because it was revealed that the Foreign Office had removed the abolition of the death penalty as one of its objectives.  This was only a matter of days following assurances to the contrary from one if its junior ministers in his letter to us.  Earlier this month Sir Simon McDonald, head of the FCO, told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that:

economic prosperity was further up his list of priorities than human rights.

Following the news that a Saudi had been elected to the UN’s human rights council – an astonishing fact in itself – it was discovered shortly afterwards that our own government had facilitated this.  The British government had used its influence to secure the position of someone, patently against human rights, onto the human rights council.  This was a quid pro quo arrangement apparently but since no one was objecting to our application, why it should be necessary was never explained.

We noted that George Osborne had pleased and apparently surprised his Chinese hosts by not mentioning human rights on his recent visit there.  China executes more than any other country in the world and has been arresting and detaining large numbers of people involved in human rights in a major crackdown.  We are shortly to play host to the President of China, Xi-Jinping, who has expressed a wish that human rights are not mentioned during his visit.  Despite their lamentable human rights record he will get the red carpet treatment nevertheless.

Then came the news that a Briton, Karl Andree, was to receive 360 lashes for alcohol offences for which he has already served a prison term.  It might be thought that the Saudi administration would be sensitive to how this might play in the UK.  With the UK government falling over themselves to sell them arms and the Kingdom in an increasingly rocky state financially because of low oil prices, to flog a British national in public is not exactly good PR.

The government responded by cancelling a £9.5m contract to train prison staff.  Again, one might ask what on earth are we doing helping a regime which tortures its prisoners more or less as a matter of routine.  And it has to be noted that this is not an arms contract so its effect is unlikely to be keenly felt.  So it seems that where a Briton is involved the government is willing to react reportedly after a huge ministerial row.  Otherwise, it is business as usual.

On the BBC’s Profile programme (18 October) it was concluded that the deal is that Saudi provides oil and security information in exchange for legitimacy and keeping quiet on human rights abuses.

The statement ‘the government will continue to work towards the complete abolition of the death penalty using all the tools at its disposal’ is unconvincing in the light of these actions.

4

October minutes


The minutes of the October meeting are now available.  The group discussed the forthcoming Vigil at St Thomas’s; the tapestry and where that could be displayed; social media statistics; the death penalty; the forthcoming film at the Arts Centre and a report on the correspondence with John Glen concerning the government’s changes to its human rights policies.

October minutes (pdf)

0

Death penalty report for September


UPDATE: 8 October.  Richard Glossip has been given an indefinite stay of execution

 

We attach the monthly death penalty report for September thanks to group member Lesley for compiling it.  China remains the world leader in the use of the death penalty.

September report

CORRECTION: Philip Hammond is the Foreign Secretary

0

UK support for Saudi on human rights council


October 2015

We have already commented on the revelation that the UK helped secure a seat for a Saudi onto the UN’s human rights council and in a further development, Philip Hammond the Foreign Secretary has declined to deny the story.  Mr Trad, the man who will fill the role, has denounced UN attempts to get the death penalty ended internationally

This is further light on the claim that everything is being done to further human rights internationally.  Mr Glen MP told us a few days ago:

I can assure you that the change of wording is not an indication of a change in policy: the UK government will continue to work towards a complete abolition of the death penalty, using all the tools at its disposal.

7

What is the Foreign Office’s policy on human rights?


Contradiction at the heart of government’s human rights policy

October 2015

There seems to be a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the government’s policy as it relates to matters such as human rights and the death penalty.  Readers of this blog will be aware that we wrote to our local MP, John Glen, on 8 June to point out that France was speaking out publicly concerning the rise in the number of executions taking place in Saudi Arabia and that Sweden had reportedly stopped selling arms there.  We noted that in the first 5 months of this year, the number of executions has equalled that for the whole of 2014.

We received a response from a FCO minister Tobias Ellwood who assured us that Saudi Arabia ‘remains a country of concern on human rights, because of its use of the death penalty as well as restricted access to justice, women’s rights, and restrictions on freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion or belief.’

Within days of receiving this letter from Mr Ellwood with a covering letter from John Glen, it was reported that the Foreign Office had both dropped any explicit reference to death penalty and had also dropped the very phrase used by Mr Ellwood namely: ‘a country of concern’ and replaced it with the more anodyne ‘human rights priority countries’.

We wrote pointing this out to Mr Glen on 5 August and, not receiving a reply, wrote again a month later on 14 September.

Then, on 20 September came the astonishing news that a Saudi representative was to become a member of the UN’s human rights council (The Independent).  Human rights organisations were aghast that a country such as Saudi with its record of torture, floggings, executions and so on and so on, should be elected to such a body.  No sooner had we digested this piece of news when The Australian newspaper revealed on 30 September that this election had not happened by chance but that diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks showed that the UK government had allegedly initiated the secret negotiations to enable the Saudis to get elected.  The cable apparently read:

The delegation is honoured to send to the ministry the enclosed memorandum, which the delegation has received from the permanent mission of the United Kingdom asking it for the support and backing of the candidacy or their country to the membership of the human rights council (HRC) for the period 2014 – 2016, in the elections that will take place in 2013 in the city of New York.

The ministry might find it an opportunity to exchange support with the United Kingdom, where the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would support the candidacy of the United Kingdom to the membership of the council for the period 2014 – 2015 in exchange for the support of the United Kingdom to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

In simple terms: we will support you if you support us.  Why the UK should need the support of such a country is a puzzle in its own right but for the UK to be supporting the Saudi government for a human rights council is beyond belief.

UN Watch commented:

[we] find it troubling that the UK refused to deny the London – Riyadh vote trade as contemplated in the Saudi cable, nor even to reassure the public that their voting complies with the core reform of the UNHRC’s founding resolution, which provides that candidates be chosen based on their human rights record, and that members be those who uphold the highest standards of human rights.

On 18 September, Mr Glen replies to our second letter.  He claims the change in wording came about on the basis of feedback from diplomats who ‘reportedly had difficulty relating our long list of human rights priorities with the issues they faced in real life – from the chaos of failing states to the corridors of Geneva.’  Adopting more thematic categories makes it easier to apply pressure it is argued depending on the circumstances of the country concerned.

Rather than being ‘vague and obfuscating’ (as has been claimed) the ‘categories are sufficiently broad that diplomats can tailor them appropriately to local circumstances.’  He argues that the change of wording is ‘essentially about semantics’.   FCO ministers have been very clear, even since the change of wording, that their stance on the abolition of the death penalty remains the same, he says.   He quotes Rt Hon David Lidington, Minister for Europe:

The Government calls on all states to adopt an immediate moratorium on [the] use of the death penalty in accordance with the relevant UN General Assembly resolution, and views this as part of the process towards complete abolition.  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will continue to use its diplomatic and programmatic tools to work towards the goal of global abortion.

Finally, he says ‘I can assure you that the change of wording is not an indication of a change in policy: the UK government will continue to work towards a complete abolition of the death penalty, using all the tools at its disposal.’

So where is the truth?

On the one hand, solemn assurances are given that government ministers are committed to the cause of global human rights, whatever the wording of their policies, which are purely a matter or semantics it is claimed.  On the other hand, a ‘trade’ was undertaken between London and Riyadh to get the latter elected onto a UN human rights body.  Assurances that ‘all the tools at its disposal’ are being used in pursuit of global abolition must be set against George Osborne’s visit to China this month where the nationalist State-run Chinese newspaper The Global Times, lauded the 44-year-old Chancellor for his ‘pragmatism’ in concentrating on business matters and not drawing attention to human rights like some other visiting western leaders.  China leads the world in executions the numbers being a state secret.  It is a serial offender on the human rights front.

On the basis of this evidence it would appear that the claimed commitment to human rights is for domestic consumption only and that the reality, when it comes to actual dealings with foreign governments, is that they seldom feature.

Sources:

Human Rights Watch; The Australian; The Global Times (China); The Observer; The Guardian; The Daily Telegraph; International Business News

2

Saudi man given key human rights role


Yes, you read that right.  A Saudi by the name of Faisel Trad, who is the kingdom’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva, was elected chair of an independent panel of experts on the UN’s human rights council.

This blog – and many, many others – has highlighted the appallingsaudi flogging human rights situation in Saudi Arabia.  The big increase in the use of the death penalty, often in public, floggings including that of Raif Badawi and most recently, the proposal to crucify a man.  Along with a lack of free speech, and that women are denied basic rights and cannot drive for example, means that the country ranks as among the worst in the world.

UN Watch Director Hillel Neuer said according to the Independent (20 September):

Saudi Arabia has arguably the worst record in the world when it comes to religious rights and women’s rights and continues to imprison the innocent blogger Raif Badawi.

It’s bad enough that Saudi Arabia is a member of the council, but for the UN to go and name the regime as chair of a key panel only pours salt in the wounds for dissidents languishing ins Saudi prisons.

A UN Watch representative also said “This UN appointment is like making a pyromaniac into the town fire chief”.  It gives Mr Trad power over the appointments of key UN human rights representatives.

We have been engaged in correspondence with our local MP to persuade the government to do more and we await a reply to our letter to him.  This was sparked by the FCO’s decision to drop the abolition of the death penalty as a specific policy.

3

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑