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

Amnesty rep banned from the London Arms fair


Arms-Fair---share-assets-email-Sep-2015Olly Sprague is Amnesty’s Arms expert and for the first time ever, he was barred from the London Arms Fair this week.  Maybe they didn’t like the ad campaign we made for them… Or maybe they had something to hide?  At every one of the last five Fairs, we’ve uncovered illegal torture equipment and other illegal weapons being advertised, including leg irons, gang chains, electric-shock batons and cluster bombs.

It seems to be something of an own goal since if what was being sold was legitimate and in accordance with current regulations, then why ban a representative of Amnesty International?

So are they selling torture equipment or aren’t they?

 

1

Urgent Action: Richard Glossip, Oklahoma


No to the death penalty

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

We attach an urgent action on behalf of Richard Glossip with whom visitors to this site will be familiar with.  He has won a temporary stay of execution.  His legal team has presented new evidence to the appeal court.  The evidence against him is weak as we have pointed out before and relies partly on a plea bargain by the man who committed the actual murder.  Oklahoma is a hard line state as far as the death penalty is concerned.

We hope you can find time to write. See also this month’s death penalty report.

Glossip Urgent Action

glossip

0

Death by crucifixion in Saudi Arabia


A man, Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, who was convicted when he was 17 is to face death by crucifixion after his appeal was turned down.  The appeal was heard in secret and he was not present.  He was accused of participating in illegal protests and of firearms offences.  As is usual in Saudi, he was denied access to a lawyer and is likely to have been tortured and forced to sign a confession.  See International Business Times for the full story.

No to the death penaltyAmnesty believes that Saudi has one of the highest rates of executions in the world and is exceeded only by China (details of which are a state secret) and Iran.

We are engaged in correspondence with our local MP John Glen about the government’s policy towards the kingdom and we were initially assured both by Mr Glen and a FCO minister Mr Tobias Ellwood, that the abolition of the death penalty was an important policy for the government.  These matters were raised at the highest level with the Saudis we were told.  Within days of these assurances, it was announced that the abolition of the death penalty was no longer an explicit policy of the government.  We have written to Mr Glen on this and a reminder was sent this week.  A reply is awaited …

See our death penalty report.

1

Glossip execution deferred


Oklahoma

glossipRichard Glossip’s execution has been deferred by two weeks only hours before he was due to killed.  This was an urgent action by Amnesty International and members of our group have written to the Oklahoma authorities.  You can read the full report in the New York Times here.

There is no physical evidence linking Glossip to the scene and a major part of the evidence is a plea bargain by Sneed who admitted to the murder but escaped execution by implicating Glossip.

No to the death penaltyAmnesty is opposed to the death penalty and this case reveals one of the reasons: flimsy evidence combined with a plea bargain means the likelihood of a wrongful conviction leading to a man’s death with no prospect of putting it right in future if fresh evidence appears.

The group is holding a vigil against the death penalty on 17 October in Salisbury starting at 12.45.  Further details here and on Twitter soon.

1

London Arms Fair


Will torture equipment be on display this week in London?

September 2015

The London Arms fair, DSEI, opens on 15th September at the ExCel centre at which – in addition to the range of arms large and small – torture equipment has been displayed in past years.  No doubt drones will be on display which enable executions to be carried out from thousands of miles away.  The exhibition runs under conditions of great security and in the past, the comedian Mark Thomas was able to set up a fake stall and interest various passing visitors with his torture equipment.

Arms-Fair---share-assets-email-Sep-2015

The four day exhibition is supported by the government and is an exclusive expo of deadly weapons and arms with a history of companies advertising illegal torture equipment.  Britain has sold arms to 19 of the 23 countries listed by the UN for grave violations against children.

There is a kind of irony that two weeks ago the country was shaken by the death of Aylan Kurdi which prompted a volte face by our government and has seen Mr Cameron in the Lebanon visiting the camps.  The Chancellor, George Osborne spoke of the need to tackle the refugee crisis at source yet we host an event which supplies deadly equipment to countries like Saudi Arabia; Turkmenistan; Pakistan; Libya and Colombia where respect for human rights is almost non-existent.

We want to see the government to stop illegal torture equipment being advertised in the UK.

Poster by Amnesty International

2

Eritrea


Why Eritrea?

In all the discussion about the relative merits of refugees from the various war-torn parts of the world, the Syrians are presently claiming most attention.  We all understand how dreadful their plight is, and so too those fleeing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and the Sudan.  But Eritrea?  Eritrea is not actually at war with anyone (well, it’s in a face-off with Ethiopia, but wouldn’t dare to take on its bigger neighbor in a full-scale war), and the regime is in total control of the country.  So why the desperation of people to escape to Europe?  Indeed the British government has changed its view of the country in recent months to say that it is safe for asylum seekers to be returned home. The Home Office said:

its guidance on Eritrea is based on a careful and objective assessment of the situation in Eritrea using evidence taken from a range of sources including media outlets; local, national and international organisations, including human rights organisations; and information from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

However they have relied largely on a Danish report, the authors of which have disowned for its misinterpretation, and Eritrean government sources, rather than the reports of human rights groups.

The UK’s position is totally confused, as they are supposedly taking account also of a recent UN report, which would also give a somewhat different picture.  The report, by the UN Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea, cites a raft of human rights violations – some, it says, which may constitute crimes against humanity – of a ‘scope and scale seldom witnessed elsewhere’. The report strongly urges continued international protection for Eritrean refugees fleeing human rights violations, and warns against sending them back to danger in a country that punishes anyone who tries to leave without permission

President Aferworki
President Afeworki

Following its independence in 1991, the country has lapsed into a total disregard for the rule of law.  Elections have been regularly postponed – President Isaias Afeworki has never faced the electorate – arbitrary detention is rife; torture is so common that the Commission concluded that it was government policy, and mass surveillance and neighbourhood spying is the norm.  Justice is arbitrary, detention conditions are appalling, and complete disappearance not unusual.  So far, so typical dictatorship but in Eritrea it is egregiously appalling.

The speciality of the state is that, under the pretext of defending the integrity of the State and ensuring national self-sufficiency, much of the population is subjected to open-ended national service, either in the army or through the civil service.  When they turn 18 or even before, all Eritreans are conscripted.  While national service is supposed to last 18 months, in reality conscripts end up serving for an indefinite period, up to 20 years in extreme cases.  Thousands of conscripts are subjected to forced labour that effectively abuses, exploits and enslaves them for years.  Women conscripts are at extreme risk of sexual violence during national service.

Many others – detainees, students, members of the militia – are also subjected to forced labour.  The report says

The use of forced labour is so prevalent in Eritrea that all sectors of the economy rely on it and all Eritreans are likely to be subject to it at one point in their lives.  The commission concludes that forced labour in this context is a practice similar to slavery in its effects and, as such, is prohibited under international human rights law.

The Eritrean Foreign Ministry inevitably claimed the Commission’s report contained ‘wild allegations’ which were ‘totally unfounded and devoid of all merit’ and charged the UNHRC of ‘vile slanders and false accusations’, without addressing any of the issues.  The British government have since modified their stance based on Eritrean assertions that military service will be limited to 18 months to 4 years, which would render it legal, but there is no evidence of this happening.

These widespread abuses have prompted thousands of Eritreans to flee their home country in search of asylum in Europe.  According to the latest estimates produced by Italian authorities, 32,000 Eritreans were rescued in 2014 as they attempted to traverse the Mediterranean – the majority of all migrants rescued by Italy’s comprehensive Mare Nostrum operation.  Meanwhile, the UN refugee agency has placed the number of Eritreans under its concern outside the country at more than 357,400.

This is the country we are intending to return refugees to as being “safe”.  The Government needs to think again.

1

Group has Tumblr page


We now have a tumblr site which can be found at salisburyai.tumblr.com.  There isn’t much there at present but give it time …

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑