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 huge 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

October 23, 2015 2

Saudi arms sales and human rights

October 2015

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.

October 18, 2015 4

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.

October 2, 2015 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

October 1, 2015 2

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.

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

September 15, 2015 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.

September 15, 2015 1

September minutes

The minutes of the September meeting are now available thanks to Lesley. We discussed North Korea, the death penalty (see separate post on this), the forthcoming vigil on 17 October and agreeing to write to John Glen concerning his failure to reply to our letter of 5 August.

September minutes

September 13, 2015 0

Scrapping the Human Rights Act HRA

The government is proposing to issue a public consultation on scrapping the Human Rights Act sometime in the autumn.

August 30, 2015 1

Human Rights Act under threat

Leading or following?

The Human Rights Act HRA remains under threat from the Conservative Government who promised in their manifesto to abolish it. There is speculation that it was put in the manifesto to appeal to Ukip supporters and those for whom anything with ‘Europe’ attached to it is bad news. They were expecting to be in a coalition again – so the theory goes – and the LibDems would not have allowed it to go ahead. In other words it was a promise unlikely to be put into effect but sounded good in the manifesto.

Now that they are in power on their own they are faced with a problem. Abolition will prove extremely difficult for all sorts of reasons. Reform is difficult if you have nailed your colours to the abolition mast. The Scots will not countenance it and the recent proposal to allow hunting with dogs to be re-introduced was effectively ended by the Scot Nats who demonstrated their influence in Parliament. It also underpins the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland. It may also mean us withdrawing from the European Council. It will send a very negative message to those countries, such as Russia, who are being pressed to improve their human rights records, a point made by Dominic Grieve QC MP when he came, at our invitation, to speak in the Cathedral.

Just over a year ago our local MP John Glen (Con) wrote to the Salisbury Journal to say he was keen on abolition. Our group wrote to Mr Glen and after an exchange of letters, a meeting was arranged in June 2014. At that meeting, the many unreported benefits of the act were explained and that these benefits were likely to apply to a number of his constituents. The battle that individuals have with authorities of all kinds to get a fair deal is made that bit easier by the Human Rights Act.

Unfortunately, the act gets a near universal bad press certainly from the tabloid end of the market. An incessant series of articles claiming that all kinds of evil people escape justice because they can claim the right to a ‘family life’ or it’s their ‘human right’, inevitably infuriates people reading it. Frequently, it isn’t the HRA at all but some other piece of legislation involved. No matter. Some of the stories are hugely exaggerated or just plain wrong. But the benefits to ordinary people seldom gets a mention.

In the latest edition of Valley News (a free sheet in the Salisbury area, July 2015) Mr Glen writes:

[…] This month also marked the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta. In addition to some spectacular celebrations, this has re-opened the debate about human rights here in the UK.

Too often I hear from constituents who are fed up with some of the decisions made in our courts and in the EU, about human rights laws.

While these cases represent only a small minority, I do not believe we should simply turn a blind eye to them. A recent opinion poll suggested three quarters of the UK felt that human rights laws were being applied too widely.

It is far from healthy in our democracy to accept this status quo: human rights should be celebrated, and I hope we seize the opportunity of the Magna Carta anniversary to restore some confidence in them at home.

We do not know how many constituents have written to Mr Glen or the topics they are concerned about. He makes no mention of benefits to ordinary people and to some of his constituents. But if his correspondents have read tendentious stories in our media, it is hardly surprising they write to their local MP. For example a Daily Mail journalist spoke of the HRA ‘[which] blights every aspect of our life.’

Maybe one of the reasons these papers do not like the act is because there is the right to privacy within it. There is no mention of benefits to ordinary people. Since many newspapers have depended on intrusion – using both legal and often illegal means – to get their stories, this represents quite a threat to their business model.

Human rights should indeed be celebrated as Mr Glen says and we hope he can do some celebrating. But it does need politicians of courage to stand up and defend the act and the many beneficial effects it has on the lives of ordinary – or should we say ‘ordinary hard-working’ – people’s lives. At our meeting with Mr Glen he was asked if he was just repeating stories from the Daily Mail. He said he did not but that he did have to read it to understand what his constituents were writing to him about. We can only hope that ‘to restore some confidence in [human rights]’ means explaining the benefits, countering the myths and criticising the many misleading stories. In short, putting the case for the act.

A new web site established with the sole purpose of countering the misinformation and disinformation about human rights is www.rightsinfo.org which is well worth putting in your favourites.

July 17, 2015 1

#deathpenalty report for June now available

The monthly report on the state of the death penalty around the world is attached – thanks to Lesley.

July death penalty report (pdf)

July 9, 2015 0

Tag: “Human rights”

The Chinese President’s visit

President’s visit prompts human rights concerns