Tag: John Glen MP

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

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

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

0

#Deathpenalty report for September now available


No to the death penaltyThe death penalty report for September is now available thanks to Lesley for compiling it.  Links to other blog posts and in particular the continuing correspondence with John Glen MP concerning the government’s policy change on the death penalty.

Death penalty report, September

Report on possible reductions in the use of the death penalty by India and China.  This is to be welcomed although we cannot verify the situation in the latter country because the numbers executed are a state secret.

3

#FCO #armssales and #humanrights


UPDATE: 8 September

Letter in today’s Guardian (8 September):

The government would do much better to raid the export credit guarantee scheme [rather than the overseas aid budget] and other subsidies to the arms trade. This would raise funds for refugee provision and reduce arms sales to Middle Eastern states, impacting directly on the latter’s ability to wage war on their and other populations in the region.

Benjamin Selwyn, Director, Centre for Global Political Economy, University of Sussex

Saudi Arabia

Last month, we wrote to John Glen MP asking that his government take a more robust line with the Saudi Arabian government in view of the large increase in executions and floggings, many of which are carried out in public.  We noted that the French president Francois Holland had spoken publicly against the practice despite large arms sales in the offing.  The British government has said it prefers to lobby in private and to pursue a policy of quiet diplomacy.  By contrast, the Swedish government has ended arms exports to the country.  As policies go, it is one which is conspicuous by its failure to achieve anything at all and in other contexts would be declared ‘not fit for purpose’.

No to the death penaltyA recently published report by Amnesty shows that Saudi Arabia is one the top three world executioners after China (which executes thousands but the statistics are a state secret) and Iran.  Between January 1985 and June 2015, 2,208 were put to death.  102 have been executed in the first 6 months of 2015.  Crimes include ‘witchcraft,’ ‘sorcery’ and ‘apostasy’.   In some cases relatives are often not notified of the execution.

The FCO’s July in-year update on Saudi says:

We remain concerned about the continued use of the death penalty in Saudi Arabia, including the fact that trials and executions do not meet the minimum standards which the EU advocates in countries where the death penalty is applied. We regularly raise the issue with the Saudi authorities, bilaterally and through the EU, and will continue to do so. There has been a significant rise in the number of executions this year. While no official figures are published, according to statistics reported by NGOs over 100 people have been executed since 1 January. NGOs report that the majority of executions were for murder and drug-related offences

In response to our letter to Mr Glen, we received a letter from a FCO minister, Mr Tobias Ellwood, which assured us that the Foreign Office was doing all it could to end the practice and that ‘the abolition of the death penalty is a human rights priority for the UK’.  The HMG Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty (2010 – 2015) states:

Promoting human rights and democracy is a priority for the UK.  It is a long standing policy of the UK to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle (p2)

Within days of receiving this letter however, we discovered that it is no longer an explicit FCO policy.  The new policy has dropped any reference to abolishing the death penalty.  We also noted that Private Eye had a piece on the very same Mr Ellwood who had been a guest of the Saudi Government on a £6,000 fact-finding visit sponsored by a defence forum.

It’s hard not to come to the conclusion that defence sales matter far more than the dreadful human rights situation in countries like Saudi Arabia which – apart from public floggings and beheadings – tortures its citizens and has severe restrictions on the lives of its women.  Saudi Arabia is the leading destination for UK arms sales amounting to £1.6bn in 2014.

Nicholas Gilby of the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) reported on the high level of corruption in this industry:

This paper examines the Government’s approach to corruption within the UK arms industry and shows it has very dirty hands …

… civil servants told to ‘look the other way’ and not ask awkward questions.

Chemring, which has one of its factories just outside Salisbury, had sales to Saudi Arabia of £47.8m last year and £97.6m in 2013 (source: annual report).

UK governments have invested a lot into the arms trade.  Support includes marketing support via DESO (Defence Exports Services Organisation); export credit guarantees; around £26m in R&D costs and something called ‘launch customer support’ which is buying weapons from a UK supplier even though overseas suppliers are cheaper.  There are also missions by ministers and members of the Royal family to foreign countries like Saudi.

Could it be that the Foreign Office was embarrassed by such an explicit policy in the face of a rising tide of executions in countries such as Saudi Arabia; Pakistan and India, all countries where arms sales are important?

Successive governments have claimed a devotion to human rights and a commitment to end the death penalty.  The reality it seems is that arms sales trump this commitment and in dropping the express statement of policy, the FCO is at least being honest.

Following the change of wording by the FCO which seemed to be in contradiction to the assurances given to us by the minister and Mr Glen, we wrote again asking why the policy had changed.  We await a reply…

CAAT report

3

#Deathpenalty report for August


No to the death penaltyBelow is the death penalty report for August thanks to Lesley for its preparation.  It links in part to other items on this blog and in particular the decision by the UK’s Foreign Office to drop explicit reference to the abolition of the death penalty from its list of policies.

Report (pdf)

1

Foreign Office drops reference to the abolition of the death penalty


In a previous post (20 July) we reported on the correspondence we had with Mr Glen MP concerning the government’s policy towards Saudi Arabia.  This was prompted by the increasing number of executions and public floggings taking place in that country.  Both are at high levels and are greater than the previous year.  We noted that the president of France had made public statements condemning this practice.  We might also have noted that Sweden has suspended arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

Mr Glen forwarded a letter from a FCO minister Mr Tobias Ellwood saying that these matters were raised with the Saudi authorities and that it was a ‘human rights priority for the UK government’.  Because it was part of Sharia law they did not anticipate change in the near future however.

There the matter might have rested.  But on 3 August it was reported widely in the press that the FCO has dropped any explicit reference to the abolition of the death penalty.  In response to the cuts, they are relabelling its six global thematic priorities of which the abolition of the death penalty world wide was one.  There are now to be three, relating to human rights; democratic values and the rule of law. Reference to the death penalty has gone. The ‘human rights countries of priority’ is to be replaced with the more anodyne ‘human rights priority countries’.

We noted at the end of the last blog that the reason for the lack of open criticism by the government was almost certainly connected with arms sales to Saudi.

Then, in the current issue of Private Eye (6 August No 1397) they report that Tobias Ellwood had accepted Saudi hospitality to a attend a £6,000 a head fact-finding visit organised by the arms industry lobby group UK Defence Forum.   This took place in 2013 when there were bribery allegations concerning Saudi defence deals and the defence giant EADS.  The Private Eye  piece was in connection with Mr Tobias’s complaint at having to ‘watch the pennies’ on his MP and ministerial salary.

So in just over a week after sending us the letter, the FCO seems to have downgraded its policy on the death penalty.  This is deeply disappointing and it seems strange that Mr. Ellwood appeared unaware that the policy was to change only days after sending his reply to us.  We shall be raising these matters with Mr. Glen.

4

Robust reponse to Saudi Arabia rejected by FCO


UPDATE: 3 August

At the end of this blog we wrote ‘it seems therefore that nothing will change’.  How wrong can you be as it has just been announced that the FCO will no longer be specifically campaigning for the abolition of the death penalty.  The FCO message to us was dated 6 July and Mr Glen’s covering letter dated 14 July.  So in the space of a few weeks abolishing the death penalty world wide has gone from ‘a human rights priority for the UK’ to being no longer a policy.  The group plans to write to Mr Glen again to seek clarification.

July 2015

No to the death penalty

The Salisbury Group wrote to the local MP, Mr John Glen to ask for a more robust response by our government to the barbaric activities of the Saudi government in particular the increasing number of executions which are taking place.  In our letter we said:

[we are writing] to you in connection with the increasing level of executions currently taking place in Saudi Arabia.  (Over the course of the first five months of this year, the number of executions has equalled that of the whole of 2014).

You will no doubt be aware that on his recent visit to the country, President Francois Hollande made a public statement to the effect that all executions, not just those of his own nationals, should be banned, and called for the abolition of the death penalty in Saudi Arabia.

M. Hollande was prepared to do this, despite the fact that France – as does the United Kingdom – has significant financial interests in the its dealings with Saudi Arabia. The British government, however, has never seen fit to raise the issue in public, preferring to pursue a policy of ‘quiet diplomacy’.  This policy has manifestly had no effect.  Numbers continue to rise, and the Saudi Government have now advertised for eight additional executioners – ‘no particular skills required.’

As a group, we are asking that your government should take a much more robust line over the issue with the Saudi government.

Whereas the government – including the Prime Minister – has been vocal in its criticisms of the Islamic State for its appalling behaviour and of Russia for its activities in Ukraine, they seem strangely silent when it comes to Saudi Arabia.  This contrasts with France which has openly criticised them and Sweden which has decided no longer to sell them arms.

Mr Glen replied, enclosing a letter from the FCO minister, and said:

“I enclose correspondence from the FCO minister Tobius Ellwood in reply to your recent letter about the UK’s apparent reticence when it comes to condemning the use of the death penalty in Saudi Arabia.

“As you can see, the approach taken by the government is not in any way indicative of an equivocal view on this practice, which is as barbaric as it is ineffective.

“However, the government recognises that its abolition is not a matter of mere legal reform but would require a seismic societal shift.  It has therefore taken an approach which it feels is most constructive – engaging behind the scenes rather than inflaming the situation and triggering a backlash through outspoken public critique”.

The letter from the Foreign and Colonial Office is as follows:

“[…] The abolition of the death penalty is a human rights priority for the UK.  The UK opposes the death penalty around the world because we believe it undermines human dignity and there is no evidence that it works as a deterrent.

“Saudi Arabia remains a country of concern on human rights, because of its use of the death penalty as well as the restricted access to justice, women’s rights, and the restrictions of the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion or belief.

“Ministers, our Ambassador, and the Embassy team in Riyadh frequently raise the issue of the death penalty with the Saudi authorities, bilaterally and through the European Union.  As it is part of Sharia Law, we must recognise that total abolition of the death penalty is unlikely in Saudi Arabia in the near future.  For now, our focus is on the introduction of EU minimum standards for the death penalty as a first step, and supporting access to justice and the rule of law.

“The British Government’s position on human rights is a matter of public record.  We regularly make our views well known including the UN Universal Periodic Review process and the Foreign and Colonial Office’s  annual Human Rights and Democracy Report.  We also raise our human rights concerns with Saudi Arabian authorities at the highest level.  But we have to recognise that the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia reflects widely held conservative social values and that our human rights concerns are best raised in private rather than in public”.

It seems therefore that nothing will change.  It is important to recognise that behind the scenes lobbying can be constructive.  However, the policy of raising matters ‘in private rather than in public’ does not appear to be working.  Successive governments have courted the regime and Saudis are free to invest in London and elsewhere in the UK.

Eurofighter of the type sold to Saudi Arabia

It would be naïve not to recognise the reality behind this reluctance to criticise the Saudis and the importance to the government of the sale of arms and the supply of oil.  Saudi Arabia is a key market for the UK and much effort is put into promoting sales including by members of the royal family – see the Guardian article:  Human rights are of secondary concern.

As long as these interests are paramount, it is difficult to see how the toll of executions can be checked in the near future.

 

4

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.

1

European Convention on Human Rights


Dominic Grieve was sacked by David Cameron in the last reshuffle and it was widely interpreted as a clearing of the decks by the prime minister of supporters of the Human Rights Act #HRA.  Grieve has now spoken on the issue and below is a link to the interview in the Guardian newspaper.

In an earlier piece, Dominic Grieve expressed his dismay that David Cameron had narrowed the range of views held by his senior team. The attorney general sacked by David Cameron over his dogged support for the European convention on human rights (#ECHR) says he fears the prime minister will use this week’s party conference to dilute the UK’s commitment to the international treaty.

The Conservatives have misgivings about the act partly because of their distaste for things European.  There has been a concerted tabloid campaign against the act and the ECHR because allegedly it gives rights to criminals and terrorists.  The benefits of the act to ordinary people is rarely given a mention however. They also publish a great deal of misinformation which is seldom corrected.

Readers may like to look at an earlier post following a meeting the group had with the Salisbury MP, John Glen.  He has said he wants to see the HRA abolished but after some of the benefits of the act for ordinary people – including some of his constituents – were explained, he did agree to be more balanced in future.

Guardian article

 

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑