---

Human Rights

I warmly endorse the final point made by the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes). I entirely agree with him and share his concern that the deep fundamental principle of the universality of human rights is being threatened in many parts of the world. It is incumbent on the international community—Governments in particular—to stand up for that principle of universality: the principle that human rights do not have national frontiers. The 2007 annual report on human rights from the Foreign Office lists a total of 21 countries under the heading ““Major countries of concern””. As was the case with the Committee Chairman's contribution, I must be necessarily selective. I want to focus on three particular countries, all of which feature in the FCO's list of countries of major concern. I shall start with Zimbabwe. I begin where I finished my remarks on Zimbabwe in the equivalent debate just over a year ago, on 11 October 2007, when I said:"““Should this country and the Government therefore consider whether the ambit of international criminal law ought to be widened somewhat to bring within it those who carry out outrageous, appalling mass human rights violations that, under the present definitions, fall just below the level of crimes against humanity?...If an individual in this country treated another individual in the way that Mr. Mugabe treats millions of his subjects, it would be a matter for a criminal prosecution””.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 11 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 148WH.]" There is no doubt that, from a human rights standpoint, the current ambit of international criminal law is seriously deficient. International criminal law, such as it is, is also being applied in an anomalous and inconsistent way. I should like to compare, for example, Mr. Mugabe with Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Mugabe and his regime, like Mr. Milosevic and his regime, have been responsible for an unknown number of unlawful killings. Mr. Mugabe and his regime, like Mr. Milosevic and his regime, have been responsible for police brutality and torture and now we see a wave of abductions. Mr. Mugabe and his regime, like Mr. Milosevic and his regime, have been responsible for removing huge numbers of the citizens for whom they are responsible from their homes and turning them, in huge numbers, into refugees obliged to flee from their country. Mr. Mugabe, in this case unlike Mr. Milosevic, has been responsible for destroying his country's economy and the value of his country's currency, inflicting destitution and the total breakdown of public services, including education and health, and allowing wholly preventable diseases to occur. Contrary to what Mr. Mugabe is claiming, it is evident that, according to the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs in Geneva this week, nearly 1,000 people have died of cholera in Zimbabwe, and there are nearly 20,000 suspected cases. The contrast is that Milosevic was indicted and taken to The Hague, and he stood trial for crimes against humanity, yet Mugabe has got off scot-free so far and has avoided any international criminal proceedings. I was delighted that the Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu, in his recent excellent article in The Observer headed ““It's time to topple the tyrant Mugabe””, concluded:"““As a country cries out for justice, we can no longer be inactive to their call. Mugabe and his henchmen must now take their rightful place in the Hague and answer for their actions. The time to remove them from power has come.””"