---

Human Rights

I congratulate the Committee on its examination of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office report, and I commend the FCO for its work in producing that report. It creates a valuable context for our debates here. I would also like to mention the people who work in organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch: all the campaigners, activists and journalists in this country and around the world who are at the front line in ensuring that individuals' and communities' human rights are respected. Particularly in this year, the 60th anniversary of the UN universal declaration of human rights, we should remember the achievements of such people as well as understanding the challenges ahead of us. There are many. As we have heard, the UN Human Rights Council is far from optimal in how it does its business and promotes that work within the international community. We heard about the problems with the UN conference on racism at Durban, including the appalling approach to Israel and anti-Semitism. I agree with the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) that as we prepare for the Geneva conference we should ensure that those documents to which he referred are properly amended. When one thinks about the state of human rights development around the world, one cannot help but comment on how many Governments and dictatorships use the cloak of democracy to give themselves legitimacy and defend themselves against accusations of human rights abuses. There is a serious point about how we debate democracy when we see elections being abused and failures to understand the true nature of democracy or the importance of the rule of law in ensuring that democracy is meaningful. I am thinking particularly of our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sometimes I think that we have talked about democracy without remembering the critical element of the rule of law. That is why many people around the world do not understand why we are so committed to democracy. In its fullest sense, it is about defending the rights of individuals and minorities as well and ensuring that due process gives rights to communities. In talking about the wider international apparatus of international law, one must hope that the new President Obama will ensure that the United States becomes a signatory to the treaty on the International Criminal Court. That would be a major step forward in the international framework. I hope that the Government, at least behind the scenes, are pressing him on that. However, I also hope that the Government's approach to the ICC and its potential benefits to the international community will be a little more forceful. I was concerned to read that they want to invoke article 16 in respect of the Sudanese President, Omar al-Bashir. I understand some of the rationale behind that, but I think that it would be a retrograde step. I would like the Government to go to the UN Security Council, get a resolution and push China and Russia hard to support the idea of making Zimbabwe effectively a signatory to the ICC treaty, as the Security Council is allowed to do. It could be used as a weapon against Mugabe and the ZANU-PF elite. That is how international law could be used to bring pressure to bear on such appalling people. I congratulate the Government generally on some of their approaches to such matters. I welcome the Prime Minister's comments in his speech on the 60th anniversary of the UN declaration, although some of the comments made by the Secretary of State for Justice with respect to the Human Rights Act in an interview with the Daily Mail did not do him or the Government justice. The Government ought to defend the Human Rights Act as one of their best achievements. In the context of this debate, they should not be backsliding. That, among other reasons, is why my noble Friend Lord Lester, who was brought in as an adviser to the Government, felt that he could no longer continue in that role. It is a warning shot to the Government about how they behave on such issues. The European Union is critical to the fight for human rights. If we consider how enlargement and trade negotiations have worked, we see that the European Union is a major force in developing human rights. In countries such as Turkey, Croatia and Serbia, we can see how significant it is. In its work with other bodies such as the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, it is a force for good. As others have done at greater length, I shall make a little tour of the world in my remaining minutes, starting with China, which has not been discussed fully. Obviously, it has major status as the world's largest country. It has made some progress on human rights, but far too little. We have seen how China uses trade and its economic clout with other countries to get its way. Recently, it postponed the 11th EU-China summit because it was concerned that the Dalai Lama was visiting certain European capitals. Britain and the EU must stand up to such bullying. If we give way to the Chinese on that sort of thing, we will end up in a sorry state. That is why I am concerned about the change in Government policy with respect to China and Tibet and the move from the long-held policy of suzerainty to one of sovereignty. We are apparently gaining nothing in those negotiations. I hope that the Minister will address that, as several colleagues have mentioned it. On Sudan, there are many issues one could talk about, but I have yet to hear from anyone in the Foreign Office why this Government, working with our colleagues, have failed to ensure that the helicopters needed by the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur are delivered. We understand why Britain itself does not have helicopters—because of our missions in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere—but there are many helicopters around the world that could be used if we had the guts and the political will to use the money set aside to obtain them. It is quite wrong. During my remarks to the Foreign Secretary in January this year, he agreed that the issue was urgent. Well, 12 months on, we have not done anything about it, so it was not that urgent for the FCO. Other colleagues mentioned Sri Lanka. Last year's Amnesty International report says:"““2007 was characterized by impunity for violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Soaring human rights abuses included hundreds of enforced disappearances, unlawful killings of humanitarian workers, arbitrary arrests and torture.””" I am afraid that in 2008, that situation has got even worse. We must hold the Government of Sri Lanka to account. Of course the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam have committed human rights abuses, with their terrorist outrages and some of the things that they have done involving child soldiers, but ultimately it is the Government of Sri Lanka who ought to meet higher standards. Their failure to allow the media spotlight to fall on that country and their rejection of humanitarian aid agencies are outrageous, and this Government should send a strong message to the Government of Sri Lanka that they must do better. As colleagues have said, the solution cannot be a military one; it must be political. The Sri Lankan Government should get round the table with the Tamil community and its leaders. Neither Britain nor the European Union has sorted out a strategy for pressurising the Russian Government properly. We need to think of new ways to embarrass the Russian Government. I suggest to Ministers that they should start every meeting with the Russians by reading out the Russian constitution and asking how well the Putin-Medvedev Government are meeting its lofty principles. Not surprisingly given the statement today, I will end on Iraq. There is no doubt that the situation in Iraq over the last six years has been appalling for most Iraqi citizens. As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) said, if one looks at the measures of freedom, security or safety I am afraid that it is not absolutely clear that things have improved as a result of the war in Iraq. What was most disturbing about some of the comments on the Floor of the House today, particularly those by the Prime Minister and the leader of the Conservative party, is that, listening to those comments, one would have thought that we went to war on the basis of a desire to get rid of Saddam Hussein. The former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, made it very clear that that was not the basis of the war. The basis of the war was weapons of mass destruction. They have not been found, the cause of war has been exposed as being wrong and yet there was no apology today. Given the suffering of the people of Iraq, that was an absolute travesty.