Human Rights: Iran

Joe Benton Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Amess]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I wonder whether he and I should swap places, as he has done a far better job of pronouncing these difficult names than I have in my brief speech.

Elmira Vazehan began a hunger strike on 5 October to protest against the regime’s refusal to allow her to have an operation. She is suffering from heart disease and cancer. She was arrested in December 2009, accused of having relatives and family members in Camp Ashraf, and charged with “waging war” by working with the main democratic opposition group, the PMOI. She was initially sentenced to death and subsequently sentenced to 15 years in prison, and yet the world remains silent. Nothing is ever done.

The UN special rapporteur on human rights in Iran, Ahmed Shaheed, in a recent report to the UN General Assembly, described what human rights activists in Iran are subjected to. I wish the Government would send me to address the United Nations General Assembly. I would welcome the opportunity to shake things up.

[Mr Joe Benton (Bootle) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. I share the same concern as other Members who have intervened about exiled Christians and people suffering from the inability to express their freedom of conscience. I propose to raise the matter at some future meeting of the Council of Europe, because it is appropriate that the issue is raised there. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that not enough is being done to bring the issue to the attention of world authorities. Does he share my wish that the Government back the initiative to take the matter forward at the next opportunity in the Council of Europe?

[Mr Amess]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, as I do on so many other issues. I hope that our Minister will act on what he has said.

In view of the Iranian regime’s complete disregard for 58 United Nations resolutions, and given that it has denied access to various UN rapporteurs for the last seven years, it is essential for its human rights dossier to be referred to the UN Security Council for binding measures.

I also want to draw the House’s attention to the human rights abuses being committed, at the mullahs’ behest, against the 3,300 residents of Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty in Iraq. Dissidents who have resided in Iraq for more than 25 years built a modern town called Ashraf, which they developed from the ground up. Its residents have been major targets for the mullahs in Iran. After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Ashraf residents who disarmed voluntarily were designated by the coalition as protected persons under the fourth Geneva convention.

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]

Joe Benton Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Joe Benton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Report on the use of the European Stability Mechanism

‘The Secretary of State shall, whenever a loan is made to a beneficiary Member State by virtue of the decision in section 1(2), lay before Parliament a report setting out the nature and terms of the use of the European Stability Mechanism and its potential effect, both direct and indirect, on the interests and obligations of the United Kingdom.’.

[Emma Reynolds]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. We are seeking to add two new clauses to the Bill to underline the importance of the European stability mechanism to the British economy. New clause 1 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide an annual assessment of the impact of the ESM on the British economy. For instance, in the best case scenario we would hope that if ESM funds were needed and used appropriately, they would enhance the stability of the specific member state they were put in place to support, and therefore also have a positive effect on our economy.

We have some concerns about the conditionality of the ESM, for example if the conditions attached to granting ESM support were too harsh. It would, therefore, be beneficial to have an assessment of the impact of that austerity on the eurozone member state in question and—importantly for new clause 1—of the knock-on effect on the eurozone more widely, and on the British economy. Given that 40% of British exports go to the eurozone, and that our financial sectors and banks are closely connected, it is important that the Government provide systematic assessments of the operation of the ESM and its impact on our economy.

New clause 2 would introduce a specific and timely requirement for an analysis of each instance of ESM activity, without having to wait for the Chancellor’s annual report that is provided for in new clause 1. For example, if the ESM is triggered to provide support for Spain, Italy, Ireland or Greece, there will be varying levels of economic impact on UK trade and growth. An analysis of the downstream impact that each instance of ESM activity might have on the UK would give Members of this House and the other place, as well as the public, a clearer sense of the nature of the conditions imposed and the indirect impact of the ESM’s operation on our economic prospects.

The ESM conditions are to be detailed in a memorandum of understanding between the European Commission and beneficiary member states that will outline specific economic policy and fiscal adjustment conditions. The Committee should be informed of those conditions, and should have the opportunity to debate and scrutinise whether they are fair and reasonable, and whether Ministers should make their own representations on the nature of those terms and conditions.

It is imperative that any conditions imposed are not detrimental to the fragile recovery of the economy of the member state in question, and that any effects of those conditions do not have an indirect negative impact on our economy.

Regrettably, the Government have isolated themselves to such an extent that they might be unable to exert the requisite leverage in debates on conditionality. Nevertheless, the Europe Minister is conducting a charm offensive—he has written various articles, including one written in beautiful French for Le Monde and one written in Swedish for a Swedish newspaper—with the intention of rebuilding bridges with our European partners.

The Opposition applaud the Minister for that initiative —Conservative Back Benchers might not applaud him, but we do not want to intrude on private grief by going through the differences of opinion between those on the Treasury Bench and Conservative Back Benchers who do not agree with them—but we fear that the charm offensive might be too little, too late. We wish the Minister the best in his endeavours.

Sri Lanka (Human Rights)

Joe Benton Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. I agree with all the points that he has made so far. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) highlighted the ongoing human rights abuses. Does that not call into question the decision of the current UK Government to deport many Tamil refugees who are in the UK? Should we not seek from the Minister replying to the debate an explanation of the Government’s policy on deportations back to Sri Lanka? I ask that question of my hon. Friend in the context of a constituent whose brother is about to be deported back to Sri Lanka. This is a brother who lost a sister fighting for the Tamil Tigers and who understandably is worried about what will happen to his last relative should the family history be known when he returns to Sri Lanka.

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sharma]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is an important point, and I am sure we will get answers from other Members, the Minister or perhaps the high commissioner himself—his representative is sitting here and will be taking a note of these points.

It was only in November last year that the UN Committee Against Torture produced a damning report on allegations pertaining to the ongoing use of torture and ill treatment by state actors, including the military and police. Highlighting allegations of threats to, and harassment of, human rights defenders, defence lawyers, journalists and others, the committee stated:

“It regrets that, in many cases, those allegedly responsible for acts of intimidation and reprisal appear to enjoy impunity.”

In addition to his Government’s failure to promote and protect human rights, President Rajapaksa has failed to adhere to his 2009 commitment to

“address the aspirations and grievances of all communities”

and pursue meaningful reconciliation after decades of political violence and conflict. A political solution to the ethnic conflict through devolution and negotiations with Tamil and other minority political representatives has not been forthcoming. Instead, as the International Crisis Group noted, the Government’s post-war agenda

“has been further to centralise power, expand the role of the military, undermine local civilian authorities, and politicise the institutions that should uphold the rule of law and combat impunity”.

All those who now speak publicly against the Government are imprisoned, leaving an all-powerful family Government who are becoming more centralised and heavy-handed. Economist and opposition figure Harsha de Silva says the army is becoming involved in hotels, farming, construction, golf courses, sports stadiums and even in running roadside tea stalls. The main political threat to Rajapaksa’s rule is former general turned popular presidential candidate, Sarath Fonseka, who currently resides in a Colombo jail.

Colleagues of two political activists, Lalith Kumar Weeraraj and Kugan Murugananthan, who went missing in Sri Lanka’s north on 9 December, fear the men are in grave danger. On 9 January, hundreds of clamouring demonstrators marched through the capital, Colombo. They demanded that the Government release the activists, put an end to abductions in the north and pull the military out of former conflict areas. In fact, the opposite is happening.

Mr Weeraraj and Mr Murugananthan spent many of the months before they went missing campaigning on behalf of thousands of missing Tamils, many of whom were last seen in the custody of the security forces. The two were intercepted in the northern city of Jaffna by men on motorcycles. They were bundled into a white van and taken away. That pattern is now all too familiar. In a report in December, the LLRC wrote that it was alarmed by the large number of complaints of

“abductions, enforced or involuntary disappearances, and arbitrary detentions”.

Sinhalese and Muslims, who count as a separate ethnic group in Sri Lanka, are now being targeted in addition to Tamils, and some are turning up dead. On 3 January, Dinesh Buddhika Charitananda, a 25-year-old ethnic Sinhalese, was abducted at night. His body was later found near a river in a Colombo suburb. In October, Mohamed Niyas, a Muslim astrologer, was taken away in a white van by a group of gun-toting men and found dead three weeks later.

According to the Bangkok-based Asian Human Rights Commission, there is a “commonly held belief” that the abductions and murders are happening with

“the direct or indirect knowledge of the police and often also with the tacit approval of political authorities”.

The families of the two activists, Mr Weeraraj and Mr Murugananthan, have now petitioned the United Nations, and a spokesman for Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General of the UN, says the case of the abductions is being sent to the UN Human Rights Council for investigation. The families turned to an international body because they could not get action from the local authorities.

Such allegations raise questions about the deportation of Sri Lankans from Britain. The UK Border Agency is to continue forced-removal flights, despite human rights organisations warning of mistreatment. The agency has carried out two large-scale deportations to Sri Lanka since June, the last of which left Luton airport in September, despite the concerns of several rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which believe that deported Tamils may be at risk of arbitrary arrest and mistreatment.

One London-based non-governmental organisation, Freedom from Torture, which provides medical services to torture victims, has said that it has gathered evidence demonstrating that prisoners in Sri Lanka still faced severe mistreatment this year—more than two years after the island’s 26-year civil war came to an end.

Last month, the UN Committee against Torture reported that it was

“seriously concerned about the continued and consistent allegations of widespread use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”,

after hearing submissions from a number of NGOs and the Sri Lankan Government. The committee also expressed concern at

“the prevailing climate of impunity”

in Sri Lanka.

In a case recently referred to in a UK Border Agency report, Freedom from Torture noted that, in spring this year, a Sri Lankan national known as Rohan was tortured after travelling back from the UK. According to Freedom from Torture, Rohan, who held a UK student visa, claimed that after returning to Sri Lanka to visit a sick relative, he was held by officials at Colombo airport and detained for three days, during which he was beaten and stripped and his skin was burned with heated metal. On the strength of his evidence of torture, he was later granted asylum in the UK.

The UK Border Agency has warned officials who are deciding asylum claims that NGOs have serious concerns about forcibly returned Tamils. However, the agency is also circulating a report that quotes senior Sri Lankan intelligence officials as saying that Tamil detainees are inflicting wounds on themselves to create scars that will support later asylum claims.

In the light of plans for a further mass removal flight on 28 February, I call upon the Government to do more to ensure that they are not returning individuals to a risk of torture in Sri Lanka. The fates of almost all those who have been returned on the charter flights thus far are unknown.

In response to concerns raised by Freedom from Torture about the risk of torture for Tamils returning to Sri Lanka, the Minister has provided public assurances about monitoring arrangements in place for those forcibly returned. He has indicated that for the recent charter flights, returnees were met by UK Government officials, provided with contact details for the British high commission in Colombo and given a small payment for onward travel. Against the backdrop of torture risks for those who return from abroad, there is widespread concern that those are woefully inadequate protections against torture. However, worse still, it is has just emerged that even those basic protections do not apply to anyone forcibly removed other than by charter flight.

Could the Minister please explain how many people have been forcibly removed to Sri Lanka otherwise than by charter flight since the civil war ended? Why are those forcibly returned on ordinary flights not met at the airport and provided with an assistance package? Why was that disparity in protection not disclosed when the Minister was asked to explain the monitoring arrangements for anyone forcibly returned to Sri Lanka? How does the Minister intend to remedy that protection gap? What do the Government intend to do to verify the safety of those returned in the months following their return?

Sri Lanka’s entire approach to accountability, justice and reconciliation must be challenged to prevent the setting of a dangerous precedent for the future. A failure to investigate alleged war crimes during the conflict undermines international law and respect for human rights and potentially sows the seeds for future conflict on the island.

Kofi Annan has stated that

“the international community cannot be selective in its approach to upholding the rule of law and respect for human rights.”

Impunity in Sri Lanka, where violations were on a massive scale and yet the UN failed to act, sets dangerous precedents. It sends a message to Sri Lankans that the UN is irrelevant there, and it could re-enforce that message globally. That could create a situation where states that have not ratified the Rome statute would feel that they are beyond the reach of international justice and that crimes committed in the name of combating terrorism can simply be ignored.

The international community’s failure to take timely action in 2009 endangered hundreds of thousands of civilian lives in Sri Lanka. Continued inaction threatens future generations and institutions that are critical to the protection of rights in Sri Lanka and internationally. Sri Lanka’s failure to ratify the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court means that the court cannot act without a referral from the United Nations Security Council. Far from referring the situation to the court, the UN has not even established an effective system to document the extent of violations. It has never revealed what it knew about the final days of conflict or acknowledged the scale of the abuse that took place. The end of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka should have been an opportunity for the country to turn a page on impunity. It is crucial that the UN and the UK should support genuine international efforts to encourage the Sri Lankan Government to give better protection to the rights of all Sri Lankans and ensure that violations, which became so commonplace in the past, are not repeated.

I call on the Minister to address the clear failings of the LLRC to deliver progress on accountability and acknowledge the need for the international community to act decisively during this session of the UN Human Rights Council to put the necessary machinery in place and to ensure that the UK plays a proactive and leading role in efforts to secure the strongest possible resolution on accountability for serious human rights violations in Sri Lanka, that any Human Rights Council resolution is not limited to the conflict period and that it includes within its scope accountability for torture and other continuing violations that make it impossible to secure a sustainable peace in Sri Lanka.

Reconciliation and sustainable peace must be built on the foundations of a credible truth and accountability process for the alleged crimes committed in the final months of the civil war. A genuine mechanism for truth, accountability and justice would challenge the prevailing culture of impunity and could play an important role in reducing the perpetration of human rights abuses. However, such a process can be satisfactorily conducted only under international auspices. Investigations of a similar nature have been voted for and conducted by the UN Human Rights Council on Libya, Syria and Ivory Coast in recent months.

The number of concerned hon. Members present at this Westminster Hall debate demonstrates the strength of parliamentary support for strong diplomatic action to be taken by the British Government. Many other hon. Members who could not be here this morning, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who had a pressing constituency engagement, have assured me of their support; so it is not only the Members who are present who are concerned. Others who could not get here support my argument and ask for the same demands to be met.

The next generation of Sri Lankans, whether they are Tamil or otherwise, deserve a future in which they can move on from the horrors that they and their families have experienced and the losses they have suffered on all sides. They deserve to know what happened and to be able to reflect on it as one of the most significant times in their nation’s history, for which those responsible are brought to justice. Only then will there be true and lasting peace.

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I want to point out that I intend to start the wind-ups at about 10.40. As hon. Members can see, many of them want to speak, so I ask right hon. and hon. Members to be as brief as they can. Let us try to allow as many hon. Members to speak as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. In fact, the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall pointed out that there has been a series of internal commissions and inquiries within Sri Lanka, none of which have really had much credibility. Possibly the most credible of them has been the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, which produced a report last year, and it is important to acknowledge that that report made some tough recommendations in relation to detainees and media freedom. Furthermore, it dispelled the myth that there was no shelling of civilians and that, for instance, the shelling of hospitals by Government forces did take place. In that sense, that report by the LLRC was an important step forward.

Nevertheless, I should still like to hear from the Minister what progress he thinks has been made in implementing the recommendations of the LLRC report. For instance, Human Rights Watch reported only last month that there are still several thousand people in Sri Lanka who, having initially been detained under the emergency regulations, are still in custody. Many of them have been held for years without trial, which is in violation of international law. The Sri Lankan Government have so far refused even to publish lists of those who have been detained. Of course, as several hon. Members have pointed out, there are severe limitations to the LLRC report, particularly in relation to the army’s conduct and to accountability for possible war crimes and humanitarian crimes that may have been committed.

More fundamentally, however, there are other, deeper issues with Sri Lankan society. The Foreign Office’s own human rights report highlighted, for example, issues of torture. The report quoted the statement by the World Organisation Against Torture that

“it had received credible testimonies of torture from across the country, including in cases not related to the ethnic conflict or terrorism”.

The report also raised issues about human rights defenders, freedom of expression and other concerns, which I probably do not have time to go into today.

The role of the army in Sri Lankan society is an increasing concern. Earlier this month, The Economist highlighted the role of the Sri Lankan President’s brother, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who is the country’s defence secretary. The Economist said:

“His brother, Basil, calls him ‘fully vegetarian, the nicest, kindest person in the family’, yet he is widely feared.”

The article continued:

“A Tamil leader says the army oversees ‘oppressive, insulting, humiliating’ rule in the north, with tales of land grabs, murders and rape. In Colombo, political observers worry about the militarisation of politics.”

The article went on:

“Some local journalists are warned by editors never to write about him”—

that is, Gotabaya Rajapaksa. It concluded on Gotabaya:

“Asked if he frightens people, he says: ‘If they don’t criticise me, it is because there is nothing to criticise.’”

I leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions.

Obviously, there are also specific cases, such as those of Mr Weeraraj and Mr Murugananthan, the activists who have disappeared, and indeed the continuing case of Sarath Fonseka, a former general, who had the temerity to stand against Mahinda Rajapaksa in a presidential election. Can the Minister tell us—if not now, then in writing—what representations are being made on those specific cases to the Sri Lankan Government? Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and others have raised the issue at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. It has also been raised, as has been mentioned, by the Canadian Government.

In conclusion, I want to ask the Minister three specific questions. First, has he raised the issue of an independent accountability mechanism, as recommended by the UN panel of experts, with the Sri Lankan Government, within the EU and at UN level? If so, what progress has been made? I do not want words put into the Minister’s mouth, but it is important for us to know that those discussions are taking place. Secondly, what is our response to the Government of Canada and others who have questioned whether it is right for Sri Lanka to host the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, given Sri Lanka’s record on human rights? Thirdly, I emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall about the continued deportation of Sri Lankans from this country, when such deep concerns are raised by the Foreign Office about the treatment of detainees and those in custody. Obviously, the Minister has to be diplomatic, but it is time to send a clear message that, as a democratic Commonwealth country with high aspirations, Sri Lanka’s record on human rights and accountability for crimes committed is simply not good enough and has to change.

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

May I remind right hon. and hon. Members that the wind-ups will start at 10.40?

Camp Ashraf

Joe Benton Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Amess]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. I have said umpteen times that I very much regret voting for the war with Iraq, but he is right. The United States of America encouraged Britain to become involved. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will give us an indication of what pressure is being placed on the US Government to help.

The attack of 8 April is the second time that the Iraqi Government have resorted to using live ammunition and violence in brutally attacking defenceless and unarmed residents.

[Mr Joe Benton (Bootle) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I share his sense of horror at the activities going on in Ashraf. I hear all sorts of appalling stories of terrible crimes against humanity. He may be coming to this point, and I apologise if that is so, but I am most concerned about the treatment of the wounded, the sick and the injured. It is another example of inhumanity to neglect such people, given that they will be non-participants in any shape or form, and I find it appalling. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has it in mind, but I do not want the opportunity to go by without raising the matter.