Human rights and the Tories

By James Valentine

Yet again the Tories’ cuts agenda seems to have an ulterior motive. The weekend story that the FCO Annual Report on Human Rights is to be axed has not being denied by William Hague. David Miliband has been quick to issue a statement condemning the proposed cut and the Guardian suggests that his previous contacts in the FCO must have confirmed the reality of the threat.

The Report on Human Rights was one of Labour’s best innovations. Set in place by Robin Cook, it provides an overview of the main challenges to human rights around the world and explains the government’s activities and policies to address those challenges.

The report is valuable for three main reasons. First, although it cannot claim to cover every human rights issue, it is comprehensive in its global reach and scope, including democracy, the rule of law, religious rights, the death penalty, women’s and gay rights and the illegal arms trade. Secondly, it’s authoritative – the information is drawn from the UK’s posts overseas who know the languages and are in a position to dig out the case studies. Thirdly, it recognises that few countries have a perfect human rights record and that allies as well as adversaries need to be challenged. For example the report doesn’t shrink from describing the United States’ shocking record on the death penalty.

The Tories have said the FCO should concentrate on promoting British business interests but that’s already been its aim for a generation. The actual cost of the human rights report, at £560,000 per annum is miniscule in comparison to the possible longer-term benefits that it brings to British interests. China is a key trading partner but it’s clearly in our interests as well as that of Chinese human rights activists and trades unionists that democracy and better working practices evolve peacefully. Monitoring human rights and the application of consistent pressure on the Chinese government is part of this process.

Labour’s foreign affairs policy commission, of which I’m a member, has done much of its work on human rights issues and we’ve frequently invited organisations such as Human Rights Watch (which has criticised the decision to axe the report) to its meetings.

It could be said that removing this particular catalogue of information does not of itself change the government’s stance on human rights. But with the Tories, one must be suspicious. Under previous Tory governments Slobodan Milosevic and, originally, Saddam Hussein, were regarded as “good chaps”. As was Robert Mugabe, even though the evidence of his post-independence massacres must have been clear to those involved.

It’s commendable that Ming Campbell has broken ranks to speak out against the axing of this report. I would hope that the junior minister Alistair Burt, a representative of the Tories’ influential “Christian Right”, might pluck up courage to say something. And possibly common sense, if not any overriding moral reason, might guide William Hague to the conclusion that this is a petty and pointless cut too far.

Update: The Conservatives have now put out a “clarifying statement” saying:

“We are continuing to work on annual human rights reporting. The only question is how that report can most cost-effectively be produced in the current financial climate. We are looking at alternatives to the expensive glossy colour publications of the past, for example online publication or publication by command paper.”

But as Tim Mongomerie says:

“The clarification is welcome but 24 hours late. The Observer was not given this statement when they sought it yesterday.”

Hague’s statement itself demonstrates confusion. The cost of the report is incurred in the research carried out by the diplomats, not the glossy paper. Should a British Foreign Secretary really be concerned with printing costs? And the report is already published as a command paper.

Which other cabinet members are pulling the strings? The impression remains that “business interests” will prevail.