§ Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)On 10 December, we marked international human rights day. That annual event is an opportunity to remind ourselves of the ways in which countless people all over the world continue to be denied their basic rights and freedoms. It is also an opportunity to take stock of our foreign policy and the record of the international community in alleviating the suffering of thousands of people. The series of programmes that have appeared on the BBC this week, which have marked international human rights day, and the 10,000 calls that the BBC has received so far, are a sign of the seriousness with which many people in the United Kingdom view human rights.
The long and well-documented record of human rights violations in Indonesia and East Timor remains one of the greatest challenges to the international community in fulfilling its obligation to promote and protect human rights. In many ways, the record of the international community in meeting the challenge illustrates its failure to give human rights the priority that they deserve.
Human rights, security, trade and the environment are issues which, in an increasingly interdependent world, must be addressed collectively. However, the international community can be effective only with the political will and the support of individual Governments. In Indonesia, the United Kingdom's response to human rights violations has been sadly inadequate.
With a group of other parliamentarians, I was one of the people who visited Indonesia and East Timor in March 1989. As a result of what I saw and heard at that time, in August that year I addressed the decolonisation committee of the United Nations in New York on the subject of East Timor. I urged the rights of the East Timorese under the decolonisation procedures to a referendum on the way in which they wished to be governed.
Human rights violations have persisted on an alarming scale in Indonesia since the military coup of 1965, which brought the present Government to power. The slaughter of between 500,000 and 1 million people following the 1965 coup established a dangerous precedent for dealing with political opponents. In East Timor, 200,000 people—one third of the population—were killed or died of starvation or disease after Indonesia invaded in 1975. Between 1989 and 1993, at least 2,000 civilians were killed in Aceh during counter-insurgency operations. Hundreds of people have been killed in Irian Jaya over the past 15 years—many as a result of their peaceful opposition to integration with Indonesia.
Political killings are not the only example of fundamental human rights violations in Indonesia and blatant flouting of the international human rights declaration. Criminal and political prisoners have been routinely tortured and ill-treated—some so severely that they died or suffered permanent injury. That is regardless of the fact that torture is prohibited under the Indonesian criminal code as well as in international law.
National laws and regulations have not prevented torture and ill treatment. Neither have they been effective in bringing those responsible to justice. As a result., torture and ill treatment have become institutionalised in the security forces. The substantial Amnesty report "Power 1276 and Impunity", published a few weeks ago, provides the most recent documentation of violations of human rights in Indonesia and East Timor.
Thousands of people have been imprisoned following show trials, solely for their peaceful political or religious views. An estimated 3,000 prisoners have been held on political charges since 1966. Most were convicted after unfair trials. Many others were detained without charge, or trial for as long as 14 years. Some disappeared in custody.
The price paid by the advocates of independence in Aceh and Irian Jaya—Islamic activists, former PKI members, university students, farmers, workers and human rights activists—for exercising their right to freedom of expression is imprisonment and sometimes death.
When trials are held, they routinely fail to meet international standards of fairness. Once charges are filed, guilt is assumed and conviction is a foregone conclusion. Defendants are often refused access to lawyers, and lawyers are often denied access to vital documents. Defendants are frequently convicted on uncorroborated evidence and confessions extracted under duress. Evidence of ill treatment, torture and other irregularities are routinely ignored by the courts.
Such practices would cause public outrage in this country, yet we are in danger of appearing to condone them by our failure, and that of the international community, to respond in a manner commensurate with practices in Indonesia.
There has been much public disquiet at the extent and persistence of human rights violations in East Tirnor following its illegal occupation by Indonesia in 1975. Although Indonesia declared East Timor its 27th province in July 1976, its sovereignty has never been recognised by the UN or the United Kingdom.
Evidence from many quarters is regularly brought: to the attention of the UN, proving the responsibility of the Indonesian Government for systematic human rights violations in East Timor, yet the international community has all but turned its back on the struggle by the people of East Timor for independence and justice. Because it has done that, the international community must share responsibility for the long-standing human rights problem in East Timor.
Human rights violations in East Timor are not a thing of the past. In 1991, as many as 270 civilians were killed when Government troops opened fire on a peaceful procession in the Santa Cruz cemetery in Dili. Most were shot while attempting to flee and others were beaten and stabbed. There were reports that dozens of people, including witnesses, were killed in the following weeks. Some were recovering from their wounds in a military hospital.
Following the Santa Cruz massacre, the UN and many Governments expressed outrage at the action taken by Indonesian security forces. In March 1993, the UN Commission on Human Rights expressed deep concern about continuing human rights violations in East Timor and offered several concrete recommendations for improvements. Yet with minor exceptions, the Indonesian Government have failed to comply with the spirit or the substance of the recommendations.
The catalogue of present atrocities in East Timor is worth placing on the record. In mid-November, during a series of pro-independence rallies in Dili, 124 people were 1277 arrested by the security forces using batons, riot shields and tear gas. Most of the detainees were held for several days and were beaten and in other ways intimidated. About 30 people are still under arrest and likely to be charged.
The BBC's correspondent Catherine Napier reported on 8 December:
reports of beatings and electric shock treatment against the detainees are some of the worst to have emerged for many months.She said that in the district south-west of Dili,several youths regarded as potential trouble-makers were reported to have been stripped naked, beaten and tortured with electric shocks by the military.As foreign journalists were present, the troops were under orders not to use fire power, but during the protest, there was great brutality.One incident was reported by the BBC's correspondent Philip Short, who was present in Dili on 19 November when a protest took place outside the cathedral. On this occasion, the protest was peaceful until, as Short reported, police agents outside the cathedral started to throw rocks at the protesters. All hell broke loose as protesters were rounded up and chased, and foreign journalists present were also chased. A bystander who had offered to show a German television crew the way to their hotel was later severely beaten up by the security forces. The crew extricated him from the police and brought him to their hotel. He had blood streaming down his back and one side of his face was so swollen as to be unrecognisable. Philip Short added:
They thrashed the living daylights out of him… Now if the Indonesians mete out that kind of violence to people who were not involved in the demonstration, one can only too readily imagine what they do to people who were.Asked by the New York Times on 22 November about suggestions that the security forces were more restrained, Bishop Belo, who is the Roman Catholic representative in East Timor, said:They are the same, the same attitude.Soon after the above incident, the military started ordering foreign journalists to leave. We know of at least seven journalists who were ordered to leave. The military clearly felt restrained by the journalists' presence and even blamed the journalists for inciting the protests. While the army has, apparently, refrained from slapping a blanket ban on foreign journalists, no permits are at present being issued. The absence of journalists is, of course, extremely serious as it gives the military a free hand.At the end of November, the military commander of East Timor made it clear that no peaceful protests of any kind would be permitted in East Timor. He said:
If any more demonstrations occur, I will not hesitate to cut them to pieces"—he used the Indonesian word "sikat", which means precisely that—because…there is a limit to our patience.The mid-November incidents brought into focus growing discontent in East Timor about the huge influx of Indonesians into the territory. No hard figures are available, but there could be well over 100,000 Indonesian settlers in the towns and countryside by now. They control 1278 commerce and the administration, marginalising the East Timorese, who are being impoverished and left without jobs.On 12 November a Timorese trader was stabbed to death by an Indonesian trader in a dispute at Becora market. That led to waves of violence against Indonesian shops and stores and the burning of vehicles. Such attacks are not part of the strategy of the resistance movement, but the outburst reflects a grave social problem that is certain to become worse as more and more ships arrive regularly in Dili with hundreds of settler families on board.
Bishop Belo recently announced that he was extremely concerned about the sterilisation of East Timorese women against their will, and was collecting data on the issue. He told John Pilger on the telephone that in a village that he visited recently nurses at the clinic told him that nine women were being readied for sterilisation without their consent. The Indonesians are clearly moving to alter the demographic composition of the population of East Timor.
On 7 December, the office of the Dili-based daily Suara Timor Timur was vandalised by youths from a pro-Government organisation renowned in many places for its thuggish practices. They chased and beat up the journalists. Their basic complaint related to the newspaper's reporting of the November incidents and atrocities. According to the Alliance of Independent Journalists, the security forces failed to give the newspaper any protection against the attack, or later when the thugs continued to threaten the office.
A theology graduate, Jose Antonio Neves, who was arrested by the police when he was just faxing a document abroad, is now on trial in Malang, East Java, on charges of rebellion which carry a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment, or life. The charges mean that the most basic, legitimate act of keeping in touch with the outside world and sending out information about the situation inside East Timor is treated as a serious criminal offence carrying heavy penalties.
The November atrocities show that the situation in East Timor is extremely volatile, the army's grip on the territory very tight and the level of repression very high. The momentary opportunity to gain a glimpse of the level of protest—foreign journalists were allowed in on the occasion of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit—reveals that East Timor is like a power keg that may explode at any time.
As Bishop Belo said in his interview with the New York Times on 22 November, the basic issue is not whether the army has been a bit more restrained recently, but the political issue of self-determination.
What is going on in East Timor is replicated in other parts of Indonesia. Exactly two months ago, four men were detained by military intelligence officers in Jakarta itself. Over two days and nights, they were grilled about their political beliefs and activities; they were beaten, kicked and given electric shocks by their interrogators. Holding a pistol to the head of one of the men, a military officer said, "This gun is loaded; I have the right to kill you."
What provoked the assault was the fact that the four men had released balloons with pro-democracy slogans such as "Uphold the rights of workers" and "The constitution guarantees freedom of assembly". Those four 1279 men are not alone. Arbitrary arrest and torture of suspected Government critics has been routine in Indonesia and East Timor for years. In recent months, there has been a dramatic escalation in that kind of official harassment and intimidation. In August and September alone, the authorities broke up or prevented seminars, cultural events and professional meetings across the country by invoking an obscure law requiring police permission for meetings of more than five people. The banning of Indonesia's three leading news magazines in June has deepened the climate of fear among journalists.
In the run-up to November's APEC meeting—these incidents were well documented in the British press—the Government flooded Jakarta with 15,000 military and police officers to clear the streets of political and criminal undesirables in what they called "operation cleansing". Some Indonesia watchers consider recent developments to be a temporary setback in a general trend towards increased political openness but claims of greater political openness and a new-found commitment to human rights have never amounted to much for those outside Indonesia's small political elite.
For most ordinary Indonesians and East Timorese, the repressive powers of Indonesia's military and Executive have remained intact throughout. What has changed in recent months is that the small middle class has found its own freedom under threat.
The major campaign launched by Amnesty International only a few weeks ago focuses on the past five years and shows how hollow the Government's human rights pledges have been. In that time, human rights violations have continued unabated, even in parts of the country portrayed as stable and harmonious. The political and military torturers have continued to get away with their crimes.
At this point, I must pay tribute to Amnesty International for its work. In 1989 I went to East Timor with a list of people who had been imprisoned and then documented by Amnesty International in its annual report. After making a request to the military governor, I was able to go to one of the prisons to interview some of the prisoners named in that report. I was able to verify everything in the report down to the last detail. I was grateful to the Indonesian authorities for allowing me access because it enabled me to confirm that some prisoners had been tortured when they were first captured but that, once in prison, the torture had ceased. Anyone who says that Amnesty International makes wild allegations is wrong because the organisation takes great care when it documents such cases.
The Indonesian Government's human rights activities seem designed mainly to improve their image in international circles. Of course, this is not the first time that the Government's actions have not lived up to their words. In March 1966, only months after the military coup which brought the current Government to power, President Suharto, then General Suharto, promised that his new order would restore the rule of law and would be free from any form of oppression and exploitation. But, even as he spoke, Indonesian military forces were taking part in a grim campaign against the Communist party, leaving more than 500,000 people dead and a similar number imprisoned without charge or trial. Now they target those who organise trade unions—I know that the British Government have recently taken up the case of the last remaining leader of the independent regime in 1280 Indonesia—and those who oppose land developments or test the limits of political freedom by criticising the Government or their policies. The tensions and the political targets may have changed but the premium placed on maintaining national security at all costs has not.
The Indonesian Government try to brush off those violations as isolated incidents, or the work of a few poorly disciplined soldiers, when in fact they are the by-product of a network of institutions, procedures and policies that the Government themselves use to crush perceived threats to stability and order.
What is scandalous is the fact that foreign Governments, including ours, have let the Indonesian authorities get away with it for so long, apparently seeing that country only as an economic prize and a strategic linchpin. In the aftermath of the Santa Cruz massacre in 1991, a handful of Governments suspended certain kinds of aid and military transfers, but their efforts were short-lived and most have since returned to their previous habit of paying lip service to human rights while adopting few concrete measures to back up their words. That is what the United Kingdom does.
Some Governments, including ours, have continued to supply military equipment that could be used to commit human rights violations. Indeed it is so used, as I shall illustrate. Other Governments have turned away Indonesian and East Timorese asylum seekers, and may do so again. Foreign Governments will have to stop putting economics ahead of human rights if we are to see the fundamental policy changes necessary to restore human rights to the people of Indonesia and East Timor.
As the Minister will know, there has been much public disquiet in the United Kingdom over the continued and increased sales of arms to Indonesia. Many people have questioned the Government's decision. The contract for 24 Hawk jets, with a further 16 under negotiation, is just one example of the increase in arms sales from this country.
We challenge that decision, first because of the well-documented involvement of Indonesian military and security personnel in human rights violations. The publicly stated primary aim of the Indonesian military is internal security rather than dealing with external threats. The United Kingdom relies on assurances given by the Indonesian Government that the equipment will not be used for internal repression, but past promises have not been upheld. Clearly the onus should be on the exporter—the United Kingdom—to ensure that the equipment is not likely to be used for that purpose. In Indonesia there, are many well-documented cases in which it has been so used.
Another reason to challenge the decision is the Indonesian Government's obstruction of independent international monitoring of human rights in the country. Some opening up has been seen over the past few years but visitors, including United Nations personnel, journalists, human rights groups and so on, are restricted in the freedom with which they can exercise their independent monitoring function.
Indonesians who speak to visitors usually fear reprisals. That was clear when we were there in 1989. The people whom we met in East Timor, who were brought to us as people who were free to speak their minds, were clearly terrified. They spoke in very soft voices, and even when a member of the Church came to speak to us he could not 1281 say what he felt, because the door was open when we met him and somebody from the security forces was obviously listening to our conversation.
The meeting that we were supposed to have with Bishop Belo never took place, although it was part of our programme. Afterwards we were told that the bishop had not even known that we were there. The so-called freedom to speak is a myth.
There is a lack of regular monitoring by the United Kingdom Government of the end use of arms exports. The Government claim that it is impractical to monitor end use, and in a letter to me Baroness Chalker made it clear that she believed that it was not possible to do so. She wrote:
It is not practical to monitor their use once they have reached their destination.Any pretence that that is going on must be dispelled.However, other Governments do monitor end use. The United States general accounting office reported earlier this year that US military assistance to Colombia had gone to units responsible for human rights violations. That part of the assistance was then cut by the US Administration.
Other Governments have suspended or cut trade and aid to Indonesia on human rights grounds. The US Congress has suspended or cut funds for military education and training subject to improvement in human rights and it refused the sale of fighter jets on the same grounds. The Netherlands, Canada and Denmark have suspended development aid and Italy has ended all military transfers to Indonesia citing human rights concerns.
It is publicly stated by our Government that human rights are one of the factors that are considered in the procedure at official level to decide whether to issue an export licence. Other factors include the design and capability of the equipment, its past use and whether assurances are available from the receiving Government that the equipment will not be used for internal repression.
However, the problem is that the decision is not open to public or parliamentary scrutiny. There is no means of knowing the information and analysis on which the decision to issue a licence is taken. It is therefore very difficult for the Opposition to challenge the basis on which the decision was made.
Of course, our Government have frequently been criticised for their policy towards Indonesia. In 1992—93, we supplied more than £33 million in aid to Indonesia. In 1993—94, we supplied £35 million and in 1994—95 we supplied £40 million. So far as I am aware, none of that money was used in East Timor.
The argument about the use of Hawk aircraft has continued for some time. We receive a variety of responses from the Foreign Office whenever that matter is raised. According to the Foreign Office:
We are encouraging Indonesia to live up to its human rights obligations … There is no evidence to support allegations that Hawk aircraft are being used for repressive purposes against the people of East Timor …The Hawks that Indonesia has are two-seater trainers … Her Majesty's Government has an assurance from the Indonesian Government that the Hawks will not be used against civilians. We have no reason to doubt this. The Government would not license for export any defence equipment likely to be used for internal repression … The Hawks were delivered in the early to mid 1980s, too late to have been used in the bombing raids 1282 that followed the 1975 invasion … Under the UN charter, all sovereign states have the right to their own self-defence so there is nothing wrong with selling arms to friendly countries to allow them to defend themselves. Indonesia is no exception.The most recent exchange with Ministers occurred on 14 December in oral questions when the Foreign Secretary said, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn),The hon. Gentleman cannot, and has not, produced evidence to support allegations that Hawks, already supplied to Indonesia ‖ have been used for oppressive purposes in East Timor. We think not.Again, other exchanges in letters and written questions make more or less the same assertions.I shall quote the evidence of Jose Ramos-Horta, who is the special representative of the National Council of Naubere Resistance, which, since 1975, has been the umbrella organisation for the East Timorese at the United Nations. In his evidence, he said:
I want to make it clear that Hawk ground attack/trainer' aircraft fitted with missiles have been used in East Timor regularly since 1983. Hawk aircraft were first used in East Timor in the Summer of 1983, more precisely in August 1983, when the then Indonesian armed forces chief, Gen. Benny Murdani, announced a new military offensive after a three-month cease-fire negotiated by Xanana Gusmao, Leader of the East Timorese Resistance, and the East Timor Indonesian army commander, Col. Purwanto. The cease-fire was unilaterally broken by the Indonesians who thought that they could wipe out the resistance with the new aircraft they acquired.The 1983 offensive involved 20,000 Indonesian troops according to AFP, quoted in the New York Times. Two Hawk aircraft were used daily for almost six months. Hundreds of civilians and guerrilla fighters were killed during that period. The Hawks, armed with missiles, were used in three main areas of East Timor: in the Same-Ainaro-Maubisse mountainous triangle in the centre of the country, in the Lauten-Lospalos-Tutuala corridor in the far east and in the Matebian mountain range between these two.In 1983 the resistance forces operated in company sized units numbering 100 each or more. The Hawk aircraft were decisive in forcing their dispersal into much smaller units between 1983 and 1986. Together with the Bronco aircraft and the French-supplied Allouette and Puma helicopters, Hawk aircraft were responsible for the death of hundreds of civilians between 1983 and 1986.During the months of August and September 1994, two Hawk aircraft carried out at least six bombing raids in the Eastern region of East Timor. Hawks and American supplied Broncos are stationed at the Baucau airport, built by the Portuguese in the 60's and capable of receiving commercial aircraft up to Boeing 707s. Since the invasion of East Timor in 1975, the civilian airport has been converted to a military base.In the last three months, Hawk aircraft have again been used extensively, mostly in the eastern region, with an average of six sorties a day, each bombing raid lasting 10 minutes with the launching of two missiles each.Some of these raids seemed to be almost random without the pilot aiming specifically at guerilla targets but at any remote hamlet. On September 23 1994, at precisely I1H15, in the area between Kelikai and Baguia, a missile hit a thatched roof house setting it on fire and destroying the whole group of six impoverished houses. There were no survivors observed amongst some 30 inhabitants, mainly women and children in this typical East Timorese hamlet.Because there are no large concentrations of Resistance forces (the resistance forces operate in very small groups of half a dozen or less and only really converge for a major attack which may involve formations of up to 50), the Hawks are used to intimidate villagers with low flying and targeting practice on poor villages.That is what a representative of East Timor at the United Nations says is happening in that country. I believe that our Government have a responsibility to carry out a full investigation into Mr. Horta's allegations. It is no longer good enough to claim that there is no evidence, as the 1283 Government have argued consistently, and that Hawks are used only for training purposes. On 14 December the Secretary of State reasserted:The Hawks in Indonesia are two-seater trainers and we have no evidence that they have been reconfigured to carry live bombs since they were supplied".-[Official Report, 14 December 1994; Vol.251, c. 910–11]It is not possible to argue that any more in light of Mr. Horta's evidence. I believe that the Government should agree this morning to carry out an investigation into the matter.Some people argue that there are grounds to bring the United Kingdom before the International Court of Justice. Portugal will bring Australia before the International Court at the Hague in January 1995. There are those who argue that the UK Government are in violation of the UN charter and the relevant Security Council resolutions on East Timor by providing economic, financial and military assistance to Indonesia which enables it to pursue aggression in East Timor.
It is argued that British support of Indonesia hinders the exercise of the right of the people of East Timor to self-determination, which is explicitly recognised in Security Council resolutions 384 of 1975 and 389 of 1986. It will be interesting to see what happens in the case that Portugal is bringing against Australia.
We have witnessed fierce arguments in the Chamber between those hon. Members who have been on all-party parliamentary visits to Indonesia. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has constantly argued that the human rights situation in Indonesia is improving. He said recently that the Indonesian Government, from the President down, have fully taken on board international concerns about their human rights record and have done their best to address them.
That claim simply does not bear scrutiny. When the United Nations special rapporteur on torture visited Indonesia in 1992, he found that torture was commonplace. As a consequence, he made 11 recommendations, 10 of which still have not been addressed. We get very angry when we hear the apologists for the Indonesian regime constantly making unsustainable assertions that its human rights record is improving.
I think that more and more people from the international community will ask why the Indonesian Government, who can achieve such impressive economic gains, are apparently unable or unwilling to stop the widespread use of torture against their own citizens. More and more people will look at the pictures of the palm-lined beaches on holiday brochures and think of peaceful critics of the Government who are in prison. They will look between the columns of figures showing returns on investments and remember that a young woman who went on strike in an attempt to secure a pay rise of 25c per day was kidnapped, raped and killed when she went to the local military barracks to ask after her friends. More and more people will wonder why those who raise questions about corruption or ask why soldiers fired on peaceful demonstrators may find themselves locked in prison cells. There will be more questions and concerns about a Government and a legal system that can sentence someone to 10 years in gaol for collecting information about human rights and trying to send it out of the country.
1284 The Government of Indonesia may not like questions on human rights being asked and they may continue to try to stop them being discussed in this House and elsewhere, but human rights violations will blight Indonesia's international reputation until its Government have demonstrated a commitment to ending them.
There are several ways in which the Indonesian Government can improve the human rights situation. A few of the key ones are: to permit independent human rights monitors to conduct thorough investigations into all violations and ensure that the suspected perpetrators are brought to justice quickly in a civilian court; to prevent torture and ill treatment by giving detainees regular access to lawyers and ensuring that statements extracted under torture are not allowed in court; to release all prisoners of conscience; to repeal the notorious anti-subversion laws and all other legislation which can be used to gaol people for their peaceful activities and beliefs; and to permit regular and unhindered human rights monitoring by domestic and international non-governmental organisations, including Amnesty International.
Systematic human rights abuses have continued in Indonesia for nearly 30 years and in East Timor for almost 20 years. We owe it to the people of Indonesia and East Timor to make our voices heard and to insist that our Government listen and act on the evidence that I have presented tonight. They must put their commitment to human rights into action, so that the Government of Indonesia realise that we are serious when we say that the people of East Timor must be allowed to determine whom they wish to be governed by under the UN's decolonisation rules. We must show that we are serious about our commitment to those rules by looking again at the amount of aid that we give and military equipment that we export to Indonesia. We will be taken seriously only if our deeds match the words which we too frequently hear from Ministers.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad)I salute the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) for her long-standing interest in this very important subject and congratulate her on raising the matter at this late hour—or early hour, depending on one's point of view—during what may be the last ever Consolidated Fund Bill debate in the House. I believe that ours is the last debate before the Adjournment.
It is interesting that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the right hon. Member for Northampton, South, are presiding over our proceedings, along with the hon. Lady, my hon. Friends the Members for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman)—he was formerly in his place-and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malting (Sir J. Stanley).
Proceedings on Consolidated Fund Bills have been used as opportunities for extended debates by Back Benchers since 1907. The modern practice became a regular feature of the House's proceedings in 1966, and the debate continued to be held on the Second Reading of the Bill until 1982. Following a recommendation by the Select Committee on Procedure, debates since have been on a motion for the Adjournment.
1285 If the House agrees to the motions on the sittings of the House next Monday, today's sitting will mark the end of 30 years of Consolidated Fund debates as they now are. It is fitting that we end up on a serious and important subject.
I understand and share the concern felt by hon. Members and others outside the House about the human rights record in East Timor. It is the subject of regular debate and one on which I receive many representations from human rights groups and others.
We do not, of course, condone human rights violations in East Timor or anywhere else. Set against agreed international standards, the record on human rights in East Timor remains far from perfect. We continue to follow events there closely and to make our specific concerns clear to the Indonesian Government where appropriate.
The Indonesian Government are well aware of the importance that we attach to them living up to their human rights obligations. With our European partners, we have most recently expressed concern, as has the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, about the trial and sentencing of the Labour leader, Mr. Pakpahan, the ban imposed in June on three weekly magazines and the heightened tension in East Timor after clashes between the security forces and demonstrators in Dili in July.
We believe that the best way to persuade the Indonesians to make further improvements in their human rights record is through constructive dialogue within wider, co-operative relationships. We share many of the specific concerns set out in the recent report of Amnesty International. We have discussed them with the Indonesians as part of our regular dialogue on human rights. We recognise that a lot more needs to be done. Torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, and other forms of human rights abuses are unacceptable wherever, and on whatever scale, they occur. As the hon. Lady said, and as Amnesty International has acknowledged, such practices are already banned by law in Indonesia.
We continue to encourage the Indonesian authorities to ensure that their laws are respected in practice. We have encouraged the Indonesian Government to invite an Amnesty International delegation to see the situation on the ground. We understand that there have been exchanges, but without, so far, an agreement on dates.
It is equally important to recognise that the situation in East Timor has evolved considerably in recent years. It is natural that the media and critics of Indonesia's record in the territory focus exclusively on what more needs to be done, without acknowledging that progress has been made. I am not sure that one-sided criticism contributes to international efforts to find a long-term solution to the problem.
The House will be aware that this year's session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights commented favourably on the greater access granted by the Indonesian authorities to human rights and humanitarian organisations, as well as the international media. The Secretary-General has also welcomed the increase in visits to East Timor by East Timorese living abroad. Non-governmental organisations, too, have acknowledged that progress. In its September report, Amnesty International noted that East Timor was now more open to outsiders than at any time since 1975. In 1286 May, the Foreign Ministers of Indonesia and Portugal agreed that such access and visits should be further increased.
We hope that that will prove possible, and we look to the Indonesian authorities to live up to the other commitments that they have made to the Commission on Human Rights. We welcome their decision to allow a visit by the UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions. That took place in July and we will consider carefully his report at the commission's next session.
The hon. Lady has drawn attention to the journalists who were expelled from Dili last month in apparent contradiction of the trend of greater openness to which I have referred. Although the circumstances surrounding their departure remain unclear, we none the less regret any move that is inconsistent with the Indonesians' stated commitment to greater openness.
The Indonesian authorities have denied placing any general ban. Our current understanding is that journalists remain free to visit East Timor, subject to the usual permissions.
The hon. Lady referred to eye-witness accounts of the use of Hawk aircraft to bomb villages in East Timor. I listened to her carefully. The points that she makes about the use of Hawks remain allegations and no more. No one has come forward with any evidence to substantiate the claims made recently by Mr. Ramos-Horta. It is certainly for those making the allegations to bring forward the evidence. We have had specific assurances that British-supplied defence equipment, including Hawks, has not been used for repressive purposes.
It is highly relevant that the Hawk aircraft that Indonesia has are two-seater trainer aircraft, the sale of which was approved by the Labour Government. There is no evidence to support allegations that Hawk aircraft or other British defence equipment is being used for oppressive purposes in East Timor. The aircraft are based at a flying training school at east Java over 900 miles from East Timor. Of course, they could be modified—for example, to carry live bombs—if the Indonesians had the will and the technology to do so. The fact is that there is no evidence that the aircraft have been so adapted since delivery.
§ Mrs. ClwydWill the Minister agree to investigate the claims made by Mr. Ramos-Horta? He is a witness, and there are others whose names I shall give the right hon. Gentleman. Another witness is Jose Amorin, who sighted the Hawks at an air force base at Baucau in 1984. They were then seen being used in the Matabian mountains. Another eye-witness last year, Koni Santana, said:
The British-made Hawks have been used against the population, often bombing on a daily basis.There are additional witnesses. It would be good if the Minister agreed that some assessment should be made of these accounts by the people whom I have mentioned.
§ Mr. GoodladWe would need to see evidence rather than unsubstantiated assertions. Our embassy staff visit East Timor, as do human rights representatives, including Asia Watch, the International Commission of Jurists and foreign journalists. We have no reports from these visitors of Hawk sightings, in the air or on the ground. As the hon. Lady is aware, the Labour party spokesman on defence matters, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. 1287 Clark), explicitly approved of the sale of Hawk aircraft to Indonesia in November 1993. I welcome the Labour party's support for the Government's policy of permitting the sale of British defence equipment overseas where that is compatible with our political, strategic and security interests. We defend ourselves and should not deny others the right to do the same without good cause. I do not know whether the hon. Lady, who has spoken from the Opposition Back Benches but is an Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, has dissociated herself from the Labour party's position.
Contrary to the suggestion made by the hon. Lady, we are not aware of any country that is operating a total trade embargo against Indonesia. Nor would we agree to do so ourselves. Curbing Indonesia's prosperity would not advance the cause of human rights or improve the situation of the people of East Timor.
That is not to say that we are prepared to allow arms to be exported indiscriminately. We assess all applications for export licences case by case and do not license for export any equipment that we believe is likely to be used for repressive purposes against civilians. The Indonesian authorities have assured us that British-supplied defence equipment will not be used against civilians in East Timor or Indonesia, and we have no reason to doubt them.
I should also make it clear to the House that there is no arms embargo against Indonesia and no prospect of securing international agreement to impose one. The United Nations Security Council resolutions 384 of 1975 and 389 of 1976 condemned the invasion of East Timor, but they did not call for either an arms embargo or military intervention. We understand that Italy and Sweden apply national embargoes on the sale of defence equipment to Indonesia, and the United States Congress recently imposed a ban on the export of small arms, but the Indonesians have purchased, and continued to purchase, defence equipment from many western suppliers, in Europe and elsewhere.
The hon. Lady referred to the case against Australia. The Timor Gap treaty, signed by Indonesia and Australia in 1989, is a matter for those countries, and the legality of the treaty is currently before the International Court of Justice. The treaty in no way affects our stance on the recognition of Indonesia's annexation of East Timor: we do not recognise Indonesia's annexation of East Timor.
The hon. Lady mentioned aid. There is, I believe, a strong economic and social case for Britain to have a substantial aid programme in Indonesia. Aid from this country finances projects in power generation, forestry, education and other sectors that promote economic development. All the projects are subject to our normal process of appraisal.
Indonesia remains a relatively poor developing country. The annual gross national product per head is approximately $660. The country has a well-deserved reputation for good economic management and the use of aid. Between 1970 and 1990, the number of people living below the poverty line decreased by 43 million, but about 27 million people still live in poverty. As the hon. Lady said, British aid to Indonesia was £34 million in 1993—94; that is 18p per head of the recipient population, compared 1288 with £2.18 to Uganda and £4.41 per head to Zambia. As contrasted with £34 million from the United Kingdom, Japan's aid in 1992 was $1.356 billion.
§ Mrs. ClwydCan the right hon. Gentleman confirm that none of that aid goes to East Timor, one of the poorest areas in the world, and that in the past few years none of the aid that he has quoted has gone anywhere near that country?
§ Mr. GoodladI will write to the hon. Lady about the precise application of the aid funds, but, if I understand her correctly, not only does she dissociate herself from the Labour party's policy on the sale of defence equipment to Indonesia, but she is saying that that country should receive no aid. Perhaps she is also saying that there should be no aid to any other country whose human rights record is less than perfect. If so, I think that we need to be told that clearly, because it will make a substantial impact on the aid programme throughout the world.
I now turn to the events of the past month. Several demonstrations by East Timorese protesters took place around the time of the APEC summit, including a sit-in protest by 29 East Timorese in the United States embassy compound. The Indonesian authorities gave assurances that no action would be taken against them and that they were free to leave the country. As with previous assurances that we have received from the Indonesian authorities, those have been honoured and the group left for Portugal on 24 November.
A number of demonstrations also took place in East Timor. The first, on 12 November, appears to have been a spontaneous one, caused by the death of a Timorese trader in a street brawl with an immigrant worker. During that and other disturbances in Dili, about 72 people are reported to have been arrested. We understand that the International Committee of the Red Cross had immediate access to the people who were detained, most of whom have now been released. The reports that we have received suggest that the security forces acted with relative restraint in policing those demonstrations. Initial press reports of fatalities have not been confirmed.
The hon. Lady is right in drawing attention to the fact that the human rights situation in East Timor cannot be considered in isolation from the territory's history. The invasion of that territory in 1975, and the killings and famine which followed, were a tragedy for the East Timorese people. We have never recognised Indonesia's annexation of the territory and, with our EU partners, have consistently supported international efforts aimed at securing a long-term solution to the problem.
We believe that the continuing dialogue between Portugal and Indonesia, under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General, offers the best hope of progress. The aim of those talks is clear—to seek a just, comprehensive and internationally acceptable solution.
That is no easy task. It requires a considerable effort by all those involved. It takes time to build up the necessary climate of confidence and trust which can allow progress to be made. We will give every encouragement to the process of dialogue, which is continuing.
Recent developments have been promising. In May, after the last round of talks between the Portuguese and Indonesian Foreign Ministers, the Secretary-General 1289 stressed the importance of encouraging dialogue among East Timorese. He undertook to help bring about what he described as
an all-inclusive intra-Timorese dialogue.Since then, a number of meetings have taken place which have brought together those with often opposing points of view. At the end of September, a meeting was held in Wales between East Timorese still living in the territory and those now resident overseas. The Secretary-General sent a representative to those talks. On 4 October, the Portuguese Foreign Minister met a number of East Timorese representatives, including those supporting integration with Indonesia. Two days later, in New York, the Indonesian Foreign Minister met Mr. Ramos-Horta, one of the main opponents of integration who is now exiled in Australia. Both parties recognised the significance of the meeting.No one expects there to be dramatic shifts of stance overnight. Positions are too far apart. But such contacts at least allow the parties to air their differences directly and go some way to creating a better atmosphere in which questions of substance can be addressed.
The hon. Lady referred to the United Nations and its decolonisation committee. The special committee last considered the question of East Timor in July. After hearing statements from petitioners and the Governments of Indonesia and Portugal, the committee decided to defer the question to its next session in 1995.
We now look towards the next meeting of the two Foreign Ministers, which is due to be held in Geneva on 9 January. Preparations for that meeting are well under way. The Secretary-General recently sent two of his staff to Jakarta and East Timor to help prepare the ground. We cannot know what progress will be made but we have made clear to all the importance that we attach to such talks and we will continue to encourage the Secretary-General in his difficult task.
We will also continue to raise our human rights concerns with the Indonesians in ways that we consider most likely to be effective. We believe that the best way to persuade them to make further improvements is through constructive dialogue within a wider co-operative relationship. Nothing that I have heard tonight has persuaded me that there is a better or more effective way forward.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.