§ Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD)As the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Colombia, I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this short debate. It is timely because in the past few days, we have had a visit by Vice-President Santos of Colombia, to whom I am grateful for the helpful and informative briefing that he gave at Chatham house yesterday morning.
I am also grateful to the AB Colombia umbrella group of non-governmental organisations and Amnesty International UK both for the briefings that they have given for today's debate and for their ongoing work in publicising incidents in Colombia and bringing visitors to meet us in Parliament. Peace Brigades International has also been important in exposing us to the work of human rights defenders in Colombia. The Colombian embassy has also supplied information, as has another interesting source—an intern in my office from the United States; although the use of word "intern" may be odd considering Guantanamo bay. Stephanie Adams, whose family are Colombian, has given me a helpful insight into life from the point of view of ordinary Columbian citizens.
Needless to say, 30 minutes is a short time to debate an issue of such importance, but I hope that at least it will allow the Minister to update the House on the Government's position, which is what we want to get on record.
Interest in the House on Colombian issues should be gauged not by attendance in this Chamber, as a hot Budget debate is raging in the main Chamber, but by the fact that 187 Members have so far signed early-day motion 333 on military assistance to Colombia and human rights abuses. That is an extraordinary number, and it is so high because any Member who has been touched by, or had experience of, Colombia takes a serious interest in the country. Many Members have clearly encouraged their colleagues to take an interest, too.
To set the context for the debate, I should like to point to several factors that bring the UK and Colombia together. We have always enjoyed good political and commercial relations. There are active links between chambers of commerce in the two countries, and I am sure that the Minister will testify to the fact that relations are extraordinarily warm, as they are between the UK and many Latin American countries. I found on my visit to Colombia that there is a tremendous, historical warmth between our two countries.
In that context, the UK was the host for the London declaration of July 2003, which established the international framework for Colombia's human rights agenda. Although the declaration brought together several countries, the fact that we were hosting it was not accidental and places us in a position where we have a particular responsibility to ensure that the declaration's aspirations are implemented.
Having visited Colombia with a Member from Northern Ireland some years ago, I believe that the Northern Ireland context is important. There are some similarities in how the Governments are trying to deal 234WH with armed paramilitary forces claiming to defend the state, although they are disowned by it, and secessionist groups trying to break away from it. That allows us to understand and empathise with the situation in Columbia, although the death and destruction caused by that conflict is on a greater scale.
It is also important not to take a neo-colonialist approach, which is especially significant in the light of a small dispute between the EU External Affairs Commissioner, Chris Patten, and the Colombian Vice-President. From the Vice-President's perspective, Chris Patten visited the country and tried to tell the Colombians how to run things, and was told off for treating the country like a banana republic. Although it is important to recognise that Ecuador is actually the largest exporter of bananas in La tin America, to treat the Colombians like a banana republic is inappropriate.
I shall couch my contribution in terms of our engagement with a sovereign, democratic country. The Vice-President made the serious point that Colombian democracy is deep rooted and goes back many years, and we need to respect the fact that we are dealing with a fellow sovereign democratic Government. We should not feel that we must instruct them, but rather behave as partners seeking to advise and assist in response to their request for assistance from the international community.
Whatever criticisms of the Colombian Government we may make in our debates, we should recognise that those are on a completely different level from the unreserved condemnation that we apply to acts of illegal violence, whether committed by the guerrilla or paramilitary factions. There is no equivalence in the way in which we treat the sovereign, democratic Colombian Government, and the armed groups who are acting illegally, and whom we condemn unreservedly.
It is also important not to make generalisations from the Colombian situation in relation to some kind of war on terror. The Colombian conflict started decades before any of the current rhetoric and debate on the war on terror—whatever that might mean; the situation in Colombia is unique and to generalise from it is unhelpful. Just as the Northern Ireland situation was unique and required unique British and Irish solutions, so the Colombian situation is unique and requires particular Colombian solutions.
The reaction of political visitors to Colombia is generally one of confusion, because they are confronted with different views of the same events. From a politician's point of view, it is clear that in Colombia there is a fundamental problem of governability, which has existed for many years. There are places where the Government's writ does not run. As a politician who has faith in democratic politics, I believe that the long-term solution must be for the democratic Colombian Government to have control and authority over the entire Colombian territory.
However, there is great concern about the allegations, suggestions and, in many cases, documented evidence of collusion between people who claim to act for the Government and for the Colombian state, and those who carry out the most severe human rights abuses. I have not met anyone who has visited Colombia who would say that the situation was simple—that it was 235WH either all the Government's fault or all everyone else's fault. Everyone returns with a confused picture of different views of the same events.
That is not surprising, for two reasons. First, the Colombian Government are trying, like every Government who deal with terrorism, to balance different rights—They are trying to balance the fundamental human right—the right to life, and therefore the right to be protected from acts of terrorism and violence—with other human rights, such as the right to a fair trial and fair treatment by the state.
Those rights can sometimes pull in different directions, and that leads to tension. It leads to something that is part of the normal discourse between all Governments—not just the Colombian Government, but Governments in general—and non-governmental organisations that are interested in human rights and criticise Governments severely when they are seen to have stepped from the path of absolute respect for human rights.
We see that process in the UK with some of the comments that the Home Secretary tends to make, not just about NGOs but about the judiciary and anyone else who dares to question his efforts to deal with terrorism. That is part of the normal political discourse: NGOs and judges criticise the Government, and the Government often respond robustly to that criticism.
However, there is an important difference in Colombia, because denunciation by the Government can lead to illegal actions by paramilitaries. That means death for people who believe that they are acting—and indeed are acting—as defenders of human rights, but who have been singled out as being friends of the terrorists. In the Colombian context, that is a most serious accusation and takes things far beyond the normal political discourse that might be enjoyed in places where such illegal actors are not so prevalent. Again, we can draw a parallel with Northern Ireland, where people were singled out as being friends of illegal actors—guerrilla groups—and were subsequently killed by other illegal groups.
In the Colombian context—again, perhaps, there is a parallel with Northern Ireland—there is particular concern about Church leaders who, in the course of looking after the interests of local people, may seek to negotiate the release of kidnap victims, and therefore may have contact with some of the illegal groups. The fact that they have contact with those illegal groups does not mean that they associate with them or approve of their agenda.
I hope that the Minister will be able to commit himself to speaking up for legitimate non-governmental organisations, Church groups and other similar groups that are trying to work in the Colombian context, and that he will ensure that we always request the Colombian Government to give them protection. The Minister will recognise the reference to a problem last year, when the Colombian President made comments about NGOs, which unfortunately fell on the plate of the then British ambassador in Colombia. The finger was pointed at the NGOs and the British Government were not as helpful as they could be, although the 236WH ambassador subsequently made statements to the effect that they would ensure that NGOs had the protection they needed.
I understand the scale of the threat to life in Colombia, which its Government are seeking to tackle. Colombia has a population that is about one third smaller than that in the UK, yet there are between 20,000 and 30.000 murders a year in Colombia, and only 800 a year in this country. I have every sympathy with the Colombian Government in trying to resolve such a serious death rate and I want the UK to continue to support them. In addition to the murders, hundreds of thousands of people are displaced, many are kidnapped and there are terrorist bombings; the situation will be fully resolved only if a settlement can be reached that respects human rights.
I seek the Minister's views on the following human rights issues: first, the question of military justice. The Colombian Government have recently proposed legislation to enable the military to conduct judicial processes in areas where the civilian authorities do not have a significant presence. Vice-President Santos was helpful, fair and open in describing the legislation as a limited set of powers, saying that there would be no sense of military impunity; if military officers abused the powers action would be taken against them—they would have no immunity in that respect. The powers would not be used where civilian authorities, as the preferable alternative, could be used. I hope the Minister will say that it is on the British Government's agenda to ensure that the powers are used appropriately.
Secondly, the question of impunity is significant and the Northern Ireland example is relevant. Settling a conflict requires exceptional measures, but they must be applied appropriately. People who have been convicted of terrorist murders are free again on the streets of Northern Ireland; exceptional measures were required to settle the conflict and it is helpful to see the situation in that context. However, in Northern Ireland, people were released on licence; they were not pardoned, and the terms on which they were released were important—the terms had to be acceptable. Convicted terrorists have no legitimate guise; they have gained no military authority. In the Colombian context, the concern is that paramilitaries who are demobilised could appear in a legitimate guise. Freedom from sanction is one thing, but being able to reappear in a position of power, having committed human rights abuses, is quite another.
We are interested in the resolutions proposed by the United Nations human rights commission. We hope that they will be given teeth with an action plan, but that has still not been proposed, even though the UN has made recommendations and continues to write regular reports. The end goal is to create a space in which people can act safely in a political context. Again, Vice-President Santos was helpful in pointing out that in the political context in Colombia, some left-wing politicians and trade unionists are able to succeed. I do not say that because I support left-wing politicians but because it is a sign of political health. Vice-President Santos cited the example of the mayor of Bogota, which is appropriate, because if people can engage in the normal political process they have moved on from engaging in the illegal, paramilitary process. 237WH In 2003, 68 trade unionists were killed, and many members of the opposition who oppose the political status quo in Colombia still cannot operate in the usual political sphere because they fear death and do not feel sufficiently protected by the state. I would be grateful for any reassurance that the Minister can provide.
Finally, military assistance between the two countries remains a concern. I know that other Members have asked questions about that and that it is limited to technical assistance. However, it is always helpful when talking about assistance between our two countries to reiterate the United Kingdom's clear and strong human rights agenda. After all, the Government introduced the Human Rights Act 1998 and, as I regularly restate, they require the recipients of their aid and assistance to respect human rights as we do. The Government must assure us that that assistance is monitored effectively, and that they are confident that it is not being abused. That was the subject of the early-day motion that attracted so much attention.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this important subject. I hope that the Minister will assure us that human rights in Colombia remain high on the Government's agenda, and that the UK can offer genuine assistance and friendship to the Colombian Government and to all the other agencies that work in Colombia. I hope that they can reach a peace settlement, not exactly like the Northern Ireland peace settlement, because we are not quite there yet, but one that at least mirrors its demilitarisation. That was a significant step forward, and to reach even that stage would be a tremendous achievement for the Colombian people.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)I am exceedingly grateful that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) has secured the debate and enabled us to discuss these issues openly. It is not parliamentary flannel to say that I warmly welcome the measured tone and balance of his contribution. One of the frustrations of dealing with the situation in Colombia is that people with the best motives sometimes lack that balance, and that does not help any of us to make progress. I immediately confirm that we share the hon. Gentleman's view that the human rights situation in Colombia merits great attention. Human rights lie at the heart of the Government's agenda and policy on Colombia.
Colombia's problems are immense and extraordinarily long-standing. They stem from a potent mix of drug trafficking and the wealth that that brings to those involved, a continuing 40-year armed conflict that followed decades of violence, and an historical lack of state control over huge swathes of the country, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The activities of three large illegal armed groups and scores of smaller organisations, as well as of criminal gangs, have made Colombia one of the world's most violent countries. Serious human rights abuses, which affect principally the civilian population, are the inevitable consequence of these problems.
In 2002, President Alvaro Uribe was elected with a strong mandate to tackle these problems. His first priority was to re-establish state control over the whole 238WH of Colombia to provide security for the whole population. From the outset, we made it clear that we support his efforts to deal with the dual and linked problems of armed conflict and the trade in drugs. It is critical, however, that those efforts are grounded in a complete and unconditional respect for human rights and international humanitarian law. Indeed, I made that clear to President Uribe when I met him in Bogota last May and in all my subsequent discussions with his colleagues. The London declaration of July 2003, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was adopted following a meeting of 24 Governments and international organisations. The blunt message that security was necessary, but not at the expense of human rights, was repeated loud and clear in the presence of senior members of the Colombian Government, including Vice-President Santos. We have continued that dialogue since then.
The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to say that the situation in Colombia is unique and requires unique solutions; there are no off-the-shelf solutions from elsewhere in the world. He also rightly underlined the significant problem in Colombia with respect to the fact that the writ of the Government and state authority does not spread far enough in the country, so that people are beholden to terrorist groups and paramilitaries in a way that is not in their interests. I also agree that there are no simple, easy-to-deliver solutions and that the situation in Colombia is an acute form of the dilemma that faces all of us—balancing people's security against upholding and respecting their civil liberties and human rights. That is an aspect of the current difficulty in Colombia.
The hon. Gentleman referred to non-governmental organisations, which have a critical role to play in any civilised and developing society. That is particularly true in Colombia, where fundamental liberties are under threat from illegal armed groups. Non-governmental organisations have a very important role to play in bringing problems to the attention of local authorities, the Government and the international community. We work with those organisations, and I pay tribute to the work that many of their staff undertake in difficult circumstances. I also believe that civil society more generally must be part of the solution for Colombia, rather than part of the problem, as it has sometimes been portrayed.
We put our money where our mouth is, and give financial and political support to the work of NGOs such as the Peace Brigades International, Oxfam, Christian Aid, Plan, and Save the Children. That is an important priority for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We have continued to make our view clear to the Colombian Government: respect for NGOs and their work must be a priority. We need to continue to make that point.
Although senior Colombian figures have made some unfortunate statements about NGOs—I think that the hon. Gentleman referred to those—I do not believe that the President is deliberately trying to target civil society. I am, however, aware of the danger, in the Colombian context, that certain statements may be taken by illegal armed groups as a green light to attack NGOs and their staff. That is a real concern and it is unacceptable.
I know the speech that the hon. Gentleman was referring to. I have always said to the President and other Ministers in Colombia that if there are specific 239WH concerns about alleged links between certain non-governmental human rights organisations and terrorist groups, they should be tackled through due legal process. A blanket condemnation putting all NGOs and human rights organisations in the same basket should not be made. I have made that point and so have other Ministers. The Colombian Government have listened and responded, and we shall continue to put those views.
The President's policies are aimed at cracking down on the illegal armed groups that are responsible for the vast majority of human rights abuses in Colombia. That approach has yielded some impressive results in some areas of fundamental rights. Clearly, much more remains to be done, but we see those improvements as the start of a long and complex process in which we want to be involved—helping the Government to extend those successes.
We are acutely aware of the plight of Colombian trade unionists and other vulnerable groups, particularly with respect to human rights, and have made it plain to the Government that they must provide adequate protection from threats and attacks for those groups that are at risk. Our assessment is that although the situation is still critical, it has improved in the past 12 months. Fewer trade unionists have been murdered and the perpetrators of several murders have been brought to justice. The hon. Gentleman alluded to that.
Our contacts with the Colombian authorities, and, indeed, UK trade unionists, on trade union issues, are complemented by regular discussions with NGOs and trade unions themselves. We have raised individual cases of concern with the authorities and have facilitated visits to the UK by Colombian trade union leaders to allow them to tell their stories first hand to wider audiences. I have met many of those trade unionists.
As the hon. Gentleman said, NGOs are concerned about the effect of the intensification of the armed conflict, and of the President's policies, on the civilian population. The humanitarian crisis is severe, with between 2 million and 3 million Colombians driven from their homes by the conflict. We are also concerned about the illegal armed groups' adoption of new tactics, such as encircling villages to prevent the population from fleeing, thus forcing them to co-operate. That must stop.
We also share the concerns of civil society and our partners in the international community and the UN system about the interlinked problems of impunity and collusion between some members of the armed forces and police, and paramilitary groups. We have expressed publicly our conviction that the Colombian Government need to take early and effective action to stop collusion and to bring quickly to justice anyone accused of human rights abuses. Again, I think that it has to be acknowledged that there has been some progress in that area. About 15 military figures and 20 policemen were recently arrested for collusion with the paramilitaries, and I very much welcome that action.
We shall certainly continue to exert pressure on the Colombian Government to deal effectively with the problems and to meet their obligations under international law. We also believe that it is important for the Government to take rapid and effective measures to 240WH implement the 27 recommendations of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Progress so far has been slow and we need to look at ways to improve that situation along with our partners.
We have also made it plain to the Colombian Government that we are concerned about the granting of judicial powers to the armed forces and about the future of the paramilitary peace process.
I know that the issue of UK assistance to Colombia provokes as much comment and controversy within this debate as any other issue. Principally, our assistance focuses on two areas: first, on human rights and social development, and secondly, on the fight against the trade in illegal drugs. Recent projects have dealt with creating a culture of non-violence in urban centres and helped poor agricultural producers to market their produce more effectively. Our embassy is crucially involved in those processes. When I was in Bogota in May, I was able to announce the funding for four community human rights ombudsmen in key conflict zones to provide an independent source of advice and assistance to Colombian citizens.
On the anti-narcotics front, we are actively assisting the Colombian Government in the war against drugs, as drugs are an integral part of the problem faced by Colombia. They are also our problem—80 per cent. of the cocaine that arrives in this country derives from Colombia.
The key issue of concern, to which the hon. Gentleman referred in respect of early-day motion 333, is the issue of UK military assistance. Compared to help in the anti-narcotics field, UK military assistance is small scale. It is centred on areas of direct benefit to the Colombian civilian population. We therefore fundamentally believe that it would be counter-productive to suspend it, since that would affect negatively the very civilian population whom we wish to help.
Recent assistance has been in anti-explosives training for police and military officers tasked with defusing bombs, which are often directed at civilian targets. We have also brought Colombian military officers to the UK to participate in senior staff training courses. An important element of all such courses is the role of the military in a democratic society and the need for an understanding of human rights concerns. In the same way we have also provided, along with the UN, training in human rights issues for the Colombian armed forces.
I can give a categorical assurance that no UK military assistance has been given to individuals or units known, or suspected to have been, implicated in human rights abuses or in collusion with paramilitary forces. I fundamentally believe that to be the case, and some of the things that are printed and written about the subject with no basis in fact do not help anyone in Colombia in addressing the issues and in taking the situation forward.
I will now deal with the UN recommendations and the London declaration. We have made it clear that we firmly believe that the Colombian Government must live up to the commitments made in the London declaration last year. I was pleased that President Uribe stressed the importance of that in his recent speech to the European Parliament. Our ambassador in Bogota is taking part in the follow-up process to the London 241WH meeting by participating in the working group set up to monitor progress on the commitments. The regular dialogue between Government and civil society representatives facilitated by the group is a vital and integral part of the process. Put bluntly, I strongly believe that Colombia has a moral obligation to carry out its task in respect of those commitments. I will be visiting Colombia soon and will raise the issues again.
There are many threats to the enjoyment of full human rights by the Colombian population. The illegal armed groups have not taken any notice of the recommendations of the United Nations Commissioner on Human Rights, which were addressed to them. They continue to torture, murder, kidnap and engage in drug trafficking and to commit the vast majority of human right abuses.
Although we recognise the progress made in some areas and applaud the Colombian Government for what they have achieved in the relatively short time that they have been in power, we will continue to urge them to take urgent and effective action to address the many remaining issues of concern, especially those of impunity and collusion between state forces and the paramilitaries. We will balance regular contact with the Colombian authorities at the highest levels, to keep up pressure on the issues, with close contacts with civil society, to ensure that our policies take into account the important issues, concerns and priorities.