– in Westminster Hall am 12:00 am ar 8 Mawrth 2006.
I am pleased to have obtained this opportunity to debate human rights in central Asia, specifically the former Soviet republics known collectively as the "stans": Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. I acknowledge the valuable assistance that I have received from bodies that have provided briefings for this debate, namely Christian Aid, Christian Solidarity Worldwide and Amnesty International.
In many ways, 90 minutes is barely adequate to deal with this subject and the range of human rights concerns regarding this region. Therefore, to allow others to participate in the debate, I shall restrict the focus of my remarks to the situation in Uzbekistan in particular, although I shall touch on Turkmenistan, and on religious freedom, which is of particular concern to me.
I shall try also to put human rights concerns into the broader politics of the region, because it seems that human rights problems common to all these central Asian countries are a symptom rather than the disease itself. They are symptomatic of the problem in countries that do not enjoy a great deal of political stability, because there is a tremendous amount of poverty in such countries, which has given rise to a fairly unpleasant class of despot in the region. When discussing human rights, it is important that we see the issue in its full and proper context and do not try to divorce it from the poverty issues in the region. I hope that in this age of joined-up government the Minister for Europe might convey a few of my concerns in that regard to his colleagues in the Department for International Development.
There are several characters in the region about whom I am inclined to think that Gilbert and Sullivan would be writing comic operas if were they alive and working today. Those characters are—I say this in no spirit of levity—grotesque caricatures of dictators. It is impossible not to find some amusement in a character such as President Niyazov in Turkmenistan, who modestly styles himself as the "father of all Turkmens", and who renamed the months and days after himself, his mother and various folklore heroes of the country. However, it is easy for me to say that it is impossible not to derive some amusement from such a person because my family are not being persecuted by such people, and my religious freedoms are not being curtailed. It is not me who, as a Christian, is being denied the right to visit and associate freely with other Christians, which is, of course, the situation in places such as Turkmenistan.
I move to the situation in Uzbekistan. I have had an interest in that country for several years for a variety of reasons. The Minister may know that I have long been interested in the abolition of the death penalty worldwide; the death penalty has been used as a particularly brutal instrument of oppression in Uzbekistan. It may send shivers down a few spines behind the Minister to know that some of my concerns were first brought to my attention by the former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Mr. Craig Murray, with whom I have been acquainted for 20-odd years since we were both students at different universities in Scotland.
I take as my starting point the Government's helpful annual human rights reports. Uzbekistan featured in the 2005 and 2004 reports as being an area of major concern. I love the Government's human rights reports: they have a real talent for taking the meanest grain of progress and embracing it with an optimism that I, as a Liberal Democrat, find truly heart-warming. Optimism should always be encouraged. They note that "some limited steps" have been taken in implementing the UN convention against torture, and highlight a speech made by President Karimov about his aspirations for democracy, but the bleak and depressing truth is that there is no concrete evidence of improvement and plenty of evidence of the continuation of widespread human rights abuses in that country. Torture and other forms of ill-treatment remain routine for those in custody. Indeed, torture is incentivised because confessions are routinely the basis for convictions in trials that are widely recognised to fall far short of any internationally recognised standards for such matters.
I shall talk about events in Andijan last May. This issue has been fairly well rehearsed in this place, but probably not well enough. The fact that the events of 12 and
I say in passing that the Minister might wish to consider, in the context of other legislation going through the House, whether those who originally stormed the prison and garrison in Andijan might be regarded as terrorists, and whether those of us who support their quite legitimate case might, at a later stage, be considered guilty of glorifying terrorism. I do not expect him to answer that point today, but I highlight it as something on which he might wish to ponder on another occasion and in another way.
Whatever one's view of the regime in Uzbekistan, one cannot be but appalled at the points that the hon. Gentleman made in his introductory comments that since Andijan discrimination against Christians has greatly increased, and that they have borne the brunt of the regime's anger about what happened. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Yes; I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. As a Christian, I have been struck by the theme that runs through virtually all the human rights oppressions in the central Asian republics. The Churches—not only the Christian Church but other religious groupings—are at the centre of resistance to the dictatorships. I think back to Malawi in the early 1990s, when the Catholic bishops and the central African Presbyterian Church were instrumental in bringing down Banda.
The flipside of that coin is that the Churches and religious groups suffer the hardest persecution. That has been a hallmark of events since the Andijan massacre. As Mr. Drew said, it has affected Christian groups, other religious groups, journalists, human rights activists and ordinary citizens of no affiliation at all. Anyone who attracts any suspicion, whether there is any legitimacy to that, seems to be a legitimate target for repression in the eyes of the Uzbek Government. They have tried to close down any discussion or dissemination of information about events in Andijan. State-run media outlets provided limited coverage of the events as they unfolded, and there was no pictorial representation of them.
On
Since the events of
Further concerns mentioned in the annual report relate to the restriction on access to prisons; the lack of independence in the judicial system, with judges appointed by the president; widespread corruption; and the continued use of the death penalty. In 2004, Uzbekistan executed prisoners on death row whose cases were lodged with the United Nations human rights committee.
Also in 2004, I was privileged to chair a meeting in the House of Commons organised by Reprieve, the death penalty abolition group. Among others represented on that occasion was the Uzbek group Mothers Against the Death Penalty and Torture. In particular, Tamara Chikunova was present and her story was one of the most compelling and heart-rending stories that I have ever heard from someone who has been involved with the death penalty—of course, there are few pleasant ones. Tamara Chikunova's son was arrested, subjected to a mockery of a trial in Uzbekistan and sentenced to death. She visited him regularly in prison. She turned up one day as arranged and was told that she would not be allowed access to him and to come back two days later. She did so and was told that her son had been executed two days earlier—the very day on which she had been outside, waiting for him.
I often think that the appalling inhumanity of the death penalty comes from the prevalence of people remaining on death row for 15 or 20 years, as often happens in the United States. However, to use the death penalty at the other end of the scale, only weeks after conviction, takes inhumanity and barbarism, too. That story highlights the nature of the Uzbek regime.
Although we have to be careful about labelling all the "stans" and suggesting that all the human rights abuses are on the scale of those in Uzbekistan, does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the worst things in Uzbekistan, in addition to the treatment of prisoners and torture, is the secret trials—trials that the relatives of the accused do not even know are taking place—and the lack of proper access to legal representation for those accused of what are often trumped-up crimes? That is really the worst thing of all.
I cannot disagree. The hon. Gentleman has described features of a criminal justice system that breaches just about every internationally accepted norm of criminal justice standards. Justice should be done publicly. People should have a right to know the case against them. The judiciary should be properly independent of the Government. We take those things for granted, but the Uzbek Government in particular—I take the point about not labelling every "stan" according to Uzbekistan—almost seem to go out of their way to ignore them.
The Government's annual report mentions problems faced by members of Human Rights Watch with regard to the renewal of their visas, but there is not much of an update. Perhaps the Minister can say what the current situation is for NGOs such as Human Rights Watch that seek to operate in Uzbekistan but find themselves constrained in doing so.
I am aware that time is moving on, so I shall deal with religious freedom briefly; no doubt other hon. Members will do so in more detail. The reports of religious intolerance and persecution in Uzbekistan cause me significant concern. Discrimination, harassment and criminal prosecutions of Muslims and harassment of religious minorities, most notably Protestant Christians, remain commonplace. The trial of 23 men accused of being members of the banned Akromiya group and anti-constitutional activity led to the Andijan massacre. Can the Minister update us on the policy of critical engagement with Uzbekistan in respect of cases such as that?
Another concern that I shall touch on, which is not new, is the suggestion that information derived from torture has been used by this country. Again, I bring hon. Members' attention to the work of Craig Murray. He stated clearly that the Government have used information provided by states that practise torture. Steve Crawshaw of Human Rights Watch told the Foreign Affairs Committee that, in one of her submissions when questioned in the House of Lords on the use of information acquired through torture, Eliza Manningham-Buller as much as said, "We're not going to ask, because that would make things difficult." I hope that the Government's approach to the use of information from Uzbekistan has moved on from that rather bleak caricature and that the Minister will assure us that they will not use intelligence derived from the use of torture in Uzbekistan.
I said in my introductory remarks that I wanted to make the link between human rights abuses and poverty in the region. In doing so, I am again indebted to Christian Aid for its briefing. It is important to understand that the oppression of people in the central Asian republics is an economic as well as a human rights oppression. These are, for the most part, highly resource-rich countries, and that makes the fact that there is such poverty in them all the more appalling. The average per capita incomes in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are now lower than in sub-Saharan Africa. The average monthly salary in Tajikistan is $20. Across the region as a whole, life expectancy at birth fell from 68.2 years in 1990 to 64.7 years in 2003. Although some economic progress has been made in the past few years in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, that has not translated into improved living standards for ordinary people. A recent survey suggested that more than half of the poorest households in Tajikistan eat on average only one meal a day. One third of Tajik children are chronically malnourished, and economic migration among the male population of the region is leading to family collapse and increased vulnerability for women and children.
In view of the difficult governance issues in the region, will the Minister tell us how he envisages the UK Government's poverty reduction and political objectives there being met? Also, please will he impress on his ministerial colleagues at the Department for International Development the importance of increasing aid to the region, in line with DFID's increasing support to other developing regions?
Finally, I shall address changes at the United Nations. In August 2005, the UN General Assembly agreed to establish a human rights council to replace the UN Commission on Human Rights; it was said that the human rights council will assume the mandate of the Commission on Human Rights. It will have between 30 and 50 members, each of them elected on a geographical basis and for a period of three years by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly. Each member will undertake to fulfil human rights standards and face evaluation under the review mechanism. We are told that the United Kingdom welcomes the establishment of the council, but it is of concern that the US ambassador, John Bolton, has said that he is prepared to vote against it. Is the Minister able to give us any insights in respect of why the United States is opposed, what compromises it might be looking for, and what prospect there is for the introduction of the human rights council? Can the Minister also assure us that the system of monitoring human rights worldwide under the UN special rapporteurs will continue and be properly resourced?
Much more could be said about central Asia and human rights. I am grateful to hon. Members of all parties for attending the debate. I hope that our words and concerns will be heard outwith this Chamber, and that there might be a little hope for the future of the oppressed people in these countries.
I congratulate Mr. Carmichael on securing this important debate. Like me, he has long had an interest in this part of the world, and I am sure that he would agree that, if anything, the debate is somewhat overdue.
Central Asia is a relatively neglected part of the world—neglected by policy makers, that mythical body called the international community, and, dare I say it, by Her Majesty's Government, and even by the House. There have, I think, been two oral questions on the region and, perhaps, two dozen written questions in the last year, from, for instance, the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland, for Stroud (Mr. Drew), for Bassetlaw (John Mann), for Moray (Angus Robertson), and for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), and from my hon. Friend John Bercow.
I have been to all five of the countries in question, and to Uzbekistan on various occasions. In a general sense, central Asia is not a happy part of the world, and its nations have certainly underperformed in the past 15 years, compared with other ex-Soviet republics not just in Europe but in Asia. Twenty years ago, Tashkent was more or less on a par with Novosibirsk or Krasnoyarsk. Since then, there has been quite a severe divergence in the wrong direction for Tashkent and other major central Asian cities.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland talked in detail about some of the economic statistics; those on per capita incomes and life expectancies are truly alarming. There are also some crazy economics in countries such as Uzbekistan. It is one of the few countries where people can still be seen doing their daily shopping with huge wads of cash. I have seen ethnic Russians showing up at travel agencies with large wheeled hold-alls full of cash to buy their one-way ticket to Moscow; it makes me think of the Weimar republic.
One issue that has not been touched on so far is the regrettable out-migration of ethnic Russians. That is partly due to Russia's loss of its previous status as the quasi-colonial power, but it is also due to human rights concerns. Depending on one's view on what is going on in Moscow, that journey might smack a little of being a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire. However, that phenomenon is sucking out a lot of the middle classes—such as they exist—from these countries.
Most of the interest that there is in the region in the outside world—and, indeed, in the House—is due to energy interests. I am not against there being such interests, but we need also to consider human rights, which in many of these countries are awful. Uzbekistan is without doubt one of the five most tyrannical regimes in the world at present. Turkmenistan exceeds even North Korea in its rampant Stalinist personality cult. Tajikistan is still in chaos. Kyrgyzstan still has an uncertain future, and the recent Kazakh election was, at best, questionable.
I want to focus briefly on Turkmenistan, before concentrating mainly on Uzbekistan. In describing Turkmenistan, it is a shame that we are not allowed visual aids, because it is difficult to get a feel for the country without having seen it. There is a massive personality cult; the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to it. The leader is Niyazov, the self-styled Turkmenbashi, and his regime is characterised by vanity, control freakery and a habit of fantasy and invention. I have always written him up as TB for short. The phrase "Halk, Watan, Turkmenbashi" can be seen almost everywhere in the country; it means something like, "Praise the leader." All of us have come across occasional snippets about him. I share the view of the hon. Gentleman. In that country, one spends about a third of the time in a state of bizarre amusement, but for two thirds of the time one is appalled at what is going on. In the centre of Ashkabad, there is a neutrality monument. It is an 8 m-high gold statue of Turkmenbashi that revolves on top of a pedestal that is about 70 m high. The leader of the country greets the sun in the morning—the statue faces the sun—and then he revolves during the day and says goodbye to the setting sun in the evening. It is incredible to watch. However, the cruel reality in Turkmenistan is that open expression of alternative views is not possible. It can result in imprisonment or forced institutionalisation in a psychiatric hospital. There is no free media, and even most publications from Russia are banned, and steps are taken to suppress the use of the internet.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland rightly focused much of his speech on Uzbekistan. Human rights abuses in Uzbekistan are not new, but on
I commend the work of Human Rights Watch which, despite facing great difficulties and some danger to its own people, has managed to put together a credible account of what happened in Andijan—of tanks rolling through the main square and firing indiscriminately, of snipers picking off their victims, and of soldiers later shooting dead some of the wounded. At the time that they happened, the events of
Over the past nine months, I have tabled more than a dozen questions on the Government's response to the events at Andijan, and on what action the UK and the international community are taking. The first response to my very first question on the subject came not from the Minister for Europe, but from the Uzbek embassy in London; its response actually came before the Government's. The embassy sent me what I am sure it thought was a helpful e-mail, a six-page exposition of what it described as the "terrorist" incidents at Andijan, which it bizarrely blamed on Hizb ut-Tahrir. The e-mail had a sinister tone, demanding to know, for example, where I had learned aspects of idiomatic Uzbek, and so on.
The reaction internationally to the events at Andijan has been very weak, and for no particular reason; there is not even the excuse that Uzbek bases are needed to project coalition power in the region. Energy concerns are not particularly great in Uzbekistan. To the best of my knowledge, Uzbekistan is still a member of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and still has a partnership and co-operation agreement with the EU, although I could not ascertain whether that has been suspended. Germany seems quite happy to allow Uzbek Government leaders to receive medical treatment there, claiming that it is being done on humanitarian grounds. I question whether the population of Uzbekistan has the same access to quality medical treatment.
There is an EU arms embargo, although Uzbekistan is a member of the NATO partnership for peace programme. It must be the first time in history that we have a military ally on whom we have an arms embargo. I pointed that out to the Minister at Foreign Office questions in October, but it seems that no action has resulted. Thankfully, the US has been a little tougher than the EU; it has at least pulled out of its military base, although it is slightly unclear whether that was voluntary.
The Economist's excellent editorial of
"On few, if any, occasions since the cold war has so little been done by so many in the face of such atrocity."
The article goes on to criticise the EU for
"a display of spinelessness worthy of a sea full of jellyfish."
In three months' time, I hope in co-operation with other speakers here, I will be hosting, in Parliament, an anniversary event for
In conclusion, we need a much tougher response on Uzbekistan. It is still not too late. I again draw a contrast with the response to Tiananmen square in 1989. Ironically, at the time that response was criticised in many quarters for not being strong enough, but it was actually quite swift and—compared to the response to Andijan—quite strong. Some 17 years on, there are still some sanctions in place against China; yet here we are nine months after Andijan with very little to show.
In my time in the region, I often thought that Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and, to some extent, Kazakhstan were how eastern Europe countries would have been had the Berlin wall not fallen in 1989. One might recall Ceausescu and Honecker in 1989 praising the Chinese authorities after Tiananmen square, and thank God that they were never able to copy those authorities. The regimes that we are talking about, particularly that of Uzbekistan, have copied the Chinese example. Uzbekistan, in particular, and Turkmenistan are worse than the countries of cold war eastern Europe; they are more like the Stalinist days of the early 1950s. Torture is rampant, demonstrators are shot, there are no press freedoms, censorship is complete, and there are roadblocks everywhere on the highways. We need a far tougher response from the western world and from Her Majesty's Government, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's answers.
It is a pleasure to follow Mr. Hands, who is obviously well informed about the situation on the ground in the republics that we are talking about. I commend Mr. Carmichael on securing this debate.
My interest in former Soviet republics is normally about the south Caucasus—Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. It is through my interest in that region and my involvement in the non-governmental organisation sector that I have come to understand how much of human rights work is dependent on funding from the UK Government through the global conflict prevention pool. The last GCPP report, "A joint UK Government approach to reducing conflict", states:
"Activities under the various strategies include . . . .Helping civil society organisations defuse the tensions which can lead to violent conflict. This can include some promotion of human rights."
One NGO involved in the former Soviet republics has outlined its work as consisting of: fostering institutional and legal reform by providing international comparative expertise; engaging in advocacy on a national and international level; the training of key actors—that is, young journalists, lawyers, judges, specialised NGOs and public officials; the monitoring and auditing of the public's access to official information; and raising public awareness about the practical function of freedom of expression and access to information in a democracy. Those are exactly the sort of efforts that are essential to deal with the shortcomings that have been outlined.
It may not be well known to some Members present that the Government have slashed their spending on these important efforts by 20 per cent. as a whole. It may surprise them even more to hear that funding to the former Soviet republics has been almost halved; there is a cut of nearly 50 per cent.
In a Westminster Hall debate last October, to which the Minister responded, I read out a reply that I had received from an NGO, which said that the cuts
"will have negative implications for the democratic transformations in the region. Work cannot be carried out with gaps in time; there should be continuity and an ongoing flow of activities that build on past strengths and existing experiences".
Another NGO said that it would have to
"tap core support and cut back in projects", and said that there are
"obviously other pressures on government spending, but nothing has been made clear as to why the money has gone".
Having worked with many NGOs in the south Caucasus, I am passionate about the subject, and I do not think that the cut in spending there is justified. It would seem extraordinary if the UK Government were to cut spending to the central Asian republics.
My first specific question to the Minister, together with his colleagues from the Department, is to ask him to run through the cut in spending to Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Will he confirm that there has been a cut in spending through the conflict prevention pools to projects in those republics? Nothing that we have heard today would give anyone confidence to suggest that either the human rights situation or the democratic situation have improved over the past year; if anything, they have become worse.
The Minister and I have a difference of view on the Iraq conflict, but there is an appreciation that funds, including other budget lines from the conflict prevention pools, have gone from central Asia to Iraq. If the Government have cut funding, now is the time for them to explain why, and to say which projects in the central Asian republics will be affected.
My second point is about the UK Government and the domestic reaction to the human rights situation in central Asia. Not many citizens of the republics that we are talking about live in the UK. I happen to have a Turkmen citizen—an ethnic Russian—in my constituency. He is going through some of the difficulties that the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham outlined. I have raised his case with the Home Office, and I do not expect the Minister to talk specifically about it, but I would like to give him the correspondence on the subject. In that way, he can liaise with the Home Office so that the matter can be dealt with.
It may not be clear to people outside the region that the Turkmen laws regarding marriage were such that until the beginning of the year $50,000 had to be paid as a fee for registering a marriage with a foreigner. That is extraordinary. I suspect that that was part of the effort to try to stop the ethnic Russian middle classes leaving. Be that as it may, international pressure was put on the Turkmen authorities and changes to the law have been brought about, but it would be a fantasy to think that the problems have disappeared because of that.
My constituent has appealed against a decision to refuse a certificate of approval for the marriage in the UK. She was granted a visa extension to enable her to have her child in the UK, which has happened, and she has been allowed to remain in the UK for several more months, after which her current visa status requires her to return to Turkmenistan before she can apply for a marriage visa. How extraordinary that somebody who is here in safety and has had a child is having to return to that country. We do not have enough time to read the reports from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, etc., all of which are saying that this is an issue of concern.
For prescience I shall read one paragraph from a document from the Turkmen Initiative for Human Rights, published at the beginning of January. It states:
"the Turkmen authorities had to cancel this repressive law"— the registration law—
"yet they were reluctant to offer complete freedom to their citizens, so lists of those who were not allowed to leave Turkmenistan, i.e. 'black lists' appeared in the country. According to various data these lists included between 3 to 5 thousand names. However, most of these people only learnt about their status when they were at the airport about to board a plane. When such cases became known to diplomats at foreign embassies, the Turkmen Foreign Ministry had to demonstrate great ingenuity in order to justify the actions of the border officers and special services.
Consequently, a new law was passed which requires all those wishing to exit Turkmenistan irrespective of the aim of the trip to obtain a new document—a passport for the citizens of Turkmenistan for going abroad and entering Turkmenistan—in advance of the trip."
That is not satisfactory. It would be helpful if in time, if not today, the Foreign Office clarified that position. There cannot be hundreds and thousands of Turkmen citizens in the UK; it must be a small group of people. The case has been made by verifiably independent human rights organisations that the current situation is not acceptable. I hope that the Home Office and the Foreign Office will co-ordinate to ensure that people seeking to remain in the UK are treated according to their circumstances and that they are deeply sceptical about the human rights situation in Turkmenistan.
The Government have some work to do on this matter and they have some explanations to give on the funding of projects in various central Asian republics. I am sure that the Minister will say that the UK Government have grave concerns and are doing everything that they can. However, if that is so, are they cutting their funding and, if so, why?
I congratulate my hon. Friend Mr. Carmichael on securing this important debate. The last time that I listened to a speech in the House by my hon. Friend, the outcome was a defeat for the Government by one vote. The Government will be pleased that there will not be a vote on this debate. None the less, I hope that the issues raised are treated with the degree of concern that they warrant.
I congratulate also the two speakers who preceded me—the hon. Members for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) and for Moray (Angus Robertson)—particularly the former for making a well-informed and insightful speech based on his experience of visiting all those countries in the region.
I have a degree of sympathy for the Government on such occasions, because it is normal in these debates for everybody to agree that the state of affairs in the given country is deplorable and ask the Government what they are going to do about it. The Government have scope to make headway and progress, otherwise we would have nothing to discuss, but we should not delude ourselves that the Foreign Office or wider Government are able to resolve all the ills of the world from Whitehall. None the less, this is an important debate and I hope that the Foreign Office will not try to be so realpolitik with this region that it will see wider strategic concerns taking too great a precedence over the worrying human rights abuses that have already been chronicled during this debate.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland on his vigilant opposition to the use of the death penalty around the world, which is a form of sanction that debases humanity. It is a laudable aim for all hon. Members—I am pleased that there is now a large degree of consensus across parties in Britain—to say that the death penalty is an inappropriate way to punish people and to send a wider signal to populations of other countries, which is often another of its effects.
We in this country so often take for granted a range of freedoms, including freedom of election, media freedom, freedom of trade union affiliation and religious practice, which has already been touched on, freedom of association and the rule of law and a proper independent criminal justice system. I join those who have already spoken in urging the Minister and the Government not to neglect or too readily forget the events in Andijan only 10 months or so ago. Tiananmen square took place when I was a 19-year-old and a few years have passed since then, but it lingers long in the memory and rightly so, because such events are more likely to be repeated if they are too readily forgotten.
I have four suggestions that are not directly within the remit of the Government but are, none the less, areas where they may have some scope to act. First, this region has a low profile in this country and in western Europe, north America and other parts of the world, and it is easy to neglect it. Few people in this country have ever been there and many of them probably could not locate it accurately on a world map. Few people from the region have visited our country. There is little scope for cultural interchange. As a consequence, countries that are out of sight are often out of mind as well. It would help provoke debate in this country, and raise greater concerns than have already been made apparent by groups such as Amnesty International, if people in Britain had a greater appreciation of the way of life and culture and difficulties faced by people in the region. I do not claim that that is directly in the frame of reference of the Minister, but it is worth bearing it in mind that when opportunities arise to promote understanding of that region, whether through the media or in the House, that is an important factor in bringing international pressure to bear on those who abuse their power in these countries.
Secondly, I should like to talk about poverty, which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned, including widespread hunger, unemployment and reduced life expectancy. Extreme poverty can be a powerful instrument of control for a regime that wishes to use it in that way—Zimbabwe is as graphic an illustration of that as any country. Such poverty also brutalises a society and means that the human rights concerns of the people who live there are relegated, day to day, below the more immediate concerns of keeping body and soul together. It is always difficult to try to maintain a civilised civic society when people live in extreme poverty and feel that they are willing to complain less about their circumstances, in terms of their liberties, as long as they are able to feed and shelter themselves and their families.
As the hon. Member for Moray said, the Government have scope to make progress on that issue and to try to encourage the Governments in the countries that we are discussing—in so far as we have relations with them—to do the same.
My third suggestion is to do with the issue raised about natural resources and energy in the countries of central Asia. Too often, we in the west regard the need to provide for our energy requirements and drive up our standard of living as taking precedence over all forms of foreign relations. I do not wish to be unrealistic; like my constituents, I drive a car and heat a home, and we should guard against being unduly hypocritical. None the less, rather than seeing the need to increase our energy supply as a reason for overlooking human rights, we should regard it more as a lever for change and a way of exercising pressure elsewhere. The Government need to be forceful in that regard.
My final thought is not directly a matter of Government policy, but it is about an issue that they may seek to influence. I do not believe that human rights ever quite come about by Governments signing treaties or forcing them to emerge artificially. The process is more subtle and difficult than that; it is about engendering in people, and those to whom they give their consent to rule, a sense of values that they regard as impossible to violate.
That is more delicate than something that a Foreign Secretary decrees should happen by signing a piece of paper, and it is a worldwide process. I do not regard human rights and civil liberties as the particular preserve of those who happen to be fortunate enough to live in a country in which Government Ministers treat such issues with due concern. That is why I particularly commend the work of Amnesty International, an organisation of which I am a member, and others. They see the issue in a global context, remind us to be vigilant and foster the desire in people throughout the world to live free from tyranny and terror.
I leave those thoughts with the Minister and look forward to hearing his speech and that of the official Conservative spokesman, Mr. Clifton-Brown. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer many of the concerns raised this morning.
I am grateful for having caught your eye in this debate, Mr. Cook. I apologise to the Chamber as I have just developed a nose bleed. I am sorry if I look unsavoury; that is the reason why.
I congratulate Mr. Carmichael on securing this debate. As he says, not enough attention is paid to central Asia. Some appalling human rights abuses are going on in that part of the world, although as I said during my intervention on the hon. Gentleman, it is wrong to brand all five "stans" in the same way. They have very different populations. Some have greater Russian populations—for example, 30 per cent. of Kazakhstan's population is Russian, but only 3.5 per cent. of Tajikistan's is Russian. The countries are very different in make-up; they have different languages, different religious beliefs and consequently different Governments. They have varying human rights records. For the sake of completeness, I shall talk about all five countries. I shall end with Uzbekistan and the problems there following the massacre.
Tajikistan has perhaps the best human rights and democratic record of the lot. It has independent television, allows independent trade unions and permits public assembly, albeit with a licence, and those are all characteristics of the democratic, open state that we would like to see.
My right hon. Friend Mr. Hague and I saw the Kazakh Foreign Minister yesterday. Although there are concerns about President Nazarbayev's recent re-election, Kazakhstan wants to do business with the west. The Foreign Minister made it absolutely clear that he was here to promote his country and that it wants to move towards democracy and better human rights.
We learned one very interesting fact from the Foreign Minister: within four years, Kazakhstan will become the world's largest exporter of uranium. Recently, it signed a memorandum of understanding with the Russians. This is well outside the scope of this debate, but if we could persuade the Iranians to have a system under which the Russians processed their uranium, that uranium would come from Kazakhstan. That is an interesting possibility. Kazakhstan has rich oil and gas reserves.
Turkmenistan has already been referred to. It is effectively a one-party state; the Democratic party of Turkmenistan is the only registered political party and faces no serious opposition. [Interruption.] Shades of the situation in this country? Perhaps not—the Opposition here are getting stronger, and we do not want a one-party state.
Perhaps more worryingly, Kyrgyzstan faces a possible break-up as a country. An article by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting states:
"Kyrgyzstan has been in constant turmoil in recent months, with protests, confrontations and scandals following one another in close succession."
The article goes on to say:
"When it comes to the basic tasks of government—law and order, resource management, and reform—the authorities are failing badly, and they are also losing out to their critics in the battle for public opinion.
Given all these circumstances, one hears more and more often the view that the country is swiftly moving towards a tragic finale where it becomes patently apparent that Kyrgyzstan has not developed into a fully-fledged nation, and peace-keeping forces are brought in from the outside."
The article states that the greatest pessimists predict that Kyrgyzstan could break into two.
That leads me to Uzbekistan, the last of the five "stans". It will be useful to cite a letter written by the organisation Human Rights Watch that restates the UN's fundamental declaration on human rights, the core principle on which the UN was founded and to which all nations on Earth should adhere. The letter states:
"The United Nations Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms sets forth the standards by which the international community assesses states' treatment of rights defenders . . . Article 1 of the declaration states clearly that, 'Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels.' Article 2 stipulates that each state has a responsibility and duty to create all conditions necessary to ensure that all persons under its jurisdiction, individually and in association with others, are able to enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms in practice."
As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, we often take what we have in this democratic country of ours, and in the west, for granted. It is too easy to forget how possible it is to go about one's daily life in an atmosphere of peace and freedom.
So what happened in Uzbekistan? There have been various descriptions, but the best I have read comes from Human Rights Watch. I shall quote it to show how bad what happened in Uzbekistan on
"In the early morning hours of May 13, gunmen attacked government buildings, killed security officials, broke into the city prison, took over the local government building . . . and took hostages. Towards dawn, they began to prepare for a large protest in Bobur Square, in front of the hokimiat, and mobilized people to attend. By 11.00 a.m., as word spread, the protest grew into the thousands, as people came of their own will and vented their grievances about poverty and government repression. When government forces sealed off the square and started shooting indiscriminately, the protesters fled. Hundreds of them were ambushed by government forces, which gunned them down without warning. This stunning use of excessive force has been documented by the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations."
Yet we have heard relatively little about that slaughter in Andijan in this Parliament or in the world's media. My hon. Friend Mr. Hands quoted an article from The Economist. During his excellent, fluent speech, which reflected his knowledge of the area, my hon. Friend told us that Uzbekistan is a member of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and has a partnership and co-operation agreement with the European Union, so there is some justification in allowing Europe, with its famous common security policy, to take the lead. He also quoted from an article in The Economist, which continues with a wonderful bit of irony:
"If so, the European Union has risen to the occasion as grandly as it did over Bosnia, Iraq and on so many other occasions: with a display of spinelessness worthy of a sea full of jellyfish."
Like the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, my hon. Friend has tabled questions about the visit to Germany of the Uzbek Foreign Minister—there is no reason why he should not be held to account for his country's activities.
I can give many examples from reports on the matters that concern me—torture; secret trials; people who do not have access to proper lawyers; people who are given long sentences without justification; and, perhaps worst of all, the case of Mutabar Tojibaeva. An article from Human Rights Watch dated
"The trial that led to the sentence of Tojibaeva is so unsound that her conviction cannot be allowed to stand . . . We view Tojibaeva's conviction as part of a pattern of persecution against independent voices and critics within civil society since the Andijan massacre. The ferocity of this pattern is unprecedented even when judged against Uzbekistan's 14-year history of repression since independence from the Soviet Union."
Uzbekistan is a real pariah state, and the world should focus on it.
In closing, I have a few questions for the Minister. No doubt he will run through all the "stans". Perhaps he will say a little about what Government representation we have in each. As the Government are in embassy-closing mode, can he reassure us that, in view of the problems in these countries, none of our embassies or consulates there will close. Yesterday we were told by the Foreign Secretary that we recently opened a second consulate in Kazakhstan. That is a good sign; we want to see British representation maintained at the highest level in these countries.
There have been alarming reports from Ukraine and other countries that are sending refugees back to Uzbekistan. One can only imagine the fate of such people. In particular, I refer to a report from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, on Ukraine's decision to return Uzbek asylum seekers. It says that Mr De Gucht, the OSCE's current Chairman-in-Office, has expressed his consternation at the decision taken by the Ukraine authorities to extradite 11 Uzbek asylum seekers back to Uzbekistan. What representations are the British Government making to Governments who propose to send refugees back to Ukbekistan? They are in grave danger of being persecuted, if not executed, if sent back.
I am mindful of the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments about the dangers of applying common standards across the five "stans", which were perfectly legitimate. In this context, does he share my concern that there have been instances of the four other "stans" sending back to Uzbekistan people who have subsequently been the subject of unfair trials and have been sentenced to death? It is all very well to say that there are good human rights practices within some of the countries, but they should not be allowed to be blind to the poor practices of their neighbour, Uzbekistan.
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is no recognition in each of the countries—at least in public; there might be in private—of the conditions in the others. Again, the British Government could make some useful representations to each country about the conditions in the others, and the fact that we expect to see articles 1 and 2 of the United Nations conventions upheld by every single country. A fundamental aspect of those articles is that refugees should not be returned to countries where they are likely to be persecuted or, worse, executed. One of the worst consequences of refugees going back to Uzbekistan is that a number of them have simply disappeared. Their families do not know where they are or what has happened to them; that is reminiscent of some of the dark days of the Peron regime, and it is very unsatisfactory.
In conclusion, this is an interesting but potentially unstable region. The western world can do it a great deal of good through unilateral, bilateral and multilateral contact with its countries as they emerge from the shadows of the Soviet Union. We have been engaged in the democratic process for 400 or 500 years; they have not. They are learning all the time, and they can learn a great deal from the west, particularly from the United Kingdom Government who have a worldwide perspective on freedom and proper recognition of human rights. I hope that we will hear from the Minister that the British Government are doing a great deal in that respect.
I congratulate Mr. Carmichael on having secured the debate. Its merit was already proven before I rose to my feet, and I hope that I shall strengthen hon. Members' convictions that the debate is worth while by the remarks that I am able to offer.
I welcome the opportunity to underline our commitment to improving human rights in central Asia. I also pay tribute—I would be remiss to do anything else—to the longstanding interest in these matters, in particular the abolition of the death penalty, of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, and acknowledge the important work undertaken by non-governmental organisations such as those, including Amnesty International, that he generously recognised at the beginning of his speech. I shall ensure that the terms of this debate are shared with my ministerial colleagues in the Department for International Development, as he requested in the course of his remarks.
It is already clear, on the basis of our discussion this morning, that the House is united in its profound concern about the continuing negative trend on human rights in central Asia. Let me assure hon. Members that the Government continue to place a high priority on trying to bring about improvements. We remain committed to encouraging, cajoling and, where possible, co-operating with the countries in the region, to help to bring about greater freedoms and the development of civil society. We also remain focused on the difficult question, which has been honestly recognised, of how, in practice, the United Kingdom, acting in concert with the European Union and other international partners, can best effect positive change, not least in countries with a record of repression.
Mr. Clifton-Brown, urged me to set out the level of representation at our posts in central Asia. Essentially, we have embassies in all except Kyrgyztan; I shall write to him for the sake of completeness. On the matter of the Uzbek refugees, we have made representations to the Kyrgys, Kazakhs, Russian and Ukrainian authorities to allow the United Nations high commissioner for refugees to fulfil its procedures before decisions are taken on extradition. The Government have urged the relevant authorities to continue to abide by their commitments to the United Nations conventions on refugees and against torture, and the Uzbek authorities to treat any returned refugees according to their international commitments. I raised the issue directly with the Kyrgys Foreign Minister when I met him last month.
The Minister has referred to the importance of co-operating with the different agencies that work in the region as well as with the Governments. Normally, the benefit of debates such as this is that they allow us to put matters on record. Can I say to the Minister that I have deliberately not placed on record today a number of significant matters of concern to NGOs because I am concerned, as are others, about affecting the work of the NGOs in those areas. Would the Minister undertake to join me as part of a cross-party delegation to meet NGOs such as Amnesty International, Christian Aid and others involved in the region to hear from them about their concerns and to consider how Government and NGO might work effectively together in the area?
I am, of course, sensitive to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman and to the sensitivities of the important, brave work that some of the NGOs undertake. I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and those who represent the NGOs to address these questions. Given my background with these organisations, it would be bizarre if I were unwilling to meet them. I am happy to give that undertaking.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has raised an extremely important point, which I also meant to raise. Would the Minister wholeheartedly condemn the Governments, such as those of Russia and Uzbekistan, who make it extremely difficult for NGOs? Russia wants to ban NGOs, and Uzbekistan is thinking about following those lines. Would he wholeheartedly condemn any Government who seek to ban the work of NGOs in their country?
The hon. Gentleman raises a timely issue. I was in Moscow only last week, and at my request I met a cross-section of the NGOs, particularly those dealing with human rights in Russia, and heard directly from some genuinely inspiring individuals the difficulties and concerns that they fear in the light of the passage of the NGO law through the state Duma. It is a matter of record that through our embassy in Moscow we have raised such concerns directly with the Russian Government and members of the Duma.
Given my conversations with the NGOs, our responsibility is to follow closely the implementation of the NGO law. It has been moderated from the original proposals. None the less, I am clear that we will focus considerably on the human rights record and the treatment of NGOs in Russia not only in the immediate weeks and months ahead in anticipation of the G8 meeting in St. Petersburg in July, but after July as well. One of the points put to me by the NGOs was that they were aware that there would be a great deal of international scrutiny in the immediate months ahead, but that their concern was to ensure that that scrutiny would continue once the international focus moved away from the Russian Government's efforts for the G8.
On the subject of the Minister's constructive-sounding talks with Russia, what specific representations has he made about the situation in Uzbekistan? My experience to date has been that the Russians appear wholeheartedly to back the official Uzbek line. What specific things has he been pressing Russia, as a country with great influence in the regions, to do?
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have bilateral conversations with the Russians about the central Asian republics and Uzbekistan as part of that area. My discussions in Moscow focused principally and directly on the situation with human rights and NGOs in Russia, given the bilateral focus of that visit. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to address the other issues, including engagement with the central Asian republics, with Russian interlocutors on a regular basis.
I want also to address one or two specific points raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, before I move on to some of the specific countries that have understandably featured prominently in our debate. The hon. Gentleman has long campaigned on the death penalty, and I am pleased to note that Turkmenistan has abolished the death penalty, while Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have introduced moratoriums. However, it is regrettable that the Uzbek authorities have not introduced a moratorium pending the planned abolition of the death penalty in 2008. No death penalties appear to have been passed since the decision to abolish them was taken last August, according to the information that I have seen. I would strongly urge all central Asian countries to abolish the death penalty as soon as possible.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the human rights council of the United Nations, and in particularly the approach of the United States towards the evolution of that organisation in light of the comments made by John Bolton, the US representative to the United Nations. It is with some relief that I address the Chamber as a representative of the British Government, rather than on behalf of any other sovereign Government. I want to make a substantive point, which bears on our earlier discussion on how we can exercise influence rather than—with the greatest respect to the earnest and sincere speeches made today—simply make speeches about the difficult challenges we face in advancing the global agenda on human rights.
I was privileged to travel to the United Nations General Assembly in New York last year, in our capacity as president of the European Union, for a number of third country meetings. I took the opportunity to meet the United Kingdom's permanent representative, a distinguished and able diplomat, and discuss the progress that had been made in anticipation of the millennium review summit, which had taken place the previous week and where the issues of institutional reform in the UN were discussed. I left with a clear sense of how central the role of the United Kingdom had been in securing the albeit limited progress on UN reform based on the report by the high-level panel and the Secretary-General.
It was clear to me in the course of my conversations with the permanent representative that but for the language that had been secured in the Gleneagles communiqué the previous July, with a number of commitments from a range of countries that included the United States, it would have been a more difficult endeavour to secure the changes that we were looking for and from some of the amendments that had originally been proposed by other partners, including the United States. That is a practical example of where, far away from the scrutiny of the media and from newspaper headlines, important and vital work is being taken forward by British diplomats in pursuit of the goals that all Members would share, I am sure.
The Minister's remarks call for a comment. He may be aware that I was part of the all-party delegation that recently went to the UN. We met Emyr Jones Parry, our permanent representative, for whom we all had the highest regard. Many reforms are going on in the UN at the moment, of which the human rights council is only one. Will the Minister assure us that that reform will be one of the highest priorities for the British Government when pressing the UN for reform?
I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we continue to work on the issue. The emphasis that Emyr Jones Parry was able to stress when I met him last year was part of a continuity of approach, which unlike the focus and scrutiny secured by the millennium review summit is a matter of continuing work for the United Kingdom's mission in the United Nations.
I will write to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on the issues that he has raised about torture and its use in intelligence. However, I want to place a clear statement on the record, as he suggested. The United Kingdom unreservedly condemns the use of torture and has worked hard with international partners to eradicate the practice. The British Government, including the intelligence and security agencies, never use torture for any purpose, including obtaining information, and nor would we instigate others to do so. I would be happy to set out a fuller response to the hon. Gentleman's direct question, so that it is a matter of public record.
When the Minister sets out the Government's position, which I look forward to receiving, will he take care to outline their position not only on his unambiguous statement today but on the attention that is given to the provenance of intelligence from other countries? To use a hypothetical example, if the United States obtained information from Uzbekistan, which was passed on to us, would the roots of that intelligence be available to the UK Government and would they bear that in mind in its use?
That has understandably been a matter of concern, and I will be happy to set out the British Government's position when I write directly to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the treatment of religious minorities, in particular those of the Christian faith in central Asia. It is right to acknowledge that Christians are discriminated against across the region, as are other religions. Just this week, the last synagogue in Tajikistan was pulled down. Our embassies throughout the region meet frequently with members of all faiths and lobby their host Governments, both in individual cases and more generally on the importance of freedom of religion. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will be a continued focus of our work in the months and years ahead.
Uzbekistan featured prominently in several contributions to the debate. The Foreign Affairs Committee has this year recognised that human rights are at the forefront of our relationship with Uzbekistan. That is a welcome reflection of the work of our ambassador David Moran and his team in Tashkent, who have been pursuing our agenda with the Uzbeks in increasingly difficult circumstances.
Ten months ago, as Mr. Hands described in his wide-ranging speech, the world learned of a place called Andijan in Uzbekistan, for all the wrong reasons. We have recognised the criminal nature of armed attacks on the prison, which acted as the catalyst for the ensuing events. But that element of criminality cannot begin to excuse the excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by the Uzbek security forces in Andijan.
I appreciate the Minister's continued condemnation in this context and the answers that have been given to various written parliamentary questions, but will he explain why Uzbekistan, for example, is still a member of the NATO partnership for peace? He has answered me on that point that it is up to Britain and our NATO allies; but has Britain put it to our NATO allies that it is unacceptable for Uzbekistan to be part of an organisation called a partnership for peace?
Let me address the hon. Gentleman's specific point in the course of my remarks about what steps the European Union is taking; I shall indeed also answer his point about NATO.
As all Members of the House are aware, the Uzbek authorities have consistently rejected calls for an independent inquiry into the tragic events that we have discussed this morning, despite claiming to be committed to the standards of both the United Nations and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Instead, since May last year we have witnessed a programme of detention and harassment of those, including human rights defenders, journalists and others, who have questioned the authorities' version of events in Andijan on the days in question. Embassies have not been immune from the Government's drive to prevent those with concerns about human rights in Uzbekistan from expressing them.
As to the specific matter of what action has been taken, I shall speak first about the European Union and then deal with the question of NATO. On
During the debate I was asked why the Uzbek interior Minister was able to secure medical treatment in Germany. My understanding is that Almatov's visa was issued before the visa ban came into force. Germany checked that the medical case for the visa was urgent before deciding to issue it. However, I understand that the visa ban is now fully in force.
The third aspect of work that progressed at the General Affairs Council of
The NATO Secretary-General has also supported the call of the United Nations for an independent inquiry, to which I have already referred. The United Kingdom believes that NATO co-operation with Uzbekistan should focus on those areas that will promote adherence to our shared values: specifically, democratic control of the armed forces and respect for human rights. NATO is currently reviewing training programmes case by case, on the basis that I have just set out—to consider whether the areas in question will promote adherence to the shared values that I mentioned.
What is the reason for the apparent inconsistency in the European Union and NATO approaches? If it is right for the EU to suspend meetings, why should not the United Kingdom Government within NATO pursue a suspension of Uzbekistan's membership of partnership for peace?
There is no categoric answer that can always be offered to the challenge of dealing with repressive regimes with bad human rights records. I would not pretend before the House that policy-making is that straightforward. Instead, it is necessary to consider both what influence can be exerted and what instruments are available for exercising that influence. The question how best to secure such influence is a reasonable one. It is a matter that we keep under review, in relation to the international organisations of which we are a part—such as the European Union and NATO—but it is simply a fact that the EU is a distinct international organisation from NATO.
The views that we express within those organisations do not necessarily differ in accordance with the responses that are then agreed within them. It is a logical fallacy to suggest that differing approaches taken by NATO and the EU show a disparity in the views that were expressed by the British Government. We take to both those forums a view about how best to advance the interests of human rights. That is the basis on which we conduct our discussions with international partners, and an agreement is then reached.
I am glad to say that our concerns are shared throughout the European Union and the wider international community. Seventy-three countries supported the United Nations resolution that called for an independent inquiry into events in Andijan and for the Uzbek authorities to deal with numerous other areas of concern, including freedom of expression and freedom of religion. A stable, prosperous and democratic Uzbekistan would have an important role to play in the development of central Asia. We continue to be interested in a meaningful dialogue with the Uzbeks, both bilaterally and within the EU, on co-operation on broader political and economic reforms. However, that will be possible only against a backdrop of progress on human rights, democratic reform and the development of civil society. [Interruption.]
Order. The Minister is responding to the debate and has the Floor. Hon. Members will please observe parliamentary protocol.
Thank you, Mr. Cook. I assure hon. Members that the issue of Andijan and human rights in Uzbekistan remains a focus of our work. Genuine, positive progress must be made. The EU has kept channels for dialogue open, including through its special representative for central Asia, Jan Kubis. I discussed with him only yesterday his plans to engage with the Uzbek Government at the highest levels to encourage them to act. We agreed, as do all our European Union partners, that it is the clear responsibility of the Uzbek authorities to address the concerns of the EU and the international community at large, by allowing an element of external scrutiny of Andijan and by demonstrating a genuine willingness to reform.
With the greatest of respect, I have been very generous in giving way and I am conscious of the time. I think that it would be inappropriate, given the range of countries that have been covered in the debate, if I responded solely on the issue of Uzbekistan, significant and important though it is.
I have dwelt, necessarily, on Uzbekistan, and the restrictive measures introduced in the wake of the terrible events in Andijan, but the overall human rights situation in Turkmenistan remains arguably worse. In the past three years the EU has co-sponsored three resolutions on Turkmenistan before the UN General Assembly and two before the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
There are a few precious positives to recognise. The death penalty has been abolished in Turkmenistan, legislation was passed last year banning the use of child labour, and an increased number of religious minorities have now been registered. However, as a report by the UN Secretary-General noted last September, there is a lack of overall improvement in addressing serious human rights violations.
Our embassy in Ashgabat does invaluable work both raising individual cases and lobbying over broader human rights concerns with the Turkmen authorities. It runs projects aimed at opening Turkmenistan to the outside world, including internet projects and scholarships. It also supports the embryonic civil society, for example through resource centres and capacity training. The EU and OSCE also continue to engage with the Turkmen authorities to bring about improvements on basic human rights and freedoms.
On the specific consular case that Angus Robertson put to me, I shall of course be content to pass on the correspondence directly to my colleagues in the Home Office, given the points that he raised about his constituents. More generally, when dealing with an essentially isolationist regime such as that of Turkmenistan, engagement—where necessary critical engagement—is exceedingly important. However, in calibrating that we should always be careful to avoid taking action that might rebound on the people that it is meant to help.
Our policy is to ensure that the Turkmen Government are in no doubt about our position and to maximise the leverage that we have by acting closely with the wider international community. Bringing about even small, incremental change in a largely closed country such as Turkmenistan is not easy, but the Turkmen Government take heed, for example, of the United Nations. We shall continue to make constructive use of all the levers at our disposal to encourage positive reform in Turkmenistan.
Later this year, the Tajiks will go to the polls to elect their president. That is a country that even in its own short history of independence since 1991 has experienced at first hand the dire consequences of a protracted and bloody civil war.