|
| |
Fred Bennett's letter to the Minister of State and Deputy Leader of the
House of Lords, United Kingdom
25th May, 2003
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
Minister of State and Deputy Leader of the House of Lords
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
London SW1A 2AH
Dear Baroness Symons,
I read in Hansard your contribution to the debate on May 12th about the
ratification of the Chile-EU Association Agreement and your reference to the
assassination by agents of the Chilean state of Fr. Michael Woodward, my
brother-in-law.
On that occasion and in the debate on the same subject of the Standing Committee
of the Commons on May 20th, serious reservations about Chile's recent and past
human rights record and about the absence of mechanisms in the British
Parliament for monitoring the human rights Articles of the Agreement were
expressed. Prominent amongst them were those of Lord Avebury in the Lords.
In September 2001 Dr. Dennis MacShane, then Parliamentary Under Secretary of the
Foreign Office, had written to Lord Avebury that President Lagos personally had
made clear his belief that "the role of the government is to ensure that the
courts have the freedom and independence that they need to ensure due process".
Now, almost two years later, speaking for the Government in the House of Lords,
you referred to Michael's case and then repeated that "President Lagos has said
that his government is committed to ensuring that the courts have the necessary
independence to advance the process of human rights cases". You added: "So we
have received these assurances from the Chilean President." This insistence on
President Lagos' personal commitment carries no reassurance for anyone familiar
with his actions, and those of his government in human rights matters.
Before learning of the debate in the House of Lords, my wife, Pat, Michael
Woodward's sister, wrote to the Foreign Secretary on 15th May. She sent him
copies of her letter to the President of the European Council of Ministers
(attached), alleging that Chile was in breach of the human rights articles of
the Association Agreement - Article 1 (Clause 1), Article 12 (Clause 2) and
Article 16 (Clause 1). Your intervention in the Lords predated that letter and
it would be understandable if Mr. Ivor Caplin (the Government's spokesman in the
Commons) was not aware of it, given that he was speaking just a few days after
the letter had reached the Foreign Secretary´s Private Office. However, all the
information contained in the letter was already known to the British Government
long before the debates in Parliament and, indeed, much of it came from official
British sources. As you rightly pointed out in the debate, the British
Government has played an important role in trying to ensure due process in Pat's
case.
I found it surprising, therefore, that apparently neither you nor Mr. Caplin
should have taken into account, when referring to the Chilean government's human
rights practices:
(a) the tampering with evidence which has taken place, with the connivance of
the Programa de Derechos Humanos, the Ministry of the Interior (of which it
forms a part), and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in relation to the law suit
presented by Pat in Chile
(b) that a judge, however independent, cannot advance with an investigation if
she has no time for it and if the Supreme Court responds to an appeal for help,
not by alleviating her burden but by transferring to her all the other human
rights cases in the Region - all of which has, again, happened in the case of
Pat's law suit
(c) that the Chilean government, having failed to rectify the Chilean Navy's
denials that a British citizen had been tortured and murdered on the Esmeralda -
a matter which is now sub judice - had requested, and received, permission from
the British government for that ship to visit London in July on a training
cruise
It is noteworthy that President Lagos personally addressed the cadets when the
Esmeralda sailed from Valparaiso on its current cruise, and made a pointed
reference to Chile as a country in which "human rights are respected". In so
doing, speaking from the decks of a ship on which unpunished crimes of torture
were committed, he showed a remarkable lack of sensitivity.
As regards mechanisms for monitoring the human rights clauses of the Agreement,
you stated: "Article 9 of the agreement provides scope for parliamentary
co-operation between the Chilean Congress and the European Parliament. However,
no article covers co-operation between national parliaments. That is for the
consideration of national parliaments individually, rather than as part of the
agreement".
Lord Avebury had said earlier: "I hope that those questions can be considered,
not necessarily this evening but at some time before we get down to work on
implementing the two [Chile and Egypt] association agreements so that we can see
how the Government intend to monitor and watch them over the yearsŠ.". It is
important that, in order to do so effectively, those who consider these
questions should be fully aware of the facts related to the Chilean Government's
human rights policies and activities, as stated above. In fact, these were not
made known by the government during the recent debates.
The manner in which this news was handled last week is further evidence that the
human rights aspects of the EU Agreement are being totally ignored in Chile. The
Chilean Senate announced that the Foreign Secrteary had told Senator Sergio
Paéz, in a 40 minute interview, that the Agreement had been ratified by
Parliament (sic) and there were several press references to the ratification of
what was described as a free trade agreement. There were no references to the
reservations expressed by British Parlamentarians regarding human rights. I
would like to suggest that the British Embassy has a role to play in bringing
the human rights issue into debate in Chile, perhaps as part of its project
work, referred to by Mr. Caplin, promoting reform related to torture.
Yours sincerely,
Fred Bennetts
|
