Unpeople: Britain's Secret Human Rights Abuses

by Mark Curtis

  By 1970 the JIC was noting Cuba's 'dramatic social improvements, eg in the virtual eradication of illiteracy and unemployment and in the fields of health and education'. These features 'set Cuba apart from its neighbours'; where it was closer to them was in the 'traditional Latin American pattern of authoritarian government' and the 'coercive machinery' used by the Cuban government – i.e., forms of repression also used by British allies in the region, but without any of the improvements in welfare that Cuba could offer.4'

  Favoured clients needed to be kept in power – elites who would counter popular forces in their country. A similar principle applied at home, since it was understood by planners that the British public were also sympathetic to nationalist forces overseas. This reflected deeply elitist beliefs on the part of British policy-makers. For example, a Colonial Office minute from 1946 observed that:

  A major civilising influence comes from the action of the elite among a community, but only if the social structure permits the natural elite to emerge from the average ruck.

  In the Middle East this required alliances with 'traditional' ruling groups which would support Western interests, a policy often well understood by planners as supporting 'reactionary' forces against 'progressive' ones.44

  The very thin basis of British foreign policy is clearly revealed in these files: that fundamental British policies invariably do not – and are understood not to – benfit people overseas, but harm them. They also have nothing to do with promoting the interests of the British population as a whole, but rather the interests of a political and economic elite in whose interest policy is made. Basic British goals also have nothing to do with promoting the grand principles intended for public con- sumption, but with maintaining Britain's political status in the world and with organising the global economy to benefit British, and Western, businesses.

  PART III

  TERROR, AGGRESSION

  9

  FRIENDLY TERRORISTS:

  NEW LABOUR'S KEY

  ALLIES

  There are certain issues which it is not done to mention in respectable circles, and one of these is British involvement in terrorism.

  If we define 'terrorism' as the systematic use of violence and intimidation for political ends, then there are two kinds of terrorism in the world today: on the one hand, the campaigns of private networks like al Qaeda; on the other, the violence promoted and sponsored by states. The latter operates on a considerably greater scale, yet its perpetrators receive little or no attention in the mainstream media – particularly when they are British allies. Indeed, on any rational indicator, during a supposed 'war against terrorism' Britain counts as one of the leading supporters of terrorism in the world. Moreover, Britain's support to states promoting terrorism has been noticeably stepped up following the invasion of Iraq.

  Russia: Another special relationship

  Russian atrocities in Chechnya have worsened throughout 2003 and 2004, according to human-rights groups. When Russia invaded the province in 1999, the capital, Grozny, was flattened in a ferocious attack by indiscriminate bombing that killed thousands. Since then Chechnya has been pacified with executions, torture, rape and hundreds of 'disappearances'. Overall, untold thousands of people have been killed, tens of thousands have been forced to flee and, according to the Russian press, tens of thousands of Chechen children suffer from traumas, congenital pathologies and illnesses caused by the war. While Britain was busy invading Iraq in March-April 2003, Human Rights Watch was documenting the highest rate of 'disappearances' since the beginning of the conflict in Chechnya and concluding that violations were increasing and that the situation was 'abysmal'.1

  In June 2003 Russia expanded the conflict still further by conducting a series of operations in the neighbouring republic of Ingushetia, replicating many of the abuses committed in Chechnya itself. Ingushetia houses around 80,000 refugees who have fled the Chechen conflict; it had been a relatively safe, peaceful area until Russian forces began attempting to close the camps and force many of the refugees back to Chechnya in December 2002. The result has been 'numerous cases of arbitrary detention, ill-treatment and looting' as well as killings, according to Human Rights Watch.2

  The Blair government has essentially backed Russian President Vladimir Putin's strategy in Chechnya all the way. While Grozny was being flattened at the beginning of 2000, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon was speaking of engaging Russia 'in a constructive bilateral defence relationship'. Blair himself has been the most outspoken apologist for Russian terror in Chechnya and, at numerous meetings with President Putin, has consistently publicly defended Russia and praised its leader. Indeed, Blair has even boasted of this support, once conceding that 'I have always been more understanding of the Russian position [regarding Chechnya], perhaps, than many others'.3

  Meanwhile, relations with the Russian military have deepened and none of the potential levers available to London – an annual aid programme, a large line of export credit and major trade relations – has been used to press Moscow. The government, and much of the media, have maintained the fiction that the only option to pressure Russia is all-oiit war.

  Blair met Putin in June 2003 just as the Russian military was reactivating its campaign to widen the conflict into Ingushetia. He told parliament that he would mention Chechnya in his talks with Putin, adding that 'it's also important that we support Russia in her action against terrorism'. In a joint press conference Blair said, 'I think the leadership of President Putin offers not just tremendous hope for Russia, but also for the wider world. I would pay tribute to him as a partner and as a friend'. There was only one possible allusion to Chechnya when Blair said that the two leaders had discussed 'all those things you would expect us to cover'. Foreign Office minister Denis MacShane has even referred to 'allegations of human rights violations' in the province.4

  At this time Blair also reportedly claimed, without offering any evidence, that Chechens had fought in Iraq against US and British forces. He repeated this allegation in parliament in September citing 'US military sources'. A few months later, the government admitted that 'we have no evidence of Chechen terrorists being in Iraq'.5

  This meeting took place three months after a referendum in Chechnya blatantly designed to secure a win for Moscow's position on a mandate for a new constitution for the province. It took place 'in atrocious circumstances – widespread arbitrary detention, daily disappearances and an overall atmosphere of impunity', according to Human Rights Watch. This was good enough for Blair, who praised the process by telling the Russians that T think it is absolutely right that you resolve [the situation] through the policy process and political dialogue that you have engaged in'.6

  Human Rights Watch says that Blair praised the election 'as if it were a substantial step towards a stable democracy' when in fact it was 'a fiction'. Lord Judd, the Council of Europe's special rapporteur on Chechnya, resigned in protest at the conditions in which the referendum took place.7 Elections followed in October, also condemned by various international organisations as blatantly rigged, and which guaranteed victory for Moscow's candidate, Akhmed Kadyrov (who was assassinated in May 2004).

  British policy has changed not a jot. Its support for 'democracy' has always been only for the cameras: Russia had already successfully destroyed the previous Chechen government of Asian Maskhadov, which had been democratically elected, and had received no less support from Whitehall.

  Britain continues to help Putin by consistently pushing the line that Russia is engaged in 'counter-terrorist operations' in Chechnya. Meanwhile, evidence has emerged of the Russian security services' involvement in causing the September 1999 blasts which provided the pretext for the Russian invasion in the first place. There is now also evidence that Russian forces in Chechnya are deliberately planting mines and organising provocations which are then attributed to Chechen guerrillas.8

  By 2004, hurnan-rights atrocities in Chechnya were once again increasing. Russians troops were committing numerous atrocities
such as 'disappearances', torture and attacks on civilians in various parts of the province. Of Chechnya's population of 800,000, around 100,000 remained displaced from their homes. According to Human Rights Watch:

  Russian forces round up thousands of men in raids, loot homes, physically abuse villagers and frequently commit extrajudicial executions. Those detained face beatings and other forms of torture, aimed at coercing confessions or information about Chechen forces. Federal forces routinely extort money from detainees' relatives as a condition for release.9

  Britain has rejected the call for an international tribunal on war crimes in Chechnya as 'counter-productive' – such processes being reserved for official enemies such as Saddam.10 While Putin deepens a system of authoritarian control over Russia as a whole, undermining political pluralism and media freedom, Blair scrupulously avoids any comment, let alone action, which has the potential to offend him.

  This is 'the most serious human rights crisis of the new decade in Europe', according to Human Rights Watch. Yet it is not true to say, as the Guardian has done, that 'in Chechnya, the West looks the other way'.11 British policy is not to turn a blind eye to Russian terror: it is to support it.

  Colombia: Stepping up support

  The Colombian military and police are the worst human-rights offenders in the Western hemisphere. The line peddled by London and Washington is that these forces are engaged in a fight against drugs and terrorism perpetrated by guerrillas and drug- traffickers. The reality is that while the guerrilla groups certainly engage in terrorism and drug-trafficking, the main responsibility for both lies with the state and the right-wing paramilitaries. According to a UN report from 2000, the Colombian military tolerate and collaborate with the illegal paramilitary groups:

  The state bears the responsibility for the present proportions and complexity of the paramilitary problem. The direct and indirect aiding and abetting of paramilitarism is aggravated by the absence of any effective policy to combat it.12

  The main targets of killings are civil society activists such as trade-union leaders, teachers, land-reform and human-rights campaigners and peasant and indigenous leaders, at least 15,000 of whom have been killed in the past ten years.

  The war in Colombia is a complex one, but is essentially over the control of resources in a deeply unequal society: the elite, especially the large landowners, control most of the wealth while the majority of the population lives in poverty. Three per cent of landowners own more than 70 per cent of the land; 57 per cent of the farmers subsist on less than 3 per cent of the land. The basic role of the state is to marginalise the popular forces and ensure that Colombia's resources – notably oil – remain in the correct hands.

  US strategy is to support this. Since 2000, US military aid of more than £2 billion has been poured into Colombia, which is the second largest recipient after Israel. The 'war on drugs' is a cover for supporting the Colombian state and military in its acts to counter progressive forces calling for social change. As Doug Stokes of the University of Aberystwyth has pointed out, given the close links between the Colombian military and paramilitaries, 'in effect, US military aid is going directly to the major terrorist networks throughout Colombia, who traffic cocaine into US markets to fund their activities'.13 US training is also provided to some Colombian brigades named by Human Rights Watch as involved in paramilitary killings.

  Britain has long provided aid to Colombia outside of media and parliamentary scrutiny. The SAS were sent to Colombia in 1989 and appear to have been there ever since. This was reported only briefly in the early 1990s; since then the government has refused to disclose any details.

  Trade and Foreign Office minister Baroness Symons noted in October 1997 that Britain had provided £14 million in 'drugs related assistance' since 1989, 'focusing mainly on law enforcement, training, demand reduction and alternative development'. In November 1999 the government said that 'UK military assistance is provided to Colombia to meet specific requests'. Examples of this included 'some assistance to the counternarcotics authorities', while 'advisory visits and information exchanges have taken place on operations in urban theatres, counter-guerrilla strategy, and psychiatry'. It added that 'military assistance offered to the Colombians generally includes human rights elements'. In January 2000, Foreign Office minister Keith Vaz told parliament that 'we should give as much support as possible to the government of President Pastrana' – as extensive human-rights violations and killings continued.14

  The election of President Alvaro Uribe in August 2002 has resulted in strengthened relations with London. As a large landowner himself, Uribe was implicated in massacres of peasant and trade-union leaders when he was a state governor in the mid-1990s. Under his presidency the level of political assassinations has doubled, the press reported in late 2003. Human-rights violations by the state and its allies are higher than ever while the instruments established to investigate them have been disabled. Mass arrests of trade unionists and humanrights defenders, false charges and imprisonment and media censorship are widespread. Uribe's rhetoric about terrorism has hardened while paramilitaries continue to maintain clandestine alliances with units of the Colombian army. The government has avoided seriously challenging the paramilitaries or rooting out the corrupt government officials who work with known human-rights abusers.15

  In this context, the British government has invoked the standard pretext for increasing support to repressive regimes – that the human-rights situation has improved. In March 2004 Foreign Office minister Bill Rammell was noting 'improvements' and 'some impressive results in some areas of fundamental rights'.16 Only six months earlier, in September 2003, 80 humanrights organisations had accused Uribe of promoting state terror against civilians.17

  The Blair government held a carefully orchestrated international donors' meeting in London in June 2003 that declared admiration for Uribe's progress on human rights. This ignored reports by Colombian and international NGOs that violations had increased, and by the Colombian Commission of Jurists, which reported that in Uribe's first year in government there had been nearly 7,000 political killings and 'disappearances', worse than the average throughout the preceding four-year Pastrana presidency. Britain thus opened the door for Colombia to receive a new round of international loans. Foreign Office minister Bill Rammell said that 'all government representatives present reaffirmed their strong political support for the Colombian government'.18

  This meeting was apparently organised on Blair's personal initiative and was fully backed by Prime Minister Aznar of Spain, the two governments operating as a pro-US axis in Europe. The details were worked out by the British embassy in Bogota in consultation with Uribe's team. The following month Rammell gave a speech to the British-Colombian Chamber of Commerce saying that 'vital to business is the need of the Colombian government to work on improving its international image, to enhance its investment prospects'.19

  Meanwhile, British military support has also been boosted. In July 2003 the Guardian revealed that Britain was 'secretly stepping up military assistance to Colombia', reporting that the SAS were training the narcotics police, the Fuerza Jungla, and that military advice was being provided to the army's new counter-guerrilla mountain units. Also, there was a 'surge in the supply of military hardware and intelligence equipment' while Britain was providing assistance in setting up an intelligence centre and joint intelligence committee.

  This aid made Britain the second largest military supporter of Colombia. It was also provided secretly: Whitehall refused to disclose the extent of its military involvement 'on the grounds of national security', the Guardian reported. The export of arms rose by 50 per cent from 2001 to 2002 with supplies including missile technology, components for combat helicopters and explosives ostensibly for anti-drugs operations. The new intelligence support builds on work begun in the early 1990s when an MI6 station head was sent to Bogota to start an antinarcotics operation. When New Labour came into power this was expanded and coordinated by an MI6 offic
er in London.20

  A string of senior British military officials have been despatched by the Blair government to Bogota to advise the Colombian military. At least ten visits were made by MoD experts from 2000 to 2003 to advise on 'counter-terrorism' (to the forces, that is, responsible for much of the terrorism in the country). Senior Colombian army officers have also attended training courses in Britain.21

  There is a suggestion that this training will improve human rights, but the Colombian military is responsible for its violations not by accident or through ignorance. As David Rhys-Jones of the Colombia Solidarity Campaign has pointed out, this training 'is part of a concerted and active policy to nullify the opposition and terrify the general popixlation into further submission'. Indeed, some of Latin America's most notorious killers have been graduates of 'human rights' courses.22 Virtually every human rights and trade union organisation in Colombia has called for British military aid to be frozen.