Promoting Democracy and Human Rights

Points of Order – in the House of Commons at 8:30 pm on 13 October 2008.

Alert me about debates like this

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed,

That this House has considered the matter of promoting democracy and human rights.

Photo of Stephen Crabb Stephen Crabb Conservative, Preseli Pembrokeshire 9:12, 13 October 2008

I strongly welcome this debate on democracy and human rights, albeit that it has been truncated. It is easy to forget or underestimate how closely the proceedings of the House are watched and observed by individuals and groups across the world, including in countries that have nothing like the freedoms we enjoy. As a number of other Members have observed in their contributions, the debate is timely, as we are approaching the 60th anniversary of the signing of the universal declaration on human rights on 10 December 1948.

Members will recall that last year we celebrated another anniversary in the human rights calendar—the bicentennial of the Act to abolish slavery—and 2007 saw a string of events and initiatives celebrating the decision that the House took 200 years ago. Some of the initiatives tried to link what happened then with the campaigns to eradicate modern forms of slavery. I think in particular of the work done on human trafficking, a clear example of modern slavery.

For all the good work associated with the anti-slavery celebrations last year, 2007 was a year in which progress in tackling human rights abuses actually went backwards. From Burma to Zimbabwe, from Darfur to China, from Sri Lanka to any number of conservative Islamic regimes, human rights violations continued on a wide and systematic basis, and the international community was shown again to be weak and complacent in the face of atrocity and repression. Irene Khan, secretary general of Amnesty International, said in Amnesty's 2008 annual report that

"2007 was characterised by the impotence of Western governments and the ambivalence or reluctance of emerging powers to tackle some of the world's worst human rights crises".

The fact remains that injustice, inequality and impunity are still the hallmarks of our world. We are coming towards the end of 2008, and no one can honestly say that it looks like this has been a more positive year for addressing human rights abuses internationally.

The question that we have all been trying to grapple with this afternoon is: what does putting human rights at the heart of foreign policy mean in practice in a country such as the UK, which still enjoys a measure of international leadership through the UN Security Council, the G8 and the EU, in an increasingly multilateral, interdependent world in which realism and the national interest are still vital, legitimate drivers of our interaction with other nation states? The starting point is to recognise that it is very much in our national interest to seek to push forward an international human rights agenda. Expanding political freedoms are often, but not always, accompanied by higher living standards, new stability and economic expansion around the world, all of which is good for the UK as it seeks to trade and interact globally.

That was recognised 60 years ago when the international community came together in an unprecedented way to affirm that whatever national, ideological or cultural differences and interests divided the world, those divisions were superseded by a deep common interest in providing the conditions for human freedom to flourish, and so emerged the universal declaration, about which a number of hon. Members have already spoken.

Anyone who has spent any time considering the UN's performance in defending those principles will question whether there is anything substantial to celebrate at the 60th anniversary of the signing of the declaration. For example, anyone who has examined the track record of the ludicrous UN Commission on Human Rights, the body that was supposed to take a lead on some of these issues, will know that it became a safe haven for tyrants and dictators. It was finally wound up two years ago. Depressingly, so far, the replacement UN Human Rights Council shows too many signs of repeating the bad old ways of its predecessor body.

Amnesty International's 2008 report states:

"World leaders owe an apology for failing to deliver on the promise of justice and equality in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...In the past six decades, many governments have shown more interest in the abuse of power or in the pursuit of political self-interest, than in respecting the rights of those they lead."

The responsibility to protect was one recent attempt by the international community to address the question of how we could realistically and practically defend the interests of those who are suffering from gross, systematic human rights abuses. As has already been discussed, at the heart of the matter is whether states have complete unconditional sovereignty over their own affairs, or whether the international community has the right to intervene militarily in a country for humanitarian purposes. It is three years since the doctrine of the responsibility to protect was first enunciated, and it has yet to be invoked. Time and again the international community has flinched and found a justification for inaction, in exactly the same way as it did 14 years ago when the world stood by as a brutal genocide was perpetrated in Rwanda.

Earlier this year, there was a strong case for intervention under the responsibility to protect after Cyclone Nargis hit Burma, with resulting humanitarian disaster. The Burmese Government deliberately withheld aid from its citizens, thereby turning a natural disaster into a man-made genocidal disaster.

Photo of David Taylor David Taylor Labour, North West Leicestershire

The hon. Gentleman mentions Burma. Does he agree that the generals in Burma, who are guilty of the egregious crimes against humanity that he so vividly describes, should be referred to the International Criminal Court?

Photo of Stephen Crabb Stephen Crabb Conservative, Preseli Pembrokeshire

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I know that he has a deep personal interest in these issues. The truth is that when it comes to real war crimes, real genocide and mass bloodshed, the international community would rather skirt around the issue, and bury its head in international relations theory, than find a real practical response and help those who desperately need it. We saw that once again in Darfur. Amnesty International describes Darfur as

"the litmus test for the international community to show its resolve in addressing egregious human rights violations; to date it has failed to meet this test."

From Rwanda to Darfur and Burma, as many people have said, it seems to be a case of "never again, all over again". However, as an international community, we cannot retreat from our responsibility to protect. Now that that doctrine has been formulated, it is our duty to press forward and work out practical ways in which that will make a difference in the world in which we live. The UK Government must show commitment to translating the responsibility to protect into willingness to act in instances in which states clearly fail to protect their populations from genocide, gross war crimes, ethnic cleansing and serious crimes against humanity.

I shall briefly touch on the issue of religious freedom, which a couple of Members have mentioned. Article 18 seeks to protect religious freedom, and protects

"the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change...religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others...to manifest...belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

Across the world, however, that fundamental universal human right is being denied, eroded, curtailed and chipped away.

We have heard mention of what happened in Orissa in India, and I do not wish to go over that ground in too much detail, other than to say that I have received reports from members of the Indian diaspora in the UK and from non-governmental organisations. The Indian Government's commitment to upholding the principle of religious freedom is not in doubt, but what is in doubt is the effectiveness of their police and justice mechanisms quickly to tackle instances of inter-religious conflict and attacks on Christian, Muslim or Buddhist communities by other faith groups. I encourage Ministers to discuss that sensitively and maturely with the Indian Government, who are sensitive about other countries prying into what they regard as internal affairs. However, there has been huge global interest in the appalling acts of violence in recent months, and I encourage the Government to use their influence with the Indian Government and offer what support we can to ensure that the violence is ended and the perpetrators brought to justice.

In the past few days in Iraq, according to CNN last night, 13 Christians have been killed, and nearly 1,000 Christian families displaced in and around Mosul, where radical Muslim groups have threatened the local Christian community: either they must convert to Islam, leave the city or face death. The Interior Ministry has rightly condemned that, but it is worth pointing out that we have troops who are fighting for a democratic, liberal future for Iraq, so we must offer the Iraqi Government whatever support we can to ensure that the curtailment of religious freedom, whatever group is responsible for the attacks, is nipped in the bud and that we uphold the best principles of religious freedom.

May I conclude on the issue of child soldiers, which has been mentioned in passing times several times in our debate? It is obscene that the UN should say that there are an estimated 250,000 child soldiers in active service today—a shocking indictment of the international community's failure to tackle the problem. Again, Burma—so often it is Burma—has the highest proportion of child soldiers of any army on earth, but there are child soldiers in Chad, Sudan and many other countries. We have also heard reports from Gaza and Iraq of children being used or trained as terrorists and suicide bombers. Ministers in the Department for International Development recently worked on initiatives, but Ministers in the Foreign Office should see what collaborative action should be undertaken, both intergovernmentally and with the NGO sector, which remains extremely concerned about the issue, to see whether things can be progressed.

Photo of Daniel Kawczynski Daniel Kawczynski Conservative, Shrewsbury and Atcham 9:24, 13 October 2008

I am afraid that I have only six minutes, so I shall curtail my speech.

May I begin by paying tribute to the chairman of the Shrewsbury branch of Amnesty International, Mr. Martin Beardwell, a long-standing Liberal Democrat councillor who does a tremendous job in chairing that important organisation? I recently attended one of its meetings, and was interested to see my constituents' dedication and commitment to promoting human rights around the world.

I will make just two major points. The Minister started her speech by referring to the European Union. In my view, the EU is totally unaccountable because it uses the proportional representation system for electing Members of the European Parliament. Three years ago, I started saying at large public meetings in my constituency that I would give anybody £100 if they could name our region's seven Members of the European Parliament—needless to say, I did not lose a penny. I now ask people to name two, and I have still not lost a penny. Nobody knows who the MEPs representing Shropshire are because none of them lives, works, has offices or holds surgeries there. Clearly, the gap between those elected and their constituents has widened vastly, and it is more and more difficult to hold those politicians to account. I am passionately against that; it is why I am chairman of the all-party group for the continuation of first past the post. I truly believe that that system is the only way of holding politicians directly accountable to their electorates.

I am also very against the Government's current policy of merging elections. They realise that very few people want to turn out to vote in European elections, so they throw in a few other elections on the same day. In Shrewsbury in June, we will now have three elections on the same day: the European elections, the elections for the new unitary authority that the Government have imposed on us and elections for the town council. Furthermore, there will be a general election if the Prime Minister so wishes—potentially, there will be four different elections in Shrewsbury on the same day. I have written to the Secretary of State of the responsible Department about the issue, expressing my concern at how the Government are mismanaging the election diary. We have seen what chaos there was in Scotland when there were various elections there on the same day, and I am concerned that that will happen in England.

The Minister referred to the Commonwealth only once, and very briefly. For me, the Commonwealth is the most important organisation of which we are part. I believe that its members are part of the same family, and Commonwealth countries mean far more to me and our history as a country than do members of the European Union. I pay tribute to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Mr. Andrew Tuggey and the workers at the House of Commons for their tremendous work in bringing Members from this Chamber to Commonwealth countries to interact directly with people and talk about important issues.

This debate has been very general, but I shall give the Minister one specific example of an issue; my office sent her a copy of the relevant article today in the post. The article is from the 4 September 2008 edition of the New Statesman, pages 24 and 29. A citizen of Cameroon, a Commonwealth country, has claimed asylum in the United Kingdom. She claimed political abuse and said that she would feel threatened if she returned to her home country. I ask the Minister to look into the issue and give me a reply. I have tried to get in touch with the British high commission in Cameroon and I have spoken to the Cameroon high commission here in London about the case. It is extremely important that Ministers interact with Commonwealth countries if their citizens seek asylum in this country. We should hold Commonwealth countries to the same standards as apply in our own country and the European Union. There should be more scrutiny and analysis of what is going on in Cameroon, given that its own citizens are claiming political persecution and coming to the UK to seek refuge. I hope that I will get a reply from the Minister.

Finally, I turn to Georgia. The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee spoke about the conflict between Georgia and Russia. I was concerned by his comments, because I believe that the Russians behaved absolutely outrageously in attacking that relatively small and defenceless country. I pay tribute to the political leaders of various Baltic countries, Poland and other European countries who went to Tbilisi during the summer to show solidarity with the President of Georgia.

The Russians always show aggression when they see the Atlantic relationship as being weak. When the British Prime Minister and the American President have not had a very close working relationship—for example, in the case of Jimmy Carter and Callaghan—that is when the Russians smell and sense weakness, and that is when they pounce. Unfortunately, the current Prime Minister is a foreign affairs novice who does not get on very well with President Bush, and that is why the Russians behaved so outrageously.

Photo of Keith Simpson Keith Simpson Shadow Minister (Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs) 9:30, 13 October 2008

This has been a rather disrupted debate. As my hon. Friend Mr. Lidington reminded the House, this debate on the Government's human rights report, the Foreign Affairs Committee's reply and, hot off the press—it seems that the Government printers have been working overtime in the past 24 hours—the Government's response to that, would usually take place in Westminster Hall on a Thursday afternoon. We should be grateful that because of the Government's incompetence in managing their legislative programme they have had to use this debate as nothing more than a stocking filler for this afternoon. The Minister is frowning, but that is the fact of the matter. Despite that, we have had a very good, wide-ranging debate. I particularly enjoyed the way in which the Minister read her Foreign Office brief, which covered a less than broad range of issues, unlike what was said by many of her colleagues.

As many Members have said, it is not easy to get a balance between the practical objectives of a national foreign policy and human rights; indeed, the two things may sometimes be contradictory. It appears that the balance of human rights is sometimes tipped in favour of those who commit violence and deny human rights to others. Ultimately, it is in the nature of democracies often to have to carry out wars against terrorists in the full glare of publicity and in the view of their own people, and sometimes they have to deny themselves the kind of actions that might be pressed on them by the military and the security forces. Sadly, as all the reports point out, there are many examples in countries throughout the world of both security forces and terrorists resorting to torture. In the past, our own country has been arraigned on that account on occasions when it has fought counter-insurgency. As a historian, the lesson that I draw is that torture is not only counter-productive but a corrosive element within any counter-insurgency forces, which invariably hands a valuable weapon to the other side, even if they are terrorists. We judge these matters through the prism of democracy: free elections, the election of democratic Governments, an independent judiciary, an independent media, political control of the armed forces and police, total transparency and adherence to international law.

Several hon. Members rightly pointed to the role of British parliamentarians in promoting democracy. I would like to add my praise and congratulations to those at the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which has played a valuable role over many years. They are frequently unsung heroes and heroines in working not only with parliamentarians and others in this country but with those in countries out in the field. The Atlantic Council of the United States, the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and, of course, our own Commonwealth Parliamentary Association have all carried out a valuable role involving many parliamentarians in all parts of the House.

Let me turn briefly to some of the interventions and speeches made during the debate. Mr. George, a former Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence and a man who has carried out a vast amount of work for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, gave us a short history of parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom. He had a cup-half-full line that we are in danger of forgetting: however much we draw up lists of countries that are failing in their progress towards democracy and human rights, many are striving towards those aims. The list he gave ranged from Albania to Tunisia. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary will respond to his comments that both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development used weasel words in their annual reports about promoting democracy, but I hope she will take them on board, and say that both Departments should be proud of raising that particular issue.

Photo of Bruce George Bruce George Labour, Walsall South

Could the hon. Gentleman ask Hansard to delete "Tunisia" and insert "Morocco"?

Photo of Keith Simpson Keith Simpson Shadow Minister (Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs)

The right hon. Gentleman would undoubtedly make a good editor for a magazine. I happily take his positive intervention.

Jo Swinson, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, talked a great deal, and with much knowledge and experience, on women's rights and representation, and gave many examples at home and abroad. I said to her beforehand that I would tease her on this matter: the Conservative party may, at times, be regarded as a very conservative party, but I remind the House that 160 years ago the leader of the Conservative party became the first Jewish Prime Minister, and a quarter of a century ago we elected the first woman to be a party leader, who then became Prime Minister. As yet, the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties have failed to do that. With regard to theory and practice, the Conservative party appears to be slightly ahead of those parties.

Mike Gapes, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, made a wide-ranging speech on many issues, and he touched on the issue of the US Republican party's idea of a league of democracies. That was touched on by other hon. Members, and perhaps we need to look at many of our international organisations—the United Nations, NATO and others—to see whether, in the words of a former Home Secretary, they are fit for purpose, judged against the criteria laid down in the report of the hon. Member for Ilford, South, or the challenges that we will face in future.

My right hon. and learned Friend Sir Malcolm Rifkind made a robust speech, claiming that the Government were confused in their approach to democracy and human rights, and he referred to the late Robin Cook's desire to produce an ethical foreign policy in 1997. Of course, the most important point that my right hon. and learned Friend raised, which caused some disagreement, was that military intervention in areas involving democracy and human rights usually creates more problems than it resolves, which was touched on again almost immediately by Dr. Wright.

The hon. Gentleman quoted Sidney Webb—that will have thrown a number of colleagues who do not know who Sidney Webb was—who spoke of democracy as a way of disciplining private power. The hon. Gentleman also emphasised the importance of links between democracy and human rights, defended liberal interventionism, and said that it was through membership of organisations such as the European Union that Britain could enhance its influence. I went along with his arguments some of the way, but in practice, sadly—this is not entirely the fault of successive British Governments—the EU, when trying to get political or military forces together in providing military aid, has not been dreadfully effective to date.

We welcomed John Mason as a new Member for the Scottish National party. He made a good maiden speech, and also put forward some points relating to the debate, and we wish him well in his membership of the House. Hugh Bayley made the wonderful remark that the speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea had raised the level of the debate. I do not know what he meant by that, but it appeared to cause some confusion among those who had spoken previously. It was, however, meant in the most positive way, because my right hon. and learned Friend raised an issue that we are still debating: at what stage do we use military force where there are humanitarian problems? I also recognise once again the work of the hon. Member for City of York as chairman of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. He put in a lot of hard work in that capacity.

My hon. Friend Mr. Boswell spoke out against the degree of extra noise in relation to the legal aspects of human rights. He has considerable experience in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. My hon. Friend Mr. Crabb is chairman of the Conservative human rights commission, and has taken an active role on our side in pushing this agenda forward. Finally, my hon. Friend Daniel Kawczynski spoke passionately, as usual, about the European Union and the fact that it was unaccountable. He also rightly emphasised the importance of the role of the Commonwealth, which is recognised across the Floor.

We have ranged widely over this report on human rights. Hon. Members have spoken passionately, not least about getting the balance right between the realpolitik of foreign policy and the principles in which we believe and which we wish to push forward. There are no easy answers for any Government attempting to persuade another country—especially one with the history, the culture, the memory and the sheer size of China—that they disagree fundamentally with many of the ways in which it carries out its government and in which it protects its human rights. However, that does not stop us, as parliamentarians, putting pressure on such countries, or on our own Government.

I want briefly to raise three aspects of the Government's report, and to highlight issues that I feel the Government need to address. The first is the issue of Burma, about which my hon. Friend John Bercow, who is no longer in his place, has spoken passionately. Last week, I was lucky enough to meet Andrew Kirkwood, the director of Save the Children in Burma. He has worked in that country for four years, and has led relief efforts for the charity after Cyclone Nargis. The cyclone was a terrible event and a great national disaster, but it was the total indifference and cruelty of the Burmese military that, at times, impeded the humanitarian aid and meant that tens of thousands of their own people died or suffered awfully from disease and neglect. One of the statistics that Andrew Kirkwood gave me was that something like 40 per cent. of children under the age of five in Burma die from measles, diphtheria and other such common diseases.

I know that Burma is not the only country in which such things occur, but I want to raise with the Minister the fact that Save the Children is on the ground doing wonderful work there, at times in spite of the opposition of the senior generals. Andrew Kirkwood pointed out that, at a lower level, Save the Children is getting some degree of co-operation in Burma. He was particularly impressed by the role of the countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which put an enormous amount of pressure on the Burmese regime after Cyclone Nargis.

Our Government have agreed on the importance of the responsibility to protect in any situation in which Governments are "unable or unwilling" to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity. In relation to Burma, will the Minister update the House on what discussions have taken place at international level to move forward that concept from the theoretical to the practical? This issue was being discussed at the time, and it is of fundamental importance to all of us.

The second issue that I wish to raise is that of Zimbabwe. Does the Minister agree that it is now high time for the international human rights observer mission to go to that country? Will she provide an update on what progress has been made to that end? It seems to all of us that Mugabe, the old crocodile, is merely playing politics again, and that we have almost gone back to square one. It is only through international pressure that we will get any shift in that area.

The final area is Somalia. I agree with the Foreign Affairs Committee that the FCO annual report fails to pay sufficient attention to that country's severe human rights crisis. Whatever we say about Burma, Zimbabwe and—God save us—even Darfur, Somalia is one of the world's worst failed states. It is in total humanitarian crisis. Nearly half of the population, 3.25 million people, are now in need of emergency aid—a 77 per cent. increase since the beginning of this year—and 1.1 million people are displaced.

We all recognise that trying to resolve this problem is not an easy matter, but the Foreign Affairs Committee was absolutely right to say that this is one area that really should be a major priority. At one stage Somalia was a British dependency, so if nothing else, we have a great historical link here. I would like to see Somalia as one issue that Ministers will want to take forward over the next year. When we return in a year's time to debate the next report, I hope that we will see that some progress has been made.

Almost by chance, this has been a good debate. People on all sides have spoken with a great deal of passion. In many respects, I do not regret the Government's decision to make a statement at 8.30 this evening. I am taking advantage of my position at the Dispatch Box because this is an issue about the balance between legislation and human rights, but I personally regret having a Home Secretary preach to me and to my colleagues—many of whom have lost friends through terrorism, Minister—about being soft on terrorism. Get real!

Photo of Gillian Merron Gillian Merron Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Foreign & Commonwealth Office 9:46, 13 October 2008

This has been a wide-ranging, informed and often passionate debate. I would like to thank for their contributions Mr. Lidington, my hon. Friend Hugh Bayley, Mr. Boswell, my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), the hon. Members for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) and for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), my right hon. Friend Mr. George and Sir Malcolm Rifkind. I also congratulate John Mason on his maiden speech. I recall that when I made mine, I was followed by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk, so who knows where the hon. Gentleman might find himself one day.

Human rights and democracy have a resonance that few other issues can match. We can all remember the image of women queuing up to vote for the first time in Afghanistan, and queues of a different nature—for food—in Mugabe's Zimbabwe. We in the UK have a mission to promote human rights and democracy not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is in our interests. They are integral to all that we do, whether in working for peace in the middle east, in the functioning of international organisations such as the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the EU, or in our consular work, including support for the victims of forced marriage, prisoners facing execution and children illegally taken abroad by a parent.

The promotion of democracy and human rights is integral to what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is all about and it underpins its every priority, whether in combating the global scourge of terrorism and its causes; preventing conflict and fostering its resolution; promoting a high-growth, low-carbon global economy; or strengthening institutions such as the UN, the EU and the Commonwealth, through which the international community can most effectively come together to make a difference in the world.

In the short time available, I will endeavour to deal with some of the main themes that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe did not cover earlier. We believe that the United Nations Human Rights Council contributes to the protection and promotion of human rights globally. I would not suggest that it is a perfect institution, but some steps forward have been taken, as we have heard in our debate. The new universal periodic review process will, for the first time in the UN's history, ensure that the human rights position in every UN member country is examined on a regular basis. [This section has been corrected on 16 October 2008, column 5MC — read correction]In addition, there will be a discussion of human rights in specific countries as a standing item on the agenda of the Human Rights Council—an item that was not on the old commission's agenda. Membership of the council depends on the votes of all UN members. While we might disagree with some members on a number of human rights issues, it is our view that continued engagement is the best way forward if we are to continue to win the arguments.

On the UN Durban review conference and the world conference against racism, I certainly confirm our immense disagreement with the events that took place in 2001. We do not want to see a repeat of them. In particular, we condemn the featuring, which was outright, of the anti-Semitism that we heard in the NGO forum. I can tell the House that we are participating in negotiations in Geneva at the moment and that we will reassess our position when the preparatory committee ends this week.

I share the deep concern for the prolonged suffering of the people of Zimbabwe. We want the political agreement that was reached in Harare to work. EU colleagues discussed and agreed on that early today. If there is no further progress towards a democratic resolution, we will have to consider introducing further targeted measures. To be effective, the agreement must achieve an improvement in the lives of the ordinary people of Zimbabwe and restoration of respect for human rights. With the international community, we stand ready to support the recovery of Zimbabwe and to respond to the needs of the new Government, but they must, as a Government, show themselves committed to reform, including respect for human rights.

On Burma, which was mentioned by the hon. Members for Aylesbury, for Preseli Pembrokeshire and for Mid-Norfolk, I share the immense concern for the appalling suffering of the Burmese people, which was made yet more acute, as we have heard, by the devastating Cyclone Nargis in May. We welcome the release of several political prisoners last month, but the truth is that 2,000 remain behind bars and political freedoms are completely absent. However, let us remind ourselves that, after the cyclone, the UK was at the forefront of international efforts to convince the regime to accept international aid.

To respond to the fair point raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk, we believe that states have responsibility to provide humanitarian assistance to their populations and while the responsibility to protect applies in the context of four crimes—genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing—it does not preclude the broader responsibility of states to provide for the security and welfare of their populations.

After the cyclone, our absolute priority was to get aid as quickly as possible to those who desperately needed it. We judged—I believe correctly, as we look back—that by working with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the UN we would manage to establish an aid delivery mechanism supported by the Burmese and that that would indeed be the most effective solution to that crisis.

On Colombia, I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South, who ably chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, to a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary following the visit just last week of the Colombian Foreign Minister:

"Those guilty of abuses—whoever they are—must receive justice for their actions. Colombia's people—particularly those most vulnerable: indigenous communities, the displaced, human rights defenders and trade unionists—deserve the full protection of the law, and the support of both the Colombian Government and its international partners."

I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to pursue that.

Guantanamo Bay was also raised by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire. I make it clear once again that the position of the Government is that that detention facility should be closed. I listened carefully to the caution counselled by my hon. Friend. We hope that the new US Administration will give fresh impetus to the wish of the US Government to reduce the number of those detained at Guantanamo Bay and to move towards closure of that detention facility.

The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire referred to the role of women in promoting democracy. Women are disproportionately affected by conflict, and must clearly play a role in its resolution. The United Kingdom commits itself actively to promoting the rights of women by giving them a voice, jobs, education and the right not to die in childbirth. It has supported the Afghan Government's micro-finance programme, which has given women better opportunities to secure finance to create work through creating business. In Ghana, through the efforts of civil society, it has supported demands for legislation against domestic violence, which is now in place.

The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea got the debate going on an issue on which he feels strongly, and brought his knowledge to bear. While I respect his judgment on that issue, my view is that military intervention is not and has never been the course of first or only resort. I agree with John Bercow that to rule it out is to deny what may present a way forward that has eluded us through any other means, but it is not to be taken lightly; it is only one possibility.

Let me say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase that I believe Iraq has come a long way. More than 12 million people voted in the 2005 election. In Afghanistan, a third of children who are involved in schools are girls, whereas previously none was. For me, that represents human rights and democracy in action.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South has allowed me to put it on record that human rights and democracy are work in progress, whoever we are and in whatever country we are, and that includes the United Kingdom. The promotion of democracy is not just about elections, important though they are; it is about the work that we do to support the voice and the power of civil society to secure freedom of expression and to demand change. It is about building the rule of law, the accountability of the judiciary, the military and the police, and the capacity of political parties. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for City of York in chairing the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which has done so much in that regard.

Let me close a debate that has highlighted much of the cruelty and tragedy that happen when leadership fails by paying tribute to a document that shows leadership at its best. The universal declaration of human rights, signed almost 60 years ago, was referred to by a number of Members, including the hon. Member for Daventry. I assure him that I will take away his shopping list, and the thought with which he presented it to the House. That document is a testament to a united world, written in the aftermath of a war that ripped the world apart. It is a reminder that we can choose whether we wish to be defined by what makes us different or by what we share. It shows us what nations can achieve when we come together to assert that all people everywhere are entitled to the freedoms that many of us take for granted, and it should reinforce our determination to do more and better to ensure that it—that landmark declaration of human rights—is as powerful in practice as it is in aspiration.

I pay tribute to the work of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, to non-governmental organisations and, crucially, to those individuals who take a stand for human rights in countries and conditions that would make the best of us falter. We have had a wide-ranging debate, which has been powerful, well-informed and passionate. I hope that people will take that passion from the House today, and will not keep it to themselves.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of promoting democracy and human rights.