The reason why progress has not been greater is that the North Koreans have withdrawn, but it is a process that was agreed with the North Koreans. The fact that they agreed to a process in the end was in itself progress. The fact that they decided to withdraw after some four meetings has led to stalling in a range of areas, with no outcome possible. It is important because it is the only process in which they have so far decided to participate, so they should return to it.
The hon. Member for Taunton asked about China. We have formal bilateral dialogue on human rights with China twice a year. In addition, as I said earlier, Ministers from the Foreign Office and those with other portfolios have regular opportunities to discuss United Nations initiatives on human rights and other, wider issues. We will continue to do that. From this week, we also have the opportunity to have dialogue in a more sophisticated way. There is the possibility of periodic reviews; we will have more than just one shot at the process, and more than just one approach—resolution after resolution. I am not opposed to using resolutions, but they do not give regional Governments with regional relationships the opportunity to sit down and participate effectively in a process.
I shall write to hon. Members, because the discussions on what the processes should be are at an early stage. This week, before going out to Geneva, I sat down with the NGOs and the Foreign Office, and went through with them my ideas about what the process should look like. Their views were fed in, and when I was in Geneva I spoke to representatives of a range of countries about how they could join with us to develop an effective system of periodic review, and what the principles of that system should be.
The next stage will be to ensure that that periodic review system is effective, that there is agreement about what its pillars will be, and that there is capacity for reviews to be effective and transparent and to identify accountability. The NGOs should play a role in seeing what is happening and why, and should be able to make effective, practical proposals that will help us to turn the situation around. I gave Nepal as an example. There is a lot to play for in the coming weeks and months in negotiating an approach that ensures that the Human Rights Council has effective mechanisms with which to do the job that its predecessor could not do because it lacked the capacity. I could spend 20 minutes setting out what it will do. I think that hon. Members are seeking confirmation from me, first that I have an intellectual understanding of what they are asking for and secondly that we are in the same ballpark. The answer to both is yes. Thirdly, are we enthusiastically involved in behind-the-scenes discussion and negotiation, and trying to show some leadership? The answer to that, too, is yes.
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (Human Rights)
Proceeding contribution from
Ian McCartney
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 22 June 2006.
It occurred during Adjournment debate on Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (Human Rights).
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
447 c539-40WH 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-05 22:43:04 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_332454
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_332454
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_332454