NewsBreakingOnline

Call for action follows concerns over Prince Andrew’s dealings with despotic leaders A coalition of leading human rights groups is calling for a review into the way the British government does business with non-democratic regimes around the world. After recent revelations involving the Duke of York and his work as the UK’s special trade ambassador, organisations including Human Rights Watch, Index on Censorship, The Corner House, Global Witness and Campaign Against Arms Trade say the affair has underlined fundamental failings in the country’s supposedly ethical foreign policy. Tom Porteous, UK director of Human Rights Watch and Foreign Office adviser, said Prince Andrew was making the UK “look stupid, frankly”. The groups say that the government’s stated position on human rights, corporate responsibility and the rule of law is at odds with its apparent position of trading with autocratic or corrupt politicians. In recent days condemnation has grown of Prince Andrew’s dealings with figures in north Africa, the Middle East and central Asia. Their calls for action follow concern over delays to implementing the Bribery Act that have left the government open to claims it is not committed to fighting corruption. Campaigners allege they have yet to receive a response from the coalition’s “international anti-corruption champion” Ken Clarke after requesting details of the government’s strategy on tackling dishonest business practices. Porteous, a member of the government advisory group created by the foreign secretary, William Hague, to examine the ethical dimension of British foreign policy, said ministers needed to rethink their way of doing business following the revelations surrounding the prince. “It’s really the UK government that we need to be criticising,” he said. “There needs to be serious reflection about how the government goes about promoting British business in a way that is consistent with its stated principles and objectives on human rights, promoting the rule of law and corporate responsibility. “They need to rethink this whole position and that may involve rethinking who actually holds that position. It should be someone well versed in international affairs and understands the objectives of the British government when it comes to promoting the rule of law.” Nicholas Hildyard, of The Corner House, said a review was required to ensure that “turning a blind eye” to corrupt regimes was curtailed: “There is an absolute necessity to have an ethical foreign policy with very strict screening into what goes where, proper screening of all government-supported exports in the context of human rights.” Robert Palmer, of Global Witness, said the prince’s dealings had given the impression that Britain condemned corruption only in principle: “Our political leaders say how critical it is that we curb corruption that is undermining development and yet, on the other hand, we have figures like Prince Andrew cosying up to seriously questionable figures.” His comments come days after Richard Alderman, director of the Serious Fraud Office and a key figure in cracking down on business bribes to win contracts, told Clarke of growing concerns over delays to implementing the Bribery Act. Alderman reportedly warned that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the US justice department had been unhappy with the coalition’s decision to push back the legislation’s introduction, originally planned for next month. Under most scrutiny, however, is the role of the government’s UK Trade and Investment agency, for which the prince works. Kaye Stearman, of the Campaign Against Arms Trade, said that the prince’s position with the agency had effectively rendered him as a “sort of cheerleader and door opener for the arms industry” and called for him to resign ahead of a review into the agency. She added: “He’s the public face of UKTI and the public face of the UK arms trade.” Signs that the pressure may be getting to Buckingham Palace emerged yesterday when the prince pulled out of a controversial trip to Saudi Arabia this week, citing security concerns rather than the media criticism. Pressing questions remain over a private meeting between Prince Andrew and Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2008 amid evidence of a close relationship with the country and UKTI, including an office in Tripoli. The prince has also faced allegations that he has a “very close” friendship with Saif Gaddafi, son of the Libyan leader, and that he met a convicted gun smuggler from the north African state. Natasha Schmidt, assistant editor of Index on Censorship, said people were angered by links between the UK’s special trade envoy and the president of Azerbaijan, whose country is one of the most corrupt in the world. Prince Andrew is last known to have lobbied for Azerbaijan six days ago, despite allegations involving torture of political opponents and rigged elections by President Ilham Aliyev’s regime. “It is absolutely appalling that a member of our royal family would have such close links with Aliyev, an authoritarian ruler who has shown himself to be completely intolerant to criticism and is an enemy of free speech,” she said. Buckingham Palace has defended Prince Andrew’s trips abroad, while the Ministry of Justice has stated it is committed to an anti-corruption agenda. Prince Andrew Bribery Act Human rights Mark Townsend guardian.co.uk