Eamon Ryan
Question:6 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the newly approved European Union guidelines on human rights defenders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18861/04]
Other Questions.
Human Rights Issues.
Liz McManus
Question:23 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the details of the guidelines to support human rights defenders agreed recently in Luxembourg; if organisations working in the field of human rights are content with the guidelines; if the guidelines go far enough to protect those working in the field of human rights; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18841/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 23 together.
On 14 June last, the General Affairs and External Relations Council adopted European Union guidelines on human rights defenders. The adoption of the guidelines was welcomed by the European Council at its meeting of 17 and 18 June. The development of guidelines marks the achievement of one of the targeted priorities in the Presidency's programme. Ireland, along with our EU partners, has recognised that human rights defenders have increasingly become targets of attacks and that their rights are violated in many countries. The Government therefore believes it to be important to ensure that they are protected in every way possible. This is the primary purpose of the guidelines.
In this regard, the guidelines provide for interventions by the Union in support of human rights defenders at risk and suggest practical means to provide support and assistance to them. They will also help shape the activities of embassies and consulates of EU member states and European Commission delegations which, in many countries, are the primary interface with human rights defenders located there. An important element of the guidelines is support for the special procedures of the UN Commission on Human Rights, including the UN special representative on human rights defenders, and appropriate regional mechanisms to protect human rights defenders.
In the development of the guidelines we have worked closely with members of the international human rights community, including the UN special representative for human rights defenders, leading non-governmental organisations in the field of human rights and members of the academic community. My Department conducted a consultation process with civil society and received wide-ranging submissions with suggestions as to how the Union could best assist human rights defenders in their work. As part of the consultation process, I hosted a seminar in Dublin on 12 May last which was attended by the UN special representative and was designed to ensure that the views of civil society were fully taken into account in developing the guidelines. The success of our consultation process is clearly demonstrated by the welcome extended to the adoption of the guidelines by leading international human rights NGOs.
Amnesty International is pleased that the EU Presidency got these guidelines approved. However, I am sure the Minister of State will understand it is worried about how they will be implemented. Will he agree EU guidelines are already in existence on, for example, children and armed conflict and torture, but these have not been followed through? Does he understand why Amnesty is anxious that the guidelines will not be followed through, particularly in regard to torture? Regulations on the trade in torture equipment still must be approved by the Council of Ministers. When does he expect these regulations to be approved?
Will the Minister of State accept that one of the things we can do is provide human rights offenders with humanitarian visas? Will the guidelines speed up that process?
Supplementary questions are limited to one minute.
Recently we saw the example of Rachel Corry defending human rights in Palestine for which she paid with her life. Will the passage of these new guidelines have an impact on the association agreement with Israel in the European Union? Does the Minister of State agree that those of us who will march this weekend against the visit of President Bush and human rights abuses could be regarded as human rights defenders?
This is a very important development. I am sure Deputy Gormley will appreciate that Frontline, headed by Mary Lawlor, has promoted this idea for some time. We identified this area as a priority of our Presidency and I am pleased my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Cowen, was able to bring the issue forward at the General Affairs Council. While there were general policies in place, we now have agreed guidelines.
EU missions will now monitor, report and assess the situation of human rights defenders in third countries as part of their overall assessment of the human rights situation. They will maintain contact with human rights defenders, provide visible recognition to them through the use of appropriate publicity, visits or invitations and will attend and observe, where appropriate, trials of human rights defenders. They will visit third countries and, where appropriate, will include meetings with and raise individual cases of human rights defenders and the human rights components of political dialogue between EU and third countries and regional organisations and, where relevant, include the situation of human rights defenders. The bilateral human rights and democratisation programmes of the European Union and member states are urged to take further account of the need to assist the development of democratic process and institutions and the promotion and protection of human rights in development countries by, inter alia, supporting human rights defenders. This is a significant development which we prioritised as part of our Presidency.
On the question of temporary protection visas, as Presidency, we originally proposed that EU member states should give favourable consideration to the granting of temporary visas to recognise human rights defenders who are at risk for entry to member states. Ultimately, support for the proposal was not forthcoming within the Union. However, my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, is currently considering introducing such a temporary protection programme. Officials from the two Departments are currently considering the possible outline for such a scheme.
The Deputy referred to a particular association agreement on which I will have to revert to him. I know from my experience with human rights in third countries that we have made use of particular ambassadors in those cases. For example, I recently met NGOs and opposition from Belerus, who are trying to defend human rights in a very tyrannical situation. Before meeting the various opposition members in Brussels, I met the French ambassador, who is acting on our behalf in many of these countries. There are measures and procedures in place to deal with third countries. As near neighbours, it is important to promote human rights in places like Belerus where there are serious human rights abuses. I will revert to the Deputy in regard to his question.
What about those who will march against the visit of President Bush?
People have a right to protest peacefully, and thankfully we have that right here.
Foreign Conflicts.
Pat Breen
Question:7 Mr. P. Breen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government has made contact with the United Nations with regard to the situation in west Papua and the possible review of the Act of Free Choice; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18767/04]
As I stated on a number of occasions, the question of a review of the Act of Free Choice in Papua would require the support of UN member states. Inquiries made by our permanent representative to the UN confirm that at present there is no significant support for such an initiative. There is, moreover, concern that such an approach might prejudice ongoing efforts to develop a meaningful dialogue with the Government in Jakarta and would not contribute to the amelioration of the current situation of the Papuan people.
While acknowledging Indonesia's legitimate concern to preserve its territorial integrity, we continue to encourage the Government of Indonesia to strengthen its efforts to address the legitimate aspirations of the people of Papua. In this regard, I welcomed the decision in August 2003 of the Government of Indonesia to suspend the implementation of the presidential decree dividing Papua into three provinces. I regret, however, that this suspension has been described by the Government of Indonesia as temporary.
At the April 2003 meeting of the EU External Relations Council, Ireland, together with our EU partners, adopted Council conclusions on Indonesia. These confirmed the EU's support for the territorial integrity of Indonesia and stressed the importance of the full implementation, in both letter and spirit, of the special autonomy law in Papua. This law dates from November 2001 but has not yet been implemented. It provides for a greater degree of autonomy for Papua than for Indonesia's other provinces.
As a demonstration of our commitment as Presidency to raise the level of our political dialogue with Indonesia, I led an EU ministerial Troika meeting with the Indonesian foreign minister on 18 April last. This was the first meeting at this level between the EU Presidency and Indonesia in a number of years. In particular, I used the occasion to express the EU's continuing concerns about the situation in Papua. The Minister took note of our concerns and expressed his belief that the special autonomy law will satisfy the aspirations of the overwhelming majority of people in Papua. I made it clear that we would carefully monitor the situation in this regard.
Officials of my Department regularly discuss the situation in Papua with their counterparts from Indonesia and representatives of various Papuan NGOs, as well as from third countries, such as Australia and the United States. Ireland, together with our EU partners, will continue to support the development of a strengthened partnership and effective dialogue between the EU and Indonesia. The Government sees this as the most effective framework at this time for addressing our serious concerns about the situation in Papua.
The Minister will be aware west Papuans state that their misery began when a UN-assisted vote in 1969 allowed 1,022 elders, who they claim were bribed and intimidated, to support the territory's assimilation into Indonesia. These elders were deemed to represent one million west Papuans. They voted unanimously, not in an act of free choice, but in what is now known as an act of no choice. Will the Minister tell the House what is the view of the Secretary General of the United Nations on this matter, given the UN official who oversaw the event has since described it as a whitewash? While I understand discussions are ongoing in Jakarta, and these issues can be sensitive, what is the view of the UN Secretary General in this regard and has the Minister discussed the matter with him?
I have not discussed the matter directly with the Secretary General. I presume his view is the one outlined here, based on the inquiries our UN permanent representative has been making, which is that it will require the support of UN member states, which is not currently available, and there must be constructive dialogue with Indonesia to try to get it to implement the special autonomy law as the best way forward.
At the meeting of 18 July last, did the Minister ask the Foreign Minister why they were dragging their feet on the implementation of the special autonomy law?
In the past, different Governments have been in charge of Indonesia. The present Indonesian Government will perhaps be more open to deal constructively with the matter than was the case in the past.
Why are they dragging their feet on this? That is what the NGOs want to know.
Obviously, it is because there has not been the political will in the Indonesian Government to move on these matters in the way we would like. The autonomy law was adopted in 2001, although its provisions had been rejected by a number of local leaders in the province. A presidential decree in January 2004 implemented the law and an earlier law from late 1999, which had divided Papua into three provinces. That division was rejected by local leaders as a dilution of autonomy. An attempt by the government in August 2003 to implement the presidential decree was met with violence in which three people died. As a result, the government shelved plans for dividing the province while emphasising that this was not a complete cancellation of the policy.
Under the autonomy law, special autonomies are offered within the unitary state of the Republic of Indonesia. The territorial integrity of Indonesia is a huge issue for the Indonesian Government and for the stability of that region. The Papuan provincial government would have control over all matters other than international relations, defence, monetary policy, religion and the supreme court. It would be able to conduct international relations in so far as they related to trade, investment, culture and technology. Papua was also to have its own flag, coat of arms and anthem but as cultural symbols rather than symbols of sovereignty.
The provincial police force remains part of the national police force. The provincial government would have no say in the deployment of Indonesian troops in the province. Transmigration, the programme under which Indonesians from other parts of the country have been moved to Papua, would continue in consultation with the governor. The law also stipulates that revenue from natural resources will go to the provincial government but does not stipulate the percentage.
Clearly, attempts to implement the law have been resisted.
Why?
It does not go far enough to meet the aspirations of some Papuans.
EU Summits.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:8 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his participation in and the outcome of the summit of EU leaders in Brussels in June 2004. [18823/04]
Both the meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference and of the European Council in Brussels on 17 and 18 June were chaired by the Taoiseach, as President of the European Council, and he will make a statement to the House on 30 June.
As the House will be aware, the Intergovernmental Conference reached an agreement on the constitutional treaty. This is both a remarkable achievement for the Irish Presidency and a fundamental advance for the European Union. Following intensive work both in plenary session and in bilateral contacts, we were able to put forward final compromise proposals on the outstanding issues which met the specific concerns of all member states and were thus the subject of consensus. Heads of state and government also held an exchange of views on the appointment of the next President of the European Commission. It is envisaged that a decision on this matter will be taken shortly.
The European Council itself agreed conclusions on a range of important issues, including justice and home affairs, and the fight against terrorism; enlargement; financial perspectives; economic and social issues, employment and environment; the Northern Ireland related peace funds and external relations issues. A copy of the conclusions has been laid before the House. The European Council welcomed the progress achieved in the justice and home affairs agenda and invited the Council and Commission to prepare proposals for the next phase of the process to be considered by the European Council by the end of the year. It also welcomed the report on the implementation of the March European Council declaration on combating terrorism.
The European Council noted with great satisfaction that Bulgaria had provisionally closed all the negotiation chapters and that Romania was substantially closer to achieving the same objective by the end of 2004. It reiterated the European Union's aim to welcome the two countries as members of the Union in January 2007, if they are ready. The Council also welcomed the significant progress made to date by Turkey in the reform process and reaffirmed its commitment that, if the European Council decides in December 2004 on the basis of a report and recommendation from the Commission that Turkey fulfils the Copenhagen criteria, the EU will open accession negotiations with Turkey without delay. It also decided that Croatia is a candidate country for membership of the EU and that the accession negotiations would begin early in 2005.
Regarding the financial perspectives, the European Council took note of the analytical report prepared by the Presidency. The incoming Dutch Presidency has been asked to continue this work. The House will wish to note that the European Council took note of the current difficulties in the Northern Ireland peace process and expressed support for the efforts of the two Governments in seeking to re-establish the devolved institutions. To this end, it called on the Commission to examine the possibility of extending funding for the Peace II programme and the International Fund for Ireland to 2006.
The European Council also adopted conclusions on a number of external relations issues reflecting the Union's engagement with the wider world as well as progress at EU level on a number of targeted priorities of the Irish Presidency. These included a review of the implementation of the European security strategy and the adoption of a medium-term strategy for the EU's relations with Iraq, a strategic partnership with the Mediterranean and the Middle East and the endorsement of the Presidency's progress report on ESDP, including on EU-UN co-operation in crisis management, and a report on EU activities in the framework of conflict prevention.
In the human rights area, EU guidelines on human rights defenders and a strategy for implementation of the EU guidelines on children and armed conflict were adopted. The conclusions also welcomed the Commission's proposals for a European neighbourhood policy and addressed specific situations of concern, including the Middle East peace process, Iran, the situation in Darfur in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In addition, Foreign Ministers, in the margins of the European Council, discussed the EU's relations with Iran, recent developments in the Middle East peace process, the situation in Afghanistan and the China arms embargo.
I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on the extraordinary achievement in getting the constitution agreed. It is a tribute to successive Irish Presidencies and the personnel in Iveagh House and elsewhere. However, it would not have happened without the political input of the Minister and his colleagues and they deserve, unashamedly and unreservedly, our congratulations.
When does the Minister expect the final text of the revised document of the constitutional treaty to be available? Does the Minister expect, based on the report on and the analysis of the position of Croatia, that Croatia will be in a position to join at the same time as Romania and Bulgaria so the next enlargement will be an enlargement of three? That would be a more felicitous and easier to absorb enlargement than an enlargement of two followed by an enlargement of one at a later time.
I thank the Deputy for his compliments. The constitutional document will be given to the translators to be prepared. It should be available in the next few weeks and the signing should take place before November this year. Ratification usually takes about two years after the signing of the treaty.
With regard to Croatia's application, the own merits principle arises. It will be able to begin its negotiations in 2005 and if it can convince people that it will be ready to join at the same time as Romania and Bulgaria in 2007, that is fine. It is more likely, however, that it will be 2008 at the earliest.
I, too, wish the Minister and his colleagues well and congratulate them on the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference and the concluding days of the Presidency. The Minister referred to the presidency of the Commission. Is the Taoiseach one of the candidates he mentioned?
The Taoiseach has made his position clear on this matter on a number of occasions.
Could the Minister make it clear to the House? Is the Taoiseach a candidate for the office of President of the European Commission?
Yes or no?
The Taoiseach, as Presidency, is trying to find a consensus among member states which was not available up to last weekend.
Does the Minister intend to take over the presidency of Fianna Fáil in the near future if a vacancy arises?
There is no vacancy.
With regard to the common security and defence policy, is it the aspiration of this Government to become involved in permanent structured co-operation?
In what area?
In defence.
Obviously, these are matters for consideration by any Government at any time.
I call Deputy Ó Snodaigh.
I wish to make a point. I can understand why the Minister might be slightly evasive after the last question.
He is having a bad day.
He may be having a bad day but——
I am having a great day. I just arrived in from the United States this morning to be present in the House.
The Minister might be a little jet lagged but he should try to "jizz" himself up a little and answer our questions.
If the Deputy asks a specific question, I can give a specific answer.
I did that. The Minister gave me a general answer to a specific question.
The Deputy asked me if we will be involved in structural co-operation in defence.
The ambit of defence extends across a range of areas in security and defence policy. Having been a member of the defence group at the European Convention, the Deputy should know the range of activities involved. There are areas consistent with our foreign policy traditions in which we will have no problem participating. We have negotiated a position whereby all these matters are for democratic and sovereign decision by Government at any time. To give the Deputy any other answer would be foolish, given his ability to misrepresent it in the future.
Earlier this week I received a briefing from the Taoiseach's office on the process leading up to the conclusion of the treaty. At that meeting I was advised by senior civil servants that the Irish EU Presidency prevented the Irish delegates from actively negotiating on issues of national importance. They said I should not worry about this because other states raised our issues of concern. Is it not a scandal that it was left to other states to negotiate Ireland's interests throughout the past six months, since the process of agreement on a constitution collapsed during the Italian Presidency? Was it not a fundamental dereliction of the Minister's duty not to ensure that Ireland's interests were robustly defended within the EU during that period? The Irish people were not aware they were unrepresented at the negotiating table.
I assure the Deputy our interests were very well defended. This is a good deal for Ireland and for the Union. There were 30 delegations at the IGC if one includes member states, observers, the European Parliament and the Commission. Each had its list of priority issues and bottom lines. I am sure the House will appreciate that it is not easy to reach consensus in such a context. Negotiations were conducted in a spirit of goodwill and mutual respect and we rose from the table with a deal that protects our interests and that will stand the test of time.
In the autumn the Government identified a number of key issues of concern to us, defence, justice, tax and the balance in the institutions, including equality in the Commission. In the area of defence, we achieved an outcome that respects the different traditions of member states, including those that are neutral. On justice, we achieved an arrangement that enables the Union to act more effectively while allowing every member state to protect the fundamental aspects of its legal system. On tax, unanimity is to be retained. In the area of the institutions, the outcome is balanced and preserves absolute and strict equality in the Commission. It is an excellent outcome for Ireland and for the Union.
The Minister did not answer my question.
I have answered the question exactly. The Deputy's problem is that he does not know how to take it in.
The Minister did not answer my question about whether the delegates represented our views. Were they prevented by the Minister from doing so?
We have exceeded the time allowed for the question. We must move on to Question No. 9.
The Deputy is the only person in Ireland who cannot congratulate the Presidency. Of course, the generosity of his outfit is well known.
Human Rights Issues.
Bernard Allen
Question:9 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the situation regarding three Irish nationals in Colombia; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18800/04]
Joe Costello
Question:39 Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, following recent discussions between the Taoiseach and the President of Colombia, Mr. Alvaro Uribe, in Mexico concerning the release and deportation of the three Irishmen jailed for travelling on false passports, the agreement or understanding reached concerning the position of the men; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18835/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 39 together.
The Taoiseach and I met the Colombian President, Mr. Uribe, and Foreign Minister, Mr. Barco, to discuss the case of the three Irishmen in Colombia during the recent EU-Latin America summit in Mexico. We emphasised our concern for the men's security and reiterated our view that the best way to ensure their safety was to allow them to leave Colombia pending the hearing of the appeal. We also suggested that given the clear nature of the judgment, a second assessment of the decision to appeal might be made in the Colombian attorney general's office. The president listened carefully to these suggestions, which he saw as having merit. However, he emphasised again that the judiciary in Colombia is independent of the executive.
Subsequent to this meeting the vice-president, Mr. Santos, indicated publicly that the Colombian Government had no objections to the men's returning to Ireland pending the appeal. However, the magistrates in the case ruled that the men could leave prison but would have to remain in Colombia until the appeal was heard. The three men left the prison on Tuesday, 15 June and are now staying in a private location.
I recently spoke to the Colombian vice-minister for foreign affairs on this matter. In response to our representations to Mr. Uribe, he confirmed that our request to review the basis for the appeal was under consideration. He also expressed the hope that if the appeal did go ahead it would be heard within two to four months. My Department will continue to provide all possible consular assistance to the three men as well as to their families and representatives.
The Minister will be aware that the authorities and Members of this House will have questions they want answered when these men return. I will say no more about that now, however. I notice from press reports that a Sinn Féin member of the Northern Assembly was quoted as saying the organisation provided the security for the men when they were released from prison. These men are Irish citizens. Will the Minister confirm that the Government has taken an interest in their security and that he has been assured they are not threatened while they are in Colombia?
Security arrangements were offered to the men concerned, but they did not take up the offer and left the prison by themselves.
Does the Minister have information on the security of these men? Are they in danger? Has the Department raised with the Colombian authorities the question of ensuring they are not put in an insecure or unsafe position?
As I said, the men have been moved to what they regard as a safe location. That is a matter to be determined by themselves. All our consular efforts have been to ensure the security of these citizens to allow due process to take place.
In answer to DeputyMitchell's question, when I was in Colombia a number of international human rights volunteers travelled with lawyers and provided security and support services for them. I presume a similar arrangement is in place.
Does the Minister accept that the families of Niall Connolly, Jim Monaghan and Martin McAuley are still extremely concerned about their safety? Does he share my concern about the delay in the appeal? Does he share my deep concerns about some of the media reporting of the case? Is he aware that many international lawyers and people such as Paul Hill of the Guildford Four have expressed their concerns about the men's safety as well as about other human rights cases in Colombia? What other practical steps is the Minister taking to ensure the men's safe return to Ireland? I thank the Minister and the Department of Foreign Affairs for their work on the case so far.
Everything that can be done is being done. We are dealing with the legal system of another country. We have made representations to the relevant persons to try to expedite matters and bring this to a conclusion as quickly as possible. We are also attempting to have examined the basis of the appeal and the question of whether it should proceed. These issues are under consideration.
Was any reason given for the men's refusal of the offer of security? In discussions that have taken place between the Taoiseach and the Colombian authorities, was any idea given of the timescale involved? Will the men be in Colombia permanently? Is there any realistic chance of their being returned?
The offer of security was made by the Colombian authorities, not the Irish authorities. It was not accepted by the men, which was their decision. In the matter of the timescale of the appeal, the Colombian vice-minister for foreign affairs expressed to me the hope that it might be heard within two to four months. That is not a certain figure but the timescale that was mentioned to me when I asked. There is also the question of whether the appeal will proceed as a result of a re-examination of the judgment by a more experienced member of the Fiscalía.
The three men in question were found guilty of travelling on false passports. They were Irish passports. Has the Irish Government made inquiries about where those passports were issued or any other aspect of what the court found?
I do not have any such information available to me but I will make inquiries.
I join other speakers in thanking both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Taoiseach for their involvement and interest in this case. The Minister stated that the appeal process would take between two and four months. Has the appeal process begun? Has a judge been appointed?
There is extreme concern among the families for the safety of the men. Is it not the case that even the Colombian authorities cannot guarantee their safety within the prison system and that there have been difficulties in the past with human rights groups regarding the army and security services being involved in killings in the country? I thank the Minister for his involvement in the case but there is concern that this will go on and on. It was clear to anybody who attended that little if any evidence was produced during the trial. The trial judge spoke about a need to investigate one of the so-called prosecution witnesses to find out where this person was coming from in terms of the information he produced at the trial. The families have asked that this be expedited as quickly as possible. I welcome the fact that the Minister has been in touch with the Colombian authorities and ask that he continue those representations on their behalf.
The Taoiseach and I raised two issues when we met the President and the Foreign Minister in Guadalajara. The first was whether they would explore the possibility of the appeal not being proceeded with based on a re-examination by the more experienced Fiscalía of the judgment and the law involved. I understand that is still under consideration. Second, the three judges have made a decision that the three men must remain in the country pending the appeal. On that basis I have made inquiries as to what the timeline might be and I got the response I have given to the House. I will continue to monitor the situation.
Overseas Missions.
Trevor Sargent
Question:10 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he intends to raise the issue of the killing of soldiers (details supplied) on 18 April 1980 by a person (details supplied) who currently resides in the United States, if he will be taking all necessary steps to ensure that this man is brought to justice; his views on whether it is unacceptable for the United States to harbour the killer of Irish soldiers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18863/04]
John Gormley
Question:97 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he intends to raise the issue of the killing of persons (details supplied) on 18 April 1980 by a person (details supplied) who currently resides in the United States; if he will take all necessary steps to ensure that this person is brought to justice; his views on whether it is unacceptable for the United States to harbour the killer of Irish soldiers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18930/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 97 together.
The killings of Private Thomas Barrett and Private Derek Smallhorne and the wounding of Private John O'Mahony in 1980 while they served with the United Nations Interim Force in the Lebanon were abhorrent crimes. The nation grieved for their loss and our sympathy for their loved ones has not diminished with the passage of time. The legal issues in this case have been reviewed on a number of occasions with a view to determining whether persons alleged to have committed these crimes could be brought to justice.
The Government has engaged in close consultation with the United States authorities on the question of bringing to justice the alleged perpetrator, who is understood to be resident in the US, and is a naturalised US citizen. The Deputy will understand that I am not in a position to go into detail. I can, however, assure him that the US authorities have been very helpful in the course of these consultations.
The question of seeking the extradition to the State for trial here of the alleged perpetrators of these crimes does not arise because the Irish courts do not have jurisdiction to try persons for acts such as these committed by non-nationals outside the State. An extradition request would therefore have to be made by the country where the crime was committed, namely, Lebanon, with a view to a criminal prosecution there.
As the Deputy will be aware, the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, which was inspired by the need to improve the level of protection of personnel such as Private Barrett and Private Smallhorne serving on UN missions, and to ensure the punishment of individuals who do not respect the mandate of UN peacekeepers, entered into force on 15 January 1999. The convention, however, does not apply retrospectively.
The Government will continue to explore such avenues as may be open to it to seek justice in this tragic case.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Can he understand the resentment many of our soldiers feel in providing protection for the President of the United States of America, Mr. George W. Bush, who is seen to be harbouring Mohammed Baze, the murderer of Privates Barrett and Smallhorne? Will the Minister be raising this issue with the American delegation at the weekend? It is something about which many of our soldiers feel very strongly. They feel this man is being protected by the United States for reasons of protecting its own interests in that area. Can the Minister understand not just the grief but the bitterness our soldiers are experiencing because of this?
Let me make it clear that in consultations with the American authorities we are getting full co-operation from them in dealing with this matter. I have set out the legal complexities involved. I do not see the parallels the Deputy suggests.
US law does not confer jurisdiction on the American courts for the trial of a non-national, as the alleged perpetrator then was, for murder or manslaughter of other non-nationals committed outside the United States. The Government has raised this issue with the Lebanese authorities and made clear the importance Ireland attaches to bringing to justice those responsible for these crimes. The Lebanese authorities have been helpful, while drawing attention to a number of practical difficulties, including but not confined to the assembly of evidence, given the passage of time.
Another complicating factor of which we have been made aware is the absence of an extradition treaty between the United States and Lebanon. These difficulties need to be overcome if a successful prosecution is to be brought in this case.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.