I welcome Mr. Jim Loughran, campaigns manager, and Colm Ó Cuanacháin, the secretary general of Amnesty International. I also thank them for the material received yesterday evening, which was circulated to members. I understand that the principal areas of concern relate to the current human rights situation in the Russian Federation and the international trade in arms and dual use goods.
Amnesty International: Presentation.
Mr. Colm Ó Cuanacháin
It is a great pleasure to be here. Thank you for allowing us to address you on the issue of Russia and the arms trade. First, I will say a brief word about Amnesty International. I am sure you are aware of our work. We are a human rights organisation working to promote all rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We have two million members around the world, with more than 20,000 members active in branches and groups throughout Ireland.
Our campaign this year has centred on the Russian Federation and we will continue to work for change there in the coming months. We are making this presentation to the joint committee to address the need for the Irish Government, particularly in the context of the EU Presidency, to hold the Russian Federation accountable for human rights violations. I will go through in some detail Amnesty International's concerns.
Members will be aware of the two wars in Chechnya with the original conflict coming to an end in 1996. Since 1999, a second war has been raging with a large number of killings, torture and disappearances. All of this is happening in a climate of total impunity. For example, as members may know, the OECD has withdrawn its monitoring mission because it failed to gain support, access and co-operation from the Russian authorities in the region. We continue to be gravely concerned about the situation in Chechnya. The rule of law has collapsed there. Many of the mechanisms of state, including appeals procedures, are no longer available to Chechnyan citizens. There were no courts at all in Chechnya between 1999 and 2001. We are concerned with regard to torture, ill treatment and cruel, inhuman and degrading conditions in the prison system and police custody. We note that the Irish Government has, through the Council of Europe, funded training of police in Russia. That is critically important as the problems with regard to policing in Russia are highly complex and will not be solved easily. The Irish Government's support of the training of police is extremely important and should be continued. However, that gives the Government particular leverage in terms of holding the authorities in Russia accountable for human rights violations perpetrated by police.
One of the more upsetting issues in Russia is human rights violations and violence against women in police custody and in the prison system. There is also the failure of the judiciary and legislature to deal with this violence against women. More than 14,000 die at the hands of their husbands and "loved" ones every year in Russia. Up to 14,000 women die every year with no accountability and total impunity as nobody is brought to justice for these murders. More than 50 attempts to bring legislation through the Duma to address this issue have failed. There is no political will to address those killings. This is something that causes Amnesty grave concern.
Racism is an endemic problem across Russia. Russia is a country of 120 million people and of that figure 87% are ethnically Russian. The remaining ethnic minorities suffer discrimination and racism such as the Meskhetians, who are denied citizenship. There are almost one million Meskhetians affected who are not allowed to have passports, register property and they are denied access to higher education and pensions. They are non-citizens in the State where they have a legal right to citizenship. This brings me to the collapse of the rule of law.
While the Russian constitutional courts have built up a good reputation for their judgments and efforts to enforce the constitution, they are being ignored in administrative units and parts of the federation where the Meskhetians are living. The directions of the constitutional court are not being implemented, thereby denying citizens of the federation their rights to travel, work, a pension and social assistance. These problems are most prevalent in the areas where there are ethnic minorities living.
Children born with disabilities in Russia are taken from their families at birth and brought into State institutions known as internats. At the moment, there are almost 30,000 children under the age of 18 years who are detained in appalling conditions. There are over 4,000 of them confined to bed, unable to move around. They are institutionalised, treated cruelly and inhumanely. They are moved at the age of 18 years from these children’s homes directly into institutions for old people who are in the same complex. The total denial of the rights to liberty and education is a disgrace in our viewpoint in this day and age. It is something that the international community must address. Amnesty’s investigations and visits to these internats have revealed heartbreaking evidence of human rights violations. It is something on which the EU and the Irish Government must take a stand.
By way of introduction to my colleague, Mr. Jim Loughran who will speak on the on the arms trade, the Russian Federation is exporting 20% of the world's arms. What is most staggering is that almost one third of all the light arms flowing into Africa - the source of many human rights violations on the continent - are coming from Russia.
Mr. Jim Loughran
What I want to do in this presentation is to look at the number of statements about Ireland's role in the arms trade and to see whether they stand up to scrutiny.
It is almost accepted as given that Ireland does not have an arms trade in the conventional sense. It is accepted that the bulk of components exported from Ireland are not of a nature to warrant serious concern. It is accepted that the system currently in place is adequate to ensure that military or dual use goods exported from Ireland are not contributing to the abuse of human rights around the world. In the course of my presentation, I will see the extent to which those statements stand up.
The arms trade is much more than guns and bullets. Amnesty International uses the term "MSP" - military, security and police transfers - to denote the trade in a range of technologies that have been shown to facilitate torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, extra judicial executions and other human rights violations. In addition to the military equipment and the dual use goods, we include under our areas of concern, exchange of personnel and the provision of training for the police and members of armed forces of other countries in Ireland. While that can play a very positive role, it depends on who is being trained to do what. It is worth noting that the special forces unit of the Russian Federation were in Ireland being trained at the Curragh. While if they were being trained in human rights standards and protecting the civilian population, it could be a productive initiative, I understand that they were being trained in explosives.
It is important to note that Amnesty is not opposed to the arms trade per se and recognises the right of the state to defend itself against external aggression. However, Amnesty vigorously opposes the export of MSP technologies to state forces and armed opposition groups where they would contribute to human rights abuses. Amnesty International in many cases has opposed direct shipments of guns and plastic bullets to Kenya, surveillance equipment to Indonesia and military equipment to Rwanda during the genocide there. We have taken that action because, in every case, there was documented evidence to link such technologies to human rights violations committed by security forces.
In addition, Amnesty International is increasingly concerned about the exports of dual use goods - largely technology, computers, software - which may be designed to a specifically military purpose. These technologies have been described as providing the central nervous system of the repressive regimes, connecting the boot to the brain. For us the key question is whether there are justified similar concerns with regard to Ireland.
In looking at Ireland's arms trade, the central issue is not the size or the value of the industry but exactly what is being exported from Ireland, who is using it and for what. As we look at the system, we should examine how easy is it to answer those questions whether for the committee, Amnesty as a concerned NGO or Irish citizens. Key criteria for assessing the effectiveness of the system are transparency and public accountability.
The starting point is, does Ireland have an arms trade? In answering that question, it is worth referring to the recent report of phase 1 of the review being carried out by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment which confirms that since 1997 Ireland has exported €240 million worth of military goods and €23.7 billion of dual use goods. Obviously, from the balance of trade, the main focus for an area of concern is the category of dual use goods. It is also worth noting that the number of licences granted for the export of military goods increased from 81 in 1996 to 433 in 2001 and has remained relatively stable at that level since then.
I will take a few examples of the kind of equipment that is being exported from Ireland and the issues of concern to Amnesty International. The export of military goods is controlled by a document called the control of exports order. If we take the first item on that code, item 1a, included in the list are rifles, carbines, revolvers, stun guns and cross-bows. In June 2002, a licence was granted for the export for goods under this category to South Africa. What is the problem presented by this? In the first instance, in terms of transparency, it is trying to find out what was going out of the country. The single code covers such a range of products that it is simply not possible to determine what was shipped to South Africa. Was it a rifle, a carbine or a stun gun? This is information that is not in the public domain.
This information becomes increasingly important when we see that South Africa is becoming an increasingly significant player in the international arms trade. To what extent is there a risk of these goods being re-exported to other conflicts in the region such as the Democratic Republic of Congo? The key criteria of transparency, accountability and our ability to see what is going from Ireland, cannot be simply answered.
Item 4b on the military list is described as "for the handling, control, action and powering of explosive substances, pyrotechnic substances to power torpedoes, bombs and other explosives". These goods are exported from Ireland to a range of countries including Macedonia, Vietnam, the Lebanon, Azerbaijan, Croatia and Rwanda. We may not be exporting the bombs and the torpedoes, but we are exporting the systems that activate them.
Item 5a on the military control list is a product described as fire control equipment. At first instance, one may think that refers to fire extinguishers. Actually it refers to a software package that controls the firing mechanism, the bomb-dropping equipment and the gun-laying equipment on military jets. That has gone from Ireland to a range of countries including Turkey and Taiwan. In 1996, The Irish Times reported that Moog Limited, Ireland, had got the contract for the export of an electronic component as part of an air defence gun developed by Allied Ordinance of Singapore. Allied Ordinance is reported in the definitive defence journal, Jane’s Defence Weekly, to have been supplying the SLORC regime in Burma as early as 1988. Moog Limited, on their website, state that they produce components that have a range of military applications, including electric, aiming and elevation gun control and ammunition handling systems. What is of concern here is not just the exports, but the fact that Moog states that these components are categorised as industrial because of their similarity to other industrial products. In other words, these components, which are central to a weapons system, might escape the export control system and we would not be able to track where they were going and who was getting them at the other end.
This concern is compounded by the response of the then Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, when asked what codes would apply to these products, suggested we contact the company directly as they know their own products best. The implication of this is that the decision whether an export licence is required in the first instance or which code applies, is at the discretion of the company. Instead of a system which, in theory, maintains rigorous scrutiny and effective control, it is in fact decided by the company whether a licence is required.
However, what really undermines the system is that Ireland has no system of post-export checks. This has been put on record by the Department. If an exporter from Ireland applies for licence to ship military or dual use goods to, say, Malta, there is no mechanism for checking if these goods do go to Malta or, turn left, and end up in Tunisia or Algeria or, turn right, and end up in Iran or Iraq. We simply do not know. When statements are made that we have a system of rigorous checks and that we are happy with the assurances given, that assurance is given on a position of almost total lack of real knowledge.
Research carried out for Amnesty's 2001 report identified 70 companies involved in the manufacture, distribution, supply or brokering of military technologies or services. We also identified 14 companies whose produce have been used to support military security or police equipment. It is worth noting that one element which has contributed significantly to the development of this sector is that Ireland is one of only three countries outside the US whose national standards authority can grant US military standards. One UK manufacturer has stated that the reason for them setting up in Ireland was that it was much easier for them to get military standard recognition in Ireland than in the UK because of the trade and standards agreements reached by the Irish and US Governments.
When we talk about components and the volume of that sector we should note again that this sector is worth €23.7 billion. Even if we accept the argument that the bulk of this equipment are components which may or not be of concern and that 1% of these exports are problematic, that would still add up to €237 million of goods that warrant much more serious scrutiny and effective control.
The US based company, Data Device Corporation, which has production facilities in Ireland, has stated on its website that its military standard databus products - an electronic transmission system - is produced here in Ireland. It is the central component for the Apache helicopter. When we talk about the Apache helicopter, we are not talking about one that doubles up as an air ambulance so that it can be used for delivering food aid. It is what it says - an attack helicopter. It is considered one of the most efficient killing machines in the world. The component, which the company itself describes as the lifeline of the aircraft, is manufactured in Ireland. When we asked the Department what code this would come under for the granting of a military licence, we were told, once again, to contact the company as they know their product best. We did contact the company and unsurprisingly we got no response.
Amnesty International has opposed the export of the Apache helicopter from the US to both Israel and Turkey because of concerns about abuse of human rights committed by the Turkish and military forces. Amnesty International would oppose the export of this component from Ireland if we could track if it is being re-exported from the US to Indonesia or Turkey. However, we cannot even answer that question because the information is not in the public domain, even though the Department of Trade, Enterprise and Employment has all of that information on its website.
We have to credit the Irish Government for playing a strong role on international disarmament. Ireland was a central player in the drawing up and the ratification of the Ottawa Land Mine Convention. At that level we play a positive role. However, when we look at Ireland's own legislation on land mines, we discover that there is no provision for components. The legislation of the Explosives (Land Mines) Order 1996 refers to the sale, use, manufacture or export of land mines. However, components are not mentioned at all. We wrote to the Department asking, for example, whether capacitors - the switch to activate land mines - would require a licence for export from Ireland. The response was that any component specifically designed for land mines would require a licence. What that suggests in the undercurrent of the response is that if a component has multiple uses, including being a trigger for land mines, then it would not require an export licence from Ireland. There is a serious level of commitment to arms control at one level, but in terms of the practice and the implementing legislation there are serious gaps. Electronic Concepts, Inc., which operates in both the United States and Ireland, manufactures the capacitors for the M56 and Gator land mines. It is worth noting that the Gator land mine is a 1000 lb. cluster munition containing both anti-tank and anti-personnel functions. We have not been able to establish whether the components for those mines were shipped from Ireland, but it appears that, even if they were, that would not breach any existing Irish legislation.
Telecommunications equipment is an area of bulk export from Ireland. One may ask what the problem is in exporting telephone systems from Ireland to a country such as Saudi Arabia. In practice, those exports are governed by an international, legally binding technical specification which obliges Irish exporters to supply equipment to the same standard to a country such as Saudi Arabia as they would supply here. That means that those telephone systems include phone-tapping packages - systems that enable governments to monitor phone calls and build up a profile of political activists and human rights defenders. If that equipment goes to a country with very strong democratic controls where rights to freedom of expression and political activism are guaranteed, that is one thing. However, if they go to Indonesia, China or Saudi Arabia, they raise very serious concerns about our contribution to the tracking, arrest and imprisonment of human rights defenders and political activists.
Multi-channel radios are an example of another product in the area. Ireland granted four licences for the export of sophisticated radio systems to Malaysia in 1998. In response to a Dáil question, the Minister gave details of licences granted for two-way military radios. Malaysia was not on the list. Given that the control list notes state that licences are not required for civilian systems, Amnesty International is concerned that the radios transferred to Malaysia in 1998 were for use by the Malaysian police. That has been a particular problem since Amnesty documented serious human rights abuses, including the abuse of demonstrators, the excessive use of force and the torture and ill treatment of prisoners in custody. Amnesty has also voiced serious concerns about such equipment being exported to the police in Zimbabwe, and similar licences have been granted for the export of that category of equipment to that country.
One of the biggest areas of concern when it comes to dual use goods is that of what are known as "global licences". While over the past few years there has been a strengthening of controls on military goods, controls on exports of dual use goods have been weakened. The rationale was to reduce the administrative burden on companies. If a company is making multiple exports, it can apply in advance for a global licence. It need not notify the Department in advance of where the export is going, and the only obligation is to keep the paperwork for three years. Effectively that means that the potential for subsequent scrutiny of such exports is almost minimal.
It is worth talking a little of the need for effective scrutiny by the Oireachtas.
Please bring your remarks to a conclusion.
Mr. Loughran
Certainly. Two of our biggest concerns regarding export controls are the total absence of controls on arms brokers and licensed production. If I were an arms dealer, I could ship surplus arms from Moldova or any of the former Soviet republics to Sierra Leone, and because we do not have any legislation, they would be the original invisible export. The UN special rapporteur on Sierra Leone documented illegal shipments of AK-47s from Moldova to Sierra Leone. In a lead article, The Irish Examiner has documented the fact that the money from that deal ended up in the bank account of a Dublin registered company. While Ireland was not actively involved in the shipment, it benefited from the financial outcome of the deal.
Licensed production is another area where Irish companies can effectively bypass the control system. Timony, an Irish company, has a licensed production agreement for armoured personnel carriers in Singapore, which has been described in export control terms as being like a black hole in cyberspace. Exports from it have ended up in Burma and other countries in defiance of UN embargoes. Regarding the control of arms, we hope that Ireland will support the current move for an international arms trade treaty and take effective steps to strengthen both EU control mechanisms and the export control system from here. The gaps in the system, the lack of export control checks and legislation on brokering and licensed production effectively make such systems largely cosmetic. For the sake of policy coherence, Ireland's welcome commitment to non-proliferation and conflict resolution must be reflected in support for tough arms export controls.
We have an opportunity to raise those issues with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, particularly as he comes here every month before he goes to the External Relations and General Affairs Council where they can be discussed. A treaty on the international arms trade is certainly an issue that we can pursue with him.
On the question of Russia, the figures you mention of 14,000 women dying without anyone being brought to account are extraordinary. You said that 4,000 of the 13,000 children are confined to bed. Those are extraordinary issues which do not come to the attention of the committee in such detail. There is a summit between the EU and Russia in Rome on 6 November and we will be meeting our Minister before he goes to it. That will give us the opportunity to raise some of those issues with him.
My notes are a little out of date, but something of the order of 250,000 inmates were on remand awaiting trial in Russia, which proposes to introduce systems to cut that back to about 100,000, which would be some improvement. In your own report, Rough Justice: The law and human rights in the Russian Federation, you mention that the USSR, with a population of 260 million, had 15,781 judges, that being about the same as the Federal Republic of Germany, a country with a quarter of the population. Later you mention that it is proposed to increase that figure to about 30,000. Presumably that would mean, first, that there would not be so many people on remand and, second, that there would be some incentive to deal with cases. As I understand it, until recently, it was a matter for the prosecutor’s office whether cases went before judges, but now they can take the initiative in bringing them forward. Perhaps you might tell the committee if the initiative given to judges would do anything to bring to account some of those who are responsible for the disappearance of 14,000 women. Where does the solution lie? How can 14,000 women die without anyone being brought to account? Is it because there is no judicial reform and no proper independent investigation? Money and corruption lie at the heart of Russia’s judicial problems. It seems that the new code proposed does not solve that. One report I saw said that a detailed study of corruption released in May 2002 said that Russians spend $274 million on bribes to the courts. Does that figure stand up? I would like to hear your comments. How much of it is a legacy? Is the situation getting better or worse?
I will conclude by suggesting to the committee that this is an area where we might consider appointing a rapporteur. We have a budget for rapporteurs which has not been exhausted. We could consider it if there were a member of the committee interested in reporting on the subject. Deputies Mulcahy and Harkin are offering questions.
I join the Chairm an in warmly welcoming the delegation whose comments I found extremely interesting. As they said themselves, their comments fall into two areas, one being internal human rights abuses within the Russian Federation, and the other the arms trade, both from Russia and in so far as it applies to Ireland. I will confine my remarks to the first topic. It is incredibly useful that Amnesty has come here today to shine the spotlight on this area. It is shocking and distressing to read about it in such detail, and it is very important that the information be made available to the public. Many here may not realise it, but there is now a very large expatriate Russian population in Ireland, numbering 20,000 or perhaps even 22,000. They have just opened the first Russian Orthodox Church in Harold's Cross. Not just between Europe and Russia, but between Ireland and Russia, there is a growing relationship. Of course, there is a great deal of trade, and many charitable institutions have also been actively involved.
Taking up a theme that the Chairman raised, the issue of human rights in Russia goes back hundreds of years, from the days when serfs had little or no right to life, except as their master decreed. Stalin did not exactly have a very high regard for human life. Since the Gorbachev era and the advent of Yeltsin and Putin, has positive change been taking place or is there an inbuilt, institutional abuse of human rights which is ongoing and has reached a plateau? There are certainly some very positive aspects, but we must remind ourselves that democracy in Russia has had a very recent birth - it was no later than 1989 or perhaps the middle of the 1990s. The Russians have not had much time to reform any of their institutions, and that is why I would like to know if, even in the last few years, there has been some progress.
The Chairman said that the relationship between the EU and Russia is developing. A few years ago they signed a fairly detailed programme and I know they are in the process of drawing up a completely new programme between the EU and Russia for economic development, cultural exchange and so on. This committee could come in there. The EU should be putting the human rights issue very much on the Russian agenda at their co-operation meetings. Amnesty could come up with some set of principles or shopping list that EU negotiators could have when they sit down at the table. Obviously, from the Russian perspective, what they want is access to what is perhaps the largest and most prosperous market in the world. It would be legitimate to say that, if they want access to that market, they must improve their human rights situation, giving them a list of key outline reforms. Does Amnesty see itself as being in a position to draw up such a set of principles or shopping list of broad reforms that might at least help ameliorate the situation in the short to medium term?
I thank the two representatives from Amnesty for the presentation this afternoon which certainly gives me great cause for concern and much food for thought. What constructive role can the EU play in dealing with the human rights abuses that you have catalogued, given that Ireland will assume the Presidency after Christmas? The Chairman already described some of them, and like everyone else here, I am reeling with shock at figures such as 14,000 women who have disappeared and that for children with disabilities or from broken homes ending up in institutions. In Ireland especially, given the current disclosures about what happened to children in institutions here, it really hits home for many of us. It is one thing to sit here, shake our heads and say it is terrible. However, I agree with Deputy Mulcahy that, as a committee, we must try to ensure that Ireland can put something in place during its EU Presidency to effect some real change in what is happening in Chechnya. Both Deputy Mulcahy and the Chairman asked, looking at the wider scheme of things, if you see any signs of hope. Are things improving?
You also raised the issue of the arms trade. The potential for scrutiny of what we export seems to be under the control of companies rather than the aegis of the Department. You spoke of an international arms trade treaty, saying that Ireland should try to ensure that the EU takes effective steps to control arms exports. However, how do we tighten up our own exports? We have a policy regarding non-proliferation of arms and weapons of mass destruction, but if it is to have any coherence at all, we must first put our own house in order and examine how we can tighten policy. Rather than sitting here pontificating and telling other people what they should do, we must look at what we can practically do ourselves and what we can deliver. There is little point in legislation if it means nothing in reality. I am very interested in your comments on what we can do in that regard.
I thank the delegation for coming today and for a very interesting and precise contribution. Did you really say that 14,000 women disappear annually? The word annually is the critical point, for I had suspected a larger number. That is amazing.
Regarding children with disabilities, do you have any idea of their life expectancy generally? At 18, they are moved on, but given those dreadful conditions and the lack of any mental or physical stimulation, I am curious about the average life expectancy. I too wonder about what we might do about the arms trade here and what the committee could do about any of those things. I am deputising here for my colleague, Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh. I wonder if it is appropriate that, at this stage, I propose that we invite the Russian ambassador before the committee to answer some questions on these matters. We are all against bombs these days. No one likes bombs of any kinds. However, I believe that it is always the person with the small bomb who is the criminal. The bigger the bomb, the less association with any guilt or hassle whatsoever. Perhaps this committee might debate the Forfás report resulting from the recent public consultation process. The EU is considering a militarisation of sorts in the EU arms industry and creating an EU armaments agency. Perhaps I might make those two proposals.
Did the Chairman's suggestion of a rapporteur relate to the Russian part of the presentation or to both parts, including the arms export dual use issues?
We could follow up the specific proposal for an international arms trade treaty separately. On the issue of Russia, if there were a member of the committee willing to take on the role of rapporteur, we could invite the Russian ambassador. However, we would need a rapporteur to follow up with a report. We have a budget for it, so there are resources available for a member to do it. We would presumably need it done by the end of December. We will see if anyone is interested in doing that.
In a few hours' time we will be spending literally a couple of hours discussing the convention report on the draft constitutional treaty. When one examines the candidate or accession countries which will be formally joining us on 1 May 2004, most of which we have visited over the last few years, one sees the strides that have been made in them. Not everything is perfect, but a great deal of progress has been made over a whole range of areas under the acquis communautaire which they have been forced to negotiate, having committed themselves to do so as part of their membership. Deputy Mulcahy mentioned the residue of a communist regime and the practices that were endemic under it, particularly in human rights, corruption and crime of all sorts. I suppose you realise that the more closely and quickly we work with the Russian Federation in the New Neighbours initiative the better. In the context of the summit between the EU and Russia, the Minister, who was here lately, talked about the need to develop that initiative for a whole range of reasons. We should urge the Irish Presidency to encourage the development of good neighbourly relations with the Russian Federation and former Soviet republics. Several things strike me. I do not at all pretend to be an expert on the arms issue. However, I am concerned that, as I recall, none of the candidate countries has ratified the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and their Destruction. Indeed, some of the existing members of the community, including some Nordic countries, have not done so either. It is an area which the Irish and subsequent Presidencies might usefully pursue.
Are there practical things we could do? For example, it strikes me that we may be able to use our influences in our Presidency to get President Putin to reverse his decision effectively to abolish the presidential clemency commission, downgrading it to regional commissions. I do not know whether you feel that might be useful or achievable. The other area that strikes me, about which we have some leverage if the New Neighbours initiative advances, is that the Russian Federation entered reservations under Article 5(3) and 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Arrest and detention are clearly a matter about which we have concerns. Since the Charter of Fundamental Rights is incorporated into the new draft constitutional treaty, I assume that the Russian Federation might also hold those aspirations, meaning that the abolition of the death penalty would become an objective that we should try to achieve as part of our Presidency. There is a small number of such practical matters that would make a significant difference to the thousands of women and imprisoned, illegally detained people in the Russian Federation and such places as Chechnya. I am throwing that out to see your response.
I apologise for being late. I watched some of the proceedings on the monitor before coming in. I thank the delegation for coming here and congratulate you on your work for us all over the years. As a member, though, I have to say, not a very active one, I have always been very proud of what you have done to raise the general public's awareness. Many human rights issues that have been dealt with over the last ten years might not have got the same support without your highlighting them and bringing them into general public discussion.
The figures that you quoted for the institutional care, for want of a better phrase, of women, are absolutely shocking, horrifying and frightening. Like everyone else here, I would like to know what practical steps we could take as legislators to try to address that. I accept Deputy Carey's point about dialogue and trying in some way, particularly under the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to ensure that we keep close contact with Russia. It is all right to be shocked and horrified and then not to wish to speak to someone, but that will not move matters much further forward. I honestly believe that Irish people would never believe that we were in any way responsible for whatever is going on in the arms trade simply because there is a general perception that we do not make arms here and therefore have no control over anything. Perhaps making people aware and educating them is an area in which we should become active. I would be interested to hear what else of a practical nature you feel we might be able to do as legislators to assist your very fine work.
Mr. Ó Cuanacháin
Perhaps I might start with the questions on Russia, after which Mr.Loughran could take over regarding the arms trade.
I will address the Chairman's questions first. You correctly identify corruption as a very serious problem in Russia. It is worth noting that the very first time Amnesty International had cause to raise corruption in the context of human rights was during our campaign in Russia. It was the first time we made any pronouncements as a movement on corruption and the direct link between it and human rights violations. You have correctly identified a major concern. There is evidence available to Amnesty International linking corrupt practices with the proliferation of human rights violations, influencing decision making, which are having a negative impact on the human rights climate in the country, and definitely stalling or blocking possible human rights initiatives which could result in reform. That is definitely one of the problems that must be addressed. It is worth noting that, internally there is a recognition of that by some in the legislature, who are endeavouring to deal with it. They tell us that they need help and support in embarking on those kinds of anti-corruption initiatives.
Let us take the horrific statistics for violence against women. A total of 14,000 women died in the home in 2002. That does not give us any insight into the numbers who are being injured or brutally attacked every year in Russia. You asked why that is happening. The problem is on at least three levels. First, in the legislature there is either an inability or an unwillingness to introduce legislation to deal with the problem. As I said, the Duma has repeatedly attempted to address the issue and the legislation has fallen for whatever reason. While welcoming your initiative to seek to appoint a rapporteur, looking at the question of why Russian parliamentarians have not dealt with the issue would also be worth scrutinising.
The second level is that of policing and enforcement. There is a real problem regarding the police and violence against women. They are not taking their responsibilities seriously; instead they are contributing to the problem. Women will tell you that they would not dare report violence in the home because of the additional difficulties it would create for them. Instead of seeking sanctuary and safety from the police, they fear them and would hide from them if they had been attacked at home. The third problem is society as a whole. There is a stigma and culture allowing this to continue, and that must also be addressed in the context of education.
The criminal justice system is in great difficulty. The recent reforms have led to some very interesting changes. Initiatives such as the increase in the number of judges in the Supreme Court and the introduction of legislation whereby there is an obligation to bring people who have been arrested before court within 48 hours have led to a dramatic fall in the number of people on remand. It is an indication to us that the system has been facilitating the abuse of human rights and civil liberties. Many were being detained inappropriately, and increasing the number of judges has proved that such reforms can work and effect changes. We want to see that moving much faster.
Deputy Mulcahy raised some very interesting issues, wondering whether there had been a positive change. The optimism which greeted the opening up of the former Soviet Union and the establishment of a democracy in 1991 has not borne any fruit. There has been a complete collapse, not just in the economic and social spheres but also the civil and political institutions of the state. It is impossible to say that democratic institutions have taken hold to the benefit of the country's citizens.
The one area where there is progress is the fact that there does seem to be a willingness and openness to take support and help from almost any quarter. I mentioned earlier the Council of Europe's training programme with the police. Our information is that the police and the authorities would take training support help and direction from almost any willing neighbour or partner. There is scope there for the Irish Government and the EU to provide additional support. Amnesty International would provide a set of direction guidelines or any advice it could to a rapporteur to this committee, to the Government and the EU and we will make any information we can available.
To take up Deputy Harkin's phrase, there is the possibility to facilitate "real change". For example, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe's mission to Chechnya was withdrawn, controversially, by Lord Judd, because he said it was a sham, and that the Russian authorities were not co-operating with him. There is no international monitoring going on in Chechnya right now as a result. What the commitee, the Government and the EU can do is insist the Russian authorities open up their operations in Chechnya to monitoring and scrutiny of UN rapporteurs and mechanisms, the OSC and the European structures. That is essential. There is absolutely no accountability at the moment, none whatsoever. That is unacceptable.
Deputy Morgan reminded us of the issue of children, which we raised in our report. Several members of the committee commented on the horrific situation in that regard. We have no statistics with regard to life expectancy but cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is being experienced by those children, despite the fact that the Convention on the Rights of the Child has been ratified by the Russian government. It is being flouted and undermined to a level where serious human rights violations are being perpetrated. There is an obligation on the EU to hold the Russian government accountable for the way it is treating these children who, by virtue of being born with a disability, being orphaned or abandoned, somehow find themselves in state institutions. This is something that has to be addressed by the Russian authorities.
The New Neighbour initiative, as Deputy Carey indicated, is very interesting in terms of highlighting what can be done using the expansion of the EU as a vehicle to build up that relationship and foster accountability mechanisms. There are many ways in which the Russians are seeking to open up markets, communications and dialogue with the EU. There has to be a quid pro quo and it is up to the institutions of the EU to hold the Russians accountable. The front end of those negotiations should focus on EU-Russia dialogue, such as the meeting in November, as a critical step in that regard, to put human rights cards on the table at the outset and to insist that the situation is totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated. A type of helplessness is being demonstrated by the Duma which is saying in effect: “What can we do? We are trying to embark on such an enormous change process that we cannot do it.”
That is unacceptable from our viewpoint. The Russian Government is accountable under international human rights law - and it is up to the EU to hold it accountable. The idea in relation to the clemency commission is interesting. It is sad that the change in the structure of the clemency commission has resulted in the failure of one of the key human rights mechanisms in the country. There has been a marked decline in the number of prisoners being granted clemency because the entire system has been made so much more complex by regionalising it. That is of concern to us. It is a symptom of just how grave the problems in the overall criminal justice system are in Russia. To reverse that would be helpful, but it would represent just a minor change in an overall flawed system that has to be addressed across the board. The Deputy is right in saying the European Convention on Human Rights is a critical document. Any government, not least the government of the largest country in the world, should not be allowed to renege on key articles thereof. It is right to suggest they should be asked to ratify those articles.
We welcome Deputy Sexton's remarks. As she has said, the human rights violations against children are totally unacceptable. I reiterate that the Russian Government is bound by the Convention and the Rights of the Child. The Council of Europe can play a critical role in terms of trying to hold the Russians accountable in that regard.
Mr. Loughran
In relation to the arms trade, a useful starting point would be the review that is currently being carried out by the Department. A full fledged debate on that would air many of the issues. What is more important is a commitment to honour any of the regulations that may come out in the final document. The Irish Government could take a number of specific steps to deal with more effective control of the arms trade. One is the system of post-export checks. The point has been made that this was such a huge administrative task that it would not be possible to undertake a full check of every single licence granted. The fact that to do all of them is so difficult is not a rationale for not doing any of them. The credibility of the system depends on those checks. This is not just an Irish problem. It is an EU problem and most other EU countries are in the same situation.
The two other glaring gaps are the absence of legislation on both arms brokers and controls on licensed production. Essentially what we are talking about are invisible exports that slip under the net. The UK is currently introducing legislation on arms brokering. For example, one of the downsides of that is that it applies only to British citizens on UK territory. They can bypass that by coming to Dublin. We should learn from the experience of the UK.
I would like to offer an invitation from Roger Perry, MP, who is the chairman of the Westminster committee on the arms trade: if any of the Members of this House want to see how his committee - which has the specific brief of scrutinising the arms trade - works, he would be very willing to work with you. One of our key recommendations is the setting up of an Oireachtas committee with the capacity and the resources to exercise effective scrutiny of the arms trade. That would be a major step forward. We would also seek support for the EU code of conduct on the arms trade. The problem with this is that it is pitched at such a low level that it is largely ineffective. It is being pitched at the level of the lowest common denominator. At the highest political level is support during the Presidency for the arms trade treaty, which is the key to the whole thing. Many of the legal instruments and control standards are so patchy and ineffective that the arms trade treaty will provide the essential legal framework within which all these other issues will fit. Those would be absolutely simple points.
Thank you. While you were speaking I was doing a calculation. If you were to extrapolate the figure of 14,000 women per year, based on the Irish population it would be up to 215 women per year. That is an extraordinary figure. Members will be aware that there is an EU-Russia summit in Rome on 6 November and we will be getting a report before and after that meeting. It is due to address the building of the four spaces - that is, common economic space, freedom, security and justice and external security as well as research and education. It will deal with developments in Russia - which covers the area we have been discussing - and developments in the EU and international issues. Those items will be on the agenda for that meeting and we will have an opportunity to raise them with our own Minister.
There is some merit in inviting in the Russian ambassador. I wonder if the committee has any view of appointing a rapporteur on the situation in Russia. It would be a matter of taking the evidence given by Amnesty International and the Russian ambassador when he comes, doing the research and making a report for the committee which we could lay before both Houses. If any committee member is interested, we would need to have the report done by December. We know we have resources until then, but we do not know what the situation will be after that. If a member is interested perhaps he or she would communicate with the me.
On the proposal to invite in the Russian ambassador, what is the view of the committee? If we are to invite him, we should do it before the EU-Russian summit so that we will have an opportunity to raise issues with our own Minister in the normal way before he goes. Is that agreed?
In advance of the committee inviting the Russian ambassador, will we attempt to have some type of set agenda for him? Should we indicate to him that there is a particular number of areas we wish to address. If the ambassador comes in and gives a "state of the old union" address, that might not leave us any wiser. Very serious issues have been raised and addressed at this meeting. We should perhaps take a number of those issues and indicate to the ambassador we would like to debate them with him.
I will ask Mr. O'Mahony, our adviser, to highlight the issues raised by Amnesty International today and to say the committee is concerned about these and would like to talk to the ambassador about them. We can then circulate the highlights to the members before he comes. If that is to happen, it will be necessary to do it at our next meeting in order to accommodate that before the EU-Russia summit on 6 November. We will see if we can fit it in within that timescale.
I do not know the Russian ambassador, but I have absolutely no doubt, given what we have heard, that it is a he. In keeping with what the Senator has said, while I probably will not be deputising for Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh at that point, I am sure that he, no more than myself, would not want to listen to a state of the union address from the ambassador. That contribution should be kept fairly tight, with members allowed in afterwards with questions. Perhaps the majority of the time should be devoted to that particular section of his visit.
We must remember that ambassadors walk a tight line in representing their governments. We did have the Nigerian ambassador in on one occasion, before any committee was formed - we were the only ones in existence - and he did say he would resign if the death penalty was applied to a woman. She did not die, thank God, and he has not resigned, so there was some improvement in the situation there. Without putting the ambassador on trial when he comes - he does not have to come - if we have dialogue with him we have an opportunity to influence. If we become accusatory and all of that, we may not have. There are serious issues to raise with him. I happen to have met him last week and he seems very forthcoming. Usually the Russian Embassy has someone in the audience when we do a pre-governmental advisory committee meeting. We will advise him and see if we can get him in. We will get the adviser to the committee to highlight the submissions made. On the issue of the international arms trade treaty, we can try to pursue that issue separately.
I would like to thank you both for coming, Mr. Ó Cuanacháin and Mr. Loughran, and for your contributions. They were both interesting and very alarming, and helpful at the same time to us as legislators. I would like to thank the members of the committee for their submissions.
The joint committee adjourned at 3.45 p.m. until 12 noon on Wednesday, 29 October 2003.