JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 23 Mar 2004

Visit of Colombian Delegation.

Chairman

I welcome the Vice-President of Colombia, Mr. Francisco Santos, who is accompanied by the Colombian ambassador, His Excellency Dr. Alfonso López; the Colombian Honorary Consul, Ms Ines de Tynan, and his ADC, Commander Francisco Cubides.

As members of the joint committee are well aware, the situation in Colombia continues to cause the gravest concern. There is a continuing civil war which has cost many thousands of lives and created nearly 2.5 million refugees. The most recent report of the UN High Commission for Human Rights, UNHCHR, states that the human rights situation in Colombia continues to be critical with abuses on both sides. While the European Union continues to support the Colombian Government's efforts to improve the situation, we also recognise that many of the recommendations made in the report have not yet been implemented and insist that more must be done. Recent anti-terrorist legislation runs contrary to the recommendations of the UNHCHR and is a step in the wrong direction. The Government of Colombia must also grapple with the fact that Colombia is one of the world's main producers and traffickers of illegal drugs, the revenues from which are used to finance and sustain the various armed groups, including FARC, engaged in the civil war.

The joint committee has followed closely the case of the three Irish persons being held in Colombia and awaiting a verdict from Judge Acosta. I welcome the members of the three men's families in the Visitors Gallery. Members of the Oireachtas, including the Minister for Foreign Affairs, have taken a very close interest in the case while Senator White and others have travelled several times to Colombia and kept the committee fully informed of the situation. Our main concern continues to be that the men receive a fair trial and that their safety is ensured, both before and after the verdict which I understand is expected this month. I would appreciate a full briefing on the current situation by the Vice-President.

We have learned that in February FARC went on a diplomatic offensive with a three member negotiating committee aimed at the release of hundreds of prisoners in return for the release of some 60 military and political hostages. I also understand the Catholic Church has been acting as a facilitator and that civilians held for ransom are not included. President Uribe wanted an exchange in the context of a peace process but may, in fact, consider a swap under specific conditions.

What are the chances for a peace process in Colombia? Can the Catholic Church act as a facilitator? The EU External Relations Commissioner, Mr. Chris Patten, stated the European Union would be willing to get involved in a peace process if requested by the United Nations which already has a mandate to help bring about peace negotiations. The way ahead must be through a negotiated peace process on which we would also like to hear the Vice-President's views.

There is a full list of issues to discuss and time is limited. I invite the Vice-President to address the joint committee, following which I will, in the usual way, open the discussion to members.

Mr. Francisco Santos

I will make a brief five to ten minutes presentation on the general situation. When we achieved power on 7 August 2002, there were 170 Colombian towns with no authority present. There were 250 mayors who had resigned due to threats from the FARC, the extreme left-wing organisation. There were 3,000 kidnappings a year, 29,000 murders and 320,000 displaced Colombians due to the activities of the illegal groups from the extreme left and extreme right, while most roads were closed. If a person travelled a road, he or she was kidnapped by the extreme left groups which then started asking for money for his or her release. There were 120 trade union leaders killed. Broadly, we had to confront a very difficult situation.

What have we done? In the first week we taxed the 1% richest Colombians - a $1 billion tax - and put all of the money into the army and police. Today we have a police and army presence in every town in Colombia. We have started regaining control of the country. In 2003 there was a 20% reduction in the murder rate. This means 5,800 fewer Colombians were killed last year than the year before. The number of trade union leaders killed fell from 120 to 51. Displacement numbers have fallen from 320,000 to 152,000 a year. The number of kidnappings has fallen from 3,000 to 2,200. All but 14 of the mayors are back in place and there have been elections in many of the towns which had never had elections.

In October last year we held elections in which the democratic left won in many independent areas while the Government was defeated in a referendum. There is, therefore, a vibrant democracy. Sometimes this is forgotten. Colombia is the oldest and most stable democracy in Latin America. We have had uninterrupted power changes via democratic processes for the past 100 years. We have only had one hiatus of four years between 1953 and 1957, but other than that we have had democratic transitions. We have a separation of powers, and what the Government did was to start gaining control of that situation.

Are we happy with the result? Certainly not. We want zero trade union leaders killed. It is impossible to accept 22,000 murders or 2,200 kidnappings. Some 150,000 displaced Colombians is too many, but we are moving in the right direction. Right now Colombians feel their situation has dramatically improved. According to independent surveys, support for the Colombian Government is approximately 80%. We have had two tax increases because Colombians not only feel a lot more secure but are a lot more secure. A human rights policy, the right to life, has been preserved, with 5,800 more Colombians alive today. The right to liberty, a basic fundamental human right, has been preserved more than before, with 800 fewer kidnappings. The right to life and liberty and economic and social rights has been widened, with 170,000 fewer displaced Colombians.

The right to elect and be elected has been increased, with the powers of governability that mayors and governors now have in many areas where they had none before. A basic human rights policy is producing results and the people of Colombia are happy with it. The people understand for the first time that living in a secure country is a possibility.

In regard to peace processes, from day one the Government opened the door for a peace process. We have one condition, namely a ceasefire. At the beginning we had a peace process with the FARC in which the Government wanted to involve a United Nations envoy to see if we could open the door to negotiations. So far nothing has happened, not because the Government does not accept the process but because the FARC, an extreme leftist group that uses drug trafficking and kidnapping as its main source of financing and uses terror as its main presence, did not accept it.

Speaking of terror, Colombia has witnessed 8,000 explosive-induced attacks in the past six years. In 2002 there were 1,645 explosive-induced attacks, 74 instances of destruction of pipelines, 483 instances of destruction of power lines, 63 instances of destruction of communication towers, 100 instances of destruction of bridges, 248 instances of destruction of contained waste, 32 instances of destruction of populations and 12 instances of destruction of operatives. In addition, there were other attacks with car bombs, bicycle bombs, motorcycle bombs, horse bombs, cadaver bombs and all types of bombs to kill Colombians. Such incidents were reduced by 48% in 2003. For example, the number of attacks on populations went down from 32 to five. I will leave the committee a copy of a document containing all the information about what we are doing and what are the results.

The FARC does not want to negotiate. The ELN is another extreme leftist group that uses terrorism and is financed mainly through extortion and kidnappings; it is not financed as much but is getting involved in kidnapping. We started talking with them in Cuba but nothing has happened. They would not accept dialogue or negotiations. The extreme right illegal groups are also involved in drug trafficking and also kill and displace Colombians and commit human rights violations. We entered into a process with the Catholic Church and it has moved along. We have been able to start negotiations. There was a ceasefire, with which those organisations have not complied totally, but we are at the point at which we involve the OAS, the Organisation of American States, to supervise the process. The American Commission of Human Rights will supervise all of the human rights provisions of the process.

We are moving towards the concentration of troops. We want to demobilise and disarm them. Among the extreme right illegal groups there are 15,000 well armed men. On the extreme left there are approximately 20,000 well armed men. This is a threat to Colombian democracy, the oldest and most stable democracy on the continent. It is not a civil war as the country is not divided. These are illegal organisations which have huge amounts of money to finance their organisations but they have no political support and do not control territory. Nevertheless they are very powerful and are a threat to Colombian stability and democracy, and we must contain and defeat them. We must open the door to negotiations but they must want to come in.

We work very closely with the United Nations human rights office in Colombia. We disagreed with the United Nations document and I will leave the committee a copy of our response. We disagree openly and democratically, and we will still engage with the UN and work with it in bettering the situation in Colombia.

The term "humanitarian exchange" is a horrendous description. First, it is not humanitarian because one is putting on the same level somebody who is captured and tried and somebody who is an innocent civilian. There is a difference. Second, the Government has accepted it under two conditions - that they free all kidnapped people and that the people we free from jails will not go back to the organisations that keep killing, kidnapping and using explosives. They have not accepted that. In fact, President Chirac said last week that France would take the prisoners from the FARC that we let go, but the FARC said it would not accept that because it wanted its men back. It wants them to keep kidnapping.

I am a former kidnap victim. How can I look anybody in the face, including the President, whose father was killed during a kidnapping attempt, or look any Colombian in the eye and tell him that we will release a Colombian who has more than 400 kidnappings under his belt so that he can keep kidnapping? How can we look any Colombian in the eye when we release somebody who has planted car bombs all over Colombia? These are the type of people they want released. Our position is that we can have an exchange - which is not humanitarian, it is a diabolical exchange - but they cannot go back to killing people.

Some months ago there was a rescue attempt of the former governor of a province and a former defence Minister who had been taken as political hostages. They were killed. I agree that it was not such a good effort on the part of the army, but the order of a commander was to shoot these people before leaving. They killed the two men and nine other people who were with them. The person who gave the order had been released in an exchange two years ago. Should we follow that path? I do not think so.

Another point made concerned the trial of the three Irishmen. Let me talk about the judicial system in Colombia. As I said in a meeting before, Montesqueu also went to Colombia. We also inherited his ideas so we have a very strict separation of powers. The judiciary has its own budget and makes its own decisions. We cannot influence decisions. There are rules as to how much time can be taken to reach decisions, and we must wait until the judge decides independently in this case. Let us hope that the ruling will satisfy all of us.

We as a Government cannot pressure the judicial system or push it to do something before the time limit constraints contained within the law have been reached. We respect the judicial system. Yes, it could be better, but we have to respect and work with what we have. We are changing it but those changes will become a reality in 2005. We have to respect the institutions of the Colombian judicial system. We have to respect the Attorney General's office, which conducted the investigation, and respect the judge. He is taking too much time but that is his prerogative. He is within the time constraints. As I said, I spoke with the Supreme Judicial Council, which is the only body that can decide what to do with that case, and I was told the judge had told them the ruling would be out in March. Let us hope in the next seven days the judge will comply with that. The independence of judges is also very important in Colombia.

They have had total access to the process. We have been transparent with the information. The process has been subject to a lot of international supervision and there has been a great deal of engagement. It is a democracy. That is what we should do. However, one cannot tell the Government to pressure a judge. That would be outside of the law. Let us wait for the judge to issue the ruling as soon as possible.

Chairman

The committee has made clear that it wants to see a fair trial and ensure the safety and security of the men concerned.

Deputy G. Mitchell

I join with the Chairman in welcoming Vice-President Santos. It is good to have an exchange of views like this. At a distance we can have peculiar views of each other. For example, people at a distance perhaps have a different view of Northern Ireland than that which we who are close by would have. I also regret that we do not have the opportunity to have before us representatives of organisations like FARC so that anything that is said here today is balanced and reasonable. I note that according to the UNHCR the guerrilla groups, and particularly FARC, continue with their strategy of terrifying the local civilian population and committing acts of terrorism and kidnappings as well as killings, and that there have been no advances in dialogue between the guerrilla groups and the Colombian Government. I note also the concern that the Colombian Government's policy of demobilisation of members of illegal armed organisations raised questions of impunity and the rights of victims also to truth, justice and reparation. Those are not my words. Those are the words of the UNHCR and I want to put them on the record lest we go off in one particular direction. We must pursue truth and justice wherever it takes us.

Is Vice-President Santos aware that the High Commissioner for Human Rights has made 27 concrete priority recommendations on the situation in Colombia for 2004 and will he tell the committee the progress made on the implementation of those recommendations?

On 26 January the General Affairs and External Relations Council stated it would continue to give its support to the President and Government of Colombia but at the same time the EU has stressed to the Colombian Government the need for a comprehensive peace strategy and the need for the Colombian Government to address the still grave human rights and international humanitarian law situation. What has been done about those concerns raised by the European Union?

I am pleased to hear the progress the vice-president has reported on the trade unionists, journalists and others who have disappeared, but could he tell the committee who, in his view, is responsible for these disappearances and whether the Colombian Government or any of its agencies have been charged with any of those disappearances? Perhaps he might give us some idea of what the current situation is on the interdiction on the export of illegal drugs.

What about the disappearance of human rights defenders? What progress has the Colombian Government made on that issue? What view does Amnesty International take and what discussions has the Colombian Government had with that body?

The Chairman raised the issue of the fair trial of Irish citizens who have been before the courts in Colombia. Mr. Santos states that the judiciary is absolutely independent. I am sure he would agree that justice delayed is justice denied. Could he tell the committee whether the Colombian system of independence from the Government is akin to the British or Irish systems? In Ireland, the system is absolutely separate. In Britain, the Lord Chancellor is at once a member of the Cabinet, head of the judiciary and the chairman of a House of Parliament. Is the Colombian judiciary absolutely independent? How does that independence work? Why has there been no decision to date in a case which ended in July where people have been in custody for two and a half years? Would Mr. Santos agree that the case gives rise to the concern that justice delayed is justice denied?

Mr. Santos

The Deputy asked a lot of questions.

Chairman

There will be a few more to come. I suggest we take the questions of two or three members together.

Deputy M. Higgins

I will start with the case to which reference has been made. By way of setting this matter in context, I should state that in a well known case in Ireland involving a former Prime Minister the statement by a member of Government on the matter was sufficient to have the case suspended. Therefore when one hears of the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary from those in governments, those of us who have looked from a distance have found it hard to reconcile the principle with the comment of the president, former president, attorney general and head of the army. That is a major ground for concern.

Those like myself who have visited Latin America also agree that a process delayed massively increases the risk. As I regard myself as a friend of Latin American people in many different countries, I can afford to be candid and state that the evidence from the prisons has been horrific. There has been a considerable danger, not just to the three Irish people but to others. The move, suggested at times, from one setting to a more risky and dangerous setting has either been reversed or avoided by diplomatic representation or the concern of those outside. Again that is a matter of great concern. The sheer length of time involved, which creates its own uncertainty, is also an important aspect.

I always find it offensive in Europe and in what would be regarded as the western world to have any country, region or continent described as being innately prone to violence, and I object to that. Frankly I find it offensive. I do not believe la violencia is in fact an endemic characteristic of any country in Latin America. Those who would advise such a view are also very partial in their version of history.

My own contacts of many years in Colombia would have regarded the alliance between conservatives and liberals as one which left many people landless and created the basis for the poverty, which, in turn, led to the later resistance movements. Looking at Colombia from a distance, my depression is the result of seeing the peasants caught in a pincer movement. In my personal view, those purporting to liberate them from poverty are not essentially on the left. I am not an advocate for some of the groups who claim to be so, but I do note that if that is one side of the pincers, the other and more vicious is Plan Colombia. In the previous Administration, the Sub-Committee on Human Rights of this committee following a discussion on Plan Colombia concluded unanimously that we were opposed to the European Union being asked to add about €250 million as a humanitarian adjustment to a plan which was primarily military. With respect, and with regard to the concept of democratic security, if one goes down that road with thousands of soldiers, 250,000 informants and so on, one is surely not strengthening civil society. It is not an invitation to trust, and yet at the same time the people who represent grassroots communities are telling us that the people are less secure. Plan Colombia is not a piece of innocence and not an attempt to strengthen civil society. It is a heavily laden military project.

I am not making any case for FARC, far from it. I have been explicit on that. Deputy Gay Mitchell has already asked about this, and it is good that the number of killings has fallen, but it seems from Mr. Santos's presentation that the Government is moving towards what it would regard as a containable level of violence. We had that concept in regard to Northern Ireland but one must move beyond it. The most encouraging thing Mr. Santos said relates to the participation in recent elections in many cities, including Bogota and Medellin. Of course, participation in the referendum or plebiscite was about 25%, which is very low.

I reflect very much on the peasants' point of view in Colombia, and we have had representative groups here whose members have said that Plan Colombia, with its five major principles, includes a neo-liberal economic instrument for the transformation of the Colombian economy. I am not saying that Colombia is alone in that. In Europe we are beginning the debate about the consequences of that, but it is being visited on other countries with disastrous consequences. We need only look at our own history. The views of Mr. Kitson and the people around him who suggested that the British could have a military solution to the Northern Ireland problem had to be abandoned. There is no point in me sitting here as an elected representative and saying that this was not the view. It had disastrous, terrorist consequences.

How can one then move towards an alternative in Colombia? The report of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights cannot easily be dismissed. It is honest to say that we are making progress, but these are issues of rights. I have received faxes from workers in Coca Cola factories saying that gates are being left open and that people who are either in tents outside or on strike inside are at risk from unaccountable right wing groups who will assassinate them. That is simply barbarism. I do not regard the alliance between the conservatives and the liberals as a golden age of Colombia, no more than I would regard the era of the dominant landlords as a golden age of Ireland. It was not and is not.

The groups I represent are the human rights groups. They have some protection but not the protection the international code should be offering them. The suggestion has been made to me that in regard to the people who have been kidnapped, for example, there seems to be a movement towards dialogue that would lead towards releases from the right rather than from the left. I am particularly worried about the suggestion made to me more than once that, in regard to the victims of kidnapping, of whom Ingrid Betancourt would have been a significant member, significant political dialogue and a willingness to engage could have created a circumstance in which her release might have been advanced.

I apologise for going on but I assure the delegation that it is because of my concern and interest, particularly for the ordinary Colombians, for whom I wish the very best political future.

Deputy Gregory

I will confine my questions to the case of the three Irishmen, Niall Connolly, Martin McCauley and Jim Monaghan. I take the opportunity to impress on Vice-President Santos that there is considerable public concern in this country first and foremost for the safety of these men but also that the verdict of their trial be based solely on the evidence presented at the trial.

I welcomed the vice-president's earlier comments about the separation of powers and about how politicians cannot influence decisions and put pressure on the judicial system, but I would be interested to hear his comments on the reason for the interventions referred to, including those of the current president, the former president, Pastrana, the former attorney general and the former military commander, General Mora. What was the purpose of their indicating or stating quite openly their view that these men were guilty in the course of a trial which Mr. Santos says is completely separate and in which it is solely the job of the judge and the trial process to decide whether these people are guilty?

Those interventions added to the concern in this country that these men were not getting a fair trial and that the judge would not be free to make a decision solely on the evidence presented at the trial. In view of what he has said, I would welcome Mr. Santos's comments on whether those interventions were appropriate, what was their purpose, what they hoped to influence or what influence they will have.

Second, I raise the length of time it has taken to reach a decision. It is now eight months since the trial and we still have no decision. The vice-president seemed to indicate that there might be a decision in March 2004, and I hope there is because, as other members have stated, the view in this country and the European Union is that justice delayed is justice denied.

Third, I wish to raise with the vice-president the very serious concern that the men might be transferred out of Bogota. I again impress on the vice-president that any such move would cause great distress to the families, relatives, friends and many other people in this country. When the families visit the men, to what extent can the Colombian Government guarantee their safety and that of the prisoners? We have heard frightening reports about some of the prisons in Colombia and we would be very concerned for the safety of these three Irish citizens.

Finally, I understand that the purpose of the vice-president's visit is to improve relations with the European Union. Does he accept that any miscarriage of justice involving European Union citizens would be far from helpful, to say the least, to those developing relations?

Chairman

It might be preferable to take all of the questions if that is acceptable to Mr. Santos.

Mr. Santos

Certainly.

Chairman

I appreciate that as otherwise we would run out of time.

Senator White

I thank the Vice-President for attending this meeting. I am happy other Members of the Irish Parliament will have an opportunity to question the delegation on the position of the three Irish citizens imprisoned in Colombia. I have visited Colombia six times on human rights and compassionate grounds on behalf of the families in the Gallery today. They, the Connolly family, Gerry Monaghan and Mrs McCauley, would like an opportunity to speak to Vice-President Santos following this meeting. It is important they are allowed to do so and I would appreciate if Mr. Santos could agree to speak with them.

I noted, during my last visit, that the men's psychological condition had deteriorated. I had hoped during that visit that we were on a trajectory to getting a verdict delivered. The men were so depressed, it was frightening. When I met Mr. Santos in March I raised with him the point that given the trial had ended in July, we felt the verdict would be delivered in September. The families were optimistic that would happen and that their family members would be brought home. However, the verdict was not delivered then. We were told the judge was busy, the judicial system in Colombia was congested, and that the judge might not be in a position to deliver a verdict until December or January. I have written in my notebook containing the minutes of that meeting, that Mr. Santos said the verdict would be given in March and I believed him.

When will the verdict be given? It is totally inhuman that three men, whose trial ended last July, remain incarcerated in prison. I paid my own fare and expenses when visiting Colombia and in that regard, I am independent. As I said earlier, I visited Colombia six times, five times during the trial and on the last occasion, to meet Mr. Santos and other officials. I attended the trial for five weeks and I heard no evidence to support the guilt of those men on the main charge of which they are accused, training FARC. I went to Colombia with an open mind; I did not know what to expect.

Colombia has signed up to the American Convention on Human Rights which states that every person accused of a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his or her guilt has not been proven according to law. The Vice-President spoke earlier of the separation of powers and the judicial system of Colombia as a democratic country. From my experience, Mr. Santos has painted a rose-tinted view of the Colombian democracy. The statement by former Vice-President Uribes that these men were guilty and were members of the IRA is not a presumption of innocence. Mr. Santos says Colombia is democratic in terms of separation of powers and the judicial system. I find that hard to believe given my experience.

The whole world is awaiting the outcome of this trial. Mr. Santos wishes to present Colombia in a good light. That is fair enough, he is right to do so. Mr. Santos said earlier, in terms of the separation of powers, that he cannot tell the judge what to do. However, it is his responsibility as Vice-President of Colombia and as part of the Government of that country to insist, if he wishes to present a good opinion of his country internationally, on the delivery of the verdict in this trial. The families of the victims in the Gallery are totally distressed as are the men concerned. I am concerned about the mental condition of the three men. As I said earlier, I did not hear any evidence which proved their guilt. The star witness, Giovanni Rodriguez, stated categorically that he saw these men in FARC territory on 21 January yet they were not there as proven by video which illustrated the men were in Ireland at that time. That video also showed them speaking of the peace process in Colombia. Mr. Jim Monaghan had been an activist in that regard. I could speak on this matter for a week but I will not.

It is 17 years since Jim Monaghan was last in prison. He served the time for his crimes. He has been active in the peace process in Ireland. Jim Monaghan and Martin McCauley did not speak Spanish and were accompanied by Niall Connolly as an interpreter. Niall Connolly is fluent in Spanish. His mother, if she were here today, could relay to this committee how he has, since he was young, worked for the good of the weakest people in society. He has been totally unselfish in his dedication to Third World causes. I am being honest in what I have to say. I have told the truth in terms of what I saw and in what I believe.

I gave the video, which showed these men were not in Colombia at the time, to the Taoiseach to view. He has since told me he viewed it. I understand as a political person, that people involved in the politics of achieving peace do not want to go to Lanzarote on their holidays; they are politicians who want to speak about peace and ways of assisting the peace process in Colombia. As a politician, I spend a great deal of time on matters related to the peace process in Northern Ireland. It is something I love to do and I want to help, as do the three men involved in this case.

Deputy Carey

I welcome the Vice-President and his delegation to the meeting. Mr. Santos has given a very good account of a functioning democracy in Colombia in terms of the right to life, liberty and the right to be elected. Unfortunately, the evidence we are receiving suggests otherwise.

It appears on reading much of the documentation with which we have been presented that democracy in Colombia is close to dysfunctional. That is a strong statement. I do not imagine any visiting Vice-President or President expects to be lectured by other parliamentarians but there are times when it is difficult to escape reaching conclusions. This visit is important in the context of the EU Presidency. The EU has a strong record in the promotion of good governance, the role of civil society and the doctrine of the separation of powers and has invested money in that regard.

Perhaps the Vice-President, in the course of his response, might give some account of the success or otherwise of the peace laboratory of which we have heard in the Medellin region where support is provided for the development of civil society, good governance, liberty, civil structures and so on. I am concerned about the suspicion surrounding President Uribe's Government in terms of the legitimacy of, at least, some non-governmental organisations. It is suggested that they are a front for something else. I visited an African country last week where I heard much the same comment being made about some non-governmental organisations. These organisations, which are trying to promote the organisation of civil society and good governance, are an easy target for accusations of undermining the state. Similar allegations have been made here in the past.

Our concern for the three Irishmen waiting a determination of a verdict can be seen in the same context. Their welfare is of considerable concern to many objective Irish people. It is now 22 March and we would appreciate it if the Vice-President could indicate the likelihood of a verdict before the end of the month.

I will confine my final remarks to our great concern for human rights. Many of us are involved in the human rights sub-committee of this committee. We are concerned that, apparently, the 27 recommendations of the UNHCR have been, by and large, left unattended and it appears that in the next report our concerns are likely to be as great, particularly in the area of anti-terrorist legislation, the impunity issue and other similar matters. While recognising Colombia's difficulties and the negative and positive influences bearing on these, in the interest of trying to foster better relations it may be best to have as robust an exchange as possible in the interests of helping to provide solutions.

Senator O’Rourke

We extend a welcome to all visitors to our committee. It is important that our discussion is as robust as we would like it to be. I imagine the Vice-President is robust enough to accept what we have to say and I mean that as a compliment.

I have some questions arising from the documentation and my own reading on Colombia. While we recognise that there have been improvements in the country, has there been too much beating of the breast and attention drawn to what has been done rather than to what has yet to be done? With respect, I found the presentation self-laudatory. It expressed how well the country was doing but gave no clear indication of its intentions with regard to what we consider important issues.

It is important for the Vice-President to make the tour of Europe to tell his tale. Europe is a huge donor to Colombia as a result of a belief, following the London declaration and others, that any country in the morass in which Colombia found itself would need much help to pull itself up. From documentation and what we have been told, Colombia is attempting to do this. However, there is a vast gulf in the information provided to us regarding Colombia's future plans to deal with issues such as the many disappeared, not just the trade union members.

I do not understand why there is such deep suspicion of trade union membership. Are trade union members viewed as subversive? In any democratic country trade unions are a recognised arm of society which function to bring about good for the workers. How does Colombia plan to deal with the issue of the disappeared, vast numbers of whom have never been heard of since their disappearance? Is there a definite strategy and are any attempts being made to find these people or to bring to justice the perpetrators? What is the prospect of dealing with the matter?

In the same context, what has happened to the independent candidate in the previous presidential election, Ingrid Betancourt? Where is she now and what is she doing? Has she been found or can the Vice-President provide any information about that matter?

On the matter of the endemic drugs trade in Colombia, is any real drive being made to curtail and eradicate drug related crime or does the Colombian Government believe that drugs and their production are a source of finance and give a half-shut eye to much of what is going on in that area?

What is the position of women in Colombia? The briefing material we have been given describes many of the injustices inflicted on women and the low esteem in every facet of society in which women are held. Has Colombia a definite affirmation programme for women in Colombian society? Have programmes and protocols which could lead to the betterment of women been adopted?

In common with other colleagues on this committee I am concerned about the case of Niall Connolly, Martin McCauley and Jim Monaghan. The Vice-President has said there is separation of powers within Colombia and we accept that. However, it is not against that separation to ask whether he can give us a declaration as to when the verdict will be issued. We do not seek to alter, change or influence the verdict directly as that would be wrong. I notice the Vice-President is smiling; I am glad he is happy. Can he tell us when the verdict will be issued? The seeking of this information does not infringe on any judicial secrecy or powers and we would be glad if he addressed the issue. I have not visited Colombia and do not know the conditions or how the three men are faring psychologically. However, eight months is a long time to await a judgment from a judge and court and I hope the Vice-President can give us an answer on the matter.

Chairman

Other members also have questions.

Mr. Santos

Let me answer these first and then we can take the others. I am robust enough to handle a meeting like this. The committee probably read in its briefing that I was kidnapped and chained to a bed for eight months. A debate like this is not only encouraging but is something on which I thrive.

I do not accept the derogatory comment made about Colombian democracy and I think the comment was off-line. It is important that people get the correct information in view of that remark. It is at least an offence to the Colombian people.

I remind the committee I am here to debate. On the question of whether there is a functional democracy, I ask the committee to ask the people from the left who won the election. The capital has a trade union leader as mayor and that is the number two position in Colombia. The governor of the third largest state is a trade union leader. Is that a non-functional democracy?

We recognise that we have problems, as is the case in many democracies, but our democracy is vigorous. We were defeated in the elections in October. Political debate is huge. Political parties act and react and are elected and are thrown out of power, which is what democracy is all about. I advise caution in the use of terminology because language is also a very powerful tool that generates problems and does not allow constructive engagement in terms of discussions.

I encourage the committee to examine the ILO web page. The International Labour Organisation has some kind of credibility for Members of Parliament. The ILO published an independent report two weeks ago. It examined our work with trade unions and how we are promoting trade union leaders in order to help protect them and so that they can work in all aspects of trade unionism. Contrary to what was said, we regard trade unionism as an important part of democracy. Trade unions must exist and a democracy without trade unions is a democracy that has lost one of its legs. I ask the committee at least to look at this report and look for an independent assessment as to whether it is correct in its analysis.

There have been huge improvements in a short period of time and there are huge challenges ahead. We do not deny that there is a long road ahead. I have stated very clearly that a democracy with 22,000 murders, with 50 labour union leaders killed, has more to do. We have no qualms about the challenges we face. I ask the committee to see where we have come from. There were 250 mayors who were unable to govern their cities. They had resigned but they are now back in their cities. This is the return of functional democracy.

It is important that we are given a fair hearing in terms of what we are doing and that people should not have a view of democracy that is neo-colonial. There is an attitude that western democracies from Europe are first-rate democracies and which states, "You guys are second-rate democracies and you do not deserve a chance." It is very important and I hope the members of the committee will open their minds to a democracy that undeniably has huge challenges and huge threats but it is not a dictatorship. It has a constitutional court that is recognised as independent by all human rights organisations. We will not deny that the judicial system has huge problems and is not perfect but it is independent and we are trying to deal with it and improve it.

The views expressed at this meeting make us sound like an African country. That may be a derogatory view of African countries and I acknowledge they also deserve respect. The views I have heard have nothing to do with reality. I do not mean to undermine or diminish the problems we have but if one compares what we were and where we are now, one will see a dramatic improvement. A Government that takes big money out of the pockets of its citizens twice in one year and a half does not enjoy the popularity it has because it is doing things wrong. The basic reality is that people are feeling safer and are in fact a lot safer.

I wish to give some very specific answers. Safety for the families of the prisoners will be provided. One of the committee members spoke about their psychological situation. I will personally inquire about the situation and if they require better conditions we will provide them. We regard it as important that they have the best possible conditions. If they need English-speaking psychiatrists we will provide them. We will do whatever is required to protect them.

I do not know when the judge will decide. I got burned on this question. I called the institution responsible and I was told it would be in March. I cannot give a date because it is not in my hands but in the hands of the judicial power. I do not want to say April because I already stated March in good faith and it has now come back to haunt me. I prefer to be quiet and allow the judicial system make its decision. With regard to safety, I will stay permanently in touch with the people who are in charge of them to see what is happening to them. I have told the people on their campaign three times that we will provide whatever help they require or access to the prisoners.

The 27 recommendations are in the document which I will provide to the committee and it also contains our response to the recommendations. Fortunately I work with seven ambassadors, the ambassadors of Britain, Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States of America and Brazil, the London group. If the committee wishes an independent assessment of how we are doing, I urge that it contact the ambassadors to Colombia of those countries. It is very easy to contact them by telephone - they all speak English.

We have written our own assessment of how far we have gone, especially since we had the open debate with those ambassadors. We believe we have moved a lot more than they say but that does not mean we will not keep working with them so that they get our view. We think we have moved along on many of the recommendations.

We have problems with two recommendations. One is to do with judicial powers. We stated in London that we do not agree with that. We need judicial powers because the fight in the jungle is different from that in the cities. There are no judicial workers in the jungle and there is no access to telephones. One needs to be able to capture a person and send them to the judicial system. Those are the powers we need for those special places. There will be specialised units with wide powers and it will have total civilian control. Those powers will be given for use in very specific circumstances.

I ask the committee to examine the ILO report on the question of trade unions. It will show how much we are working with the trade unions to help with their protection and to allow them do their work. On the question of illegal drugs, they are not only endemic in Colombia but also in Europe. They are endemic in consumption and that is what fuels the problem. We would not have a drug problem if cocaine was not being inhaled here in Dublin or in London, Paris or Rome. That is the problem we have.

Drugs are financing the conflict, the weapons and the explosives. Those in the extreme right and the extreme left get money from drugs. They are more involved in drug trafficking than ever before. We have a zero tolerance policy. There has been a reduction in the hectares of cocaine grown in Colombia from 166,000 hectares to 50,000 hectares this year. In the short term, Colombia will move from exporting 600 metric tonnes to exporting 100 metric tonnes.

We are doing what we have to do so that children here are not poisoned on the streets of your cities. We are being responsible members of the international community. Our responsibility still has to be regarded with better understanding and we think that sometimes it is not but we will continue with our job, to get rid of cocaine and the cocaine plant. That is what is fuelling the conflict and what is generating the problems of Colombia. Our policy is zero tolerance of drug traffickers, their goods and planting.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion with regard to what happened with the Irish nationals who are being tried in Colombia. Does that mean they have an influence on the judge? I do not think so. With regards to judges in Colombia, we are a lot more relaxed in that sense. It does not happen in these cases; it happens in other cases. Judges who have their own financing are totally independent. We cannot, for example, say to a judge: "You can be free to work on this case exclusively". The judicial powers provide their own administrative unit. The superior justice council does that. It has total power to discipline and over budgetary matters. We cannot do anything in regard to them. They are very independent and there are resources one can go to if one believes that a process is not being independently judged. There are the tutella, which the constitutional court says must immediately be enforced. There are many recourses if one believes the process is not being fairly judged or whatever, for example, one can immediately change jurisdiction etc.

I disagree with the view that Plan Colombia is not allowing us improve the situation. Members of the committee should ask the 5,800 people who are not dead, the people who are not displaced, whether it is working. We think it is. Obviously we are open to discussion, but we think a human rights policy is the one that leaves fewer people dead, displaced, kidnapped and disappeared. This is what we are doing, and we are not working only towards containable levels. We want to reduce it totally. For a country to go from 29,000 murders to a level that puts us at the Latin American average, will be very hard.

I will give the committee the data. We have put Colombian levels of murder per 100,000 inhabitants back to the level we had in 1986. We still have a long way to go, but I agree that violence is not innate to Colombian society. However, we need the authority to make people pay for the crimes they committed and to make people feel safer.

Chairman

The remaining questions will need to be brief, as the meeting should have concluded by now.

Ms Patricia McKenna, MEP

I want to focus on two issues. I agree with what has been said already about the three Irish men who have been tried in Colombia. Senator White has been there on many occasions and was asked by the committee to report back on her experience. It has been alarming to hear the reports from which it is clear there is no evidence for the main charges against the men. I cannot understand why a judgment has not been made considerably sooner. This conclusion has been supported by many human rights lawyers and by legal experts who have observed the case. It is not just the opinion of members of this committee.

As Deputy Gregory said, these men are EU citizens and there would clearly be a major problem if we have a miscarriage of justice. The reports from Senator White in recent months have been reminiscent of a number of cases such as the Birmingham six, the Guilford four and others. While at the time it was clear these represented miscarriages of justice, people were not listening. It would be advisable to ensure this sort of thing does not happen in this case. For the families and everybody concerned it seems clear that there is nothing to back up charges against them. Justice must be seen to be done. Pushing aside justice and the rule of law in the interest of combating terrorism will merely allow the terrorists to win on another level. The rule of law must be upheld.

I attended the recent meeting of the European Parliament foreign affairs committee at which President Uribe spoke. Mr. Santos mentioned that President Uribe's father, Alberto, had been killed. All these matters must be considered in context. To combat terrorism and violence, all forms of violence must be considered. In 1982, peasant farmers on the Uribe farm who tried to establish a trade union were assassinated.

Mr. Santos

That is a total lie.

Ms McKenna, MEP

Some 20 peasants were assassinated by paramilitary troops. The issue of paramilitaries and how they operate must be addressed. We must condemn all forms of violence and not just one form.

Mr. Santos

That is a lie. Ms McKenna is basing her assertion on a lie.

Ms McKenna, MEP

We had invited guests to the European Parliament. It was offensive for President Uribe to declare that human rights defenders were terrorist sympathisers and cowards, as they would not support his position. This only makes them targets for violence. Not affording people the right to defend someone who has been charged and only allowing those on one side to be defended completely destroys the rule of law and puts human rights defenders in jeopardy. People have a right to a fair trial and to be represented in court.

The president should withdraw his classification of human rights defenders as being terrorist sympathisers. It is extremely dangerous and destroys the whole rule of law in a civilised society.

In December, President Uribe adopted a decree leading to a change in the constitution introducing the so called anti terrorist statute which gives judicial facilities to the military. This has been highly criticised by the United Nations and by Commissioner Patten. It is clear that this is not acceptable and is not in the interest of lasting peace. The decree must be abandoned. It is not in the interest of human rights and justice. Giving the military this kind of involvement in the judiciary is extremely dangerous.

Senator Norris

I welcome Mr. Santos and acknowledge his graciousness. I bumped into him and he immediately turned around and introduced himself to me in a very pleasant way. We have heard many negative things this morning. While I have not had the pleasure of visiting Colombia, I hope to do so one day. I feel I know the country through the works of Gabriel García Márquez, which is a tribute to the wonderful imaginative life of the Colombian people.

While what I have to say will be somewhat different to what has been said by my colleagues, I do not withdraw my support from what they have said about the human, civil and legal rights of the three Irish people detained. I support human rights everywhere and they do not attach merely to people with whom one agrees - I doubt very much whether I would agree with the three people politically. The best clichés have already been reiterated in noting that justice delayed is justice denied, which is inarguable. A defendant is entitled to cross-examine and the proper production of witnesses. In this case this does not appear to have happened. I share their concerns and do not withdraw my support from anything they said.

I would like to balance the discussion by saying that when this sad case is over, I and the other Irish people are entitled to an explanation for what the three men were doing on irregular passports in that part of the world and for the evasiveness of the organisation they were representing, Sinn Féin, which has representatives here today. As an ordinary person, I find it difficult to believe they were engaged in an activity such as collecting butterflies in the rainforest, but regardless of what they were doing, they were entitled to due process and are entitled to be considered innocent until found guilty by a duly constituted court.

I acknowledge Mr. Santos's human background, which has not been sufficiently acknowledged. I have not been the victim of a kidnapping and I have not been chained to a bed for eight months - I hope such things never happen to me. I do not doubt that such experiences were traumatic. I understand that Mr. Santos had to leave his country and live in Madrid for two years. Imagination and decency are required to overcome certain problems, such as the killing of one's father, which was experienced by President Uribe.

I appreciate what Mr. Santos said at Amnesty International's ceremony of support for human rights in Canada. He said that he acknowledges the contribution of human rights defenders and that every time a person from a human rights organisation, trade union or peace organisation becomes a victim, it implies an attack against Colombia and democracy. I agree with him in that regard. However, I ask him to put into context the fact that 16 human rights defenders have been killed since President Uribe took office. I ask Mr. Santos to explain President Uribe's remarks, which have already been mentioned. He stated: "Politicians in the service of terrorism, who cowardly move behind the human rights banner, are trying to regain for terrorism in Colombia spaces recovered by the security forces and the population." Such accusations are dangerous because they put human rights workers at risk. I hope that such wrong and unhelpful interventions will end.

The question of women has been raised by my colleague, Senator O'Rourke. I understand from the Amnesty International report that there are specific human rights difficulties relating to gender. There are also problems in respect of sexual orientation, which is not always a popular theme, even in our supposedly liberal western democracies. I would like Mr. Santos to take into account the human rights of gay people.

I conclude with a number of questions, some of which understand Mr. Santos may not be able to answer, but I ask him to take them with him. The most important thing is not to gain publicity here, but to consider the implications of the subjects we are discussing.

With regard to the arrest of Luz Perly Córdoba Mosquera and her colleagues, it is natural that Ms Córdoba is of particular interest to us here in Ireland because she was one of the distinguished and honoured guests at the second Dublin platform for human rights in September 2003. Her office was raided and she was arrested while attending law classes at a university. There is considerable concern about her fate and those of Juan de Jesús Gutierres Ardila and Victor Enrique Amarillo. I name these people because I find it useful to name specific individuals, so that their cases can be examined by the Colombian Government, rather than talking in vague terms.

I would also like to ask about Ingrid Betancourt. I am sure that Mr. Santos has concerns about such cases, having personally suffered the experience of being kidnapped. I salute and acknowledge his experience - many people would have left politics after such an experience. Mr. Santos is a man of considerable courage.

I would like to ask five questions on behalf of Trócaire. I have been familiar with that fine organisation, which has no connection with terrorism, for many years. It is not involved in anything other than the highest standards of Christian behaviour and humanitarian work. To what extent does Mr. Santos agree with the EU's concerns, as expressed by Chris Patten during the recent visit by President Uribe, about democratic security policies and Colombia's lack of compliance with UN human rights recommendations? Mr. Santos has partly answered that question, by saying that Colombia has difficulties with just two of the 27 recommendations. It has a difficulty with the question of the suspension of judicial procedures during a military operation. I retain some concerns about Colombia's approach in that regard.

What steps are being taken by the Colombian Government to ensure that it fulfils its duty to provide secure working conditions for national and international human rights and humanitarian organisations in Colombia? Irish aid organisations have contributed significantly, and are happy to do so, but they are entitled to expect the maximum degree of protection. What steps will be taken to ensure that the Colombian Government places prevention and protection at the centre of its policy to tackle the humanitarian crisis of internally displaced persons in Colombia? Is the Colombian Government willing to sign the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child protocol, which sets out clear guidelines on the participation of children in armed conflict? How does the Colombian Government intend to ensure that children's rights are protected, especially in the context of the introduction of new penal legislation for youth?

I wish we had some more time because I would like to discuss the question of drugs. I agree that issues of demand and supply are relevant to the debate on the matter, but I am not sure that it is being handled in the right way at present. The Americans have insisted on being involved in defoliation programmes and bombing of areas of the country using carcinogenic substances, which can spread to poor peasant areas of neighbouring countries. I would like to register that matter, which would be appropriate for a full debate.

It is obvious that Mr. Santos is robust and well able to look after himself. I hope he will come back to the sub-committee and afford its members an opportunity to discuss these matters in detail, perhaps over the course of a day. Maybe some other representatives will come to hear our concerns. We are all concerned about the war on drugs, but there are different approaches to it. I thank Mr. Santos for coming to this meeting and I wish him and his country well. I hope it is possible to reduce the awful circumstances that obtain in Colombia in terms of car bombs. Mr. Santos mentioned that there have been cases of bombs inside human bodies, which is appalling. I do not know how people can do such things. I do not want Mr. Santos to take from his meeting with us that there is any political or democratic support in Ireland for such activity, whether perpetrated by Colombian or Irish citizens.

Deputy F. McGrath

I appreciate the opportunity to speak, as I am not a member of the sub-committee. I wish to raise two issues in the company of Vice-President Santos. I met Mr. Santos earlier this morning, so I will be brief. He is aware that I visited Colombia as an international observer at the trial of three Irishmen in that country. I visited the prisons in which they are being held and I met Red Cross workers on the ground. I met people who have been on remand in Colombian prisons for ten years and lawyers in bullet-proof rooms. I met Coca-Cola workers and trade union officials whose friends and colleagues were assassinated. These people, who are very credible, complained to me of their concerns about links between sections of the Colombian Army and right-wing death squads. They also spoke about zones and the reality of the death of 60,000 people since 1985. In light of the facts I have mentioned, how can Mr. Santos say in Ireland that there is not a major political crisis or a civil war in his country? He dismissed such notions in his earlier remarks.

I also want to raise strongly the concerns of the families of Niall Connolly, Jim Monaghan and Martin McCauley, three Irish citizens who are being detained in Colombian jails. When I visited the prisons, I was very concerned about their safety. I stress that I would like Mr. Santos to bring back with him to Colombia a message from the Irish people, which I am expressing as an Independent Member of the Irish Parliament. Irish parliamentarians are concerned about the lack of evidence and the delay in the verdict. I reiterate my request for Mr. Santos to bring back to Colombia the message that we are very concerned about these aspects of the trial.

Mr. Santos

I would like you to check the information you have received, because it is totally untrue. It is a total lie.

Deputy F. McGrath

I met very credible people.

Mr. Santos

No, I am speaking to the other parliamentarian.

Deputy F. McGrath

Do not talk about lies. You cannot say that. I talked to them.

Mr. Santos

No, I am saying that the accusations that Patricia McKenna made——

Ms McKenna, MEP

It is a matter of historical record at this stage. I could say a lot more, but I do not have the time.

Deputy F. McGrath

We do not use the word "lie".

Chairman

Sorry, could members give Mr. Santos the opportunity to reply?

Mr. Santos

No, it is a debate.

Deputy F. McGrath

I ask Mr. Santos to withdraw the word "lie".

Mr. Santos

That accusation, which has been investigated, has been proven to be totally untrue. I will not engage in a debate in such terms, having made my position clear.

The case of Luz Perly Córdoba Mosquera is important. Look at how things are - she is protected by the Ministry of the Interior. She was arrested by the judicial system. What have we done? We have worked with the procurator general, which oversees the legal procedures so that they are looking very carefully at what the attorney general's office is doing to ensure they do not commit any abuse. All we can do is work with that office which is independent from the executive branch of government. They are working so that in the case of the three men under discussion there is special supervision by the procurator's office. There are many people being kidnapped and the Government is ready to deal with FARC to make exchanges. However, that is on condition that FARC releases all the kidnapped people and that those who are released from prison do not return to the organisation.

As a democracy, Colombia takes into account all UN recommendations and European Union concerns. We have had discussions with ambassadors to Columbia about those concerns and we work on them. Whenever we disagree, we are very frank, but while we debate and confront, we also accept criticism. If necessary, we change policy and when problems arise we resolve them.

Our policy on working conditions for non-governmental organisations is very clear. We quadrupled the budget of the interior ministry's protection programme. We provide bullet proof cars and bodyguards to many NGO personnel. The executive provides protection and works with NGOs through a decentralisation programme. It will also work with NGOs through a national action plan which will commence in the middle of this year. While there are occasional confrontations between the government and NGOs over their comments and our responses, we work together on many issues. We are also trying to generate scenarios in which there will be less tension. I tried to co-ordinate a meeting among NGOs and the army's high command, but the NGOs, unfortunately, cancelled. Sometimes, it is necessary to take these steps which offer opportunities to diminish tensions.

While our main aim is to prevent the phenomenon completely, we have been able to reduce the numbers of internally displaced persons by 52%. At present we are very good at providing emergency protection but we have been having significant problems with reintegration. Reintegration involves a huge programme which requires a great deal of money we do not have. Every displaced person should receive three month's protection and money etc., but we have not been able to get hold of that. We are designing special protections and carrying out risk analysis in areas of displacement.

We are following EU recommendations on children's rights organisations to ensure that children are protected. I am not sure whether we have approved a convention of child rights. I will look into the matter. In terms of child protection, Colombia has a very advanced policy. Obviously, the more children who are protected, the better it is.

Chairman

Thank you Mr. Vice-President. The committee is grateful that you have come to us and appreciates your willingness to listen to the views of members. Members have been very frank about deeply held views on politics, human rights and the plight of the three Irish men in custody, Niall Connolly, James Monaghan and Martin McCauley. I understand Colombia faces very difficult problems which have deep historical roots. The committee offers its support to all those who are working for peace.

It is, of course, impossible to address all the issues raised today during one short meeting. Therefore, I wish to focus very briefly on two points. We attach the highest importance to the fair trial of the three Irish men in custody in Colombia and underline our concern and the concern of the public for their safety at all times and an early verdict. Members have expressed this position very clearly.

The committee thanks the Vice-President for his efforts thus far and his commitment to continuing to ensure the safety of the Irishmen in question. In case it has been lost in the course of this debabe, I record the committee's appreciation of what the Vice-President continues to do in that regard. We also offer our full support for Colombia's implementation of the recommendations in the UNHCR report. We appreciate that the Vice-President has shown a consistent interest in the case of the three Irishmen and expressed his willingness to be helpful while emphasising that the verdict is a matter for the judge.

We thank the Vice-President for attending this meeting at which he will have seen the extent of interest in this case. We hope it has helped to focus more clearly attention on various aspects of developments in Colombia. The committee hopes to keep in contact with the Vice-President.

Sitting suspended at 1.15 p.m. and resumed at 2.05 p.m.

The Joint Committee met at 2.00 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Deputy P. Carey,	Senator M, Kitt,
Deputy N. Davern,	Senator D. Norris,
Deputy T. Dempsey,	Senator M. O’Rourke,
Deputy T. Gregory,	Senator B. Ryan.
Deputy M. Higgins,
Deputy G. Mitchell,
Deputy M. Noonan,
Deputy D. Wallace,

In attendance: Senator T. Leyden.