JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on Human Rights) debate -
Wednesday, 31 Mar 2004

Amnesty International: Presentation

Chairman

I welcome Ms Anne Marlborough, the EU Presidency officer of the Irish section of Amnesty International, who is here to engage in discussion on the report by Amnesty International on recommendations to Ireland's EU Presidency. The Presidency coincides with significant changes in the composition of the EU and it is an opportune time for us to attempt to shape the agenda on human rights issues.

While members of the committee have absolute privilege, that privilege does not apply to witnesses before the committee. I invite Ms Marlborough to make her submission, after which members of the committee will pose their questions.

Ms Anne Marlborough

It is a great privilege to address the committee this morning on behalf of Amnesty International. I am delighted to have the opportunity to do so.

When one thinks of European affairs and the European Union enterprise, human rights is not an issue that would normally spring to mind. When Ireland joined the EEC in the 1970s we did not think much about human rights. We thought about trade and how our economy would benefit, as it ultimately did, from membership of the Community. However, there was another important benefit from membership and that was the way human rights became a central issue in our daily and economic lives. Membership of the European Community brought with it the equality agenda. It was limited at first and related just to employment equality. It gradually extended to social welfare equality.

However, the active jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg has brought equality and human rights into all areas of EU competence. Initially this was done in a circuitous manner but it was eventually determined that human rights applied to all areas of competence when dealing with the institutions. Gradually, that broadened further until eventually the court came to interpret the common legal and constitutional traditions of the member states until, ultimately, the European Convention on Human Rights had a significant impact on how it would interpret Community law. This came about through a type of bottom up avenue.

Now things have changed. There is a process whereby a new constitution will be adopted and that will contain a clear charter of fundamental rights. That is something Amnesty International notes with great satisfaction and pleasure. There will be a firm basis for human rights within the EU framework. As the European Union is currently constituted there is still a lack in the theoretical and structural manner in which human rights provisions can be promoted.

I wish to discuss human rights in both the internal and external aspects of EU competence. In the internal EU framework much of the competence is in the justice area. Some of it would not be of concern to the committee. However, the human rights accountability issue within the internal framework of the EU is something that concerns all of us and is a matter of domestic and external policy. I wish to refer to the Treaty on European Union, particularly Articles 6 and 7. These articles promote accountability for compliance with human rights standards within the EU. There is an interesting provision in Article 7 dealing with respect for and the promotion of values on which the Union is based. The provision gives the European Commission power to review compliance in the member states with their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and general human rights norms.

We are concerned about how this will operate in practice. The provision seems to have been interpreted so far, by the officials of the Commission and so forth, as presuming there will never be a human rights problem within the member states. The European Commission has published its views on how the Treaty on European Union will be interpreted. It says, basically, that all states are compliant and, with great complacency, that it will never have to investigate how Article 7 works. Theoretically, however, Article 7 would allow the member states to suspend one of the states if they believed there was not compliance with human rights law.

In Amnesty International's view, this provision must be given some efficiency and efficacy. It must be given teeth. We would like the Commission to set out plans as to how Articles 6 and 7 could be used to police and monitor human rights compliance in member states. This is necessary because there are human rights concerns within Europe before even looking at external policy. I have given committee members an extract from Amnesty International's report which was published in May last year. In that report, 13 of the 15 member states are challenged on compliance with their international human rights obligations. What is striking is that the patterns of human rights complaints are consistent across the EU. There are a few areas in which they can all be accused of having weaknesses and they principally relate to policing.

Standards of policing across the EU are worrying. In some countries the worries are greater than in others. Particular mention should be made of Spain and Germany. Amnesty International published an extensive report in January this year on policing in Germany. There are serious concerns about the use of force by police officers. With regard to Spain, there are many concerns about the treatment of people in detention and violence. There are even suggestions of torture with regard to Spain. One cannot say, therefore, that there are no human rights concerns within the EU. There are, and policing is one of them.

Another issue of common concern is how asylum seekers and refugees are treated within the EU. There are concerns across all states. This is also the case with regard to Ireland. By May of this year a new common European asylum system is due to be implemented and many directives are under negotiation at present. Some of them have probably come to the committee's attention. They have been on the agenda for a long time but now they have come to public attention because the deadline for their implementation is May this year. There is much criticism of the provisions of the common European asylum policy. The UNHCR has gone on record within the last week as having grave concerns about it. Amnesty International and many other NGOs have called on the Commission to withdraw some of the directives for the asylum system.

We are particularly worried about the proposals that it be accepted that some countries be recognised as safe third countries of origin and that asylum seekers can be removed from the country where they have made their asylum application back to a third country where they may have first appeared outside their country of origin. This envisages a potential whereby asylum seekers will be removed from the EU jurisdiction and returned to neighbouring states. They may end up going to Romania or Bulgaria, for example. There are concerns about human rights compliance and the operation of asylum processes in many countries outside the EU and we run the risk of subjecting people to unfair procedures by sending them back from the EU.

There is also the possibility that asylum seekers might end up being unable to prove where they should properly be entertained as asylum seekers. The phrase "refugees in orbit" has been coined in this regard. They might end up being bounced around from state to state, with no state willing to take responsibility for them. This is the trend in all EU member states. They do not want to entertain asylum applications and are on record to that effect. The British Prime Minister has given many commitments in this area. Not long ago he promised to reduce the number of asylum seekers in the UK by 50%. It is becoming increasingly difficult for asylum seekers to present their applications in the EU. This is worrying.

I am not saying everybody who presents as an asylum seeker is entitled to get asylum. However, the EU already accepts only a tiny minority of the world's refugees. We are trying to restrict that even further. It is shameful when one thinks of what the African states do in contrast. The poorest of the poor states, such as Tanzania, open their borders freely to asylum seekers. They have a different definition of asylum seeker and refugee under the African Union and its laws. They say that anyone fleeing from conflict must be given refugee status and they accept them in droves, while we fight about the small numbers of people who try to gain access to our system. We are gravely concerned about that.

The third issue in internal policy is judicial co-operation. Judicial co-operation has become more important since the attacks on 11 September in the United States. The security agenda has become more important politically. We recently had the European Union declaration on combating terrorism. There is much activity, some of which is worrying because it is being done in haste. We have also engaged in this within the EU. We have introduced many measures which will involve mutual recognition of orders across the EU. I am thinking of measures such as the provision for a common European arrest warrant system, which means the traditional extradition laws will no longer operate and we will instead operate a mutual trust system across the EU. We will readily exchange people accused of various offences with our partner states. We must welcome the establishment of processes which allow people to be put on trial and to face allegations that can be substantiated against them. In the Pinochet case, for example, we saw how difficult and slow it was to get any jurisdiction exercised over him. That case was decided under British law. If the European arrest warrant system had been in operation - Spain was anxious to participate at that time - Pinochet could have been surrendered to Spain and a trial could have been held there more readily than was the case.

There are some positive things about judicial co-operation. However, there are serious concerns about it, particularly about the lack of respect for human rights. Human rights are not written into these provisions. In Ireland we have successfully introduced the European arrest warrant into our domestic law. It could be said that Irish legislation on the European arrest warrant is model legislation which includes human rights provisions. However, there was no obligation under European law to include human rights provisions and many of our partners have not done so. There is the potential to surrender people under the arrest warrant system to countries where human rights guarantees are not demanded for the operation of the system. We have lengthy briefing material on the operation of the system. However, on 27 April we will have a public seminar in Dublin on the operation of the arrest warrant system with the ombudsman from Northern Ireland, the Deputy Garda Commissioner and some extradition experts.

Policing, refugees and the judicial co-operation measures are some of our concerns within the EU. As regards the role of the EU in a global context, it has significant potential in terms of human rights. If there is something to regret, it is that it does not often use its potential. At times there seems to be a great momentum about human rights. Unfortunately, one could argue that the momentum is receding and the engine for human rights is running out of steam in the EU's external policy. I congratulate the Government on the human rights' element of the EU Presidency programme. It has only one significant human rights' element. It would have been better if there had been many more. However, it has undertaken to publish a set of EU guidelines on human rights' defenders and on how they will be protected by EU diplomatic missions across the world. That is great. I hope that will be delivered. Amnesty International is trying to contribute to that process at an international level.

As regards things to worry about, one issue is human rights' promotion within multilateral fora, particularly in terms of the role of the United Nations. The role of the United Nations is clearly diminishing at an international level. It is becoming more sidelined as individual states or regional entities seek to determine what international law and human rights' concerns dictate. We would like the EU to try to reverse that trend. The Irish Presidency can take a lead in that regard. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights is currently meeting in Geneva. The Irish Presidency will present many resolutions there. It is hoped that some of these resolutions might be passed.

Chairman

I apologise for interrupting, but I wish to inform my colleagues from the Lower House that there is a vote in the Chamber. Perhaps, with the agreement of the meeting, we could suspend until the vote is over.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I appreciate your concern, Chairman.

Sitting suspended at 11.25 a.m. and resumed at 11.50 a.m.

Ms Marlborough

I have already commented on the internal aspects of European Union competence on human rights. I want to comment on the external competence of the EU on human rights by speaking about the United Nations and the unfortunate diminution in its power and the power of many multilateral fora to promote human rights, including the increasing trend towards unilateralism globally.

One of the most important UN institutions for the promotion of human rights is the Commission on Human Rights currently in session in Geneva. This body should have the primary role of promoting human rights but, unfortunately, in recent years it has become less and less important. Last year, there was a huge division between north and south at the commission. There was a huge division evident between Africa and many western states. Work could not proceed on the "no action" resolution for Zimbabwe. Such a division had emerged that rather than anything progressive coming out of it, there was a lot of stalemate not just on the Zimbabwe debate but on many other debates. The EU must direct its attention to the Commission on Human Rights. It must try to do something to re-energise it and reaffirm the role of international law and the role of the United Nations as being central to international discourse. Unfortunately, it is falling into abeyance more and more. The EU has this opportunity at present and we will know by the end of April how it has discharged its responsibilities. We must see whether the Irish Presidency can be more successful than other Presidencies.

There are two other issues of international concern to Amnesty International. One relates to the issue of the arms trade. This is central to the European Union endeavour because the arms trade is primarily about trade. It is not often viewed through the lens of human rights. It is viewed from the perspective of those who manufacture arms and export them from the European Union, or those who manufacture them outside the EU, transport them through the member states and export them to a third country. The law in this area is fragmented.

There is currently some regulation within the European Union and there is a code of conduct relating to the arms trade. A review is about to take place on this code of conduct but Amnesty International and many NGOs have many concerns about the regulation of the arms trade.

On the review of the code specifically, we think the review needs to be done through a broad process of consultation. It must include NGOs, academics, industry and representatives of parliaments throughout the EU and it must involve the European Parliament. It appears at present that only bureaucrats will review the code of conduct. We are in the process of launching a campaign specifically focusing on the mechanism for the review of the code of conduct, which ought to be done in an open and transparent fashion. The outcome we will be looking for across the arms trade is greater regulation. We in Ireland have something we must take cognisance of, namely, an absence. We have no laws regulating arms brokering in Ireland, including the making of contracts to govern the export or transit of arms through Ireland. Traditionally, much of our domestic legislation mirrored UK legislation. It has legislation on arms brokering but we do not. There appears to be evidence that arms deals are being effected here because there is no legislation.

There is growing concern about the lack of corporate accountability for human rights concerns. An issue which needs to be considered is business ethics in general, whether labour rights, the environment or whatever. The UN has published a set of draft norms on human rights for business. Amnesty International hopes these norms will take on some life, continue to develop a momentum and eventually become law. We are also focusing on the International Labour Organisation and its meeting in June this year. Again, we hope Ireland's EU Presidency will acquit itself well at the ILO and help support the development of these new legally binding norms for business.

Chairman

I apologise for the break in Ms Marlborough's contribution, which was very interesting and informative. My colleagues would like to take up some issues. Deputy Carey has a great interest in this field.

Deputy Carey

I am less organised than I thought I was. I welcome Ms Marlborough to the meeting. The submission received from Amnesty in recent months has been very helpful. I tabled a series of questions to a variety of Ministers in the last couple of weeks. The replies are in the public domain and some are more enlightening than others.

My general observation following the spring Council last week is that in our rush to counter terrorism and to put in place measures to ensure there are no more atrocities, human rights issues are in danger of being trampled on. I do not think this is being done wittingly. We need to be very careful when putting together the European arrest warrant and harmonisation of procedures and practices. This is why I was pleased to hear Ms Marlborough refer to the meetings in Geneva. It is important to ensure human rights aspects are focused on and highlighted.

I was a member of the freedom, security and justice working party of the Convention. We received presentations from Europol, Eurojust, the police task force and so on. There was much pressure from bureaucrats and technocrats not only for mutual recognition but for complete harmonisation of procedures. That has been resisted and I am pleased that is the case. It appears that it is unlikely that our system will be subsumed into the more common European one.

Is Amnesty still not happy with the idea of mutual recognition? My own view is that there must be greater recognition of practices and procedures. There is a risk of human rights abuses in each member state pursuing its own approach. I do not cast aspersions on the new member states, accession countries and candidate countries. However, many of their judicial systems and policing practices are in the process of reform. For that reason, I would like to hear Ms Marlborough's further comments on her fears regarding the mutual recognition issue.

The declaration on combating terrorism issued last Friday after the Council meeting is, on balance, welcome.

What does Ms Marlborough feel about the proposals to introduce greater harmonisation of procedures regarding the issuing of passports? I believe a directive is expected on that matter.

What potential abuses does Ms Marlborough see in the exchange of information between policing bodies in different member states? We were told by some of the technocrats that member states did not even have basic inter-operability, that their computer systems did not recognise each other and that fundamental flaws in possible co-operation measures needed to be corrected.

Is Amnesty concerned that so many of the present member states have ratified the Ottawa Convention on landmines while none of the accession countries has? How does Ms Marlborough see this being progressed?

I agree that the arms trade treaty appears to have been sidelined by bureaucracy. From the reply I received from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, it appears that while Ireland is progressing the treaty it is doing so at a technical rather than a political level.

Does Ms Marlborough feel that sufficient progress is being made by the Presidency on the UN protocol on human trafficking? The Presidency is encouraging other countries to ratify the convention. Could more action be taken in that area?

Ms Marlborough

I am delighted to see the Deputy has a broad knowledge of our work. I welcome his interest.

The Ottawa Convention is one of the primary areas of Amnesty's work. We work in more than one way. Our individual members do letter writing. At an international level our main focus is on research and lobbying. We continually work to promote ratification of new international legal instruments. We try to assist in their formulation and promote them when they have been drafted. Amnesty is anxious that the Ottawa Convention will ultimately enjoy universal ratification. That is our goal. We work on that goal in partnership with the international committee of the Red Cross and other humanitarian agencies.

Early in the Presidency, the Government hosted an NGO conference in Iveagh House, where work was done on furthering a plan of action on the arms trade treaty. The Government has indicated some interest in the idea of a treaty. This area seems to be led by Finland. We would very much like the Government to state unequivocally that it is interested in proposing and helping to develop a treaty, not merely acquiescing in one. We would welcome the Government taking a lead in that area. The Government is working at a technical level. The next working group on the arms trade treaty will be in Finland in June and people from the disarmament section will attend that.

Deputy Carey

Is Amnesty aware of obstacles being placed in the way of progress by Britain, Germany and France?

Ms Marlborough

I am not aware of that. I am not sure what legal obstacles can be mounted at this stage. The arms trade treaty is an attempt to codify existing law from various customary elements and from elements of various treaties. I am not aware of any obstacles. If there are obstacles, it is hoped that the Presidency would make a declaration in favour of the treaty. Amnesty is also working with Irish MEPs and calling on them to try to secure a declaration of the European Parliament in support of the treaty. A quorum of parliamentarians issuing a declaration is tantamount to a resolution of the parliament. We hope that will be achieved in the lifetime of the present Parliament. We hope the arms trade treaty will reach a formal outcome by 2006. We hope the Government will work with Ireland's European partners towards furthering the process. I will pass on any intelligence Deputy Carey has to my colleagues who are working on this area.

Concerns have been raised regarding the harmonisation of law. Amnesty and many NGOs are concerned about the rush towards implementing legislation - because it seems like a good and positive thing to combat terrorism - without giving due regard to human rights concerns, which must be given equivalent status with the quest for security. Of course, judicial and police co-operation is to be welcomed and supported. News reports following the bombings in Madrid referred to allegations that there had not been sharing of intelligence between police forces throughout the EU, particularly regarding the types of explosives involved. It was claimed that partner states had not been sufficiently informed as to how they might respond quickly to the intelligence gathered from the bombing in Spain. This brings to mind the concern we all have about security and terrorism. This is a real concern. However, human rights protection must also be furthered.

The measures which seem to be current concern joint investigation teams, the European arrest warrant, mutual recognition of confiscation orders, various forms of technical co-operation and the refugee and asylum seeker measures in the Schengen provisions. Some of the Schengen provisions deal with the sharing of finger prints and other bio-data on asylum seekers and people moving across EU frontiers. That is all to be welcomed. However, I cannot reiterate enough the basic Amnesty call to ensure human rights provisions are written into all those concerns. They are real concerns. For example, the British House of Lords has in recent years turned down some extradition requests from other EU states. It has refused some requests from Germany. As the Deputy has pointed out, although there is increasing harmonisation of measures, there still is not uniformity.

The specific definition of a refugee under Irish law is not the same as that under German law. We have a common international standard, the Geneva Convention of 1951, which declares who is to be recognised as a refugee. That does not stop states from going further. Some elements in our law are very positive. They talk about recognition of refugees if somebody has encountered persecution based on gender issues or sexual orientation. Those issues are not all recognised across the EU. It would be very dangerous to start implementing all sorts of mutual co-operation measures without ensuring that all the human rights provisions across the EU are equivalent. This is a great concern about the accession states, one raised by Deputy Carey.

Political criteria were laid down for the accession of the new member states in the Copenhagen political criteria among which human rights featured. The accession procedure is not about human rights; it is about something much broader, about a market, about economic issues.

The secretary general of Amnesty International and international officers recently went to Turkey. They met the Prime Minister of Turkey and the Foreign Minister and expressed Amnesty International's concerns about human rights. A decision will be reached later on this year as to whether accession negotiations will begin with Turkey. Turkey is now introducing a lot of legislation which on the face of it, promotes and protects human rights. It brings in equality in all sorts of ways. Turkey has an appalling human rights record. All the legislation in the world will not do anything to improve the situation in Turkey. It is a symbolic action but much more than that is required. Something must be done about education, awareness raising, training of police officers and public officials, all the different people who over the years have been accused of human rights violations. They will not just change; something must be done through working with them. The process requires a lot more than just legislation.

That is my worry with the new accession states. Their performance has been reviewed by the European Commission and others and some of them have been given warnings about different elements of their domestic compliance with the Copenhagen criteria. They will certainly all accede on 1 May. In the spirit of partnership between the existing 15 and the new ten, we will have to look closely at human rights protection within those states on a practical level. That is why matters such as Article 7 of the European Union Treaty, which I addressed earlier, are so important. This article gives us a monitoring mechanism whereby states can theoretically bring other states to account if they are not complying with human rights standards.

When the new constitution brings in a charter of rights, that will be quite helpful for people in those states to do something themselves to promote their individual human rights protection and raise their concerns there.

Senator O’Rourke

I apologise for my late arrival and I must leave soon because the Seanad sitting has been suspended. I welcome Ms Marlborough to the meeting. I always read the Amnesty documents and they are wonderful in my view. It gives one an overview of what is happening. They are very educational if one does not have time to read journals. The compilation and distillation afforded in these documents is appreciated.

I arrived too late to comment on what Ms Marlborough said earlier. On the corporate social responsibility issue of which she spoke, the term sounds good and I know that there is a lot of work evolving thereon. Does that corporate social responsibility take in employees and their human rights? There is the question of the manner of doing business which would infringe upon others, for instance, a marketing company selling something and the social responsibility towards the people who produce the goods. Do Amnesty's concerns extend to excessive profit-making if it is happening at the expense of a lack of human rights in any of the segments of a corporation's business? Does Amnesty's concern further extend to ensuring that those with whom such corporations do business at any level espouse or are encouraged to espouse corporate social responsibility? I think it makes a lot of sense. The company which would take on corporate social responsibility and apply best practice in this area would, in my uninformed opinion, be rewarded with good sales if it could encourage the other companies with which it does business to take up the same causes. I note that Italy and Ireland are keen to extend that idea. Does corporate social responsibility take into account recruitment policies and how people are treated when companies close? Does it encompass information-giving to employees? There is EU legislation to beat the band on all these matters but legislation is one thing and its implementation is another matter.

Ms Marlborough said there was evidence that Ireland was in the arms business. We are not in the arms business so what does she mean?

Ms Marlborough

I thank Senator O'Rourke for those questions. On the question of corporate social responsibility, some of the points raised by the Senator are what Amnesty would like to see in an ideal world. We tackle the whole area of corporate social responsibility primarily through looking at the whole area of economic, social and cultural rights. The area of civil and political rights has now been fairly well established and there are very few people who quibble about the existence of civil and political rights. Economic, social and cultural rights, however, are still evolving. Their recognition is still something that is only beginning. We are working to try to promote corporate social responsibility as an element of these economic, social and cultural rights. We work with other development NGOs in Ireland, for instance, we work in a coalition with Dóchas, the umbrella group including Trócaire and Concern. Together we have an EU Presidency team whose members are specifically examining the aid elements of European Union policy to see how we can promote the millennium development goals because talking about companies is really talking about social justice, be it within Ireland or globally. The millennium development goals are about achieving a fairer and more just world and trying to regulate the role of companies within that is just one aspect of the issue. With regard to companies, we try to tackle this in many ways, both on a broad global level and at a micro level. For example, on a practical level we have a shop in Galway and another in Dublin in which we sell only fair trade products. Our shop manager is on the fair trade board for Ireland and we campaign on the issue. While we certainly consider the rights of the producers and the origin of the goods, that alone is not enough. It is a tiny, symbolic action. We work at international level on the UN norms for business, which is a significant concern of ours. We campaign on the matter with Oxfam. In Geneva a team of staff from our international office will promote the UN norms for business. They will encourage delegates from across the world to support the furtherance of the norms.

The norms are very broad and take into account everything about a company. Primarily, a company is encouraged to take cognisance of its role as a social actor. It cannot focus on profit alone. Very striking examples include conflict or blood diamonds. The diamond industry has been brought to an awareness of the fact that the purchase of diamonds is frequently a contributing factor in fuelling war in the Congo. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a poor country whose troubled state is especially unfortunate because it has significant diamond, emerald and other resources. Companies cannot exploit these without taking some cognisance of how and why they were obtained. Such companies now have a set of regulations which allow them to monitor where the diamonds come from. There is even certification to demonstrate that a gem is not a conflict diamond.

Reebok has gone from being accused of the abuse of workers in free trade zones to promoting the Reebok human rights awards. Some companies have been forced to act this way to access a marketing tool while others will find it harder and harder to ignore their responsibilities. Amnesty wishes these responsibilities to be made legally binding. Companies do many things which look good and some provide a tiny proportion of their profits to charity. Those profits are vast. Many large companies have larger economies than many states and they must be policed. At the moment, they exist outside the reach of international law to a great extent. This is a live issue.

Amnesty is working on Israel and the occupied territories. We are very concerned about the construction of the wall along Israel's border which is deviating from the state's boundaries with the occupied territories. We are concerned that an Irish company may be contributing to the construction of the wall. Cement is being supplied by a company of Irish origin. This is a real, tangible issue.

The implementation of Community law must be considered for workers in Ireland. As has been said, Community law contains many provisions designed to protect workers. However, it must be realistic. Unfortunately, in the past we have often seen individuals having to take cases to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to have their rights enforced. Mrs. Cotter and Mrs. McDermott took their case to have their equality payments policed. If the Government fails to take action, we hope our active NGO sector will help to police these measures. This is something that is evolving.

Senator O'Rourke made an interesting point on the arms trade which is one we would all echo. I have said it myself. The Senator said "we are not in the arms business in Ireland". Of course, this is not actually true. We manufacture many goods here which fuel the arms trade. I am thinking in particular of dual use goods including computers.While I am not an expert on computers and software applications, some dual use items have been manufactured here. An example is software to guide helicopter gunships which have been used in Indonesia. The parts for gunships have been created here and exported.

Deputy Carey

Those would not necessarily be manufactured specifically for that function.

Senator O’Rourke

That was my point.

Ms Marlborough

I acknowledge that the Senator was playing devil's advocate. We are all blithely oblivious and consider that this issue is not of concern to us in Ireland. However, it is of concern given the number of products which have dual use capacity. There is a lack of regulation of the torture trade also. Torture can be described as a trade. Equipment is being produced across the EU which can have both benign and malign uses. Amnesty has been calling for greater regulation of all equipment produced in the EU. We must monitor end use and consider to whom products are going.

Senator O’Rourke

It depends on where a product is going.

Deputy Carey

Senator O'Rourke and I and some other members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs attended a conference over the past couple of days which had two modules. One focused on Africa and the other on our new neighbours. Coincidentally, I happened to attend in Addis Ababa the opening of the pan-African parliament at which I witnessed the swearing in of members. The wording was very like EU-speak. The members swore to uphold human rights, good governance and sustainability. It was real motherhood and apple pie stuff. There were members from Zimbabwe, Rwanda and the Congo. I wish to raise the issue of children in armed conflict. There is a limited amount of pressure the EU Presidency or other institutions can exert on malevolent states in Africa or elsewhere. What further measures can be put in place to curb the use of children in armed conflict?

Does Ms Marlborough have a view on the proposal in the EU draft constitutional treaty that the Union should as an entity accede to the UN Convention on Human Rights? Will that have a significant impact on the compliance of new and candidate states and those which, like Turkey, are somewhere else in the process with human rights practices?

Chairman

Before Ms Marlborough responds, Deputy Carey raised the situation in southern Africa which I had intended to raise myself. Of particular concern is the situation in Zimbabwe. Ms Marlborough has had a great deal of involvement with that country. Perhaps no other country has deteriorated as much in the past 15 years. It is more than 25 years since Rhodesia became Zimbabwe at which time it seemed we were witnessing a bright new dawn. Unfortunately, there have been more dark days than bright dawns. There is only so much the Government can do at Presidency level and only so much Europe can do. I presume Amnesty is deeply concerned about circumstances in Zimbabwe. Are there further actions or initiatives which could be taken to bring some degree of hope back to that troubled land where hope has become despair?

Ms Marlborough

I thank committee members for their questions. There is a flow between the questions and the responses. A moment ago we were talking about the arms trade. Many of Africa's problems are the result of the ready availability of arms. Pictures of child soldiers participating in conflicts all over Africa show small children toting large machine guns. The EU has addressed the issue of children in armed conflict and there are human rights commission guidelines, but something needs to be done about implementing them. This is part of the broader question the Chairman also raised about the situation in Africa on human rights protection, why we see all of this conflict and what we can do to respond to it. Zimbabwe is in a very troubling state. I spent 15 months there with the UNHCR and it was very sad to witness the horrific human rights violations there, including the suppression of freedom of expression. It has such a chilling effect, there is no debate on anything and there are no opposition media. People are oblivious to what is going on and they are not able to participate politically. It is complete tyranny.

A European Union-African Union summit is due to take place tomorrow in Dublin. It is a troika meeting of Foreign Ministers and the EU will be led by Brian Cowen. The African Union and the New Economic Partnership for African Development, or NEPAD, claim to be actors with great potential to do something to promote development in Africa, not just economic development but also human rights. It is very hard to believe all of this when we examine the current state of so many countries in Africa, including the deterioration in central and western Africa and the catastrophe in Zimbabwe. The particular catastrophe in Zimbabwe is that so many of the other member states of the African Union are not doing anything about it. They are not willing to comment on Zimbabwe and are not distancing themselves from the regime. There is solidarity between the member states of the African Union that has brought so many problems to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The human rights commission is to have a debate on Zimbabwe on 15 April. It will be interesting but probably very sad to see what will unfold that day. We wonder whether there will be a divide between Africa and the western states. It is to be hoped that there will not. If the African Union wants to be taken seriously about human rights, it will have to do something about human rights within its own boundaries. Something has to be done about Zimbabwe but Robert Mugabe has lots of support from South Africa and from other states within the region.

What else can we do and what can we do about children in armed conflict? It is all a continuum. If the conflicts and their causes were tackled, something might be achieved. That is why we need to keep looking at the millennium development goals and economic, social and cultural rights and try to achieve some greater global justice than we have at present. That is all very aspirational. On a practical level, we need more intervention in the field by multilateral forces and by the UN, not anybody else. We need the African Union to continue to be more active within its own territory. All of the guidelines in the world will not do much unless there is some implementation. In all of our interventions and implementations, we do need to ensure we are cognisant of the role of women, children and all the various actors within the field. We need to make sure that compliance occurs with all the humanitarian norms.

Deputy Carey raised the more practical question of whether the EU as a whole might accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. This is probably something to be welcomed because it was not something that could have happened before. There was no legal personality for the EU and we will have a new form of legal person once this convention is adopted in the constitution. What is so useful about the European Convention on Human Rights is that it sets a baseline standard for human rights norms. It has been so well adjudicated upon across the EU that it is very clear what it means. It also allows for proceedings between states and Ireland has used it in the past against the UK. Most of the accession states will not have the same traditions of judicial review and of individual policing of human rights. This is a move that should be welcomed.

Chairman

I regret I must bring the meeting to a conclusion. Ms Marlborough's presentation and her responses to members' questions have been informative and we will try to keep these issues to the fore of Government and public policy. Unfortunately, we will never make the progress that we might wish, but her presentation has been very helpful.

The sub-committee adjourned at 12.35 p.m. sine die.