At the last meeting Deputy Higgins requested that the text of the Bolivarian agreement for the Americas be placed on the agenda for discussion today. Some background information has been circulated. Deputy Higgins might like to open the discussion.
Bolivarian Agreement for the Americas: Discussion.
I asked some time ago not that we discuss the text of the Bolivarian agreement between Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela but that we study the Bolivarian transition. The distinction is not semantic but that does not throw me at all. The agreement between the three countries concerned is geopolitically significant and part of a more general process in Latin America.
On 29 June I tabled Parliamentary Question No. 39, in the name of Deputy Penrose, to the Minister for Foreign Affairs asking him Ireland's position on the Agreement for the Application of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of our America and such correspondence as he may have received in this regard from the signatory countries or their neighbours. The reply was:
The Agreement for the Application of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of our America was signed between the Governments of Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela following a meeting of their Presidents in Havana on 28 and 29 April 2006. The ambassador of Cuba has forwarded a copy of the agreement to me, which is the only correspondence I have received regarding it from the signatory countries. The agreement focuses, inter alia , on developing complementary trade programmes, increasing mutual investment, and developing mutually beneficial financing arrangements. Such an agreement is a matter for the countries concerned and it is not for the Government to take a position in respect of it.
The answer is fine except for the last sentence because it is a matter on which the Government should take a position. We took a position on it in previous meetings, for example, part of the general transition is the encouragement of derechos humanas, human rights, and the defence of civil rights. One of the initiatives of the Venezuelan Government is the establishment of El Fondo Especial para Ombudsman e Instituciones Nacionales de Derechos Humanos en América Latina y el Caribe. In respect of that fund to encourage institutes for human rights and ombudspersons for the promotion of civil rights across the Caribbean and Latin America, there were positive meetings with people from the Department of Foreign Affairs, at which Ireland indicated its encouragement of this initiative. One such meeting took place on 21 September 2005 and was attended by Mr. Flood, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. O'Leary, Ms Stanley and several others. I hope I have this right but the result of that meeting was that Ireland was impressed by the proposal and its practicality and transparency. There was a discussion on the methodology which Ireland approved and so forth. It is, therefore, a welcome initiative that at that meeting spokespersons for the Department of Foreign Affairs welcomed the initiative and its structure, approving its methodology and being generally supportive. This is a healthy development because it should be in all our interests to support the transition in Latin America.
I find it extraordinary that we are not appointing proper representatives in Latin America generally. We gave an undertaking on the visit of the former President of Chile, Ricardo Largos, that embassies would be opened in both countries. Chile opened an embassy here and although Ricardo Largos has been replaced by an excellent President, we should have gone ahead and opened our embassy in Santiago, which we did not do, taking the attitude that this was a matter of economics. We should not establish our representation abroad solely on that basis. We should make contact with the powerful transition in the name of the poor taking place in Latin America.
The subtext of the Minister's caustic reply is that it is not our business but we make it very much our business whenever a neoliberal initiative is being taken. We round up planeloads of people who are willing to take advantage of the main chance, should it happen. On this occasion the transition taking place across an entire Continent is in favour of humanity. If one examines the text of the agreement, it is clear that many critics of President Chávez are suggesting it is terrible that he is spending his oil money on doctors and the human rights organisations I have mentioned, some of which are not even from Venezuela. I find it interesting that the same people see nothing wrong with selling arms on an unrestricted basis across Africa, Latin America, Central America and Asia.
I am glad that the agreement between the three countries in question has been circulated. It mentions trade co-operation, the importance of shared technology, the signed agreement on the transfer of medical personnel, including doctors, and the joint cultural projects, for example. I hasten to add that I am not naive — I have been travelling to Latin America since the second half of the 1960s. One of the reasons I have mentioned this agreement is that it has the capacity to be immensely positive. I am not an uncritical person — I am critical of certain aspects of Chávez's Government — but this kind of agreement will facilitate the type of co-operation needed if Latin America is to move in the right direction. According to it, the seventh action needed, as outlined on page 3 of the document circulated, is:
Cuba shall prolong the stay of the 600 medical specialists who travelled to Bolivia as a result of the serious natural disaster which occurred in January of this year, affecting all the regions of the country, for as long as this sister nation deems necessary. Furthermore, it will donate 20 field hospitals equipped with surgical facilities, intensive care units, emergency services for patients suffering cardiovascular accidents, laboratories and other medical resources, to be sent to the areas hardest hit by this disaster.
It is interesting that we rarely discuss matters of this nature at this committee. It is even rarer for the media to cover any actions of co-operation between countries which are restructuring on the basis of an alternative economic model and social system.
I will summarise the reasons I wanted this debate to take place. I was a member of the joint committee when it was finally allowed to be established. In 1982 the Houses of the Oireachtas voted against a proposal to establish such a committee. When it was eventually allowed to come into being, among the early issues we discussed was abuse by the military in Latin America. One non-governmental organisation after another has offered the committee evidence of breaches of human rights. We have discussed tragedies which have taken place such as the mud slides in Honduras, El Salvador and elsewhere. In this case, we are talking about a major energy supplier which is co-operating with its neighbours and describing and structuring a new social model, something the committee should discuss and welcome. Since I first circulated the text of the agreement between the three countries, I have received more details of the Fondo Especial para Ombudsman e Instituciones Nacionales de Derechos Humanosen América Latina y el Caribe, which I would be delighted to provide for the committee. That is the fund to which I referred. I am very pleased that in September 2005 officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs held initial meetings in support of Ireland's participation in an initiative to ensure human rights institutions and civil rights defences were available in every country. It is very much the direction in which we would like this country's foreign policy to develop.
I would prefer a more positive engagement with Latin American issues and a more generous response than the one I received in reply to the parliamentary question I mentioned. The impression being given in such responses is that we will say nothing until it all falls apart and then we will run seminars on the subject. The reality is that something exciting is happening, mostly for the benefit of poor people. Great abuses of Latin America's resources are being curbed. I met the author of the document under discussion in Croke Park last Saturday week at a Government seminar on human rights. The man in question outlined to me the alternative to the current approach when he told me that paid assassins, some of whom are located in Colombia, had already assassinated a person who had been providing cheap food in the marketplace, a person who had been manufacturing and providing cheap shoes and a woman who had been organising títulos, or land titles, for the poorest of the peasants. This undercurrent of assassination is a deliberate attempt to undermine the experiment I have described. I wanted the agreement to be placed on the committee’s agenda in order that we could note, support and regard it as good news for Latin America.
It will be very difficult to follow my colleague, Deputy Higgins. I cannot possibly come across as being as well versed on the subject and I have no intention of trying. I fully support and agree with the suggestion that Ireland should establish embassies and legations in the various Latin American countries. This is hugely important from two perspectives. First, we should consider the potential for trade with such countries on an ongoing basis. It is crazy to have an ambassador in one location catering for four or five massive countries. This is counterproductive because it is wasting money rather than saving it. A special effort should be made to evaluate the possible benefits of having an ambassador to deal with two adjoining small countries. We certainly should not have a single ambassador traversing 3,000 or 4,000 miles to meet various diplomatic requirements. The appointment of additional personnel in Latin America would improve tremendously the independent flow of information to the Government and ultimately the Oireachtas through such channels. We can depend on diplomatic channels to give us a reasonably fair assessment of what is happening. If we cannot avail of such services, we have to rely on propaganda from various sources. The appointment of more officials would have significant benefits.
I recently attended a meeting that was addressed by Cardinal Rodríguez, formerly Archbishop Rodríguez. The impression I got from him was that he did not necessarily agree with the confrontational attitude of some of the emerging leaders in Latin America. There may be historical reasons for this but he indicated that, in some instances, the poor or underprivileged suffered as a result of the confrontational approach adopted. Deputy Higgins has far more expertise in this area and knows much more about it. Cardinal Rodríguez claimed that a dialogue had been established in some Latin American countries between the various socio-economic groups to establish a better understanding, a greater degree of democracy and some regard for human and civil rights, issues to which Deputy Higgins referred. I am not certain about this, however. I do not suggest Cardinal Rodríguez is not telling the truth — it is just that I do not know. If there was the type of diplomatic liaison mentioned, we would be able to check what we have heard. Committees would be able to access such information which would be available to whoever was in government. It would then be possible to have an informed debate that would not be based entirely on propaganda or second-hand information. I have outlined my views on the subject.
While I have read the agreement under discussion, I do not pretend to have any particular expertise in this respect. I find the agreement interesting because it resonates to a great extent with many of the views I hold. Where does this fit in with the structures of Mercosur? I suppose it does not matter that much, but I would have thought that Mercosur would be the generator of a reasonably powerful economy in Central and South America. That may have been the case under previous regimes. Is this a counterpoint, or is it that Mercosur's influence would be significantly diminished if this was to take root? I suppose it would. I would like a critical analysis to be presented by the Department of Foreign Affairs of the strengths and weaknesses of Mercosur versus the Bolivarian arrangement. How does this new type of dispensation sit with the WTO on the globalisation issue? One part of me says this is great but there must be a catch if it has not sparked a wider debate. A more objective analysis would, therefore, be welcome. I have an open mind on this arrangement if its strategy for that part of the Americas works and influences the regional economy. Is it, however, just replacing one ideology with another? Are the people on the ground likely to benefit to a significantly greater extent under the new arrangement?
I am always interested in Deputy Higgins's exploration of developments in Latin America. Those of us who know him well, as Deputy Durkan said, bow to his greater experience dating back many decades. Are we just noting the text or confirming it?
We are noting it for a start and discussing it. It is relevant to our business to be dealt with in private session.
Those of us with a cursory knowledge of Latin American politics know that the United States of America, as the most powerful country in the region, has always seen Latin America as its backyard. Its influence in the region, through the Monroe doctrine, dates back to the 19th century.
The Venezuelan President, Mr. Chávez, is now seen as a thorn in the side of the US Administration because he has a pile of petrodollars and is waving his big stick in South America. Mr. Chávez is a hero in his country and has been embraced by Fidel Castro's Cuba and Bolivia — the poorest of the countries involved and the ones to benefit most from this arrangement. I am sure Deputy Higgins will agree that not every Latin American country shares Mr. Chávez's enthusiasm or embraces this initiative. Having read through the document, theoretically it is very impressive and no one can object to its aim of improving the region's economic well-being. It is interesting to note that in the Cuban obligations the emphasis is on the medical side. The one great success of the Cuban Administration is that its medical infrastructure is par excellence. When the Irish health service is contrasted with its European counterparts, I often wonder why no one has suggested travelling to Cuba to consider its health service.
Deputy Finian McGrath might.
Would they come to see our example?
While the arrangement is primarily concerned with economics, medicine and culture, democracy is not referred to. Usually the bland communiqué issued after a summit or major initiative refers to democracy. Even the Soviet Union in its worst days often used terms such as "the people's right" which was dressed up in diplomatic language. The reason for its absence in this arrangement is there is no functioning democracy in Cuba. While we sympathise with the countries concerned when the big stick of the United States comes down heavy on them, it is a separate issue. Cuba is the Achilles' heel of this arrangement. Whatever else it does well, on basic human rights, freedom of expression and assembly, and democracy as we practice it, it falls down badly. While we can all rush to embrace it as a good development, we have an obligation to point out its democratic deficit. As a functioning democracy, we must point this out.
Deputy Higgins did preface his remarks on the work being done on human and civil rights.
I do not want to muddy the waters at this point but we all know the reality of life in Cuba.
I have no problem with anyone travelling to Cuba and addressing the issue of human rights with those who hold power there. I would have no difficulty in doing so myself. When the word "democracy" is used, it should be remembered that President Chávez is in power by choice of the Venezuelan people, despite the coup attempt made against him. The two Irish film-makers who captured the coup events are deeply appreciated in Venezuela. The enormous abuse of national sovereignty by those who had funded the coup must also be remembered.
There is an interesting distinction between the cardinals and other church workers in the region. The distinguished theologian Leonardo Boff has an option for the relationship between the poor and the institutional church, una inglesia pobre, a church of the poor.
On the question on Mercosur, successful transitions from dictatorship have occurred. For example, in Chile, after Pinochet, Ricardo Lagos embraced a neoliberal model. The economy's growth rate was very impressive but the issue was the distribution of its gains. Did it reduce illiteracy — it did to an extent — and to what extent did the poor share this new wealth? Chile is an example of a country in transition and has used a particular model.
Mercosur is a trade arrangement between countries and the assumption is that there will be a trickle-down effect after achieving economic growth. The demography of Latin America means there are immense increases in population in poorer areas with people having little economic security. What is exciting about such transitions, whether one criticises or agrees with them, is that there is a transition from the bottom up. If one takes a government that replaced a dictatorship such as the Sandinistas which, in turn, was replaced itself, its biggest achievement was higher literacy rates. I recall an ambassador from a very powerful country telling me it all begun with literacy. This, in turn, leads to co-operatives, which is when the Jesuits become involved. It then becomes communism. As a result of such thinking, some Jesuits were killed in El Salvador in the 1980s. In 1981, when in El Salvador, I asked why peasant women did not have titles which would have enabled them to register to vote. I was asked by the same person that as they were not going anywhere, why would they have passports? It depends on where one takes one's views from. Why are the Cubans in Bolivia? Is it because Cuban doctors will go to more remote places and Bolivian doctors will not? I simply wanted to break the silence surrounding this important event taking place in Latin America.
When I became involved with El Salvador and Nicaragua in the 1980s, the military was holding a conference in Paraguay, more or less to say the money was not coming in to them any more. The money shifted to different administrations and wings and people with different ideological views and so forth. A major transition is taking place and if it delivers literacy and participation in the economy, it will make for a very much better Continent and also for better neighbours for the United States. This influence is not confined to two or three countries. It appears that the influence has probably been negative in Peru, while it has been positive in Mexico. It is important that we be strongly in favour of the establishment of independent institutes of human rights and ombudsmen to defend citizens in different countries. I am pleased that our officials have had preliminary discussions on this concept.
Another aspect of the matter is the language used in the documents we have received. While it has nothing to do with politics, it is good to secure agreement on issues such as housing, literacy, health and the ability to address disasters, as these are the common concerns of the people involved. I appreciate the views of all members. We are all agreed that it makes no sense for us not to be better represented in Latin America where we are under-represented. In view of all that is taking place and the enormous respect there is for Ireland in Latin America, we should recommend that we do something about filling the gap. We can return to all of these themes and take countries individually if members wish. I appreciate the comments made.
We are agreed that we want to see more embassies in the region, in addition to better information and communication. We had determined that we would visit the region but we have to discuss how we will do it and the parts to which we will go. It was also suggested that we would invite the ambassadors to come before the committee for a round table discussion to highlight what was happening, as well as their main interests. We will leave it at that for the moment and go into private session to discuss how we might proceed.
I thank the Chairman.
I thank the Deputy. The discussion has been both interesting and useful.
I appreciate everything Deputy Higgins said. In raising those other issues I did not wish in any way to detract from the positive elements of the matter. I appreciate the reasons the Deputy raised it and agree it is important that it is debated. I suggest there is an underlying political agenda, although I accept that this may be a matter for another day. The Deputy referred to Peru. It is my understanding that President Chavez and his administration financially supported the defeated candidate in Peru in order to, as they saw it, proceed with this Bolivarian agenda. I do not say this is right or wrong but we cannot be naive enough to expect it is all just about good things such as literacy, etc. There is a subtext.
I thank the Deputy. At this stage we will continue in private session.
The joint committee went into private session at 3.15 p.m. and adjourned at 3.35 p.m. sine die.