Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on Human Rights) debate -
Thursday, 6 May 2010

International Agreements: Discussion with Minister for Foreign Affairs

I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin. He is accompanied by Mr. Darach MacFhionnbhairr, director of the Americas section, Mr. John O'Sullivan, EU external relations section and Ms Claire Buckley, desk officer, Americas section. I ask members to note that the Minister must leave by 12.30 p.m.

On 17 December this sub-committee met with Ms Yessika Hoyos of the Colombian Lawyers Collective, a recipient of the George Meany-Lane Kirkland human rights award. It also met with representatives of ABColombia and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. At those meetings Ms Hoyos and her colleagues called on the Irish Government to suspend EU trade agreement negotiations with Colombia until human rights and union rights concerns were effectively dealt with. As members are aware, all 12 Irish MEPs supported the suspension of negotiations at the time. On 19 January, after a follow-up meeting, the Chairman wrote to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to express the concerns of the sub-committee that the Colombian authorities had not taken adequate measures to protect human rights defenders and members of civil society organisations in Colombia. Trócaire, ABColombia, the UN special rapporteur for human rights defenders, Ms Margaret Sekaggya, and others have all since highlighted the persistent insecurities faced by human rights defenders in Colombia. Nevertheless, the European Commission agreed an EU-Colombia trade agreement in Brussels on 1 March 2010 and it is expected that the agreement will be installed at the EU-Latin America-Caribbean summit in Madrid on 18 May. Can we take it, therefore, that the Minister does not share the concerns of the UN and many civil society organisations regarding the human rights landscape in Colombia? Trócaire has suggested that by seeking to conclude these agreements at this time the EU is prioritising its own commercial interests ahead of human rights and sustainable development in Latin America.

I invite the Minister to address the committee, after which we will take questions from members.

I thank the sub-committee for the invitation to join it today, which provides me with a welcome opportunity to discuss the human rights situation in Colombia and the EU-Colombia free trade agreement. I have also met with ICTU, with whom I had a substantive and constructive meeting some time ago. I am always available to discuss issues of this kind with the sub-committee and civil society groups.

As the sub-committee will be aware, Colombia has witnessed the longest period of terrorism of any country in Latin America — over 50 years in all. The Colombian people endure relentless suffering, reflected in the more than 2 million persons who have been internally displaced over the past number of years, a number second only to that of Sudan. The degree of lawlessness that arises from the absence of peace presents a major challenge to any government. Drugs are the main cause of the violence in Colombia and the FARC and ELN enjoy huge financial resources from cocaine which make it difficult for a Government, even one as determined as that of President Uribe, to destroy their networks.

It is important to consider Colombia in the context of the region as a whole. Central and South American countries make up seven of the ten countries worldwide with the highest intentional homicide rate. Honduras, Venezuela, El Salvador, Jamaica, Guatemala andTrinidad and Tobago all have higher homicide rates than Colombia. Ten years ago, Colombia, like most of these countries, had a murder rate of 50 per 100,000 persons. This has fallen to 37 in the intervening decade.

Colombia is clearly a fragile state. The indictment of a large number of senators for association with the FARC, ELN and AUC illustrates the extent of the problems facing the Government. However, compared with the situation ten years ago, Colombia today has become a safer place to live. Colombians' belief in the prospects for a peaceful future and the impressive recent social and economic development reflected in the strong inward investment flows reinforce the impression that Colombia is slowly emerging from a grim past. Of course, there will be ups and downs in an environment where the FARC is still at large.

There is no single solution for promoting peace in Colombia. The various social and economic elements underlying the conflict have to be tackled simultaneously. Our approach, and that of the European Union, is to assist and influence the Colombian Government in a manner that results in economic and social development while progressively improving human rights standards. Moreover, Ireland's approach to Colombia is informed by our own experience in dealing with a post-insurgency environment. The free trade agreement between the EU and Colombia will contribute significantly to social and economic development, which is essential if Colombia is to emerge from its violent past. On the other hand, there is no question on our part of strengthening economic ties at the expense of human rights.

Let me outline the steps which Ireland has taken over the past year in addressing human rights issues directly with the Government of Colombia and together with the European Union. First, in December 2008 at the universal periodic review of Colombia at the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, Ireland made a set of strong recommendations, inter alia, on the protection of human rights defenders in Colombia. The Foreign Minister, Mr. Bermudez, subsequently wrote to me outlining, in detail, the steps that Colombia had undertaken, particularly in response to Ireland’s recommendations at the UN Human Rights Council. In my response to Mr. Bermudez’ letter, I acknowledged the progress made but equally stressed the need for further serious efforts by the Colombian Government in order to meet its human rights commitments. These points were made also to the Colombian ambassador during his visit to Ireland earlier this year, when I understand the sub-committee also had the opportunity to meet with him.

Second, the ambassador, Mr. Eamon Hickey, met with President Uribe, Foreign Minister Mr. Bermudez and senior officials in Bogotá in November 2009 and raised a range of human rights issues, in particular the question of the number of trade unionists killed in recent years. The Colombian side acknowledged the difficulties they were facing in this regard and with regard to the protection of human rights more generally, but underlined its commitment to addressing these issues.

Third, I instructed officials at the relevant EU working groups in Brussels to insist, during discussions on the FTA negotiations, on the inclusion of a clause committing both the EU member states and Colombia to the implementation of their human rights responsibilities with the proviso that failure to do so would result in the suspension of the agreement. Other member states followed our lead in this. I wrote to the then EU trade commissioner in January to underline the importance I attached to the inclusion of such a clause as an essential element of the agreement and the clause has, indeed, been included as the first article in the agreement. This is the first time that such a clause has been included in a free trade agreement and it is the first time that immediate suspension of the agreement is provided for should the circumstances warrant this.

I have to be honest with members. There was no support among member states for the idea of suspending even one round of negotiations, much less the agreement as a whole. We concentrated our efforts on working with like-minded member states to ensure that the agreement will result in further scrutiny of the Colombian labour market, thereby benefiting trade unionists and others. Having watched the effects of the US embargo on the Cuban people, I cannot envisage proceeding along similar paths with Colombia.

In addition to the bilateral track, the European Union has stepped up its human rights dialogue with the Colombian authorities, who have been left in no doubt about the seriousness of our preoccupation with the human rights situation and the extent of the improvements needed. Indeed, on foot of an initiative by Ireland, Colombia agreed to an extraordinary meeting of the human rights dialogue with the EU in December 2009 at which the issue of trade unionists was raised as a priority issue.

Over the coming weeks, the EU will meet once more with senior Colombian officials to continue the human rights dialogue and I understand that the situation of trade union officials will be a focus of that meeting. I believe that these efforts are bearing fruit and that there is an increasing awareness in the Colombian Government that pressure will continue on the part of the European Union to give greater effect to their commitments in this regard.

We must recognise also that the Colombian Government has taken concrete steps, such as trebling the protection programme for human rights defenders to $47 million in 2009. One concrete result of this was that coverage was extended to include union members and journalists and in the first half of 2009 the protection programme benefited 1,430 trade unionists. Another example is the justice and peace law, which has resulted in the disarming and demobilisation of 52,000 guerrillas. This is, in itself, a considerable achievement. Ireland has supported the law by providing considerable funds to the Organisation of American States in Washington towards the monitoring of its implementation. We have also funded the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights to ensure that human rights obligations are being upheld in that process. It is my wish that we will continue to provide funding to projects in Colombia and, to that end, a proposal for funding for a victim access and support project is currently under consideration.

In the Chairman's letter to me, he raised the matter of the visits by the five UN special rapporteurs to Colombia over the past year, on extrajudicial issues, human rights defenders, indigenous peoples' rights, judicial independence and minority issues . I welcome these visits as they ensure that pressure is maintained on Colombia to meet its human rights commitments. Each of the rapporteurs commented positively on the Colombian Government’s level of engagement with them during the visit and, more important, noted the progress made in a broad range of areas. Of course, work remains to be done and the fact that the rapporteurs’ reports are formally submitted to the UN will ensure that attention remains on Colombia and that concrete follow-up ensues.

In conclusion, it is my firm belief that this agreement will provide considerable investment, trade and co-operation opportunities for both EU member states and for Colombia. Solutions to the security and human rights situation in Colombia, as elsewhere, will be largely dependent on sustained growth and development, and in this sense I firmly believe that the agreement will make a decisive contribution to the improvement of the human rights situation for all Colombians, including trade union members. I can assure members that the Government will continue to follow the human rights situation in Colombia and take the steps we consider necessary bilaterally, as well as in co-operation with our EU partners.

I am worried about the poor attendance at these meetings of the sub-committee on human rights.

The Minister mentioned terrorism but it is time we recognised economic terrorism as a crime. Considerable numbers of people in Europe are seeing their lives destroyed as a result of speculation in the world of international financing. I suggest a court to which Goldman Sachs, and other such companies, could be tried and found guilty of crimes of international terrorism. I will make a suggestion to that effect on another day but the sub-committee might look at the question of destabilisation because it is not entirely separate from what I will say on the question of Colombia.

This sub-committee has had a record of expressing its concern about Plan Colombia for a long time. It took the view that the European Union was spending its funds on a tidying-up operation after a military operation funded by the US Government. We were concerned that, by facilitating this tidying-up, we were complicit in the ethical assumptions involved in the military exercise.

The Minister knows that I hold him in respect but I substantively disagree with him on a number of issues relating to Plan Colombia. I want to see proof that the advancement of human rights comes after commercial trade and economic co-operation. Let us see the facts in this regard. It is argued that, having opened relations that are of economic benefit, a kind of moral suasion or conscientisation occurs in the minds of those who have seen off the only opportunity of putting them under pressure over human rights.

The Minister talks of the difficulty for "a Government, even one as determined as that of President Uribe, to destroy their networks". If one wanted to destroy the drug industry in Colombia one might begin with the consumer side in the United States. This sub-committee and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs have met a number of advocacy groups, who have brought us stories of defoliation exercises and peasants being moved from their farms because of drug exercises, sometimes carried out by the military and sometimes by private armies which dispossess peasants who are caught in the middle. The Minister goes on to say: "Of course, there will be ups and downs in an environment where the FARC is still at large". The issue is not simply about the FARC and the fact that the military enjoys immunity, rather than those in the FARC, is a human rights issue of the first class. I am not a supporter of the FARC but it is a difficult and complex issue. If one wants to establish peace one has to weigh up the merits of granting impunity as against making people pay for crimes they have committed against peasants.

There is an EU dimension to this. I do not believe the EU human rights presence is served by the fact that Baroness Ashton is constructing a new diplomatic institutional arrangement. I appreciate the good intentions of the Minister but this statement of his represents the sad reality:

I have to be honest with members. There was no support among member states for the idea of suspending even one round of negotiations, much less the agreement as a whole. We concentrated our efforts on working with like-minded member states to ensure that the agreement will result in further scrutiny of the Colombian labour market...

The right to organise is not protected in Colombia and nor are the rights of human rights defenders. This is not a bilateral track — it is a suspension of all one's force in pursuing human rights and I am completely opposed to it. The Minister also said: "We must recognise also that the Colombian Government has taken concrete steps, such as trebling the protection programme for human rights defenders to $47 million in 2009". Where is the evidence that the Colombian Government even recognises the existence of human rights defenders or the particular threat posed to them, as shown by the fact that there have been a number of killings of human rights defenders in recent years? I am entirely in favour of any project that helps Colombians but I believe they are best assisted by a recognition of their right to development, particularly in respect of those involved in agricultural activities in the peasant areas.

This is the European Union at its worst. It is operating a trade advantage and offers much less than even a moral assertion on human rights. This issue will not just arise in respect of Colombia but will also arise in respect of Honduras. In this context, I intend to start pursuing the notion of economic terrorism, which is the biggest single danger to the world at the present time. I was looking at some figures before I came to the meeting. The total amount spent in bailing out the banking system as a result of international speculative activity last year was $18 trillion. The amount spent on arms was $1.46 trillion in 2008, which is the equivalent of 49 years of aid. That is the world we are living in so it is not the time for any concessionary relief to be given to people who do not accept the need to implement human rights. That is the position of the Labour Party, of which I have the honour of being president.

I wish to make a brief comment. I have concerns about the European Union strengthening economic ties with countries such as Colombia where there is clear evidence of problems. By making new arrangements, signing new agreements and strengthening economic ties it could be perceived by the Colombian authorities that the shortcomings in the administration of human rights, correctly pointed out by Deputy Higgins, could be put to one side on the basis that European Union countries are prepared to sign up to economic agreements.

I accept the Minister has found very little support among the European Union partners for this country's position. However, it is just not good enough to put our concerns to one side. We must continue to outline our concerns about the current human rights deficit that exists not just in Colombia but in other South American countries as well.

I fully accept the concerns of members. I have given the matter much consideration. We have taken significant steps along the road and have intervened effectively to change the nature of the agreement. I have consulted widely as well. I do not understate the importance of the fact that the agreement contains a human rights clause which permits the immediate and unilateral suspension of concessions in case of human rights violations in the signatory country. That is something we fought hard for in the negotiations and succeeded in getting included.

It is also worth pointing out that the International Labour Organisation, ILO, has recognised positive developments in a broad range of areas in its reports. Last month when I met with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Pillay, in Geneva I asked her for her assessment on Colombia. She has addressed a number of human rights conferences in this country and she is held in high esteem. She commented positively on developments in Colombia. What I am hearing from key interlocutors such as she is that we have to view the situation in a relative way. The context is different to anything we have experienced in terms of the history of Colombia, the region, the appalling and unacceptable violence which has involved links to the state and the persecution of trade unionists. Nonetheless, these interlocutors are indicating that significant and discernible progress has been made.

One might ask — some did — what chance is there of the EU suspending the agreement on the basis of the human rights clause. I draw members' attention to February of this year when the European Union decided to withdraw trade preferential benefits granted to Sri Lanka under the generalised system of preferences, GSP+, regime after an investigation by the European Commission identified significant shortcomings in the implementation of three UN human rights conventions which put Sri Lanka in breach of its GSP obligations. The EU acted in response to developments in Sri Lanka in spite of the suggestion that the EU might never get around to suspending the agreement in the event of infringement or unacceptable progress in terms of the human rights clause.

As in Gaza, where the Minister visited.

In terms of Gaza, we have not renewed or upgraded the agreement. We are keeping the pressure on with other EU states and connecting it to the broader peace process in the Middle East. Sri Lanka is an important case in point. In May of 2008 the Commission decided to initiate an investigation in respect of another GSP+ beneficiary, El Salvador, regarding non-incorporation of ILO core labour standards into domestic legislation.

The core point, in terms of economic ties, is a separate issue which could be the subject matter of another debate. Those global financial bodies are answerable to courts and have been in the past.

They have indeed. Many have found themselves behind bars. I will not name anyone but it has happened in the United States and elsewhere.

Let us take the case of Goldman Sachs. I am deliberately mentioning the firm which I regard as a near-terrorist organisation. I wish to be recorded as describing it thus.

Equally, the European Union has concluded free trade agreements with Chile and Mexico which have led to significant increases in trade in goods and services between the EU and those countries to their benefit as well. There is a link between economic development and human rights. We can argue that point on another day. Dramatic improvements have been made in a range of areas in China.

That is a rationalisation of commerce.

The improvements are clearly linked to economic and trade development. I refer to some of the most fundamental human rights in terms of poverty, food and shelter. That is important. It is not a separate issue. In talking to the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights and others one has to make an assessment on what is the best methodology of engagement to ensure that progress continues to be made and how we can best leverage for the benefit of trade unionists, those who are being persecuted or those whose human rights are being undermined. That is the general call one has to make, not just on Colombia but across the globe. On balance, progress is being made. In the context of the European Union we will keep the matter under active review. We will continue to pursue the issues on behalf of civil society groups in this country and in Colombia and in response to the strong concerns that have been articulated by committee members.

Let us go back to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We have the law of evolution towards, for example, the acceptance of the major instrument in regard to civil and political rights, and then we look as well at the economic, social and cultural rights. The issue governments have to answer, as we wait for the vindication of economic, social and cultural rights — that is why I mentioned the extraneous matter of the international speculative entity — the position is that the choice is whether we are going to pursue the establishment of economic, social and cultural rights on the basis of an international instrument derived from the universal declaration or whether we are going to keep on saying that if we keep those little economic relationships going somewhere along the way they will all get better.

For example, as a person interested in human rights, I cannot say that one can assess a human rights achievement on the basis of a reduction in the number of murders. I know the Minister agrees with me on that. It is a violation if one person is murdered or threatened. It is not a matter of volume; it is a matter of principle. My position is that trade-driven commercial treaties are not a substitute for the vindication of economic, social and cultural rights.

President Uribe in Colombia is not talking about a neatly evolving situation. I accept that one can look at China and say that because it is engaged with us and has a commercial advantage that human rights are progressed, but not to the same degree as the vindication of rights through international instruments. The Minister indicated that the companies I mentioned are accountable. I do not see that accountability. People know that. The Minister will have my support at the meeting of foreign affairs Ministers if he is arguing in favour of a transaction tax. Then he will repeat what he said about getting no support for changing or delaying the agreement with Colombia. As soon as one mentions a successor to the Tobin tax everyone suggests that the entire world's economic system will collapse. The answer is that this is slavery. In Colombia we have heard from one group after another. Sometimes they came with their bishops. They came with their local priests, people who were activists and so forth and they said they had been pushed off their land and could not get back. Sometimes the guerillas drove them off, other times it was FARC. They then pointed to relatives and people who had been assassinated, sometimes by the guerillas and at other times by the military, and said what was on offer was impunity.

I choose, frankly, to look at it from that perspective and I respect the difficult situation the Minister is in, with people who have not sufficient guts to vindicate human rights by delaying anything, even for a minute. Let us hope that this is not a forerunner to what Baroness Ashton's activities might be.

On the issue of the Tobin transaction tax, I would not share the Deputy's view. There might be a far greater degree of consensus behind that than he believes among the powers that be, in Brussels.

Through President Von Rompuy. I am not saying we would be 100% in favour, given that we have to assess the situation, but there it is. I believe that economic and social stability improves human rights. If there is a situation where the position regresses, and where everything is justified on the basis of suppression or opponents within a state — terrorism can take on different faces in any type of society — inevitably there are more transgressions in terms of human rights, higher incidences of state persecution, etc. There is even evidence of this, to a certain extent, on this island——

——where we saw progression in terms of economic and social development and a withdrawal of human rights. It is only now when one looks at the historical inquiries and review many of the things that happened in the North, for example, that one begins to see how people act in certain contexts and are clearly in breach of human rights.

As a general principle I believe there is value to be found, but not on the basis that this is the only game in town or a substitute for the constant advocacy for improved human rights situations or indeed, conformity with the UN conventions. In other words this trade agreement is by no means a substitute for the continuing efforts required to enhance human rights. It is arguable, for instance, that parallel with many of the trade agreements the EU has, mechanisms and frameworks have developed which actually facilitate a European Union dialogue with countries on human rights, whereas in the absence of such trade agreements there would have been no dialogue at all.

That would be a sad position, I agree.

That was the position prior to many trade agreements, even with China and so on. At least there is a value in creating frameworks that facilitate a constant regular dialogue on human rights. Think of Burma, for example — we have no input at all. Take North Korea where the most shocking abuses of human rights continue to occur. We can all articulate about it in splendid isolation, but there is no framework for engagement or continued dialogue.

Sometimes the framework is the problem, as regards what people bring. When the Minister was back in here we were discussing EPAs, for example, which will not go rattling through the Dáil either. People are carrying assumptions in their heads as regards what economic development is. I have contact over many years with people in South America, as I call it, and they are much more open in relation to forms and models of development. I am trying to create the space for that and this is the whole point. However, I believe the old dying paradigm is informing the technocratic visits — from people from the European Union to many South American countries, and Central American countries, too. The Minister mentioned El Salvador, with which I am very familiar. It will be interesting for me to see the difference in attitude between the European Union and the recently elected democratic government of the FLMN-FDR in El Salvador — and there is a difference.

One can lecture people who are coming from a strong popular base, but on the other hand one has to make concessions to people who come from the militarised right. In any event, that is where we are.

I have one question for the Minister. He referred to the monitoring situation. Is a mechanism being established by the EU as regards monitoring human rights in Colombia? Is there a formal structure for that in terms of trade agreements?

There are various mechanisms. There is an EU dialogue, for example. Ireland will be taking soundings and working with civil society groupings, the trade union movement, the United Nations Commissioner on Human Rights and the rapporteurs, whom we consider to be important independent and objective observers, with a clear mandate to advance human rights. We take their comments and observations seriously and we shall continue to work through those channels to satisfy ourselves. I appreciate the fact that these issues have been raised by various members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. For some time it has been in response to people raising such issues that we started to pursue them with our EU partners in the context of actually negotiating the agreement, getting the human rights clause agreed, putting significant pressure on and opening up our own bilateral dialogue with the Administration in Colombia.

Colombia then became very aware that considerable pressure was coming from the EU on human rights issues in the context of the free trade agreement, so I value the role of the committee, on that basis. If one looks at the treaty, clause 3 says that "without prejudice to the existing mechanism for political dialogue between the parties, any party may immediately adopt appropriate measures in accordance with international law in cases of violations by the other party of the essential elements referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of this Agreement". Articles 1 and 2 deal with the human rights issues.

There being no further questions, I thank the Minister and his officials for attending this meeting. It is a difficult issue and Ireland can be proud of its role in ensuring that the human rights elements were included in the trade agreement. Without the Minister's input and that of his officials there would possibly have been no human rights monitoring under the trade agreement. I thank the members for their attendance. Is there any other business?

The issue of economic terrorism was to be on the agenda, the human rights aspects of global economic impunity.

That is not on today's agenda. I shall discuss that with the secretariat and we shall see how it can be put on the agenda.

The sub-committee adjourned at 12.20 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 20 May 2010.
Top
Share