Skip to main content
Normal View

Human Rights

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 28 July 2020

Tuesday, 28 July 2020

Questions (28, 32, 34)

Brendan Howlin

Question:

28. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will suspend the extradition agreement with Hong Kong in view of the actions taken by Australia, the UK and other nations suspending extradition agreements with Hong Kong following the enactment of the new security law by the Chinese authorities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18551/20]

View answer

Neale Richmond

Question:

32. Deputy Neale Richmond asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if consideration has been given to suspending the extradition agreement with Hong Kong following the imposition of a new national security law by Beijing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18114/20]

View answer

Richard Bruton

Question:

34. Deputy Richard Bruton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on the way in which new legislation designating political protest as a criminal offence with huge penalties was introduced and the new security apparatus has been installed in Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17963/20]

View answer

Oral answers (14 contributions)

I have a simple and direct question for the Minister. Will he suspend the extradition agreement with Hong Kong, as a number of countries have done, in light of the imposition on Hong Kong of the new security law by the Chinese authorities?

I propose to take Questions Nos. 28, 32 and 34 together.

The Government is closely monitoring the situation in Hong Kong following the adoption of a national security law on 30 June by the Chinese National People's Congress.

I made a statement on 1 July to express my concern at the adoption of this law and reiterated Ireland's full support for fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong, such as freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly. I have also discussed the issue with the Chinese ambassador, directly and in person.

Additionally, on 30 June 2020, Ireland was one of 27 states to sign up to a joint statement at the UN Human Rights Council which reiterates our concerns on Hong Kong. The joint statement highlights our concerns regarding the implications of this law for the autonomy of Hong Kong and the rights and freedoms that are guaranteed in the Hong Kong Basic Law.

The EU also issued a statement on this matter on 1 July, which highlighted the EU's strong stake in the continued stability and prosperity of Hong Kong, and outlined our concerns regarding the conformity of this law with China's international commitments. Ireland fully supports this statement. The matter was also raised by the EU during the EU-China summit on 22 June and in a statement by the EU at UN Human Rights Council on 1 July.

With regard to Ireland’s extradition treaty with Hong Kong, Ireland is one of a number of EU member states that has an extradition agreement with Hong Kong. My Department is co-operating on this matter with the Department of Justice and Equality and we are currently reviewing this agreement in line with a number of our EU partners. Ireland’s agreement with Hong Kong contains a number of protections within it, including both mandatory and discretionary grounds for refusal to extradite, as well as provisions for termination by either party.

The protection and promotion of human rights is a core pillar of Ireland's foreign policy, and we will continue to monitor and assess the situation and to raise our concerns with the Chinese authorities bilaterally and in multilateral fora.

The straight answer to the Deputy's question is that we are examining this issue. I am discussing it with both the Department of Justice and Equality and other EU member states that have extradition treaties with Hong Kong, but we have not made a decision on it yet.

I welcome the Minister's clear outline of Ireland's concern at the imposition of this law on Hong Kong. However, we must give a clear manifestation of that concern. Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and, today, New Zealand have suspended their extradition agreements with Hong Kong in protest against the deeply concerning imposition of a national security law on Hong Kong. New Zealand's Foreign Minister said today that New Zealand can no longer trust that Hong Kong's criminal justice system is sufficiently independent from China. It should be borne in mind that New Zealand has very strong trade links with China. In fact, China is New Zealand's largest trading partner, involving some US$21 billion annually. New Zealand is putting this human rights issue to the fore over all other matters. I ask the Minister not to continue simply considering this matter, but to take action and suspend this agreement.

It is noteworthy that other EU member states have not yet made that decision. Sometimes the most effective way to move something forward is to act together. We are talking to other member states about the issue. I acknowledge that some countries have moved, but there is sense in EU countries talking to each other and potentially seeking to act together, as well as communicating with China on a bilateral basis about our concerns. We have a very good diplomatic relationship with China. We speak frankly about issues when China has a concern about a position we might be taking or when we have a concern about a policy it might have. I have had a very frank discussion with the Chinese ambassador on this issue. That directness is important when we have a genuine concern.

I will not make a decision here today. We have a process in train. We are talking to other EU countries which have similar concerns to Ireland's about this issue. However, we have not made a decision on that extradition arrangement yet.

I thank the Minister for his reply. He might indicate what other EU countries he is having discussions with to ensure we will move in lockstep with others. I have no difficulty with that. Regarding the Minister's discussions with the Chinese ambassador to Ireland, can he indicate the ambassador's response to the concerns the Minister set out? In a recent radio interview the ambassador described the democratic protesters in Hong Kong as terrorists. Was that the tone of his response to the Minister outlining Ireland's concerns? I appreciate that we have a long-standing and deep relationship with the People's Republic of China but, like all our relationships, it must be based on openness, frankness and the primacy of Ireland's concerns about human rights. It is important that we do not simply pay lip service to these matters but that, especially in the context of taking a seat on the UN Security Council, we are clear that this is at the forefront of our foreign policy and interactions with friends.

We work with the Chinese ambassador on many things. For example, when Ireland needed to source PPE recently, the ambassador was extraordinarily helpful. He helped to facilitate the arrangements that allowed us to deal with a very serious public health issue. We also deal with the ambassador with regard to important consular cases all the time.

I raised with him in a frank way the issue the Deputies raise. He has a very different perspective. The Chinese Government's view, which one would expect him to reflect, regards this as a law that criminalises acts of secession, subversion of state power, terrorist activity and collusion with foreign or external forces to endanger national security. That is the way the Chinese Government sees this issue. We see it differently and are expressing concern very directly about a "one country, two systems" approach which has been applied to Hong Kong and which, in our view, needs to be protected. That was the nature of the conversation but, as one would expect an ambassador to do, the Chinese ambassador outlined in a very direct and helpful way the Chinese perspective on this issue and the Chinese Government's view on it. He provided me with some written information in that regard as a briefing. We have nevertheless expressed concern. My statements on this have been very clear, and we are speaking to EU colleagues about the issue.

I absolutely agree with every single point Deputy Howlin made and I welcome the Minister's commitments and comments heretofore on this extremely worrying situation. Like the Minister, I agree that it is far more effective when EU countries work together. As we have heard in debates on other elements of these questions today, Ireland is a European and global leader, so perhaps when it comes to this issue we need to lead within the European Union. Quite simply, how do we know that a person extradited from Ireland to Hong Kong under the 2007 agreement will face trial there and that he or she will not all of a sudden end up in China? Can we trust that agreement and that system? Can we make sure we do not have another terrible situation such as we have with Robert O'Halloran, a case on which I know the Minister has worked so hard and with which he is very familiar?

I know there is very genuine concern in the House across all parties about this issue, and people have raised concerns about Hong Kong with me directly outside of the House as well. We are taking the matter very seriously. The statement I made after this law was introduced was probably stronger than any other that I can recall that was made across the EU. The UK has made very strong statements on the matter, but as a result of the statement I made, there was further contact with the Chinese Embassy. We have been very direct and open about our concerns. They are real. As a result, we are looking at this extradition agreement for the reasons Deputy Richmond has just outlined. I still think, however, that open dialogue, that is, direct and respectful conversation, even if forceful at times, is important to the diplomatic relationship we need to maintain with a country such as China. We will therefore continue that dialogue but we will also look to make an informed decision on this extradition agreement and talk to other EU countries in a similar position to ours.

I welcome the Minister's comments. I am one of 904 signatories, parliamentarians from 43 different countries, to a letter drafted by the former Governor of Hong Kong, Lord Patten, laying out our very serious concerns about the new security law in Hong Kong. That is a great starting point for this Government to look at what needs to be done. As the Minister knows, Ireland has a very particular relationship with Hong Kong. We all have friends who have lived there, many who were born there, others who have done business there and come back. We were in school with many people who grew up in Hong Kong. We have an expressed interest in this situation and we need to make sure that people in this country can be protected from what I can describe only as extremely draconian measures introduced by the Beijing Government in Hong Kong. I continue to encourage the Minister not only to maintain that open dialogue but also to work with European partners to discuss this and perhaps look at the examples of New Zealand, Australia and, perhaps not to as great an extent, the United Kingdom.

What matters is the outcome. I do not see that the position taken by the UK, for example, has changed the policy position in Beijing. We will assess and are assessing, as I said earlier, the extradition treaty Ireland and a number of other EU countries have. It is equally important, however, to use our position in international fora such as the UN and the EU and to send open, honest and direct messages of concern to the Chinese Government on this issue. That is the appropriate course of action for Ireland, and I hope it can be the most impactful. That is what we will continue to do.

I do not wish to repeat everything that has been said, but what strikes me, apart from the content of this law, which is worrying in itself, is that it is in conflict with the basic law which was the underpinning of the "one country, two systems" principle; that it was drafted in secret, with no opportunity for the people of Hong Kong to be consulted; that it has created categories of crime which are clearly designed simply to bottle up protest rather than genuinely address issues of national security; and that its enforcement will be carried out by an agency led by someone from outside of Hong Kong. It strikes me that these are extremely draconian approaches to adopt. Apart from the issue of extradition, which the Minister is exploring, how does he believe international fora can underline and sustain our concerns about the way in which this has been introduced and the continuing threat it poses to the people in Hong Kong?

That is the key question. We can do things that allow us to position ourselves with other countries that have similar concerns. Ultimately, however, the question is how the relationship with China and the international community results in a sustained level of concern and pressure to ensure that the legitimate concerns of the international community are understood in Beijing and result in an appropriate change. That is how we should approach this in the context of UN engagement, EU engagement and our bilateral discussions with the Chinese Government. From my perspective, that is what we have been doing - at UN level, a human rights level and an EU level. Obviously, we have had conversations with the British Government as well about its concerns. First and foremost, however, our conversation has to be direct and honest with the Chinese Government through its embassy in Dublin, which is what has been taking place.

How is it intended that the EU will monitor the application of this law within Hong Kong in order that not just its introduction but also its continuing application can be a cause of pressure to ensure that the potential abuses that are evident in the way it is being introduced do not come to pass?

I do not see a situation in which the Chinese Government will invite monitors from the EU to monitor officially the implementation of legislation that the Chinese Government regards as a domestic matter. That said, in everything that happens in Hong Kong, I think the EU will monitor very closely how demonstrators, who are legitimately expressing concerns through protest, are treated. That will certainly inform how the EU will over time respond to the implementation of legislation about which many of us have expressed significant concern.

Top
Share