Apologies have been received from Deputies Creighton, O'Rourke and Treacy and Senators Doherty and Quinn.
Human Rights in Colombia: Discussion.
Deputy Michael McGrath expects to be here. He is en route.
No. 1 on the agenda is a discussion of human rights in Colombia and its impact on the free trade agreement between that country and the EU. This matter was tabled on foot of a request from a member of the committee.
Mr. Juan Andrés Cambindo Cuenu is very welcome. Before he begins, I draw his attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, this does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I know members will adhere to these guidelines.
Normal procedure for the committee is that witnesses' presentations last approximately ten minutes following which members are given the opportunity to ask questions. Witnesses may then make closing remarks.
Mr. Juan Andrés Cambindo Cuenu
I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for taking the time to hear the problems experienced by workers in Colombia, and sugar cane cutters, of whom I am one, in particular.
I will speak about trade union rights in the context of the free trade agreement being negotiated between Colombia and the EU. The form these negotiations currently take risks the unity of the Andean community because negotiating separately with members of the community forces tariffs and barriers on other members. The modifications in many of the Andean internal norms forced by the negotiation teams have already excluded Bolivia, and Ecuador is about to pull out of the negotiations.
These negotiations do not represent a step forward in achieving the millennium goals to overcome poverty. They reinforce a model of economic openness between substantially asymmetric partners that has been put in question because of the economic crisis and has not brought substantial benefits to any country that has applied it. The urgency to end these negotiations by the end of this year prevents a proper discussion on the consequences of disagreements, which in the context of a crisis is unfortunate.
The negotiations have lacked transparency because the Andean negotiators have known the proposals from the European counterparts just days before the rounds of negotiations have taken place and there has been no consultation with civil society. There is deep asymmetry in the negotiations because individual Andean countries are negotiating against one of the most powerful economic blocs in the world, the EU, and therefore, the Andean countries are not in a position to put their conditions.
The benefits of the agreement are not thought of for the bulk of society but for the big economic interests in areas such as the pharmaceutical industry and multinationals that have operations in services and natural resources. One example is that impact assessment studies carried out by Peruvian health associations have proved that the intellectual property regulations put forward by the European negotiating team, which will mean the sale of generic drugs will be forbidden for 25 years, will affect huge sectors of the population. Some 70% of the drugs consumed in the Andean region are generic drugs. We expect an increase in the price of drugs that are vital for the population of the order of 26% in Peru and 11% in Colombia, which represents an extra $386 million annually for the most impoverished sectors of society.
It is important that investment in sectors such as water and bio-fuels is taken into account in the negotiations because this will have important implications for the very basic rights of the local populations. People are beginning to talk about the human right to water and food, and to treat these as commodities in the negotiations does not improve the lot of the population. We understand the EU's need to diversify its energy sources, but this cannot be done at the expense of the food and water of our people. We regret that in the new framework of negotiations issues such as immigration and the directive return of the EU were taken out of discussion when they should have been discussed and negotiated last June when the round of negotiations in Brussels was cancelled.
The last and most important issue we are worried about is that the delicate humanitarian situation in Colombia is not even taken into account by the negotiating team. Agreements such as these have an impact on all areas of social life. When one deals with a country in which trade unionists are frequently persecuted and murdered the EU has to be very aware of the implications this environment has for economic activities to be carried on and for multinational companies, including European companies, which will take benefits from this agreement. Since the main trade union, Central Unitaria de Trabajdores de Colombia, CUT, was formed in Colombia in 1986, nearly 2,700 trade unionists have been murdered, making Colombia the country with the most appalling record of human rights abuses of trade unionists in the world. Some 98% of these murders are carried out with impunity but it is well known that the bulk of them are the work of right-wing death squads allied to the army and sectors of the state. The death threats made by paramilitaries against trade union officials provide evidence of this collusion. One such threat received last month declared that all those it described as the bastards who were inciting the people against the President would be regarded as military objectives and murdered and that the paramilitaries would not feel responsible if innocent members of families are killed. Retaliation killing of family members is common. The extent of complicity between the Government and paramilitaries and right-wing death squads is demonstrated in the so-called parapolitical scandal which has seen 65 government Members of Parliament being put on trial and implicated a further 35 people.
The Government claims there has been a decrease in the rate of murders of trade unionists but this is partly because an entire generation of trade unionists has already been killed. It got rid of the more vocal people and trade unions have practically disappeared due to repression. The level of industrial action is very low but massacres take place as soon as agitation begins. A number of strikes took place last year and 49 trade unionists were murdered as a result. Since President Uribe came to power six years ago, 500 trade unionists have been murdered.
This violent environment is promoted by the Government's stigmatisation of civil disobedience and protest. When the sugar cane cutters' strike began last September, the President accused them of being FARC and guerrilla supporters rather than ordinary workers. This is an irresponsible accusation in light of the conflict in Colombia. The President called for the army to take action with the result that the strike was militarised and was no longer treated as a normal industrial dispute. Most strikes are similarly treated as problems of public order which require a military response. Being identified without proof as a guerrilla supporter is tantamount to receiving a death warrant. The sugar cane plantations and refineries were taken over by the military and 33 workers were wounded by soldiers. We received no excuses and our attempts to begin dialogue with local authorities were to no avail.
Many sectors of society, including indigenous people, peasants, women, sexual minorities, Afro-Colombian people and the political opposition, are similarly victimised by specific forms of institutionalised violence but trade unions are a particularly sensitive group in the context of the free trade agreement negotiations. Violence in Colombia is not merely in the air. It is practised by specific actors and we can clearly identify its source. One of those actors is the state. It is the partner of the European Union in these negotiations. Therefore we must be clear that because of its human rights situation Colombia cannot be treated like any other partner.
The European Union already has a trade agreement with Colombia, the system of generalised preferences or GSP-plus. In that agreement there is already a clause regarding respect for human rights. This agreement has not improved human rights in the country. Therefore we believe that to start new negotiations without guaranteeing respect for the life of trade unionists and without any sort of conditions to improve in practice the human rights situation in general goes against the democratic and humanist principles on which the European Union was founded.
Mr. Cuenu has spoken for more than 30 minutes which is considerably longer than the normal presentation. I ask Mr. Cuenu to conclude his submission and to give the committee secretariat a copy of the translated version of his submission as quickly as possible.
Mr. Juan Andrés Cambindo Cuenu
We cannot accept that these negotiations are used to give some sort of endorsement to a regime with a humanitarian record comparable with, or if anything worse than, that of the recently tried and condemned Fujimori, the former Peruvian President. These negotiations do not involve economic benefit for the people but a political benefit for our government that is discredited in our region. We must bring to attention the fact that President Uribe has seen two free trade agreements cancelled, one with Norway, the other with the USA under President Obama. The European Union cannot ignore these examples and should use its prestige and influence in a positive way to improve the humanitarian situation in the country and to advance democratic rights.
I will make sure the committee receives an English copy of the presentation. I apologise that I do not have it today but I arrived only last night.
I appreciate that and realise that it was difficult for Mr. Cuenu to get here, given the distance he had to travel. The presentation was fairly comprehensive. It covered socio-economic, political, trade and EU-related issues on which the members will comment. I wish to conclude other important business in this meeting and I want fairly full attendance if possible for its duration.
I welcome Mr. Cuenu to the meeting this afternoon. It is obvious that the situation in his country is serious, particularly in respect of basic rights and freedoms which affect us all, particularly the right to work, to food and civil and political rights. The EU has had bilateral connections with his country for many years and it is important that these continue because of the serious drugs problem. Human rights should form part of any negotiations with his country, whether with Asia, the Americas or the European Union. The Obama Administration has sent out proper and correct signals in refusing to sign the free trade agreement. It is ironic that having last year celebrated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we are discussing this issue today.
The sugar cane industry is important in Mr. Cuenu's country. The human rights watchdog in the Americas is the Organisation for American States, OAS, similar to the Council of Europe of which Deputy Costello and I are members. Thirty five countries are signed up to the OAS. How effective is it in respect of the human rights plight of the sugar cane workers? Human rights should form part of any negotiations between Europe and the Americas, particularly with Colombia. We should bring to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs the need to include this in the agenda at the next general council meeting.
I thank Mr. Cuenu for coming before the committee and addressing us about the issues affecting workers and human rights in Colombia. We hear a great deal about Colombia and most of it is bad because it is the source of a significant quantity of drugs and the guerilla movement, FARC, has a bad reputation. The government from time to time has had an equally bad reputation but it seems that the present government is popular, with a 70% approval rating. Is that because of its military achievements against the guerrilla movement or is there genuine popular support for the government? Does it bring security to the country in general terms, particularly through the new legislation inviting paramilitaries to demobilise? I understand all negotiations with the European Union are based on human rights principles and that the European Union cannot negotiate with any country without having human rights principles as a core factor in those negotiations. Is the witness saying the EU should put in place mechanisms to ensure those human rights principles are secured, supervised and maintained rather than lip service being paid to human rights principles? What might we do to ensure bilateral discussions with the Union on the free trade agreement are more robust to protect workers and trade unionists in Colombia? Does the witness have anything to say about the major Irish enterprise in Colombia, Cartón de Colombia, the Smurfit Kappa subsidiary?
I welcome Mr. Cuenu to the committee and thank him for his presentation. It is interesting that it raises for us as parliamentarians on a European Affairs committee the issue of trade agreements between the European Union and countries with poor human rights records. We discussed recently the agreement the European Union has with Israel and the fact that the human rights clauses of the agreement are not being respected by Israel but the EU is doing nothing to ensure the enforcement of those clauses. Similar issues have been raised today.
Mr. Cuenu mentioned that the European Union is negotiating a new free trade agreement with Colombia while knowing that Colombia has a poor human rights record. It confronts us with the question of the most appropriate way for us to use our influence to affect that negotiation process. Is it Mr. Cuenu's wish that we seek a halt to the negotiations on the agreement or is he seeking tighter conditions, particularly in terms of trade unions in Colombia?
In Colombia, 70% of the drugs used are generic but this free trade agreement will mean those drugs will be unavailable to the population for 25 years to come. What other issues within this proposed free trade agreement might impact on the people of Colombia? Is water an issue?
What level of public awareness is there in Colombia about the free trade agreement? To what extent has civil society been involved with or consulted about it?
I welcome the guests and thank them for the detailed presentation. How can we further assist their efforts? I recommend that we involve Members of the European Parliament, who are ex officio members of this committee, who are campaigning at present. We have discussed MEPs attending our meetings to discuss issues of joint interest and we had indicated that would involve members of the European Committee of the Regions. I suggest the committee put this on the agenda of the next round table discussion to see how we can use the information we got today to reach a broader viewpoint taking in those two bodies.
The European Parliament might be a more appropriate forum for this given that international trade is a competence of the Commission and not of the member states. It is important we address it but what steps have been taken at European Parliament level on the issue? None of our MEPs is here but it would be more appropriate for them to deal with this issue.
Before Mr. Cuenu replies, the points in the presentation have been well documented in the past and the issues raised by the members arise from their knowledge of them as Members of Parliament here. It is true that many of the issues are best influenced by the European Parliament and all Irish MEPs are ex officio members of this committee. We will draw up a report that will be referred to our MEPs and made available in the Houses of the Oireachtas.
In a previous incarnation I used to take an interest in this region. It is complicated politically, socially and economically. We have concerns about the issues raised but we are also aware of the influence of FARC guerrillas in the general area. Unfortunately, some of the actions in which they are involved have the effect of spreading violence for which other members of the community are blamed, such as trade unionists or those who work in rural areas. We are aware these issues are serious and the committee is concerned about human rights abuses but in difficult situations of that nature, there is a danger that interference from neighbours, which has been alleged, can place the institutions of state in an invidious position.
Senator O'Sullivan wishes to make a comment. We will then hear Mr. Cuenu's response.
I endorse everything the Chairman said. Although I am not a member of the committee, I wish to make a short contribution.
The year before last I spent a month in various parts of Colombia, including Bogota, Cartagena and Eritaña on the Caribbean side. I moved mostly among middle-class people who reassured me that there was normality in society in Colombia. On the other hand, I witnessed some unpleasant situations where workers appeared to be bullied. I want to ask Mr. Cuenu, whom I warmly welcome, two questions. Is there a greater sense of normality in Colombia or is this merely propaganda on the part of the Colombian Government? Second, are workers in the tourism sector — waiters, catering staff, etc. — organised in trade unions? What level of remuneration do they receive from the multinational tourism companies which operate profitably along the coastline?
To clarify Deputy Thomas Byrne's point, there is a tendency to think trade policy is agreed at a European level and that it is not something we can necessarily influence but even though the Commission conducts the negotiations, it is given a mandate by the Council of Ministers to do so and must return to it for approval before any trade agreement can be finalised and agreed. The Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Coughlan, is in a position to exert influence over what happens in the negotiations on the trade agreement being negotiated.
While we are waiting for the interpretation, I mention to the committee that while I do not intend to prolong the meeting greatly, there are a couple of important items of business to address before we leave. I hope we will have an early conclusion, given that it is not normal policy, certainly since I became a Member of the House, to meet in Easter week. I, therefore, ask members to bear with me until we have the rest of the agenda cleared.
Mr. Juan Andrés Cambindo Cuenu
We are aware that the committee is conscious of a number of the issues being raised. The popularity of Mr. Uribe is being used largely for propaganda purposes. At one point last year, in May, Gallup spoke of an 84% popularity rating but at the same time the official institute of national statistics in Bogota issued the findings of another more representative poll which showed a 42% popularity rating. The response of the Colombian Government was to dismiss the director of the institute of national statistics in May last year, as has been well documented. Certainly, Mr. Uribe is popular among the middle classes, particularly among the urban middle classes in the main towns — Medellin, Bogota, Cali and Barranquilla. In rural areas it is a little more complex because people do not go there. There is an ongoing conflict and it is more difficult to know the position but certainly there is a class divide, of which Senator O'Sullivan spoke. However, there is much propaganda.
In answer to Senator O'Sullivan's question, workers in the tourist industry are not unionised. Most workers in Colombia are not unionised. Trade unions have been suffering in a systemic process of annihilation for 20 years.
We understand the situation in Colombia is very difficult and complex. There are international actors, as well as many internal actors of violence — paramilitary organisations, guerillas and the state. If we are dealing with a free trade agreement with the Colombian Government, the government is our partner. It is not a trade agreement with the FARC guerillas. The Colombian Government is actually responsible for gross human rights violations. Last year 1,400 people were killed. People were falsely accused of being members of the guerilla forces just to inflate the results achieved by the army. This is something that must be taken into account. There is a chance that Mr. Uribe will end up in the International Criminal Court in the Hague — there are a couple of processes being followed.
On the free trade agreement, we understand there is a human rights ethos behind it but of the 14 working groups there is none dealing specifically with human rights matters. The representative of the EU Trade Commissioner in Colombia has stated this is not a negotiation on human rights issues but on trade. We have quotations and can provide them — that one was taken from Semana, a popular magazine in Colombia. All that has been said is that at some point we must discuss a framework to consider the principles of how to enforce a human rights agreement but there is no talk of enforcement. There is little awareness of the free trade agreement among the people, only among civil society organisations. The general wider public does not have a clue that the negotiations are taking place. They have not been discussed; the situation is probably the same in Europe. There is privatisation of services such as water, which is very worrying, and financial services, which in the current crisis is increasingly worrying. The first step is to have a specific mechanism to discuss human rights issues, to discuss their enforcement, to ensure there is civil society participation and that we take into account in the negotiations the victims of human rights violations. Most importantly, there are no conditions for human rights to be endorsed. My recommendation is that the free trade agreement would be detrimental to the interests of the bulk of the working class and the impoverished sectors of Colombian society. It would be best to stop the agreement because, in addition, there are no conditions to ensure human rights clauses are respected.
I thank Mr. Cuenu for attending and his presentation. We will relay his comments and views and the comments of members of the committee to our colleagues in the European Parliament for their perusal and pursuit at their leisure. We decided to meet Mr. Cuenu following the receipt of a submission from Senator de Búrca. We will deal with the submission in every way possible in the course of our work.