I welcome Ms Madeline Church of ABColombia and Ms Patty Abozaglo of Trócaire. The ABColumbia Group is based in London and is the platform which oversees six British and Irish agencies, including Trócaire, working in Colombia. It focuses on lobbying on Colombian issues in Europe, especially regarding human rights, peace building and development. Before we commence, I remind the meeting that while members are covered by privilege, others appearing before the committee are not. I inviteMs Church to begin the presentation which will be followed by a question and answer session.
Human Rights Legislation in Colombia: Presentations.
Ms Madeline Church
Thank you very much for the invitation to speak to you today. I am the co-ordinator and liaison officer for the ABColombia group, which brings together six British and Irish agencies which work in Colombia. The group was formed in an attempt to highlight the very serious issues surrounding respect for human rights and the problem of forced internal displacement in Colombia, the instance of which is the second or third highest in the world.
We have a couple of recommendations for the committee. I do not know if members have received the one page document which we provided. Yesterday was the international day for human rights. Every year, 10 December is set aside to look at the situation of human rights internationally. In that light, we are asking the committee to call on the Minister for Foreign Affairs to push for a comprehensive and integral strategy, policy and action plan on human rights in Colombia through a series of consultation processes with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and respected human rights NGOs in Colombia.
As the committee may be aware, there are serious human rights violations and serious internal forced displacement in Colombia. To give the committee a little detail, in 1980, 100 people died as a result of political violence in Colombia. This year that number has reached 8,000, that is, people who were killed or disappeared for socio-political reasons. That is approximately 20 people a day and at least half of those people are under 18. Some 25% of those die either as combatants or civilians caught in the crossfire. The other 75% are assassinated in the street, at work or at home. Some 85% of these killings are perpetrated by a combination of paramilitary groups and collusion by state agents. Some 15% are attributed to the armed insurgency or the guerrilla.
Some 340,000 people have been forcibly displaced this year. Up to two million have been displaced already. Therefore, there is a particular and serious problem around forced internal displacement. That means people are thrown off their land by men wielding machetes and chain saws. They come into the villages and throw people out of their homes. Most people tend to escape to urban environments where they are basically left in slums which encircle big cities in Colombia.
This year the EU is providing an extra €1.8 million in humanitarian aid for this crisis. That brings the spend on Colombia to €9 million. The UNHCR has doubled its resources for 2003 to a total of $62 million. At the same time, the Colombian Government has cut the budget for the state entity responsible for forced displacement by 60%.
In general terms, the rate of human rights abuses in Colombia is 95% to 97%, verging on 100%. For those who come to trial, only 1% of trials reach a conclusion. In light of this, a human rights unit was established in the Attorney General's office in 1995 to take on the issue of prosecuting state agents responsible for human rights violations. This year a large number of people who work in that unit have been forced out. They have been sacked or have had to leave the country because of grave threat to their lives. The key investigations of state agents, and particularly high ranking military personnel, have been diverted or suspended.
One of the few field offices of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is in Colombia. It has been in operation for more than four years and is heavily funded by European Governments. In particular, the Irish Government spent in the region of $50,000 last year to support the work of that office. Its mandate is to monitor the situation and give technical advice to the Colombian Government to improve its human rights record.
There is a raft of international human rights recommendations that go back to 1988, all of which state more or less the same thing. They are detailed and comprehensive and are an effective blueprint for a comprehensive policy and action plan on human rights.
For the past four years the chair of the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva has issued a statement on Colombia. That is generally drafted by the European Union. Whichever country has the Presidency drafts the statement on Colombia from the UN Commission on Human Rights. Every year for the past four years that statement has urged the Colombian Government for an action plan on human rights, applauded the possible development of such a plan, encouraged the Colombian Government to put forward an integrated action plan on human rights and welcomed the possibility of it, but as yet we have not seen one.
This is a serious state of affairs. Some 148 members of trade unions have been murdered this year alone in Colombia, yet the Colombian Government refuses to allow a commission of inquiry from the International Labour Organisation to visit the country. It cannot agree on terms. This has been pushed for the past three years and the Colombian Government is resisting any possibility of a commission of inquiry from the ILO.
We believe that it is time to set a date for an action plan on human rights. The situation is extreme and is deteriorating. Each year the human rights commissioner's office in Bogota makes a more damning report of the situation in Colombia and we have not seen any sign yet of a significant policy advance as a result of this effort by the office. It is time to set a date. We believe that six months is sufficient to develop an action plan on human rights for the situation in Colombia.
Given that it is the time of year - International Human Rights Day - when we start paying attention to human rights and given the upcoming 59th Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, it is an opportunity for European Governments that exert significant influence in this area in the context of Colombia to put their foot down and say that the time is over for procrastinating in this area, that we need a significant and important contribution towards improving human rights in Colombia and that it should become policy as soon as possible.
The new administration of Colombia has no policy on forced displacement. It is one of the most terrifying social time bombs that one can imagine. Some 68% of the Colombian population lives below the poverty line, and forced displacement is one of the most significant contributors to that in current circumstances. Given the significant amount of international money that is going into the country to support humanitarian agencies and that is being spent there by the UNHCR and others, it is time there was a serious policy on how to handle the crisis of forced displacement in the country and there should be adequate state funding.
Those are the two recommendations we make to the committee today. I am happy to answer questions.
Would Ms Abozaglo like to make a contribution or wait for questions?
Ms Patty Abozaglo
No, I will wait.
I join the Chairm
an in welcoming the group. Human rights issues, wherever they arise, are of interest to the committee. It is clear from the briefing note we received from the Department of Foreign Affairs that the remit of the Government of Colombia does not cover the whole country. It is probably doubtful it is a Government in the sense that we know one, that is, one in control of a sovereign territory, however, there can be no excuse for the abuse of human rights.
We were once told, for example, by Americans that the terrorists in Ireland were freedom fighters. The emphasis in the presentation has been on the Colombian Government, but clearly FARC and others control whole tracts of Colombia. There does not appear to be a balanced concern about these left and right-wing paramilitary organisations that operate complete tracts of the country.
What can be done apart from pressing the Colombian Government to reintroduce proper human rights provisions and safeguards in the Attorney General's office? What can we do about the organisations which clearly control whole tracts of land in Colombia?
In the opinion of Ms Church, does the Colombian Government fit the description of a Government? Is it what she would consider a Government in the normal sense?
Would Ms Church like to answer that question now and give her views on it or will we have more questions?
Ms Church
How would the committee prefer to work? I can take questions individually or collectively.
We can take Deputy Mitchell's question first.
Ms Church
The reason the focus of my presentation is on the responsibility of the Colombian Government is largely because we work with and seek to influence formal institutions in Colombia, of which the Government is one. It is an Administration that was elected by the population of Colombia and it has significant support from it. It is a formal democracy and is a legitimate institution which we believe has responsibility, in particular, for the military. Therefore, in the context of International Human Rights Day, which is the context in which we present this document, it is a responsible party in terms of respect for human rights.
As far as it being a Government as one would understand it in the rest of the world, I think it is. It has responsibility. The institutions that have the most influence in Colombia are the military and the church. The military has a responsibility to protect civilians. All the information and evidence we have is that it singularly fails in that duty, not just because of the instance of armed conflict in the country but because of a lack of significant orientation towards respect for human rights.
What can be done about FARC and the control it has over the country? We do not have contact with FARC and do not have an opportunity to place our recommendations before it. I suggest that the European Union's participation over the past three years in a formalised peace process is the only way to have proper contact with FARC. That has to be done under the auspices of a proper formalised peace process and it is an urgent necessity in the current circumstances in Colombia.
I appreciate this presentation. A sub-committee of the previous committee on foreign affairs passed a resolution opposition to Plan Colombia but I notice the presentation does not refer directly to Plan Colombia. Reference has been made to a very thorough briefing document we received in preparation for this meeting but I question two aspects of it, the description of Latin American countries as characterised by poverty, exclusion and underdevelopment in justice, social, political and economic terms and predisposed to violence or conflict. I reject that profoundly. There is a long history of democratic institutions among the poorest peoples in Latin America. I will not delay the committee on it today as we can return to that another time. The second point relates to the description by the Americans of the conflict as the FARC guerrillas drawing a response from landed, private armies in collaboration with the State. I do not agree with that version of history, it does not work like that.
It is important we do not give the impression that we accept this text totally. I question the description of FARC guerrillas' activity as leftist. That begs the question as to their position in relation to the social and economic base from which they started and the position, through the evolution of their funding mechanisms, through to the present. Describing them as leftist is not accurate, although it is a different issue.
Regarding the lack of a specific reference to Plan Colombia in the presentation, that plan has a set of human rights conditionalities attached which were not met in 2000. At the initiative of President Clinton the requirement that they be fulfilled was waived. The delegation correctly drew attention to the fact that the certification they referred to is the certification in 2002 by Colin Powell and stated that here again, human rights conditionalities not having been met, assistance and funding issues under Plan Colombia were conveyed to the Colombian Government. I admire and agree with what the delegation is saying. To do this in the absence of any record of performance of a substantial kind, both at the legal end - the Attorney General's office - and the general end with the Colombian Government is regrettable.
However, the EU is quoted by the delegation and in our briefing document as calling on everyone to observe human rights and saying how much better the world would be if that were the case. However, the EU's own funding has been aimed at picking up the social and human consequences of a plan that will inevitably push the drug problem into another geographic area. It will also exacerbate the displacement referred to. The EU is considering Plan Colombia, in a sense picking up the bits and pieces of a human kind - others may offer their opinions later - having accepted the principles of a plan that is inherently flawed.
Regarding Plan Colombia, it is exposed by the dropping so readily of the human rights conditionalities. What is left when those are taken away? There is massive crop destruction without a land reform programme and the population has been pushed out, while the drug problem has been simply moved over the border. Attention is neatly deflected from cocaine consumption, which is at its most remunerative in US and western European society, and the burden of dealing with the international drugs problems is now on the poorest producers, which have no mechanisms to do so. This committee rejected Plan Colombia for some of the reasons I have given.
It is significant that between 2000 and 2002, another issue arose in relation to Plan Colombia, the use of funding under Plan Colombia for what are described as counter-terrorism and counter-narcotics purposes. If the human rights conditionalities are removed and the funding can go towards such purposes, it can be seen as assistance to a state operation which is in turn colluding with right-wing private armies in defence of a state. This means that not only are human rights not being observed but that the plan itself is subsidising a form of terror. Considering the language of the EU, which refers to everyone respecting human rights - I agree with that, as would most civilised people - what struck me about the wording was that it repeated verbatim an old statement from the end of the EU Presidency about three years ago, ignoring the fact that there had been a deterioration in human rights compliance. How can the EU watch peasants being pushed off their land like pawns in a conflict that is not being addressed?
The delegation's proposal is interesting but it is a bit prayerful. I would have welcomed a more direct shaft in the middle of the flawed entity relating to Plan Colombia.
My question is not a loaded one. In the context of human rights, if a citizen of Colombia were subjected to the rule of law would his or her human rights be abused?
Ms Church
I am not sure I understand the question. Will the Senator elaborate?
If an Irish citizen committed an alleged misdemeanour or criminal offence, would Ms Church have confidence in the Irish judicial system that they would get a fair trial? As someone who has observed human rights abuses in Colombia and who has made a presentation on that matter, what would be her opinion of a citizen of Colombia coming to the attention of the police and being subject to the Colombian judicial system? Does she believe his or her human rights would be protected?
Ms Abozaglo
From my experience in the past six years with Trócaire, institutions in Colombia in general are very weak. Given that there is 90% impunity in the country, it is difficult to believe that Colombians have any chance of getting access to justice. There is a high level of abandonment in many towns throughout the country.
The other issue relates to the cost of justice. To pay for lawyers one would need to have the means to access justice. This is not just a Colombian issue, it is a Latin American issue. I am Peruvian and I have experienced this problem in my country.
Assuming one has access to legal representation, would a Colombian citizen in that environment have his or her human rights protected while the case is being processed by the Colombian justice system?
Ms Church
Not being a Colombian, I have not experienced the Colombian system of justice. The only thing I can refer to is a report on the penitentiary system in Columbia which was drawn up by the UN mission this year. It gives a significant amount of detail about the way in which the State prison system is run. As for the justice system in Colombia, it very much depends on one's personal circumstances, access to resources and location. The system is very fragile at its most positive and very few cases come to fruition.
The certification on human rights for the last tranche of money for Plan Colombia was issued on 9 September this year. It was not waived, as happened in President Clinton's time. The certification was given by the US Administration, that is, to certify that conditions had been complied with. The main organisations that participated in the legally required consultation process before the certification, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Washington Office in Latin America, were appalled by the way in which the consultation process was misused. The certification was more or less given before the consultation process took place. In a letter to Colin Powell it was stated that not only has Colombia failed to meet the minimum standard necessary to satisfy the human rights conditions but its level of compliance has deteriorated markedly.
If the delegation does not wish, I will not ask for an evaluation of Plan Colombia as it works for Colombian peasants and others. I want to make that point clear because I made a statement earlier about FARC - for example. I said I would question referring to FARC as a leftist force. I asked the question about Plan Colombia because of its potential for massive displacement. A figure was given in the presentation of the very large number of people already displaced. There is a phenomenon in Colombia of the recycling of drugs funding into land purchase. This has limited the supply of land available, should it exist, for land reform programmes, even if the land is being encroached upon by drugs money.
We in this Parliament heard a presentation from families of people whose son was beheaded. They were caught up in an argument about strangers not being welcome in an area where there had been a dispute about land and so on. That was connected to a section of FARC. My question relates to Plan Colombia, what is happening to the peasants and the effect of the drugs money on the potential for land reform. My opposition to Plan Colombia results from the burden it puts on the people of Colombia who need a land reform programme to assist civil society and to free themselves from all forms of drug cartels. This is why I asked the specific question about Plan Colombia.
The General Affairs and External Relations Council statement on Colombia this week stated that the Council welcomed President Uribes's efforts to reform his country's institutions and to develop a fully functioning democratic state throughout the territory of Colombia, based on respect for human rights and the welfare and safety of all its citizens. The Council also expressed its support to the Government of Colombia in its fight against terrorism, as well as against illegal drug trafficking. It hoped for strength and co-operation within the region in these areas. However, the document also stated that the council expresses deep concern in respect of the deteriorating humanitarian situation and the situation of human rights in Colombia and urged the Colombian Government to increase its efforts in these areas and take effective action against impunity and collusion.
The way the statement is worded is offering a carrot and a stick. It says to the Government that they want to encourage it. Interesting soundings have been made by the new president, and they should be followed through. Will the delegation accept that whereas the strength of condemnation of human rights abuses is very strong - the General Affairs Council is not used to putting things so bluntly - there is also encouragement for the president? Should that not be our approach also? If we want to have credibility and influence with the country, should we not follow the example of the General Affairs Council?
Ms Abozaglo
I had a chance a couple of years ago to visit the former demilitarised area. I accompanied a group from the Catholic Church because Trócaire and Ireland Aid support a programme of rural development. Unfortunately, the feedback from peasant farmers in regard to the implementation of Plan Colombia was not great. First, they were very disappointed because the social component of Plan Colombia had not been implemented a year after the plan had started. The information we are continually receiving is more or less on the same line. They were offered a grant of approximately $1,000 to eradicate manually the coca in their lands and to substitute other crops for it but they were very clear in saying there was no rural development policy in terms of technical assistance or further credit. They also stated that with $1,000 in that region they would not be able to do anything. What happened was that people accepted the $1,000 not to be fumigated or sprayed and then sent part of their family to other areas to grow more.
The figures for the region show how the coca crop has shifted while the drugs policy has been implemented in the past ten years. The fumigated areas are huge but the areas of cultivation are larger. This is further proof that this strategy does not work. Unfortunately, it is the only one that has been tried.
Peasant farmers living in those areas have no support whatsoever to carry out a sustainable economic activity which could give them some quality of life. Some of the peasant farmers told me that growing a small bit of coca in their plots with some vegetables and fruit trees can earn for them between $3,000 and $5,000 a year. That pays for medicines and clothes for the family and helps to buy bricks for school buildings and to build roads in the area.
We are talking about a level of abandonment in a very remote part of the country where the state is not present. That is why from our work and through platforms at European level we have been highlighting the root causes of the problem. Building peace in Colombia is a very complex issue. We have to look at human rights and profound institutional reform to get the sense of responsibility and control of the state over its own country. There must be dialogue with the various factors and the participation of civil society in all these processes. That is what a number of groups are clamouring for.
It is easy to talk about this issue from the outside. However, from the various contacts we have and from the bit of travelling we do every year we more and more realise that while military aid is important it is not the main component. We see this increasing. Yesterday I read that the Aragua region, which is one of the zones of rehabilitation under the new president's regime, is to receive $98 million for military training as part of the counter-narcotics strategy. We are not looking at human rights or at the thousands of people who are moving around the country and getting more and more poor and exposed to the consequences of the war.
In that context, I wish to ask how you deal with the humanitarian situation and what the position is for those displaced people. I see from our figures that Ireland has contributed a total of €450,000 in aid. Will you tell us what is done with the moneys you receive?
Ms Abozaglo
We have a programme that has expanded in the past couple of years because of an assessment done by the organisation. The conclusion is that Colombia should be a priority country because of the compelling situation in the country. This programme has three pivotal aspects. They are sustainable development, peace building and human rights. The emergency component is proceeding. Colombia is one of those countries where one is always working on the borderline. In the last year as regards humanitarian aid we supported a number of proposals jointly with Ireland Aid and we are hoping to get some help on that. Trócaire has approximately 35 partners in the country working on these specific issues and it is working on lobbying and advocacy at European level. We do not have an office there. We are working from Ireland but with very strong organisations there. In that way we are doing a little, given the scale of the problem. Money is important but in this case political support for the various processes, in terms of supporting lasting peace, has to be a joint effort between the Colombian institutions, the organisations and the international community.
Ms Church
I would like to respond to the question about the council's conclusions. Of course we believe one has to be in dialogue and encourage reforms in the right format and direction. We applaud the council's expression of deep concern about the humanitarian and human rights situation. However, we must try to find out what President Uribe's efforts to reform his country's institutions really mean. The information we have from the various partners we work with in the country is that reform of the institutions and the constitution which the president and congress are pushing are dismantling the fundamental human rights safeguards that exist within the constitution. Rather than introducing reforms that promote a fully functioning democratic state, we see the opposite happening. We see efforts to reform the constitution that effectively make permanent emergency legislation which is eroding the safeguards of human rights in Colombia. That does not seem to most of our partners to be promoting a fully functioning democratic state.
We are concerned that in the fight against terrorism where emergency legislation is being used the targets are often members of the civilian population. The security strategy in Colombia is to look at the civilian population as potential camouflaged insurgent supporters. The process is heavy-handed, with interrogation and the suspension of guarantees of due process. The military is allowed to investigate civilians in ways the constitution has ruled unconstitutional. The administration has promoted making legislation permanent via constitutional reform. We are concerned that this is being applauded by the council's conclusions.
There are a number of questions to be asked about what those reforms, both political and economic, actually mean. I am not entirely clear what the economic reforms referred to in the council's resolutions are but I do know that the current economic reforms propose to extend VAT to the basic family food basket. That is an economic reform which is designed to push people further into the poverty bracket in a country where 68% of the population live in poverty.
Where do you see the peace process going from here? I know it has broken down and that currently there is a state of emergency.
Ms Church
I do not know. Not being a member of James Lemoyne's team in Kofi Annan's office, I do not know what is happening. It is highly restricted information. As I understand it, there is no formal process. I am sure there are contacts of some nature but I have no further information in terms of any formal process. That information is restricted and we are not party to it. The policy of the Peruvian administration is not to negotiate until there is a ceasefire.
The President got elected on that policy on the first count with 53% of the vote. That is unusual. That is the policy he is now seeking to implement. Many people in Colombia must believe that is what should be done. I imagine that when the Special Criminal Court was suggested here people must have thought it was terrible. Of course when we see the things that are happening we must express concern. I do not wish to diminish that but if there is no encouragement we lose the opportunity of persuading people. In the platform put forward there was strong support for not negotiating until there was a cessation. Is there any indication that he does not still have popular support?
Ms Church
That is all I know in terms of the Administration's policy, on which he was elected. Beyond that I do not know whether anything has moved or changed.
From where did the suggestion of putting VAT on the basic food basket come?
The Minister, Deputy McCreevy, is at that.
It is interesting.
Ms Church
Part of the economic reforms being proposed is to extend VAT to the basic food basket.
Is that in response to an IMF request?
Ms Church
Yes. In response to the need for economic reforms in the country.
It is interesting that the extension of VAT to rice, in the case of Sierra Leone, resulted in the deaths of about 100,000 people. That was the start of the major conflict. Perhaps I should not say much about the president but I imagine he was not elected on the platform of extending VAT to the food basket. I do not see it as a strong electoral platform but maybe they are becoming westernised.
We have had a fairly extensive contribution. I thank the delegation for coming here today. In its documentation it urges the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to call on the Minister for Foreign Affairs to urge the Government of Colombia to develop a comprehensive policy and action plan on human rights, through a serious consultation process with the High Commissioner for Human Rights' office and with the human rights NGOs, and to urge the Colombian Government to prioritise the crisis of forced displacement through a policy that enjoys adequate state funding. Are Members in agreement with that?
We should consider it in the absence of the delegation.
We should put it down for consideration. I want to return to the theme in a more general way.
That being the case I ——
Could we get a slightly more detailed note on Plan Colombia? Deputy Michael D. Higgins has detailed knowledge of it but it is only referred to in the document. Could we have one to two pages on it when we come to deal with it?
I have no difficulty with what is proposed here. It is just a matter of how we contextualise it.
I thank the delegation for coming here today. It has been helpful to us. I wish it success with its difficult work.
Ms Church
Thank you.
I suggest we circulate some of the information that has been requested. Then we will make our decision on the motion at the meeting next week.
They are a reputable alliance of agencies but in the briefing document circulated by the Department of Foreign Affairs there is a paragraph which states that Secretary of State Powell certified that the Colombian armed forces were meeting the human rights conditions as required. It specifies that. This was done recently when the US was renewing funding to Colombia in the US Congress. The certification of Colin Powell seems to run counter to the briefing we got today. Our briefing note states that the justification for the Secretary of State's determinations was laid out in a memorandum to Congress. I presume the memorandum to Congress is a public document. Before we consider the motion I would like to see a copy of that memorandum. I cannot see why there is no common ground between the US Administration, which is voting money to Colombia, and the group that briefed us today which undoubtedly represents reputable agencies.
We will get a copy of the memorandum and circulate it in advance.
We should as a committee be careful not to agree resolutions which are pre-prepared by any group which comes before us.
I agree.
We should make our own resolutions and determinations on the basis of evidence.
We are in agreement with the general sentiment so we will work on a draft for the next meeting.
The joint committee went into private session and adjourned at 3.45 p.m.