JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on Human Rights) díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 16 Dec 2008

Human Rights Priorities for 2009: Discussion with Department of Foreign Affairs.

Chairman

I will move on to the discussion with Mr. James McIntyre, director of the human rights unit in the Department of Foreign Affairs. He is very welcome and I thank him for attending.

Before we begin I am obliged to advise the witness that while Members of the Houses enjoy absolute privilege in respect of utterances made in the sub-committee, witnesses do not enjoy absolute privilege and, accordingly, caution should be exercised, particularly with regard to references of a personal nature.

This sub-committee is charged with the task of considering international and human rights in the context of Ireland's foreign policy. This year we had meetings on a number of key areas of concern, including the Roma community in Kosovo, the situation in Tibet, elections in Russia, the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international business and human rights.

At present there are many places where human rights issues are of concern, some of which Mr. McIntyre has heard mentioned, including Zimbabwe, Darfur, the Republic of Congo, Burma, the West Bank and Gaza. These are the priorities for the sub-committee in 2009.

Perhaps Mr. McIntyre could give us an overview of his position and the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs. He may be able to assist the sub-committee in its work and deliberations and guide us into areas we have not yet covered which he feels deserve our energy and efforts.

Mr. James McIntyre

I thank the Chairman and members of the sub-committee. I welcome the opportunity to talk about the work of the human rights unit, which I head, in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Given my remit, it could not be more appropriate that I come before this sub-committee.

I have been in my position since April 2008 and this is my first appearance before the sub-committee. I look forward to keeping the sub-committee updated regarding progress on human rights issues that interest it. We in the Department of Foreign Affairs are aware of the interest and engagement of both Houses of the Oireachtas in human rights issues. One example of this is the high volume of parliamentary questions we receive on human rights issues; they act as a useful barometer of issues of concern to Members of the Oireachtas. We in the Department are also aware of the dialogue the sub-committee has with various non-governmental organisations, civil society groups, lobby groups and support groups. We also maintain dialogue with such groups and this is important to us in terms of ensuring a human rights aspect is integrated in the development of foreign policy.

Before making my presentation, I will say a few words on the motion Deputy Higgins put before the sub-committee. It is clearly an issue of deep concern to the sub-committee, the Department and the Minister. I assure the sub-committee that I will report back to the political director and the Minister on the points which have been made. The Department has taken up the issue through our embassy in South Africa and with our EU colleagues. We will continue to closely monitor the case and do all in our power to secure the immediate release of Ms Mukoku who we hope is still alive. Deputy Costello said the seriousness of the matter was reflected in the fact that last week the European Council issued a statement calling for the immediate release of people held incommunicado in Zimbabwe, specifically citing the case of Ms Mukoku. We understand and share members' deep concern about the case.

I was asked to comment on the role of the human rights unit and, specifically, our priorities for 2009. I have provided a note setting out our main responsibilities and will talk about our key priorities for the year ahead. I will make every effort to respond to any questions after my opening remarks.

A number of key priorities have been established for 2009, centred on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is a significant milestone which has been appropriately marked in recent weeks by NGOs and others in Ireland. The Department has also considered how to mark the event and how it can help shape our policies. We made a submission to the Minister in that regard and I will be happy to set out some of the initiatives we will take in recognising the anniversary.

We are entering a very interesting period for human rights, with a new US Administration about to take office. There are very high expectations — perhaps too high on the part of some in terms of what it might mean for the engagement of the United States on global human rights issues such as the new UN human rights architecture which has been in place for the past two and a half years and about which I will talk later. Early in 2009 we will hold an NGO forum, an annual event which the human rights unit has organised for the past ten years. It is an important opportunity for the active NGO community to contribute to policy formulation. A concept paper is being developed and we are working on securing a significant keynote speaker. It is hoped that early in 2009 we will be able to make an announcement on the timing and subjects to be considered at the forum.

In an indication of the importance attached by the Department to human rights the Minister has decided that from now on there will be a module on human rights in training programmes for newly recruited diplomats and as part of pre-posting training for staff going abroad. Ireland will chair the human security network, an informal cross-regional group of 11 or 12 countries which view human rights through the prism of human security. For Ireland's chairmanship which runs until the end of May 2009, we have chosen the theme of gender-based violence. A number of events will take place, including a high level conference towards the end of the chairmanship at which there will be an initiative related to the human security network.

The human rights unit is involved in two broad areas, namely, international issues and civil society. The unit services the various international fora dealing with human rights, including the new UN Human Rights Council to which I referred. A new innovation in the human rights architecture is the establishment of a universal periodic review process, whereby the human rights performance of every member of the United Nations will be assessed every four years. We have already held the first three sessions and some 48 countries have been reviewed. The process is still in its infancy but is one we strongly support and would like to be developed. A significant innovation is that it is universal which counters the sense gained of its precursor, the Human Rights Commission, that it was selective in the issues at which it looked. Ireland supports UN mechanisms and we will work hard to ensure they are as effective as possible and that recommendations made are followed up. The third session ended yesterday and the Irish delegation was involved in making recommendations relating to a number of countries, including Israel and Colombia, two countries in which the sub-committee has taken an interest.

The new Human Rights Council provides for a year-round standing committee on human rights which replaces the previous commission which only met once a year. There are three regular sessions of the council and three of the universal periodic review in each year, as well as a number of special sessions, including a recent one on the Democratic Republic of Congo. As I said, there have been eight special sessions of the Human Rights Council in two and a half years, whereas there was a total of three or four in the entire lifetime of its precursor, the Human Rights Commission.

There will be a number of other events in the coming year. In April the Durban review conference will take place to follow up on what was agreed in 2001 in regard to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. We are keen to work with our EU partners and others to ensure this review conference fulfils its purpose. It will not be without difficulties, some of which have been aired. It is important that we all work to ensure the conference will achieve its overarching aim of defeating all forms of racism universally.

I ask the sub-committee to be aware of one other international issue in 2009. It has been decided at the political level that Ireland will run for a seat on the Human Rights Council for the period 2012 to 2015. Since its inception, we have participated as an observer and a non-member. The campaign for our election will be formally launched in 2009. We expect a substantial campaign in the run-up to the elections in 2012.

The second broad area of work to which I referred is civil society. The Department's links with the civil society sector in Ireland are very important to us. The Department and non-governmental organisations have a joint standing committee on human rights, the most recent meeting of which was held yesterday morning. The committee comprises representatives of the main human rights organisations and officers of the Department who serve on the nomination of the Minister. It is normally appointed for two years; the current committee's membership comes to an end at the end of this year. We will shortly be making a submission to the Minister with a view to the appointment of a new committee for the two years ahead.

I know the role of Irish Aid is of interest to the sub-committee. Since publication of the White Paper on Irish Aid, human rights has been identified as a cross-cutting priority issue. In the year ahead the human rights unit will work closely with Irish Aid to identify the scope for greater mainstreaming of human rights considerations.

The human rights unit has a role with regard to Ireland's reporting requirements under the various UN instruments. It also has a co-ordinating role with regard to the ratification procedures for instruments. I can assure the sub-committee that officials in the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the various others which lead on these instruments are determined to make as much progress as possible in the year ahead in implementing and ratifying instruments which have been signed and in ensuring we report to UN treaty monitoring bodies in a more timely fashion. That will be one of our overriding priorities for the year ahead.

These remarks are a supplement to the information note provided for the sub-committee. I will seek to respond to members' questions or comments.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins took the Chair.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Michael D. Higgins)

Mr. McIntyre's remarks were comprehensive. We are grateful for the pre-circulated document and his elaboration on it.

Deputy Joe Costello

Mr. McIntyre referred to the Department's reporting, implementation and ratification requirements associated with international conventions and human rights instruments. Deputy Higgins raises this issue on an almost daily basis in the Oireachtas. Is there a schedule for the ratification of agreements which we have signed but not yet ratified? There are some which we have ratified, but not as adequately as we could. Why should the ratification process be so tedious and delayed? When we sign a document, should the relevant line Minister not simply get on with the business of transposing it into legislation?

Has the Department of Foreign Affairs taken an interest in the international dimension of the Irish Human Rights Commission? If not, should the human rights unit not take an interest in the matter as a unit in the Department which negotiated its establishment?

The use of Shannon Airport as a transit point for extraordinary rendition is a major bone of contention. The Government has never admitted to this. However, inadequate oversight mechanisms are in place and circumstantial evidence indicates that Irish airspace has been used for the abuse of human rights. Does the Department have a position on the matter?

It is the view of members of the Joint Committees on European Affairs and Foreign Affairs that Ireland and the European Union could do more to solve the problems in the Middle East. We could have a more robust involvement, considering that the European Union is the main donor of aid in the region. We should not leave decision making largely to the United States. With a new incumbent in the White House, there might be an opportunity to progress the Middle East agenda in a more strategic fashion.

Last week we saw the largest ever deportation from Ireland. It was done surreptitiously. It appears that asylum seekers are kept for months on end reporting to the Garda national immigration bureau on Burgh Quay or to a local Garda station and then, when enough people have been gathered, they are brought together and deported. This does not seem to be a transparent and open human rights based system. The GNIB appears to be operating in a manner which constitutes an abuse of human rights in this jurisdiction. I would welcome Mr. McIntyre's response to that observation.

Acting Chairman

I take the opportunity to say a few words on some of the points raised. I have the greatest respect for the human rights unit of the Department of Foreign Affairs but see it as somewhat isolated from general administrative practice in a way that upsets me. I remember when it was founded in 1993. I was at a conference in Vienna for which our then President, Ms Mary Robinson, was rapporteur and I presented a prize to a small journal in Bosnia-Herzegovina. There was an atmosphere of excitement over the belief that human rights had finally arrived and there were discussions about the indivisibility of civil and political rights and social, economic and cultural rights. In one discussion on the periphery of the conference, differences arose between me and others over whether human rights were the outcome of a rational western tradition or from another source. The discussion was enthusiastic and full but, 15 years later, I see a move backwards. My paper was about whether human rights were rhetoric or reality, human rights having been used as a rhetorical instrument of abuse between countries, and there have been substantive breaches of human rights since that time.

At the level of the institutions of the United Nations there is a fundamental contradiction between what has happened in those 15 years and what was discussed at that meeting. The feeling was that we were on the verge of a breakthrough whereby we would subject social and economic arrangements to a human rights perspective. Since then, a single neoliberal model, which is now in crisis, has been visited upon the world. It drove out all alternative models as people were required to liberalise markets and move away from food sufficiency. In one place after another, in Africa and Los Angeles, there was conflict between the human right to water and market principles on the distribution of water, between the human rights perspective and the single dominating model of the economy. This showed up in clear contradictions in documents such as the United Nations Development Programme reports. Even though the now Lord Malloch Brown was happy to go along with them it is hard to see their human rights perspective.

I agree with Deputy Costello's point about the human rights unit in the Department of Foreign Affairs. I often ask when we will ratify a particular convention but I accept the burden of dualism and acknowledge where it came from. If I was asked to choose between signing and ratifying something on the same day, but doing so in bad faith, and not signing it at all I would choose the latter. However, practical measures could be taken to improve the process. For example, the lead Department should not be the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. A different drafting mechanism could have been adopted whereby we could manage our dualist legislative requirements to sign a convention more expeditiously while keeping the human rights perspective intact. I do not see how we can put the human rights perspective into practice in the development module as to do so would require a prohibition on making aid conditional.

There is a serious problem in the chaos of the relationship among the human rights unit of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service and the Garda National Immigration Bureau. I received a letter from Dr. Vinodh Jaichand, the deputy director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights at NUI Galway, where I am an adjunct professor. He was stopped by a garda and asked to produce his papers. He and his wife have been in the country for several years but he was asked to produce his work permit. This is a story I encounter every day. People who are granted permission to stay here under section 3 of the relevant legislation receive a helpful letter within 24 hours saying they must make arrangements to move out of direct provision and offering advice on how to get assistance. They cannot register for housing or with the HSE and are homeless and without rights as they stand in front of the Garda National Immigration Bureau to be asked for their passport. International and national documentation rights refer to the production of a passport or other valid photographic identification but the latter is never accepted. A current passport is always asked for. I dealt with a person who had left Eritrea and was told he could be given a temporary travel document to go to London to get a new passport from the people from whom he had fled, paying £500 and undertaking to give over 2% of his income in the process. He was to come back and appear in front of gardaí at 7.30 a.m. to tell them he had a valid passport. The refusal to give a stamp 4 is an outrageous breach of rights and it happens to spouses whose work permits have expired as well as those who have been granted section 3 permission to stay. It is an absolute disgrace and there is no point in saying it can be solved on a case by case basis.

I do not see that great moment in Vienna in 1993 or the establishment of the unit in the Department of Foreign Affairs coming to fruition. Other Departments made their minds up not to be influenced by the declaration. The same applies to the argument about Guantanamo Bay and whether it is in the remit of this sub-committee. I do not ask people to share my opinion but all but one or two human rights scholars are of the view that diplomatic assurances are insufficient as evidence of compliance with the international convention against torture and cruel and inhuman punishments. The argument is made that a country has given a comprehensive reply to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe but we have put an unfair burden on citizens by requiring them to prove something is happening before they can force gardaí to exercise basic vigilance.

None of this is a matter on which the officials are required to agree with me but I am required, because I feel so strongly about them, to speak on these issues. Deputy Costello was correct about matters which come up at this sub-committee and the joint committee. We regularly raise the issue of human rights clauses in agreements such as the Euro-Mediterranean agreement between Israel and the-EU and suggest we acknowledge that there have been violations of human rights, as attested to by such bodies as B'Tselem. We also suggest the establishment of a body to monitor human rights compliance, which is a moderate position. If we are in fact looking at human rights violations, which are conditional in relation to that particular agreement, why is our answer always the same, that it is better simply to be talking while the violations continue and that is sufficient? It is not sufficient. I have found the discussion at the general committee bad tempered. Any time we raise the abuse of human rights in the Middle East, we are immediately accused of being suspect on the recognition of the state of Israel or of being anti-Semitic. This is an unfair, bullying attitude to the foreign affairs committee.

We should have an answer to the question of what is to happen in relation to this attested report by independent human rights bodies of the abuse of the rights of Palestinians. I am equally condemnatory of abuse by Hizbollah who have released rockets targeted on civilian populations in parts of Israel. The human rights dimension to this is not featuring. I would describe the general committee as locked. It quickly descends to people being abused. One should see the letters we get from the fundamentalists when we have raised a particular issue. We may have to escalate if we want to have human rights issues to feature in discussion.

Senator Ivor Callely took the Chair.

Senator Mark Daly

I am disappointed that I missed the entire presentation, but we were dealing in the Seanad Chamber with human rights as well. I am sorry I missed Mr. McIntyre's presentation. We visited Israel earlier this year and the report is to issue in the next week or so. The EU's trade agreements with Israel are supposed to be tied in with human rights. The EU is Israel's biggest trade partner, without which Israel cannot function. No matter how much funding it gets from other countries, trade is its life and blood. For all our high moral and very self-righteous statements at the European Union about Israel and what it is doing, we have not exercised the power we have over Israel in terms of trade. I mean we in Ireland as part of Europe, although some people think we are not. Are we any closer to formulating a policy that we would put before the EU, indicating that we should use our clout in terms of trade to get the Israelis to be more cogniscent of the human rights of the Palestinians, particularly at border crossings? We hear of horrific cases, but we hear two sides of the same story, and they are entirely different. We hear of people in a coma who are not allowed across the border because they are considered a security threat and dying at the border crossing. Knowing we have power over the state of Israel in terms of trade, am I correct in saying we have not pushed the EU to formulate a policy regarding the recognition of human rights by Israel, which if not implemented will lead to the imposition of sanctions? I do not think this is entirely unreasonable when they are allowing people to die unnecessarily at border crossings. When one sees it on the ground one understands the security concerns of the state of Israel, but they go miles beyond the point. As a result, innocent people are left to perish.

Twelve months ago the Human Rights Commissioner came to the sub-committee and we tried to identify with him ten topics that we as a sub-committee would look after. I would be interested in Mr. McIntyre's point of view as to what we as a sub-committee could do. He is involved in this every day, but we are tied up on many other issues. How would he see this sub-committee working effectively within the limited time and resources we have and what should the issues be? By asking the Government of South Africa to intervene in Zimbabwe he is pointing the finger at it and saying it could do it if it wished.

Mr. James McIntyre

I will attempt to respond as comprehensively as I can to the range of questions. Deputies Costello and Higgins referred to the delay in ratifications. Deputy Higgins acknowledged that a large part of the delay is due to the burden of dualism and the requirements in terms of our own constitutional, legal and administrative measures to enable Ireland to ratify many of these instruments. It is recognised that it is not in our interests to have a long delay between signature and ratification. I can assure the sub-committee that while recognising that the system of ratification for us imposes demands which are not imposed in other jurisdictions, there can be very detailed and cumbersome legislative provisions required. Nonetheless every effort will be made to ensure that we ratify instruments as soon as possible.

In a name and shame aspect which we are prepared to take on our backs, Deputy Higgins on the Order of Business last week asked for the publication of the list of human rights instruments that have been signed but not yet ratified. I understand a reply has just issued from the Minister to the Deputy and that the reply contains an undertaking that the list of instruments with signature dates will be posted on the Department of Foreign Affairs website. In conjunction with the various other Departments, we will work towards reducing the list of such instruments which are signed but not ratified. It is a concrete way of recognising that it is in our interest to work towards ensuring that the various procedures and arrangements are made as quickly as possible and that this is the basis on which all Departments have been operating.

Deputies Higgins and Costello made a number of comments on issues relating to funding.

Chairman

Our colleague is in the Seanad Chamber dealing with Committee Stage of a Bill. A matter he raised is before the House and it is likely that a division will be called. In that event, we can decide how to proceed. Mr. McIntyre might like to place his response on the record.

Mr. James McIntyre

I am at your disposal, Chairman, in terms of whether you wish me to stay on.

Chairman

Please stay but we do not know whether a vote will be called.

Mr. James McIntyre

Issues were raised regarding funding cuts, the Irish Human Rights Commission and whether the commission should have independent status as opposed to reporting to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Deputy Higgins raised issues regarding the GNIB-INIS. Unfortunately I cannot comment on these issues as they are not within the policy responsibility of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Therefore, while not wishing to be unhelpful to the sub-committee, they are not issues for which we have policy responsibility, so they will need to be taken up with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Deputies Costello and Higgins referred to Guantanamo Bay and alleged extraordinary renditions through Shannon Airport. This issue has been raised on numerous occasions in both Houses. I do not think any benefit would be served by my rehearsing the position which is known. However, I will simply say that as members will be aware, it has been decided by the new Cabinet committee on aspects of international human rights law that early contact will be made with the US Administration to seek a clear statement of intent that extraordinary renditions will cease and will not resume during the new President's term of office and that, similarly, commitments will be sought on the closure of Guantanamo Bay and the prohibition of intensive interrogation techniques such as waterboarding which are considered to constitute torture. Committee members will be aware of this. These are long-standing positions of the Government against the use of extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo Bay. The Cabinet sub-committee has decided that these issues will be followed up on.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

I wish them well. Perhaps I might be of assistance to the Chairman. Should we find it necessary because of a vote for Mr. McIntyre to submit the rest of his response by electronic means or otherwise, I am perfectly happy to agree to that or with any other way you might wish to manage the business.

Chairman

We can do so and have it recorded. If Mr. McIntyre would like to respond now and put whatever he can on the record he is more than welcome. We will also pursue the line the Deputy has indicated for which I thank him.

Mr. James McIntyre

If I am unable to reach any issues I would be happy to provide answers in writing.

A number of members, including Senator Daly, raised the issue of the Middle East and the visit of the sub-committee to Gaza. The committee will be aware that the Minister is very concerned about this issue. We have consistently taken a strong position on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories and in Israel because of the suffering it causes but also because it makes peace more difficult to achieve. In that regard, and in the context of the appearance last week of Israel before the new universal periodic review mechanism which I mentioned, Ireland availed of this opportunity to raise a certain number of issues with the Israeli delegation. We raised three principal issues. We specifically raised the issue of collective punishment in the context of Gaza. I understand Ireland was the only delegation present to raise this issue and was commended by the NGOs who participate actively in the UPR process. I meant to mention this in my presentation.

We also raised the issue of settlements which gave rise to some tension. The human rights unit does not lead on conflict situations which is done by our regional desks but I will report to colleagues in the Middle East section on those arrangements.

Chairman

I thank Mr. McIntyre for attending and for his informative presentation and exchange. I look forward to liaising with the Department of Foreign Affairs over the coming year to assess what progress is being made in achieving our goals in the area of human rights and how effective the Department's approach is in advancing the human rights agenda in 2009. It is clear that there is much work to be done. I wish all well in their endeavours in that regard.

I wish everyone a holy, peaceful and happy Christmas. I thank the officials who work with us throughout the year.

The sub-committee adjourned at 4.25 p.m. sine die.