Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

Human Rights says in its preamble: "Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace."

This quote brings us full circle to the argument that we made at the outset of our oral statement that is, that human rights having been at the heart of the conflict in Northern Ireland, must be at the heart of any peace process. The various parties to the Northern Irish conflict are currently assessing what are the implications of the arrival of a strong Labour government for the stalled peace negotiations. We will have to wait for the details to emerge, but Mo Mowlam, the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, has indicated that she intends to concentrate on the issues of policing, the controversy around marching, discrimination in employment and the question of a Bill of Rights. We hope that she will not be deflected from prioritizing such issues. We also await clear signals from the new government in the Republic of Ireland, with regard to the centrality of rights to build a lasting peace.

Human

Human rights are not and must not be seen as "concessions", they represent something that everyone can benefit from. rights can also play a crucial role in building the sense of trust necessary for successful negotiations. To date the peace process

has been characterized by an unhealthily narrow focus on the constitutional aspects of the conflict. To attempt to deal with these issues at an early stage is to court failure. In order to build belief that the process can succeed and, most importantly, to encourage trust between the parties, a series of confidence building measures are necessary. These should take place in the context of a developing culture of human rights which seeks to involve all communities in devising mechanisms to protect and promote human rights for everyone in Northern Ireland. These steps can only be taken by two governments as co-sponsors of the current talks process, and in particular the British government, as the ultimate authority within Northern Ireland.

A focus on human rights issues enjoys three distinct advantages. Firstly, they can be driven by an agenda agreed by the parties to address matters on which there is an element of agreement between the parties. The parameters of the debate can be set by the international standards for the protection of human rights which are already in existence. In this way the agreed delivery of means to protect rights will be externalized and will therefore partially insulate them from the potentially divisive nature of an internally focused debate. It will be difficult for the two governments to disagree with this method or the conclusions which it reaches insofar as they are consistent with international standards which the governments have helped to set.

87

Additionally, this mode of dealing with human rights issues, will ensure that the vindication of human rights will be seen as an integral part of the process as opposed to being part of the political horse-trading accompanying the peace process. This will avoid situations such as that which arose when the exclusion orders on Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were lifted by the British government while many others remained in place. The lifting of the two orders was seen by unionists as a concession to republicans, rather than a positive contribution to the protection of human rights. Respect for human rights and, consequently for the rule of law, cannot be successfully built on the notion that human rights are optional extras or trade-offs between parties. The inverse of the causal link between the abuse of human rights and conflict will not be achieved unless the protection of those rights is a matter of concern to all.

Thirdly, and most significantly, the Mitchell report on decommissioning recognized the importance of confidence building measures taken by all sides to build trust and confidence throughout the process. Decommissioning is obviously one of those measures but since, as Mitchell recognized, 'success in the peace process cannot be achieved solely by reference to the decommissioning of arms,' other steps are needed. Many of the examples that Mitchell gave of such steps relate directly to the items on the list of recommendations elaborated by the human rights community in Agenda for Change. Agreement on these human rights issues and related matters could create confidence and therefore space for manoeuvre on all sides. This is the necessary dynamic to move the process forward.

The

Human rights activists, would argue that the state has an obligation to protect human rights in all circumstances, and especially in situations of conflict. They also recognise, as does international law, that the state has a right to defend itself from violent attack. However, that defence has to be proportionate and has to operate within certain defined parameters, one of which is that as soon as the threat passes, the state's recourse to exceptional measures must cease. propensity of states to only pay lip service to these human rights imperatives not only undermines their moral and political authority, but also endangers the search for peace. Indeed, even in the shorter term, we believe that the resolution of the political tensions that arise from the abuse of human rights will ease the search for an overall settlement. It is important, therefore, that some mechanism be found to integrate human rights issues into the political framework and to place them at the forefront of the search for a settlement. A consistent and strategic approach, which utilizes international goodwill, and builds upon the international consensus that exists on the need to safeguard human rights, is required. Such an approach would ensure that if, as appears inevitable, and is currently the case,

[blocks in formation]

the political process encounters difficulties, the rights agenda could continue to provide tangible evidence of the benefits that can accrue from a peaceful engagement with the democratic process.

We understand that there will be some concern in the minds perhaps of committee members, and of the U.S. Administration, that strong statements in defence of human rights may not be appropriate at this time. With the resumption of paramilitary violence, and the coming to office of a new government in the UK, observers may well hesitate to become involved. Yet as human rights activists based on the ground in Northern Ireland, our conclusion is quite the opposite.

CAJ argues that it is precisely because the peace process is so precarious at this point in time that external involvement is necessary. Violent attacks on the state can understandably spark off a violent knee jerk reaction. Indeed, many analysts would say that this is the intention, that violence on one side leads to violence and instability on the other. But the existence of paramilitary violence does not remove the United Kingdom's obligation to comply with the international standards to which it is bound. In particular it does not justify the imposition of a legal regime which violates the basic rights of many. Such measures feed and fuel the conflict. Peace is only likely to be achieved when everyone feels that their rights are respected and protected.

Furthermore, it is precisely because there is a new government, that a focus on human rights from a friendly ally, such as the U.S., is so necessary at this time. There is a unique opportunity at this early stage in the lift of the new government, for it to make a public and genuine commitment to leave behind the appalling human rights track-record of its predecessor. The new Labour government should indicate by word and deed its belief that it is only in protecting people's rights that genuine progress towards a peaceful settlement can be made. Just as Senator Mitchell has helped to move the process forward at difficult times, this subcommittee can now contribute to the creation of the vision and positive sense of positive direction that is so urgently needed.

Accordingly, we urge you to use your good offices to push the centrality of human rights in the peace process by:

encouraging, by all means possible, greater prioritization by both British and Irish governments of the human rights agenda. Both governments committed themselves in the Framework Document to the active pursuit of human rights measures, but little tangible progress has been made to

[blocks in formation]

encouraging all parties to give consideration to specific measures such as:

the development of a Bill of Rights

the ending of emergency legislation and reform of the criminal justice system

institutional change, especially in regard to policing resolutions of outstanding miscarriage of justice cases and other legacies of past human rights abuses the creation of a dynamic and vibrant human rights culture

encouraging, in particular, the U.S. Administration and Senator Mitchell to place human rights concerns at the centre of their discussions with the British and Irish governments

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND
HUMAN RIGHTS

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« ÎnapoiContinuă »