Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Déanaim comhghairdeas leis an Uasal Gilmore as an jab nua a bheith aige. I see he will be able to continue his work on the Colombian aspect, which of course ties in with his new human rights role. We know that human rights are a major issue in Colombia. I was reminded that in 2012 a number of us Deputies and Senators signed a letter expressing our support for the peace process and a commitment to dialogue and compromise as being vital to ensure lasting peace while also acknowledging Cuba’s role in the matter.

I recently read a report from Justice for Colombia. It made the point that its worst fears about the new Government have not been realised. Nevertheless, President Duque is going ahead with these six objections. He says that this is constitutional and that it will not threaten the peace process. I would like to hear Mr. Gilmore’s view on this and the general feeling about these objections. While they might be constitutional, are they in fact undermining the peace process? There are concerns about the attempts to change the remit of the JEP, taking out investigation and prosecution of members of the security forces and their holding to account for the war crimes and the human rights violations. There is a danger that this might not balance with the needs of the victims. Again, are the international community and the EU being strong enough in supporting what was agreed in that peace process? There is also the issue of new magistrates and that a process is now in place which could leave them more open to political influence. I looked through the summary of the final agreement. Obviously, land is central to the conflict, as I think it was in the first place. We know what the Government is trying to do about land reform with these 16 special regions, but I do not think much progress is being made on that. Is it a question of finance or political will that it is not coming about?

The situation regarding coca and crop substitution is very disturbing. It is not being promoted and encouraged as it should be. I have probably missed something, but what seems to be missing from all this is the attractiveness of Colombia to multinationals because of its resources. While these multinationals are coming in, we know there will be displacement, we know that villages are being wiped out and we know that their civil society leaders, their local leaders, the indigenous tribes, are being displaced and that their lives are really under threat. Is this featuring at all in the negotiations that are ongoing? I refer to the area of rural reform.

My last point – I may come back in later – concerns political participation. It was very disturbing to read that two members of the FARC who had seats in Parliament – Jesús Santrich, who I think is still in prison, and Mr. Márquez – are unable to take their seats. Why is more not being done about this to ensure that what was agreed has been followed through on? We know from the Good Friday Agreement that a sustaining, lasting peace with justice is very difficult. As Mr. Gilmore said, it is one thing to sign the agreement; it is another thing to look at its implementation. Many mistakes were made with the Good Friday Agreement, particularly regarding legacy, and we are seeing this now because it was not really addressed. We see it with the Dublin-Monaghan bombings and we saw it with Bloody Sunday. We could give a list of examples of issues remaining because legacy matters were not addressed. I would like to hear Mr. Gilmore’s views on this also.