Dáil debates

Tuesday, 13 June 2006

Human Rights Issues: Motion.

 

8:00 pm

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I wish to share time with Deputy Pat Breen.

I too claim to be a friend of the United States, and many established relationships between our countries have existed over the years. I take on trust what we ask for and what we give. However, I am not in favour, nor is Fine Gael, of the extraordinary rendition type of episodes we have heard about. I am not suggesting this has taken place or that Shannon has been used for transporting such people, prisoners or otherwise.

We have debated Abu Ghraib in this House. The standard by which we treat prisoners tells something about all of us. Whatever standards are upheld, whatever international agreements have been put in place over the years and have been observed or otherwise, will tell a story about what we intend to do in the future. Any deviation from best practice in that area is a serious matter which the Government should not minimise in terms of its importance. One step in the wrong direction immediately places the Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs in a serious situation.

I know the Minster cannot go on an aeroplane and check or verify what is happening, so I do not accuse the Minister of not doing his job — not because I cannot prove it, but neither can he in the present circumstances, which is a sad thing because international agreements are based on trust, and such agreements between friendly nations are more particularly based on trust. Any undermining of that trust is a most serious issue and cannot be condoned under any circumstances. I spoke on this issue at meetings of the Joint Committee on European Affairs along with many others, including Deputy Michael D. Higgins. When this situation was referred to, I said that certain obligations were placed on the US and Irish authorities and that any deviation from observance of those responsibilities would have consequences. There are consequences, as the Minister knows, if there is a breakdown in any such arrangements.

I recognise that the US people suffered hugely as a result of the atrocities at the twin towers. That does not mean that everything and anything can be used to track down, intimidate or extract confessions from prisoners of one kind or another, no matter what the circumstances. It is not possible or permissible. As a lawyer and legal practitioner, the Minister knows the rules.

I repeat that I am not accusing the Minister of any dereliction of duty because as Deputy Michael D. Higgins said, we accept the Government's bona fides in that matter. However, we do not know if the Minister can verify with absolute authority in every instance of all the airplanes which passed through Shannon Airport, or any other airport that nothing of the nature referred to by previous speakers could have happened. How does one achieve that situation? Does one do nothing? The Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs sought and got assurances from the US authorities. One must think of the value of the assurances. The currency of the assurance is only as good as what shows up thereafter. If the assurances which the Minister sought and was given in good faith cannot be authenticated in all circumstances, they mean nothing. There is then a serious undermining of international law and international recognition for each other's positions and for precedents and precepts which have stood for a long time.

There was a time when any such deviation would be regarded as a major incident. Let us look at a sequence of events which the Minister tends to minimise and which he has very adroitly separated in his speech. The events of last Sunday concern the general issue of rendition. The Minister and Government were of course made aware of the situation, but at that stage the cat was out of the bag. It was known what had happened. If the US authorities were deeply conscious of the need to alert the Irish Government in the event of there being any unusual movement of prisoners or otherwise through one of our airports, will the Minister indicate why someone did not have the idea of alerting the Government before the individual in transit was spotted by somebody else? Why was it not possible beforehand, if they were conscious of their obligation to make known to the Irish Government what was happening, or why did it not automatically follow that in the transport of a prisoner — a prisoner for whatever reason — through the airport the authorities, out of courtesy to each other, did not exchange views? I speak of courtesy because this goes back to the arrangements entered into and their value and currency by virtue of the degree to which they are observed by both parties. In the event of one party deviating, there is a general let-down. They let themselves down, along with the partner, person, group, state or nation with whom they entered into that international agreement. They let everyone down. That is something I hope will not happen again.

Can the Minister and the Government give an indication of how such events will be verified in future? How will they verify the type of traffic going through the airport in all circumstances, without exception, since there has been a breach, though maybe a minor breach? Unfortunately that breach indicates a somewhat blasé attitude to the international agreements to which I and others have referred.

When the issue arose, it was obviously known to the Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs that any incident at all could be highly embarrassing. The Government would also have known it was imperative to find some means to ensure that something like this did not happen. What measures are being put in place to make certain that if something similar to what happened last Sunday were to happen again, the Irish authorities would be informed? If something even less controversial was to happen, would the Irish authorities be informed, or would it be regarded as being none of their business?

I will dwell on this area briefly. It could well be that somebody somewhere made a decision. There were a few embarrassing moments. I mentioned Abu Ghraib. There were references by other speakers to various movements of aircraft throughout the globe whereby it was indicated that perhaps measures which would not be approved by international law were taken against prisoners in transit or otherwise. Something like than cannot be condoned in any circumstances. There are no situations where we can abrogate our international contracts in international law. The strength and weakness of our own law can often be determined by the degree to which those with whom we enter into agreements observe it. If they do not observe the agreements, our law means nothing. International law goes down the tubes along with it. Accordingly we cannot allow anything like that to happen ever again.

This comes back to how the Minister will prevent such events recurring. While I have no reason to believe the Minister would avoid his duties, if he cannot prevent such events, his credibility and that of the Government will be damaged. It would be unacceptable if the message were to go abroad that such events were in order and were ignored because the US is a friendly country to Ireland. The public places trust in its Government. When it raises a question it expects an answer. A degree of transparency must be introduced in this matter. The Minister for Foreign Affairs knows that if the boot were on the other foot, he would be embarrassed and would be quick to assert that such a situation was not agreed to and that the Government should have been informed. We cannot pussyfoot about it. The issues raised are serious ones requiring urgent attention and they must be dealt with in the shortest possible time. Failure to do so will reflect poorly on the Irish and US authorities.

I do not believe random inspections, if introduced, would work. Usually inspections have a pattern that can be observed. One can always avoid the rigours of an inspection by checking patterns. It is in the Government's interest to establish absolute clarification from the US authorities as to what has been occurring from the time extraordinary rendition became the subject of public debate. This should not just be based on the Marty report but there should be a thorough examination to determine whether there were breaches of the convention.

It is said that even the trust between enemies must be observed, but the trust between friends must be observed. The degree to which the Minister and his counterparts can stand over that trust will tell how much the people, the Constitution and the State can rely on it.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.