Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 1998 > Committee on Foreign Affairs > Report - The Great Lakes Region of Africa

HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS

Report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs on The Great Lakes Region of Africa (Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo).

Based on the meeting of Wednesday 28th January, 1998.

April, 1998

CONTENTS

Introduction

The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs was established following Orders of the Dail and Seanad of 23rd October 1997. In addition, Standing Orders state that the following powers may be conferred on a Committee:-

“(1)power to take oral and written evidence and to print and publish from time to time minutes of such evidence taken in public before the Select Committee together with such related documents as the Select Committee thinks fit;”.

This Report of the Joint Committee, on The Great Lakes Region of Africa (Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo), was agreed at its meeting on 22nd April, 1998.

_________________________

Desmond J. O’Malley,

Chairman.

April, 1998.

JOINT OIREACHTAS COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Dé Céadaoin, 28 Eanáir 1998.

Wednesday, 28 January 1998.

The Joint Committee met at 5 p.m.

Members Present

The meeting was also attended by:

Ms Margaret Hennessy, Assistant Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs accompanied by Mr Richard Fallon and Ms. Helen Browne;

Mr David Begg, Chief Executive, CONCERN;

Mr Justin Kilcullen, Director, Trócaire; and

Ms Colette Craven, Trócaire (Rwandan national).

Chairman:

I welcome Miss Margaret Hennessy, the Assistant Secretary in the Department of Foreign Affairs dealing with Africa, Mr. David Begg, the Chief Executive of Concern and Mr. Justin Kilcullen the Director of Trócaire, to this meeting.

The extent of death, atrocities and devastation in the Great lakes Region, particularly in Rwanda for several years past, caused by ethnic animosity is difficult to comprehend. I am asking each of our visitors to give us a presentation of eight to ten minutes duration indicating the present situation in the region as they see it, the lessons to be learned from the past and perhaps to give us some pointers to future developments in the region and the actions that can be taken to prevent a continuation of these appalling atrocities.

After they have given their presentations I will invite members to ask any questions or raise any matters they feel appropriate. Miss Hennessy will start followed by Mr. Begg and Mr. Kilcullen.

Miss Hennessy: Thank you Chairman. We have circulated to the committee a short briefing note with some background. I propose to speak from the briefing note. I will not go right through it to save everybody’s time.

Everybody in the room is familiar with the background to the situation in the Great Lakes. The first thing we should remember is the appalling genocide which occurred there in 1994 when between 500,000 and 800,000 people were killed, mainly Tutsis and moderate Hutus. Following that up to 2 million of the Hutu population, fearing reprisals, travelled across the border into the Congo and set up camps on the border in the Congo and in Tanzania. Fighting took place in eastern Zaire, as it was then, in 1996 and in November 1996 the camps were broken up. A major repatriation of the people in those camps back into Rwanda followed. The population of Rwanda has increased since before 1994, despite the genocide, because of the return of what were known as old case load refugees, people who had gone out to the surrounding countries in an earlier cycle of violence and had returned following 1994 and then the repatriation of an estimated 1.4 million people in late 1996 and early 1997. That movement of population has been an enormous problem for the country. It is a tiny country, about the size of Munster with a population now of more than 7 million people, most of whom are living at subsistence level.

There is an enormous dichotomy between the groups within the population. To try to absorb such a huge return of people has been very difficult. One might say it is a surprise it has happened to such an extent. As a result of the return and the fact that many among the returnees were ex-FAR, the army of the previous Rwandan government, armed militias have returned to the country. There are groups of armed people moving around, particularly in the north west. They have been attacking prisons, préfectures- the local administration offices, individuals, busloads of people and so on over the past few months. Some of the most serious incidents included an attack on a refugee camp at Mudende where more than 230 people were killed and 207 were wounded. In the last couple of weeks a bus with 35 people on board was stopped and everyone on it killed. The RPA, the Rwandan People’s Army, the official army of the country has reacted in a heavy handed fashion and has carried out reprisals on the local population.

In that part of the country there is a situation where there are human rights abuses on the sides of both the terrorist groups and the government and army but it has been difficult to get accurate reporting of the region as it has been out of bounds to international observers due to the security situation. In the briefing note we mentioned an interagency UN and NGO mission which was due to go had not been allowed. They have now been allowed into the area and we are expecting their report over the next number of days.

Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, visited Rwanda in December and expressed concern at a number of factors there. She said the Government had not made sufficient attempts at national reconciliation. Until both ethnic groups - it is simpler to call them that although they are not ethnically different - find a power sharing arrangement, the situation will be volatile. Mrs. Robinson also said the international community had not given enough support to help Rwanda come to terms with the aftermath of the genocide and the return of the refugees.

One of the big problems in Rwanda is what is known as the culture of impunity. If one looks at the history of Rwanda over the past 30 years, there have been cycles of killing and movement out of the country and killing and return. Nobody has ever been brought to justice for this. In an effort to come to terms with this and end the culture of impunity the Rwandan authorities imprisoned a large number of people. It is estimated that post-genocide there are 120,000 people in prison.

The justice system was eliminated during the genocide. The system of judges and advocates had to be rebuilt and bringing people to trial has been a painfully slow process. Trials finally began during 1997. Figures from the late autumn showed 199 cases relating to the genocide had been judged. Of those, 82 people were sentenced to death. There were then a series of more minor sentences.

We can discuss what is being done to help prisoners later and perhaps the NGOs can cover it. We have been working with NGOs and the Red Cross to alleviate conditions in prison and rebuild the justice system. In terms of humanitarian needs, we try, along with the rest of the international community, the NGOs and the Rwandan Government, to provide shelter, water and sanitation to the 250,000 families who remain without housing. We are also concerned about having a balanced programme where we help not only those who have returned from the refugee camps but also those who have remained after the genocide. Many families were left without a head of household or without any male members. Widows are trying to maintain families and they have few basic legal rights regarding house or land ownership.

Since 1994, Ireland has given a total of £9 million to support emergency programmes and rehabilitation assistance in Rwanda. It is most important to meet emergency humanitarian needs. However, we are also committed to work towards reconciliation and rebuilding the justice system. We channel our funding through both Irish and local NGOs, UN agencies, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Rwandan Government. As well as the areas of shelter, education and health, we have supported Concern’s feeding programme in the prisons and cachots, which are the holding centres, and trauma counselling which is run by Trócaire. We have also given funding to the Ministries of Health, Gender and Social Affairs, Interior and Justice. This has gone towards the training of primary healthcare workers, construction and housing for genocide survivors, and training of communal police and judicial investigators. These programmes are part of larger ones supported by other donors such as the UK, the Netherlands, the US, Denmark, the World Bank and the UN agencies.

The situation in Burundi concerns us. We learned this afternoon that the Minister of Defence in Burundi was killed in a helicopter crash, which first reports indicate was due to a storm rather than any subversive activity. There has been fighting in Burundi in recent months. The situation has deteriorated significantly, both in terms of security and its effects on the humanitarian needs of the population.

The situation has been precarious since the coup in July 1996. However, the outlook seemed to be improving in 1997. Internally displaced people, estimated at around 10 per cent of the population, began to move back to their homes and some of the regroupment camps run by the Government were dismantled. However, there was an upsurge in rebel activity in and around the capital of Bujumbura in recent weeks. The indications from NGOs are that the security situation varies enormously from province to province. The current conflict covers about 25 per cent of the country where the humanitarian needs are the greatest.

Intense diplomatic and political efforts are being made to bring about peace and stability in Burundi and Rwanda by the UN, the OAU and the regional leaders. The committee may note the regional leaders are playing an excellent role in helping to broker peace. The EU and the US are co-operating with them. The former Tanzanian President, Mr. Nyerere, has acted as mediator between the Tutsi Government and Hutu Opposition in Burundi, with the support of regional leaders. These discussions have not progressed well as Colonel Buyoya who is in charge in Burundi since a coup in the middle of last year seems to have lost trust in Mr. Nyerere. Nevertheless, the Colonel declared his willingness to attend a possible summit of East African heads of state in early February in Arusha. While there is fighting on the ground, the peace process is ongoing and we hope this will have some helpful impact.

The future direction of the Congo remains unclear since Mr. Kabila took over in the middle of 1997 and relationships with international aid agencies remain fraught with tension. There is still fighting in the Eastern Congo.

Chairman: Is that the former Zaire now known as the Democratic Republic of Congo? What are they calling the other Congo?

Ms Hennessy: The Congo Brazzaville. The Democratic Republic of Congo is a huge country with enormous resources. It was regarded as a kleptocracy by some commentators under the rule of the late Mr. Mobutu. Once it gets its act together it will be an enormous engine for prosperity in Africa. However, it will take some time for that to happen. While the international community has made a number of significant pledges of assistance, most countries are holding back until they see how matters pan out. What will happen on the human rights front is of particular interest to Ireland.

There were suspected massacres of refugees in the eastern part of the country and attempts by the UN to investigate them have been frustrated so far. That is something we will be looking for. Generally, the international community is linking its pledges of aid with measures to support human rights and a process of international institutional reform and democratisation.

We spent a total of £1 million during 1997 in response to appeals to meet the emergency needs of the most vulnerable groups, mainly the internally displaced population in that area. I can add to that later if anybody wishes.

Chairman: Thank you Ms Hennessy.

Mr. Begg: I thank the Committee for its invitation to attend. Concern has been involved in Rwanda since 1994. The three countries Ms Hennessy dealt with are the subject of a great deal of our activity. For instance, in 1998 we expect to spend £1.2 million in Burundi and the Congo, £2.4 million in Rwanda, £1 million in Tanzania and just over £500,000 in Uganda. Altogether this accounts for about 37 per cent of our total overseas spend.

We tend to describe, rather euphemistically, the situation in Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Rwanda as a complex emergency situation. This really means that they are extremely dangerous and difficult areas to work in. For instance, they are much different from the famine situations one saw in Somalia and countries like that some years ago.

Our programme for 1998 in Burundi involves nutrition, provision of seeds and tools, and specifically dealing with serious malnourishment amongst children identified by assessment teams who were sent into the north western part of the country. As Ms Hennessy said, unfortunately, that is the 25 per cent of the country that is difficult to work in. It is insecure but it is the area of greatest need. We have had considerable difficulty in dealing with the bureaucracy of the Government of Burundi in getting agreement to start working. It is frustrating that while a great need has been identified, it is hard to get them to sign an agreement to allow us to work there. Effectively, we want to start two therapeutic feeding centres in Bujumbura and Setibo, the two areas of greatest need in that region.

Our work in the former Zaire is concentrated at the moment on the eastern part of the country, in eastern Kivu around the area of Goma. There we are engaged in the rehabilitation of infrastructure, particularly schools and health care clinics. We are also negotiating with the Government with a view to starting some programmes in Kinshasa, but agreement has not been reached with the Government on that, as yet.

Everybody is familiar with the background to the situation in Rwanda itself. Our intervention, like everybody else’s, was from 1994. The original major problem concerned the repatriation of 1.3 million refugees in 1996. Subsequently, in the first half of last year, 100,000 people were repatriated from the former Zaire. These are people who fled further into Zaire following the break-up of the refugee camps which were attacked in the Goma region. They came out of the forests around the Kisangani area. These people were collected and given emergency treatment. A substantial number of them - particularly children whose relatives we were engaged in tracing in order to place them back into the community - were repatriated by air, back into resettlement camps first of all in Rwanda.

Rwanda is one of the poorest countries in the world with an annual per capita income of just £80. Some 85 to 95 per cent of the population live below the poverty line. It is a very small country, not much bigger than Munster, with a population of 8 million growing at the rate of 3 per cent per annum. Our programme involvement there for 1998 involves an expenditure of £2.4 million. We have substantial numbers employed - 563 people from the local community and 13 expatriates who are working there.

The nature of the programme in Rwanda is associated with tracing unaccompanied children. At the moment we have 750 children in our centres. If they have been separated from their parents as a result of genocide we try to identify them. If the parents have been killed we try to place them with the extended family. If that is not possible we try to foster them in the community and in some cases we find alternative means of accommodating them in the community.

We have three major centres in Rwanda: outside Kigali; in Ruhengeri in the north; and in Bistare in the central southern part of the country. We hope to be able to complete much of that work by September. That is our target as far as placing children is concerned.

As Ms Hennessy mentioned we are heavily involved in the prison feeding programme. We are operating in 12 communes - six in the Gitarama area and six in Butare. We are feeding people five days a week. These people are accommodated in local prisons or lockups. It is a bad situation. You might, for example, have 600 people in a building the size of this room. They cannot sit down. They are not fed by the judicial system and depend on their families to bring them food. That can involve family members walking for long distances of up to 12 or 15 kilometres. Extended problems arise from that situation. For example, if children supply the food they cannot attend school. If older people are involved in bringing the food then economic activity is disrupted because they cannot farm and produce food for themselves.

We have moved in there with the objective of feeding these people five days a week. It is a sensitive thing to do because, as you will appreciate, these people are not the most popular. Many of them have been accused of being involved in genocide and the local community may take exception to our engagement with them. We have to balance it by ensuring that we only do this in communities where we are also engaged in community development activity. In that way we are not seen to be one sided. It is a difficult problem to handle and it is not free of human rights considerations either. As Ms Hennessy mentioned in her presentation, the judicial system is less than perfect. Frankly, from the point of view of anybody in the western world, it is an abomination. On the other hand, if you do not engage you will have all the consequences I have described.

You may find that in a population of 600 in a particular area, perhaps two thirds will be fed by their families despite the difficulties involved. The others, however, will not be fed so they will all end up being undernourished when the food is shared. It is a difficult situation. In the main prison in Gitarama, which accommodates some 7,000 men and 250 women, we are involved in training women to help them support themselves by engaging in activities which will provide some finance.

Our housing construction programme provides shelter for various categories of people who have returned to the country. So far, we have built about 5,000 houses. Our programme for this year requires us to build 4,180 more. In many respects, it is something of an overstatement to describe them as houses, but by the standards of the country they are good county council houses. Each unit costs $268.

We are also engaged in capacity building with the local government and local associations where we can identify them. We are planning to move, if we can, from a rehabilitation stage to community development in the course of this year.

Ethnic conflict is a major problem for us. In Burundi recently, 200 civilians were killed in a military engagement near the airport. These were unfortunate people who were caught in crossfire between the army and the rebels engaged in fighting. We ourselves have experienced much difficulty in Burundi. One of our local staff was shot dead just before Christmas. He was a security guard at our house. Some of our people were out working and when they returned in the landrover they blew the horn at the gate for the security guard to open it. However, two armed men appeared and tried to rob the landrover. Unfortunately, the security guard remonstrated with them and they shot him dead. The woman who was in the landrover ran into the house and escaped while the armed men took the vehicle. Last week the same thing happened but, thankfully, nobody was killed. Life is cheap in that area.

The regional initiative with Julius Nyerere has not been as productive as people hoped. He does not seem to have the trust of the authorities in Burundi probably because of his stand on sanctions and the number of Hutu refugees in Tanzania. The area between Ruhengeri and Gisenyi in the north western part of Rwanda is a killing field. Members heard about the bus that was ambushed and 34 people killed. The gunmen stopped the bus and demanded that the Tutsis and Hutus separate. People were reluctant to do that so they shot as many as they could. Those who tried to escape were killed with machetes by the local population who laughed as this was happening.

I asked our assistant director in Rwanda to give us an up-to-date report which may be circulated to Members of the committee. This gives a graphic description of the security situation in that area. Other parts of the country are also affected, although not to the same degree. For example, the road between Cyangugu, which is to the south west of the country, and Butare is not safe. One should try to commute by air between the two locations. The situation is dangerous from a security point of view.

There are 120,000 people in 60 prisons and cachots throughout the country. The judicial system is making slow progress. As we said in our submission, it needs to be supported. It is an impossible situation because the judiciary was wiped out and it is difficult to train another one. The United Nations’ efforts at judicial process in Arusha have not been particularly successful. I had the opportunity to talk to Government Ministers some months ago in Rwanda about this situation because we were concerned that keeping people indefinitely in prison was serious from a human rights point of view. They asked what we expected them to do in the circumstances and it was difficult to answer that.

We referred in our submission to the visit by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and her comments about the human rights situation which were received badly by the Rwandan Government. They were not an overstatement; they reflected the reality of the situation and they needed to be said. While we recognise the enormous difficulties faced by the Government in the post-genocide situation, we must strike a balance by speaking about human rights issues as well.

One problem is that the Tutsis, who are in control of the Government at present, constitute 15 per cent of the population, as they do in Burundi, while the Hutus constitute 85 per cent. A viable political entity will not be formed in the long-term if 15 per cent rule 85 per cent, regardless of their background. Reconciliation is essential if there is to be stability in the future. Otherwise, I fear the problems of the past will reoccur. A low intensity guerrilla warfare is taking place at present which may get worse.

Mr. Kilcullen: I thank you, Chairman, and Members of the committee for giving me this opportunity to make this presentation on Rwanda. Trócaire maintains an office and a programme in Rwanda. In addition, we have had two significant missions to the country in the past six weeks. In December Bishop Kirby led a delegation of five Irish bishops to Rwanda where they met the Minister for Education, the governor of Gikongoro, the president and secretary general of the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, the Papal Nuncio, the Archbishop of Kigali, and 12 Irish missionaries who are now living and working in villages in the south west of the country. They also visited local jails and saw the situation there.

I am accompanied by Ms Colette Craven, who is a staff member of Trócaire and a Rwandan national. She returned yesterday from Rwanda, having spent the past two weeks there. It will be interesting for the committee to hear her personal views on what is happening, so I ask her to tell us about her visit to her homeland.

Ms Craven: There is a lot of fear, hopelessness and uncertainty among communities in Rwanda. The lack of trust can be seen in people’s eyes. I have friends who told me they would send their children to study abroad if they could afford it because there is no future for them in Rwanda. There is a food shortage because the peasants do not farm as there is no hope for them. They feel insecure. A medical doctor who returned from Zaire in 1996 told me that he would prefer to live in his rural village rather than practise in the capital Kigali because he might be a target or he might disappear. I was relieved to come back to Ireland on Sunday night, although my home is Rwanda. I do not see my future in Rwanda in the present situation.

Mr. Kilcullen: When I travelled with the bishops’ delegation I found a growing sense of pessimism in the country. Ms Hennessy referred to the genocide. Before we become overly critical, we must remember that the international community failed in its responsibilities in relation to the genocide. The UN convention on genocide calls for countries to prevent it and, where it has not been prevented, to bring to justice those who have perpetrated it. Whatever the feelings of the present regime in Rwanda, the international community has equally failed in its responsibilities. That shows the complexity of the problem.

The present government achieved a certain amount in the period up to the end of 1996 because it was anticipated there would be massive revenge killings following the victory of the RPA and its takeover of the country. Except for a couple of notorious incidents, particularly at Kibeho, that did not happen. There have been revenge killings but nothing on the scale one would have expected a revengeful population to have carried out.

We can trace the beginning of this slide back to the return of the refugees from Zaire and Tanzania at the end of 1996 and early 1997. When we met the Minister for Education, Colonel Karemera, who visited Ireland when he was Minister for Health, he admitted that when they brought the refugees back - they felt they had to return - they knew they were importing the problem back into the country. They knew the situation would get worse because the interahamwe militia was coming back with them. This resulted in approximately 3,000 to 4,000 arrests per month which left 120,000 people in jails.

It will require a massive political will and support from the international community go resolve that problem. There is a real sense of urgency about this because there is strong evidence that the forces of genocide are now regrouping. When we were there in December there were raids on three gaols and 800 people were sprung from gaol. The gaols being targeted were those which contained people who would join the militia again to arm themselves and oppose the Government. It is all leading to a very pessimistic situation almost of despair which we encountered not only talking with Government people but with Church people - the bishops and missionaries - who described what was happening in the villages. It seems, as one person said, that either the present Government is unable, unwilling or both to deliver on the early commitments of the 1994-96 period.

Trócaire has focused on the issues of justice and human rights in our work because we feel that this is the basis for any solution, whether in terms of a political solution or the development of the country. We have located a human rights officer in Kigali, and this is the first time we have taken such an initiative.

We feel that human rights must be addressed in a much wider context than just political rights. They must include economic, social and cultural rights. Essentially, the two issues to be addressed are how to get out of the seemingly intractable problem of so many prisoners and how can we generate another political programme which will facilitate the building of trust and reconciliation in Rwanda. We would stress that we believe the responsibility for this lies with governments. NGOs can play their part but this is a political problem. It requires political solutions and that means the engagement of governments and the international community.

Trócaire would pay tribute to successive Irish Governments who have dealt with this problem since 1994 and to Irish Aid, which has developed a consistent policy of engagement and which has offered support while at the same time being prepared to be critical and harshly critical when it was necessary to be so.

Trócaire feels it is important that the Government maintains this level of engagement. Trócaire certainly feels it would not be appropriate that Government aid be cut, which was called for in the past, and money side-tracked into NGOs because it is not our job to do this. We have our role to play and, equally, the Government has its role to play.

It is quite clear that it will be impossible for the Rwandan Government to try the 120,000 prisoners. No country could do it, let alone Rwanda. Therefore, new justice procedures must be devised to cope with this. A number of ideas are being put forward from the NGO sector and others who are specialising in this. There is the possibility of having commune level trials, which would essentially be mass trials where the genocide at a local level would be recorded and investigated and those who are implicated would be brought to trial. The idea would be that those found guilty would largely receive a pardon.

There is a big difference between a pardon and an amnesty. To have an amnesty would be simply to forget the genocide happened and just start again. That will not work and will be highly inflammatory. However, the naming of people as having been guilty and their having to carry that with them for the rest of their lives and the granting of a pardon for the vast majority would be a way out, a way of emptying the gaols and putting in place some kind of process which would see an end to this. Of course, in parallel with that the leaders of the genocide must be detained, tried properly and convicted accordingly. Trócaire has spelt out some of that in more detail in the paper which has been circulated.

Trócaire believes human rights must be integrated with all aspects of development work, whether it is housing programmes, health care or food production. All of these things must be done in a way in which the ethnic communities are brought together to work on projects of common interest which will create economic and social development. Trócaire’s programme tries to do this in trauma counselling, income generation and leadership training at commune level. This is an area in which governments and NGOs can work well together, supporting each other in their initiatives. The kind of access which NGOs have to grassroots support is a good channel for Government money to go into programmes which would promote that kind of approach to economic development.

The last thing I want to say is that the foreign presence remains absolutely critical. One prominent diplomat said to us that when the foreigners start to leave the people will panic and that the presence of the international community is very important, and I believe Ireland’s presence there is just as important as the presence of any other country. It is interesting to note that where there is no foreign presence, in Ruhengeri and Gisenyi, the worst atrocities are taking place. We exhort the committee to endorse the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Irish Aid to stay engaged in Rwanda and not to ask the NGOs to take on additional responsibility which would not be suitable. Equally, Trócaire will stay there. Trócaire has the support of Irish Aid and we appreciate it. We work well together and we exchange information.

Trócaire heartily recommends that the Oireachtas send a delegation to Rwanda, whether from this committee or a wider group within the Oireachtas. When Trócaire mentioned this to Minister Karemera, he said he would welcome it. He said that people do not understand his government’s position. The government wants to explain itself and it would welcome a delegation of Irish parliamentarians.

Trócaire’s paper refers to the need for support for the office of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Kigali. It is essential. It is what the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs. Mary Robinson, is working towards. Trócaire sees any support which the Government can give to the expansion and development of that programme as very important.

Chairman: I thank all three speakers for giving us a brief overview of the situation in these three countries, particularly Rwanda. It is even more depressing than one might have thought. While the short-term humanitarian aspects of it are of great importance because so many people are suffering and dying, we should ask Ms Hennessy of the Department of Foreign Affairs whether there are broader strategic political developments which might cope with this because there is not much happening at present which will change it. The figures which have been quoted - 120,000 people in prison and 200 trials completed in six or nine months - suggests a situation with which one could never cope.

Before we address that side of it, I want to ask a specific question on Rwanda and Burundi because, according to Mr. Kilcullen, who gave us figures which applied to both countries, the population is roughly 15 per cent Tutsi and 85 per cent Hutu. With such a population breakdown, how come the Tutsis are in control to the virtual exclusion of all the others? Why has this happened in both countries? Is the achievement of some form of power sharing likely?

Ms Hennessy: I do not have all of the history at my fingertips. Essentially, in colonial times the Tutsi population was the favoured group of the colonial masters. Subsequently, in the 1950s that changed and power shifted to the majority Hutu population. This was particularly the case in Rwanda. Then there was this cycle, to which I referred, of infighting and the movement of population, etc.. The Hutus were in power up to 1994, but during the early 1990s there was a Tutsi rebellion which was fuelled by people who had left the country during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Partly in response to that rebellion and ongoing guerrilla warfare, the Hutu Government orchestrated a hate campaign against the Tutsi population. This led to the horrific genocide in April 1994 when, during a period of ten to 14 days, huge numbers of Tutsis were wiped out.

I must admit that I am less familiar with the situation in Burundi. However, I would guess that the problems there arose for similar historic reasons. In Burundi, the Tutsis have traditionally been in charge of or had access to the army while the Hutu people have been denied this. That is one of the reasons that the Tutsi people maintained supremacy in Burundi. There was a Hutu president in power in 1993 who was killed when his plane was shot down. The President of Rwanda was killed in the same incident.

Chairman: Is it not correct that colonial powers held sway in those countries in the past?

Ms Hennessy: Yes.

Chairman: Did they provide arms to the Tutsis during the conflict which led to the 1994 genocide?

Ms Hennessy: That is not clear. The French had an interest in the area and both sides seemed to easily procure arms through various channels. The situation remains the same, despite the imposition of embargoes. That leads me on to the broader strategic approach to which the Chairman referred.

Apart from the ongoing efforts of the EU, Mr. Aldo Ajello has been appointed as special representative to the Great Lakes area. He has been working continuously in recent years with the various groups in each of these countries to try to bring about a situation of internal dialogue, which would lead to some political stability, which would in turn lead to power-sharing arrangements such as those agreed at Arusha in 1993. Mr. Ajello’s initiative has encountered mixed results. The Americans are taking quite an interest in the region and one of the areas they want to consider is the supply of arms to different groups in the countries concerned. They want to reinvigorate the arms embargo commission which was in operation in the region in the past.

There is a greater unity among EU member states than previously and there is also a greater dedication to working towards bringing about a workable solution. However, as stated in my presentation, the efforts of the regional Governments are crucial because this is an African problem and there must be an African solution. It is the view of the Government and its EU partners that we must work to support those African leaders in finding a solution. Now is not the time to impose a solution from outside, it must come from the people of the region.

Chairman: Is the arms embargo commission military in nature or is it merely supervisory?

Ms Hennessy: Mr. Fallon is more au fait with the workings of the commission.

Mr. Fallon: It is an investigative commission which was set up to establish the supply lines of arms to participants in the Rwandan conflict and genocide. The commission made an initial report in 1996 but it was not published by the UN until early this year. The commission has made certain recommendations about deploying observers on borders, etc. The US and others are engaged in efforts to make that relevant to the current situation rather than the old refugee situation. Therefore, the commission could still have value.

Deputy G. Mitchell: I thank the contributors for their presentations and comments. My first question is directed to Mr. Kilcullen. With the notable exception of Somalia, where we authorised peace enforcement by Irish troops, our international service has almost exclusively been concerned with peacekeeping and we have made a magnificent contribution in that regard. Given the point Mr. Kilcullen made about the international community’s responsibility to prevent genocide or, in the event that it is not able to do so, its responsibility to bring to trial those the perpetrators of genocide, what view do Trócaire and Concern have about Irish participation in peace enforcement? What steps are taken to ensure there is no overlap in the resources used by both NGOs in the region, given the shortages in this area?

Does Ms Hennessy agree with the view expressed by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, that support from the international community to help Rwanda come to terms with the aftermath of the genocide and the subsequent return of over 1 million refugees was wholly insufficient? What steps are being taken to try to change this? What steps have been taken by Ireland, the European Union and the international community to try to assist with the training of justice personnel? I do not know how assistance might be provided in this regard but perhaps people might be seconded, jurists encouraged to take a role, etc. This seems a particularly difficult problem.

Chairman: The Deputy asked four questions and it is time other Members had an opportunity to contribute.

Deputy G. Mitchell: Yes, but I took less time to ask my questions than the Chairman. I will not bother to ask my remaining question.

Mr. Begg: Deputy Mitchell asked for our views on peace enforcement. I was not directly involved with Concern at the time, but my memory of the Rwandan crisis is marked by one incident I witnessed where a young girl was dragged along the street to certain death by one of the Hutu people. A Belgian soldier stood by and could not intervene because he did not have instructions to so do. That often raises questions in my mind about the effectiveness of external intervention. Members will recall that the Belgians were to the fore in attempting an intervention, however inadequate, at that time but they quickly pulled out when ten of their personnel were killed. It seems there are major political questions surrounding interventions.

For example, take the American involvement in Somalia. There were no problems on that occasion until television pictures appeared of an American soldier being dragged through the streets behind a car. This had a major effect on public opinion in America when people asked “What are our boys doing over there trying to sort out problems between those people?”

I do not in principle disagree with intervention. If the scale of injustice and genocide that has been described justifies by any standards any intervention that would stop it but it is not an easy political issue to handle.

On the question of resource allocation between agencies, if one looks at the areas in which Concern and Trócaire separately operate, they are complementary but different and there is not an overlap. My information is that in the early days of this crisis, very large numbers of NGOs were operating, some of which were called briefcase NGOs. They did not come in to get grants, etc., but did not have a great deal more to do and a substantial number of them were not permitted subsequently to operate by the Government. Any examination of our respective roles would see them as different but complementary.

With regard to the development of the Tutsi domination and what arose from that after the intervention in 1990 when the RPA invaded the country, these were people who had been the victims of earlier problems and attacks and had been forced to emigrate. However, there are two things to be noted underlying what is happening in that area. First is the failure of Francophone foreign policy which was very dominant and strong in the area and the effective development in its place of an American led foreign policy initiative. Second, the events are not all unconnected. There is a still very considerable support among a number of Governments in that region for one another, specifically Uganda and President Museveni for the Government of Rwanda. Paradoxically, the man in charge of the Government in Burundi is a black sheep; he is not playing ball as well even though he is a Tutsi. He is not so popular with the rest but there is quite a co-ordination of policy in that region and the clearest manifestation of that was the influence of the RPA in the battle for Zaire, deposing Mobutu. That has been admitted by Major Kagame in an interview with The Washington Post.

Mr. Kilcullen: Trócaire would be pretty much of one mind with Concern on this. At the time of the genocide there was sufficient United Nations forces in the country to have acted to prevent it and the commanding officer at that time has since spoken out very strongly about a lack of a mandate and has made it clear that a great deal could have been done to avert what happened had they received a mandate.

In a situation such as that if an outside force were to intervene, an African one would be preferable to parachuting in Canadians or whatever was being planned for the Zaire operation in December 1996. The OAU needs international support in dealing with these issues. Regarding the duplication of work in Rwanda, the NGO community is very well organised. It has an executive committee which meets regularly where work experiences and so on are shared and joint representations are made to the Rwandan Government. There is no fear of people of threading on the other’s patch. Budgets run between £1 and £2 million per year per agency and compared to the need it is little more than a drop in the ocean. It has a good impact but the scale is enormous.

I asked Ms Craven who has parents of mixed ethnic background would she answer the question and she said it has a long history.

Senator Norris: I refer to what Ms Craven said as I found it very moving that somebody would wish to see the back of his or her country but I am very glad that she has at least found a second home here. That places the current controversy about refugees and asylum seekers in a particular context. I wish to ask two linked questions. First, Mr. Beggs referred to the question of linking human rights issues with provisional aid. How effective is it and does it work? The Americans tried it with the Chinese and it was found to be impractical. I like to think it would work but I am not sure. Second, reference was made to the human rights commissioner, Mrs. Robinson. We naturally and inevitably take a particular interest in this country in the operations of this remarkable woman and there was reference to the support necessary for the human rights office in Kigali. In terms of financial support or provision of personnel is there anything of a practical nature that the committee can recommend to Government to do in terms of providing funding or staffing because it seems to be something practical that it could do? If we were advised on this, the Chairman might be in a position to formulate a resolution or take action on this basis.

Ms Hennessy: Deputy Mitchell referred to the insufficient response of the international community and what we are doing on training of personnel. Given what has been happening, one could say the response of the international community has been insufficient but it is not clear what is the full answer. There is no way that, for example, a peacekeeping force can come in and stop people who live in mixed communities from going out at night and killing each other. We see that closer to home as well as in Africa. There has been a fall down in money pledged by Governments as some pledges are not fulfilled. As far as Ireland is concerned, it pledges smallish amounts of money but we are very rigorous about ensuring that if any money is pledged, we spend it. We put in money and do not tie it to anything to do with the economy.

I refer to Senator Norris’ point about human rights conditionality and aid. As far as humanitarian aid is concerned in an emergency situation, it is not the practice to attach any such conditionality. The priority is to get assistance to the people who are vulnerable and in need. Human rights conditionality is something that one would look at in a longer term developmental type of programme where there are clear examples of bad governance of human rights abuses, etc.. One might think of, for example, balance of payments support or building bridges or roads. However, when it comes to emergency aid, it would not be right to attach any such conditionality and the priority is to try and ensure the aid gets there quickly and is used as effectively as possible and in a way that does not distort things for the future because that can be a problem in emergency situations where there is a huge influx of foreign aid workers. It happened in Rwanda where whatever capacity was left in society was vacuum cleaned up by international organisations on the ground there because they could pay much more.

The ministries, who already had few qualified staff left, found that their best people were being taken by international organisations of various types which were looking for local people.

As to training in justice, our money has mostly gone towards training communal police. This has dual benefits and is been part of a wider programme with the British and the Dutch. The police have helped to bring files into existence and move them along, which is necessary in order to get the justice system working and to bring cases before the courts. Where these communal police have been deployed, international observers have also noted an immediate diminution in human rights abuses, violent attacks, etc. Local policing had been completely wiped out and there was no one to monitor rural areas or villages but this programme is helping in that respect.

Have I answered all the points put so far?

Senator Norris: One point I raised was not answered but it may not be specifically for Ms Hennessy; it concerned how the human rights office could be supported.

Mr. Kilcullen: In her statement and also in Kigali, Mrs. Robinson talked about the need radically to restructure the human rights office there. We understand from our human rights officer that the activities of that office have been curtailed. They have come under much criticism, not only from the local governor but from diplomats. There have been frequent changes of leadership and a lack of resources; it was even said that the Rwandan people felt abandoned by the office, since it seems to be active only within the capital and had withdrawn from rural areas. There is a need for political will and political support for the High Commissioner in what she is trying to achieve, Resources should be made available and she should be given the muscle to exert her influence to establish a properly functioning human rights office under UN auspices in Kigali.

Senator Norris: How can we help?

Mr. Kilcullen: I am sure resources means finance. I do not know whether Irish aid is going towards the High Commissioner but I am sure some support is getting through, given our close attachment to her. In terms of political influence through the EU or otherwise, she should be given every support because people on all sides are trying to curtail the activity of the office.

Deputy Spring: I thank the assistant secretary, Ms Hennessy, and our colleagues from the NGOs for their presentation. I enjoyed working with all of them in the last few years. We should pledge our support for these efforts. There is a clear distinction between this and the humanitarian effort, which is necessary and just but, as was said, is merely a drop in the ocean. Over the years we have tried to work closely together and that must continue. We must support the NGOs and Irish aid in every possible way so that they can continue to prioritise humanitarian assistance. Any area in which we can help - such as strengthening the human rights office - must be considered. The High Commissioner, Mrs. Robinson, made clear that the office was totally underfunctioning, to the extent that local people lack confidence in it. We should highlight and prioritise this area and continue to support the humanitarian assistance.

All this is depressing but one aspect I found more depressing than previously is the apparent failure of the Organisation for African Unity, which is the only body offering any potential. Two years ago, when the Americans tried to prioritise this area, the then Secretary of State, Mr. Warren Christopher, visited the OAU but the meeting was not productive and American assistance was not given a good reception. That may have changed by now.

Perhaps our Department can give support, through the EU, to the OAU, because it needs to be strengthened. Deputy O’Kennedy and I noted that many of the countries in the OAU have huge problems of their own which inhibit their progress. I had a number of meetings with former President Nyerere, who has worked valiantly over many years. Little progress was made but from our point of view within the EU, our efforts should be directed towards the OAU. Whatever prospect there may be of solving the long-term political prospects in these three countries will only come through the OAU, it will not be accepted or even be possible to achieve it directly from the US or any other quarter. We will probably come back to this issue but as of today we should offer our continued support for the tremendous work done by the NGOs and to our Government for its tremendous work with Irish aid over the years.

Senator Lanigan: Many of my points have been made already. We have again heard a depressing story from the Great Lakes region. The international community has failed to establish volunteer jurists to set up courts or aid the court system and this failure must be addressed. The proposal made by Mr. Kilcullen, concerning communal courts, is interesting. Who would be the judges and who would run these courts? Those people would play a major part in achieving the final result.

It was said that over 650 people may be incarcerated in a cell the size of this committee room. This is a carpeted room but the conditions in those prisons must be horrific, because those people have been incarcerated since early 1996. None of them have been released and there have been some births so there are children in these prisons also. When one considers that many people who have not yet been convicted of genocide are in prison, the international community should isolate the leaders and deal with them separately from the generality of prisoners who were arrested because they were from the same family or for some other reason. There must be some way of tackling this, otherwise there will be an escalation of what happened when 800 prisoners were released by the militia. That is one way of dealing with the problem but when those people are returned to the community the same problems recur.

It was said that since the refugees returned the problems have escalated. Is this concerned with the problem mentioned before, that is, survivors took over much of the property abandoned by refugees and when the refugees returned they found they could not reclaim their property? That would be a major problem wherever it occurred.

The OAU question must be addressed but there is no point pretending that it can be equated to the EU or the UN. The OAU is mostly composed of countries whose GNP is at the very bottom of the league. If it is suggested that the OAU can be a major player, the international community must decide how it can be financially supported to react if a problem arises in Africa.

I was glad to hear Mr. Begg say that of his workers in Rwanda, 563 were natives and 13 were expatriates. It is about time such ratios existed. In all organisations, whether Irish aid or NGOs, there were far too many briefcase aid workers. It was rare to see non-white NGO workers so I am glad his organisation is following that policy.

The situation has deteriorated since we began to discuss it. It has been a regular concern of this committee. What can the Government do? There is no point in us saying again in six months’ time that the position has deteriorated because the international community has not done anything about it. How can we, as part of the international community, be a catalyst to help the situation in Rwanda? Great help is being given at present but only at a low level.

Mr. Kilcullen: I would like to briefly restate our proposal to send a delegation. It is very important to engage with and talk to the Government. It was quite put out by Mrs. Robinson’s statement, which might have brought it up short. The more the Government there hears how anxious the international community is, the more it might be possible to exert some influence on it.

However, we will only retain influence if we also retain a constructive engagement with the Government by offering help. One of the problems it has faced is that while international Governments are prepared to put money into Rwanda, they are not prepared to do so through the Government but only through UN agencies or NGOs. Therefore, the Government feels quite powerless and resentful of the fact that NGOs such as Trocaire or Concern have more money to run health programmes than it does. There must be a much more sophisticated engagement with that Government. Sending a delegation to meet it would be one way of doing that.

Chairman: Of course, there is no guarantee that if we go there our views will be different from those of Mrs. Robinson. Our views may not appeal to them. Perhaps it might get that point of view across more readily.

Mr. Begg: I agree with Mr. Kilcullen. The Government must make an accommodation in the longer term. Given the divisions of the population, I cannot see the existing Government being viable in the longer term. Apart from the rights and wrongs of the situation, it will not be able to contain it militarily because there is constant conflict in the country.

After Mrs. Robinson’s visit about 2,000 prisoners were released, mainly people who were probably too young to have taken part in the genocide. Twenty four of them were killed when they went back to their communities. The Interhamway released prisoners from a cachot but they stayed and rebuilt it because there was a real chance they would be killed if they went back to their communities. The situation is very complex; there is a twist to every seemingly straightforward answer.

Deputy O’Kennedy: Your initiative in convening this meeting, which has given us the opportunity to hear from the NGOs and the assistant secretary, Ms Hennessy, has been greatly vindicated. One is overwhelmed and depressed by the scale of the tragedy and the incapacity to deal with it when one first hears the story from those on the ground. However, on the other hand, there is a bright light. I have never before experienced such a level of co-ordination between the official Government position and the NGOs as we have heard today. In face of the horrific tragedy which has been experienced there for some time, it is encouraging and reassuring to know such a degree of co-ordination exists.

We should maintain a direct link, perhaps through the Department, so that we would be constantly aware of the evolving situation. I am sure there will be some dramatic and traumatic changes. Such a link would enable us to respond in the appropriate way.

We have already had the benefit of recommendations which we should take very seriously and, where possible, adopt and implement. As you pointed out, chairman, it is important not to overstate the impact of a visit from our committee. However, the Irish position in Africa has always been seen as an independent one. We do not have a colonial interest and have not been in the business of supplying arms, unlike some of our partners. I would hope that our presence would help to bolster the situation.

We are also in a unique position as the UNHCR is Irish. She clearly needs the support of countries such as this in terms of adequate resources. She obviously has a very good working relationship with the Secretary General but we found on our visit to New York that when the UN received a mandate from the Security Council it never had adequate resources to back up that mandate. We must highlight that inconsistency and ensure that adequate resources are provided.

I support the idea of the Organisation of African Unity being a key element. However, the days of the enlightened leadership of Kenyata, Nyerere and even Kaunda are unfortunately over and Rwanda’s neighbouring countries do not adhere to the standards we would like to see implemented. I never had any reservations about supporting regional organisations but they may be less effective now.

This has been a unique opportunity to hear a short, if depressing, cameo of what is happening from the people on the ground. It is important to maintain a constant inflow of information to the committee. I support the recommendations----

Chairman: I presume the Deputy is referring to the recommendations made by Mr. Kilcullen.

Deputy O’Kennedy: Yes, by and large. They are consistent with what was said by Concern - I do not see any difference between the presentations. Our Government should constantly and actively support the UN in terms of funding and otherwise. This is an opportunity for us to play a lead role, although I do not want to overstate it.

Chairman: Due to the complexity of the issue and the amount of information to which we have listened, I find it difficult to draft a motion while the meeting is still in progress. I propose to draft a motion reflecting the needs and concerns which have been expressed which could be put to the committee at its next meeting.

Deputy Briscoe: I suggest the committee endorse the recommendations made by Trocaire rather than coming up with a resolution, because nobody seems to disagree with them.

The documentation refers to prison overcrowding and we have heard how 600 people could be held in a cell the size of this committee room.

Can more money not be spent on better facilities to house prisoners? I am unaware of any recommendation in that area. One comment strikes me as a little odd. It says, “The Rwandan government would like to increase the amount of aid received through direct bilateral assistance and to drastically reduce the amount of aid received through NGOs.” Does that mean that there is resentment on the part of the Rwandan government.

Senator Doyle: They have made that point.

Deputy Briscoe: We do not wish to give money to any government which might end up in Geneva. It is important that money is used for the correct purpose. We know that money channelled through NGOs is spent well. I see no problem in endorsing the recommendations as opposed to passing a resolution which has the same sense as the recommendations.

Deputy O’Kennedy: I am talking about the broad thrust of the recommendations. I support your own idea, Chairman.

Chairman:I want to reflect the views expressed by Mr. Begg and by Ms Hennessy and to draw them all together. They are not necessarily in conflict with each other but each organisation has its own priorities.

Senator Doyle: I would like to establish where we are in terms of international mediation effort. We have heard the Irish perspective from both the Government and the NGOs. I am not clear about what the international agenda is at this time in relation to Rwanda and the Great Lakes region. I fully endorse the point made about OAU. What can we do to strengthen their approach to this problem and what is the relationship of the OAU to the problem? Are they actively involved? I would like to hear from those who are experts in this area exactly where the difficulties are?

In relation to a parliamentary delegation, would it be better if we selected a specific area such as the justice or health systems? The number of families headed by women is a huge question. The previous government, in relation to the famine commemoration took on projects concerning famine. Are the other EU countries involved in this matter? Are they sending effective parliamentary delegations and are they approaching the Rwandan government? As a small country, albeit with an excellent track record, would we achieve more if we selected a particular area such as the justice system and actively engaged with the Rwandan government in addressing the problems posed by their justice system? Should we send a tailor made delegation to concentrate on a specific area from which there might be ripples of improvement?

Mr. Kilcullen: I am sure that Mrs. Hennessy has views on the international situation as well. My reference to the OAU came as a specific response to Deputy Mitchell’s answer about peace keeping. I am not aware that the OAU is particularly strong in any capacity in Rwanda at the moment. I am not aware of any concerted international effort dealing with it. Delegations have gone from other EU countries. Ms Clare Short has visited recently from the UK. The Swiss parliament sent a delegation recently. Other delegations have visited and the major EU countries have embassies in Rwanda as does the US. Much is happening at a diplomatic level but I would not be privy to the nature of those discussions. I do think that it would be good for an Irish delegation to focus on a particular issue such as the justice system. Such a tight and focused approach would yield results.

Ms Hennessy: As far as international efforts are concerned I mentioned the efforts of the EU special representative Mr. Ajello. The Great Lakes region, Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have been constantly on the agenda of the EU at the political level and in humanitarian committees over the past number of years. On a bilateral basis there has been quite a lot of engagement. I am aware, from reports that I have seen in recent months, of visits by the US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Clare Short from Britain, the Danish development minister Mr. Neilson and Mr. Pronk from the Netherlands all of whom are big donors to Rwanda. Ministers of the previous Government visited Rwanda early last year. To address the point of watching how money is spent, we had a monitoring mission last October to look, specifically, at the programmes we have funded through the Government. We were very pleased with what we saw. Miss Brown who is beside me was a member of that mission. A further mission will be going in March. Our chargé d’affaires in Kampala, Pat Curran, visits Rwanda periodically. We do not have permanent representation there but we feel we can make the same impact by visiting on a regular basis and in a programmed way. We exchange information all the time both in Kampala and Kigali and in various fora in Brussels, Geneva and New York. Activity is low key and it does not make headlines.

Senator A. Doyle: What is the EU involvement?

Mrs. Hennessy: If I may comment, since the last election in France it has been much easier to have a clear and concerted EU effort. There are not the dichotomies of approach which were seen earlier. It has become somewhat easier to co-operate with the US. As far as the OAU is concerned, the EU and the US have been working to build capacity there. There is a problem of capacity and a problem of different regional interests but it is also true to say that while Mr. Kenyatta and other elderly leaders have gone there is a new generation of strong leaders with vision ranging from President Museveni in Uganda to President Mandela in South Africa who have been taking an interest in what is going on in Rwanda. Prime Minister Meles Zenawi in Ethiopia has managed to bring his country from a war-torn situation to one of stability. He still has problems but he is looking for African solutions for African problems.

The organisation in southern Africa, SADC, (Southern African Development Community) is interacting very frequently with the EU and among themselves. The EU helps that organisation, both financially and in terms of capacity, to look at conflict prevention and general development in southern Africa. A great deal of work is taking place but it does not hit the headlines.

Chairman: You say the OAU lacks capacity. What type of capacity do you mean? Is it a military capacity to intervene and try to impose peace?

Ms Hennessy: It even applies to its administrative and research capacity. The secretariat is weak.

Chairman: Where is its headquarters?

Ms Hennessy: In Addis Ababa. Ireland and other member states of the EU have contributed to various training courses and other projects which could enhance and unleash its existing capacity. However, the OAU will not become an EU in the foreseeable future given the level of development of the countries concerned. If there is a willingness and ability in terms of leadership, the international community would be prepared to invest more financial resources in the OAU if it could be the vehicle for international engagement with Africa. However, that should be according to African needs and thinking as to what the right solution should be.

Mr. Begg: We must be realistic about this. The Rwandan Government comprises serious people who have considerable support from some of the neighbouring countries. I do not believe the OAU will have any influence.

The people who have real influence are probably the Americans and the British. A geopolitical strategy is being followed in that region, particularly by the American Government, and a number of considerations are involved. Many of the Governments concerned feel quite secure in that context. Somebody with considerable external strength is required to exhort the Rwandan Government to reach an accommodation. It is in its own interest in the longer term. It is understandable that the Government would wish to stay in total control, in view of the genocide. Nevertheless, that is not viable in the longer term. However, short of the involvement of a major player such as I have described, that Government will not feel compelled to take an initiative to bring about a reconciliation.

Deputy Briscoe: Is there a problem with securing larger holding centres?

Ms Hennessy: Yes. Whether Governments should give money to build larger prisons is a sensitive issue. However, some alleviation has been achieved. UNICEF, for example, has received funding to build a prison for minors and the Dutch have put money into building or refurbishing larger holding centres. We have given small amounts of money to install windows and increase ventilation in the small holding centres. We have also been funding feeding programmes in the prisons through Concern and the International Committee of the Red Cross, which are the organisations tasked with ensuring that some humanity is observed in the prison system. Despite the huge numbers, efforts have been made to alleviate the worst consequences of imprisonment. The Rwandan Government is working with the International Organisation for Migration - IOM - which deals with internally displaced people, to move prisoners to areas of the country which are closer to their homes.

Mr. Begg referred to people who have rebuilt their prisons. In the last few days I read a report about another attack in which the prison was burned down by insurgents and the prisoners were forced to go into the forests with them. Many of the prisoners found their way back to a different prison and asked to be taken in. It is not an easy situation.

Mr. Begg: Concern built a wall around a women’s prison in Gitarma for the purpose of allowing people to get out into the air. They were being kept indoors all day in the crowded conditions I mentioned earlier. We have also provided the tools and seeds for them to grow vegetables on a type of prison farm. It is a strange activity for us because it is so juxtaposed with human rights. However, it made a huge difference for the 250 women in terms of the quality of their lives.

Chairman: We will conclude our discussion on this distressing topic. I hope to bring a motion or proposals to the Committee at the next meeting which will take account of what has been said. I am attracted to the suggestion that something specific should be done in the justice area, which is a huge problem that is causing terrible suffering. It will not be overcome unless something dramatic is done by several countries.

Perhaps we could appeal to young lawyers in this country to volunteer to go there and see what they can do over a three or six month period. The difficulty is that the Rwandan legal system is different from ours. It is the continental system which was imposed by the Belgians. Our lawyers, like British and American lawyers, find it hard to adapt to that system. In addition, the system operates in French, which would also be a problem. However, it would be desirable to do something in that regard. Otherwise the majority of these people will die in prison regardless of whether they are guilty.

Ms Hennessy: There is some movement on that issue. Ireland, with the United States, funded a genocide secretariat which examined the issue of genocide and worked with the Rwandans to introduce a law which categorised the perpetrators into the ringleaders, those who were actively involved and those who were peripherally involved. Some of the latter have already been released.

The Vice-President, Mr. Kagame, was in Brussels last week to address the European Parliament and he met a number of people, including the EU special envoy. It was clear from his discussions that he is pushing forward in this area. The Government is examining the possibility of an amnesty for some people and community service rather than detention for those who are convicted at the middle level. On the other hand, one must also recognise in relation to the impunity question which I mentioned earlier that they are determined that some people will pay with their lives for the genocide and there have been a number of death sentences.

Chairman: To be convicted, pardoned, released and perhaps killed within a matter of days is not satisfactory. It is very complicated problem. I suppose the extraordinary paradoxes in the situation are best illustrated by what Mr. Begg told us that, as a genuine humanitarian gesture, Concern built a wall around a prison. It was entirely humanitarian to do so and it shows how extraordinary the situation. I thank the three speakers who spoke to us today and those who accompanied them. It was valuable for us to hear firsthand, from people who know the situation, an account of the situation in that region. It was certainly very depressing to listen to. The more depressing, the more necessary it is that the international community generally faces up to this problem because it will go on and on and will get worse rather than better.

We will attempt to digest what we heard over the past two hours. I will try to put proposal, whether in the form of a motion or otherwise, to the committee at its next meeting to see what we can do. One of the things we will certainly bear in mind is the possibility of a visit there. If anything, we might be able to establish a system in relation to the general justice difficulties there in terms of prisons and trials which would allow this awful difficulty to be attacked. What is happening now will make very little difference, particularly when one is talking about a few hundred trials a year and 120,000 people in custody. I am grateful to you for coming and for spending so much time here.

The Joint Committee adjourned at 7.05 p.m.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS ON RWANDA

The Joint Committee whilst acknowledging the substantial assistance provided by the Irish Government over the last four years to support emergency programmes and rehabilitation assistance in Rwanda; and being mindful of the need to develop carefully balanced programmes of assistance which take into account the needs of both the survivors of the genocide and the refugees who have returned, thus contributing towards re-conciliation; adopts the following recommendations:

1.That the Irish Government should continue to provide development assistance to Rwanda through the NGOs, international organisations and the Government of Rwanda;

2.That Irish assistance to Rwanda continue to focus on meeting the basic needs of the survivors and the returnees and on the prisoner feeding programme.

3.That food security issues and capacity-building be addressed to assist Rwanda in stabilising and in moving towards more sustainable development;

4.That continued attention be devoted to rehabilitating the justice sector. In this connection and in the short term, the Rwandan authorities should be encouraged to devise, with the help of other Governments, NGOs and experts, new justice procedures to deal with the pressing problem of the 120,000 prisoners awaiting trial for genocide in extremely harsh conditions;

5.That the UNHRFOR mission to Rwanda be strengthened to enable it to carry out its mandate more effectively;

6.That a delegation from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs consider visiting Rwanda on a fact-finding mission; and

7.That the international Community should continue to actively encourage a regional conference to involve neighbouring countries in seeking to resolve the problems faced by Rwanda.

Appendix (ii)

MEMBERS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE.

DEPUTIES

AHEARN, THERESA

AYLWARD, LIAM

BRISCOE, BEN

CALLELY, IVOR

CREED, MICHAEL

DEASY, AUSTIN (Vice Chairman)

DE ROSSA, PROINSIAS

KITT, MICHAEL P.

MITCHELL, GAY

O’KENNEDY, MICHAEL

O’MALLEY, DESMOND J. (Chairman)

SHATTER, ALAN

SMITH, BRENDAN

SPRING, DICK

SENATORS

DOYLE, AVRIL

HAUGHEY, EDWARD

LANIGAN, MICK

MOONEY, PASCHAL

NORRIS, DAVID

TAYLOR-QUINN, MADELEINE