Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 1998 > Committee on Foreign Affairs > Report - Report on Algeria

HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS

Report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs on Algeria

May, 1998

CONTENTS

Introduction

The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs was established following Orders of the Dáil 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 on the meetings of the Joint Committee on the Algerian situation was agreed at its meeting on 3 June, 1998.

_________________________

Desmond J. O’Malley,

Chairman.

4 June, 1998.

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs

Dé Céadaoin, 17 Nollaig 1997.

Wednesday, 17 December 1997.

The Committee met at 9.45 a.m.

Members present:

Also present Senator J. Connor.

Chairman: I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, and his officials, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Carroll to the meeting. I know the Minister is busy and I thank him for agreeing to attend at short notice. The committee has made it clear that it has a particular interest in human rights and on a few occasions in its short existence to date it has expressed its concern for human rights in Algeria. We hope the Minister can give us up to date information on the situation following his recent visit there. As his time is limited and he must leave by 11 a.m. I propose that his presentation would open the discussion and that this would be followed by a question and answer session.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Andrews): It is a pleasure to come before the committee for the first time since my appointment and I hope it will be the first of a series of appearances in relation to matters of concern to the committee. I welcome the opportunity to brief the committee on the situation in Algeria. I thank the Chairman and the members for convening a meeting on the matter.

The shocking situation in Algeria, as revealed in numerous reports over the past several months, has filled all of us with a deep sense of horror and forboding. The massacre of innocent civilians, particularly of women and children, has evoked a strong sense of outrage amongst the Irish people. Both Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Deputy O’Donnell, and myself have received very large numbers of expressions of concern from people all around the country. The Government fully shares this sense of outrage.

A turning point in the Algerian tragedy was the cancellation, under pressure from military leaders, of the second round of the general election in January 1992 which Islamic fundamentalists were set to win. Since then a vicious conflict has been fought, resulting in an estimated 80,000 deaths. The scale and nature of the carnage have attracted world wide attention. Together with our partners in the European Union, we have been monitoring the situation very closely. On 12 September, the Presidency issued a statement which expressed the deep shock of the Union at the wave of killings and other atrocities, reaffirmed our outright condemnation of all acts of terrorism and indiscriminate violence, and reiterated our encouragement of the political and economic reform process in Algeria.

At the informal meeting in Mondorf in late October, the Foreign Ministers of the Union decided that the Presidency should meet with the Algerian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Ahmed Attaf. At this meeting, which took place in Luxembourg on 26 November, the President of the Council, Foreign Minister Jacques Poos of Luxembourg, conveyed, on behalf of the Union, our profound concern at reports on the situation, our solidarity with the people of Algeria and our utter condemnation of terror and extreme violence. He confirmed that the Union would continue to encourage a process of national reconciliation with democratic parties who renounce violence and reiterated the Union’s intention to continue to support the process of reform, notably through the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. He stressed the vital importance of fundamental freedoms and human rights and went on to signal the Union’s readiness to facilitate a political solution, if desired by the Algerian Government. I have set out the Government’s position in replies to parliamentary questions in the Dáil, most recently on Wednesday last. I made it clear that I was deeply shocked at the reports of massacres, that I could not accept the assertion that what was happening was an internal affair and that with my colleagues, I was at the disposal of the protagonists should the Union be requested to help facilitate a political solution.

On 19 November, Minister of State, Deputy O’Donnell and I met with the Algerian Ambassador to Ireland, Mr. Ahmed Benyamina, to discuss recent events in his country. I outlined the profound revulsion felt at the large-scale killings of so many innocent Algerians, including women and children, and made it clear that our interest in Algeria and our desire to assist should in no way be seen as interference. We stressed the importance we attached to making an approach in a spirit of co-operation, holding out the hand of friendship to an emerging democracy which had to cope with the trauma of killings on this scale.

During our discussion, I made it clear that I was keen to explore ways in which Ireland, either bilaterally or through the EU, could help relieve the unacceptable situation in Algeria. I asked the ambassador to convey to Foreign Minister Attaf, my interest in meeting him, the President and members of the assembly in Algeria. My proposal was based on the priority accorded to human rights issues in our foreign policy.

I visited Algiers from the night of 8 December to midday on 10 December. During three and a half hours of detailed discussions with Foreign Minister Attaf, with whom I established a good working rapport, I explained the reasons for my visit - the first by an Irish Foreign Minister - in terms of the grave concern which was being expressed about developments in Algeria. Foreign Minister Attaf made several key points which I will outline for the background information of the committee.

On coming to office in January 1994, the Algerian Government faced a political, economic and security crisis. There was no elected President, Parliament or local councils. In short, there was an institutional vacuum. The Exchequer was bankrupt with annual debt servicing exceeding national earnings by US $1 billion. There was significant insurgency and a campaign of terror. Foreign Minister Attaf spelled out his Government’s response. The first was institution building. Four candidates contested the Presidential election in November 1995. Mr. Zeroual, an army general, won 61 per cent of the vote in a 75 per cent turnout, which was judged to be fair by international monitors. In November 1996, a set of constitutional amendments to reshape the legislative assembly was carried. Government figures showed that 85 per cent of Algerians were in favour. However, mainly due to security issues, there were no monitors to challenge or confirm the result. The Assembly was directly elected last June. Local councils were elected amid considerable controversy in October. The final stage, the opening of the National Council (Upper House), takes place on 25 December.

On the economic front, the new Government negotiated a structural adjustment programme with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Economic growth resumed in 1995. Inflation had been brought down from 39 per cent in 1994 to 4.7 per cent at present. The then budget deficit of 7 per cent is now a surplus of 3 per cent. However, severe social costs were involved. Unemployment had risen to over 20 per cent with more than 2 million unemployed. Population growth was over 3 per cent per annum. The country needed to add 250,000 new jobs each year to make an impact on unemployment. The Government’s response has been to identify some micro-economic priorities with social impact. Its goal is to create 1.2 million jobs by the year 2000 and build a similar number of housing units to address the housing crisis, 800,000 of them also by the year 2000.

On the security front, the level of protection provided to the public in 1994 was clearly inadequate to the insurgency threat. There was a police force of 31,000 for a population of over 27 million. Some 750 of the country’s 1,540 municipalities had no police. In 1992 and 1993, a very significant number of intellectuals - professors, doctors and journalists - were targeted by assassins. This was unprecedented. From 1993 to 1996 foreign residents, economic installations and the social infrastructure were also targeted. Schools, factories, hospitals, roads, bridges and railways were attacked. All of these have since been guarded, at high cost, by 1997. Then fragmented groups of insurgents attacked villages and entire communities.

Foreign Minister Attaf argued that the Algerian Government sees itself as having been abandoned to face these threats on its own and is very critical of the lack of international solidarity, including of the asylum offered to certain exiles whom they regard as being actively involved in insurgency. When I asked how Europe could help, he immediately called for the elimination of insurgency networks in Europe. This, of course, raises a great number of other questions.

For my part, I expressed grave concern arising from the perception in Europe that gross violations of human rights had been, and possibly were still being, committed in Algeria. I went on to convey the perception that the press was less than free in Algeria and asked if the authorities could confirm and explain the estimated figure of 80,000 deaths since 1992 - an enormous number.

The Foreign Minister’s response was that combating terrorism was a complex matter. He did not hide the fact that abuses of human rights had occurred. He said that Algeria had ratified 23 international agreements on human rights, including optional protocols such as that on civil, economic and political rights. It had made annual reports to the specialised United Nations bodies, which had not attracted significant criticism. In its 1996 report under the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 73 cases were detailed. Its next report, expected at the end of January, will disclose more cases. The perpetrators are to be tried before tribunals and punished. He added that they would welcome visitors from abroad, including NGOs, and would facilitate their work with organisations in Algerian civil society.

I acknowledged that these were the stated intent.

In a frank and substantive hour long meeting, President Liamene Zeroual acknowledged that his Government had to take control of the problem of the abuse of human rights. In recent days the Algerian Government has taken the positive step of inviting a UN special rapporteur on extra judicial killings to visit the country. It has also given an initially favourable response to the proposal to appoint a special rapporteur on torture.

On balance, my overall impression is that while they remain highly sensitive to criticism made in public and are very conscious of their image at international level, they are receptive to constructive messages made in private. One area in which they need improvement is greater familiarity with parliamentary procedures and the role of the Opposition. Inter-Parliamentary contacts, focused on the young representatives from all parties, could be constructive in this area.

I took the opportunity to discuss matters of bilateral interest, especially on the trade front. Members of the committee may be aware that over recent years we have exported some agriculture products, especially beef, to Algeria. This trade has been in the region of £12 million per annum and could be significantly increased if Ireland were to be successful in the current tender for beef, a matter I raised on a number of occasions. This tender, for 10,000 tons of beef from this country, may represent a positive outcome to the visit.

Nobody should be under any illusion that the situation in Algeria is susceptible to a quick fix. It remains a complex and highly dangerous amalgam of tensions and strife, based not only on an ideological struggle but fed by economic and social alienation. The result is a catastrophic cycle of violence, destruction and counter violence. Outside involvement, if wisely handled, can help bring this cycle to an end, but if mishandled, could prove counterproductive. All our efforts must therefore be directed towards ensuring that the outcome is one which meets the objectives of respect for human rights and for democracy.

One conclusion I have derived from all my discussions is the extent to which Algeria needs and seeks a closer relationship with the EU and its member states. Despite its relative isolation, and perhaps also a feeling of desperation, this is a positive factor on which we can and should build. My visit will have helped to play a positive role. For the added information of the committee I gave a full report of my meetings while I was in Algeria to representatives of the ambassadors of the EU countries in addition to speaking to the Speaker of the House and a number of members of the Opposition. Regardless of whether they were true members of the Opposition, I made a genuine effort to get an independent view, which was not made fully available to me.

I will be glad to advance the knowledge of the committee if I can do so. I was there for only 24 hours and in that time do not pretend to be an expert on the conditions or the problems relating to any country. However, my visit was helpful in that I reflected the views of EU partners. It was strongly supported by the presidency of the EU and by the people of Ireland. It was necessary in the circumstances and successful in so far as a meeting can be successful in the time available for such a visit.

Chairman: Thank you Minister. Were the views of the members of the Opposition whom you met dramatically different from the views expressed to you by members of the Government or are they members of an official, permitted Opposition as opposed to the real Opposition?

Deputy Andrews: These were members of what you would describe as the official Opposition. Before my visit a Swedish Minister of State and old friend of mine, Jan Eliasson, had the opportunity to meet with members of the real Opposition, which was not made available to me. Perhaps I did not meet them because I had so many meetings over a short period of time and the opportunity did not present itself. I did not meet members of the Opposition I would like to have met.

Chairman: There appears to be a growing feeling that the Government side, if one could call it that, is perhaps as responsible as the Islamic militant side for many of the deaths and other atrocities in Algeria, especially given the apparent evidence that Government troops and police are often nearby when some of these atrocities occur and make no effort to intervene. Did you raise that aspect of the matter with either the President or the Foreign Minister?

Deputy Andrews: I raised it with the Foreign Minister and with the President. I expressed strong solidarity with the people of Algeria on behalf of the people of this country and our EU partners. The people of Algeria find themselves between a rock and a hard place in that they have a Government with a small army looking after a large population. The army is made up of young people who, in the nature of the situation, would not be motivated to go to places of serious danger given the kind of terror involved. In that sense the Government is neglecting to look after the people.

However, some of the atrocities were committed by the Islamists, who are the fundamentalists, and who seek to destabilise the Government. Some of the deaths were committed in the most horrible circumstances. At one stage diplomats were targeted, then journalists and politicians. It now appears that the people are being targeted in the interests of terror.

I must draw a distinction between human rights and terror. Bearing in mind my short visit, my impression is that the Government is not quite strong with regard to the protection of the human rights of the people, but the terror could be effectively blamed on the Islamists and fundamentalists. I spoke with the Foreign Minister in a bilateral for two hours. We then spent another hour and a half over a business lunch. We had an interesting interchange and nothing was left unsaid. I raised the fears expressed to me in the strongest fashion. He took the criticism but he defended it and gave the impression that the Government was doing all it could to stabilise the country according to its fashion, which we may not find acceptable.

Chairman: The two special rapporteurs on extra judicial killings and on torture were originally proposed by Mrs. Robinson in her capacity as the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights. They appear to have been agreed to in principle by the Algerian Government. When do you anticipate they will go to Algeria and report?

Deputy Andrews: The term “in principle” must be borne in mind here.

The former President of this country who is now the Commissioner came in for considerable criticism from the Algerian authorities. I faced that criticism, which came particularly from the Speaker of the House. Naturally I defended the reputation of the former President in as robust a fashion as possible and in diplomatic language, as the exigencies of the time demanded. I pointed out that perhaps the Speaker should direct his criticism at the Commissioner rather than me because I did not intend conveying the message to her.

Mrs. Robinson acknowledged the complexity of the human rights problem but hoped that special rapporteurs on extrajudicial killings and torture would visit Algeria in time to report to the next session of the Commission on Human Rights which convenes next March.

Deputy Gay Mitchell: I congratulate the Minister on taking the initiative in going to Algeria. It is important that EU member states get involved in a more proactive way and I am glad the Minister participated in this official visit.

The UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial and summary execution was invited to visit Algeria in 1993 but has been unable to do so. Pressure should be exerted by us, as an independent State and in our capacity as a member of the EU, to allow that visit to go ahead.

In its report on Algeria, Amnesty International said the EU’s role has tended to avoid dealing with the situation in Algeria in concrete terms. The union does not have the capacity to deal with some of these situations with the certainty some of us would like. I sat through many General Affairs Council meetings where we had difficulty in framing declarations. Does the Minister agree that when there is such a serious situation on our doorstep, the Union needs to deal with it in a greater capacity? Does he also agree there are grounds to proceed with the modest proposals in the Amsterdam Treaty to improve the CFSP on an informal basis before ratification? Has the General Affairs Council given any consideration to the appointment of a special envoy to deal with the situation in Algeria? Can it place the Algerian issue higher on its agenda so we can bring pressure to bear to restore normality there so UN rapporteurs can properly monitor human rights?

Mr. Andrews: The EU’s involvement in this issue is ongoing. Sideline involvement is easy in a situation where many hundreds are killed in terrible circumstances. I wonder whether organisations in the EU, including the General Affairs Council, of which I am a member, are performing sufficiently and whether calling Ambassadors to remonstrate with and indict the Algerian régime from a distance rather than going there is the answer.

At their informal meeting in Mondorf in Luxembourg on 26 October last, EU Foreign Ministers agreed that a message should be sent to President Zeroual in view of the meeting between Foreign Ministers Jacques Poos and Ahmed Attaf on 25 November. That was helpful, but like Deputy Gay Mitchell, I wonder if it provides a solution to the problem, which is to ensure that the people of Algeria live in peace and harmony. It was stated that on security grounds, member states should not go beyond a number of guidelines; that profound concern should be expressed at reports of the situation; there should be solidarity with the people of Algeria; condemnation of terror and violence and that the vital importance of fundamental freedom of human rights should be recognised. There should be encouragement of a process of reconciliation with democratic parties who renounce violence and confirmation of the EU intention to continue to support the process of reform, notably through the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. In answer to one of the Deputy’s questions, EU readiness to facilitate a political solution, for example by sending a special envoy to study the crisis and compare concerns, was also highlighted. This is another plank in a platform of necessary directions to solve the problem.

Deputy Gay Mitchell: Is the appointment of a special envoy under consideration?

Mr. Andrews: Yes. It is a matter I will pursue. I addressed a number of areas under various principles. I spoke to a number of people, including the Foreign Minister, Ahmed Attaf, President Zeroual and the Speaker of the House, under the headings of terror, human rights, transparency, dialogue and what Europe can do to assist Algeria.

Proinsias De Rossa: The Minister said there was 20 per cent unemployment in Algeria. Is there information on how this is measured?

About 50 per cent of the Algerian population is under 15 years old, which is an extraordinary demographic in a country which has been effectively destroyed by fundamentalism, fed by the restructuring forced on Algeria by the World Bank. We participate in agencies such as the World Bank and the United Nations and impose economic solutions on countries like Algeria as if they were developed Western countries. The net effect of this is a breakdown in society. What steps will be taken to ensure that these economic solutions are not imposed elsewhere and that where we have contributed to this type of breakdown through the operations of the World Bank we assist these countries financially? There is no point in Algeria having a budget surplus if there is unemployment in the region of 20 per cent - a figure which seems to have been massaged by the Algerian authorities - and apparently no real democracy.

Deputy Andrews: I disagree with the views of the Deputy to some extent. On the question of the measurement of the percentage figures of unemployed, they are the figures which were given to me and I must accept them at face value.

On the question of population, the figure of 29.2 million to 30 million was mentioned to me. It is difficult to deny that or give the Deputy an idea of how that figure was measured.

The Deputy is correct in saying that 50 per cent of the population is under 15 years of age. I think the Deputy is correct; that is an accurate assessment of the situation. Finding employment for those young people is one of the problems.

There are two other matters which I might mention while we are on the subject of education. The education system, as I understand it, is not bad and the Algerian Government is making a genuine effort to make the issue of literacy as prominent as possible among the population.

On the economic front the Deputy raised the point that the new Algerian Government negotiated a structural adjustment programme with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Economic growth resumed in 1995. To the credit of the Algerian Government, the rate of inflation has been reduced from about 38-40 per cent to the current level of some 4.7 per cent. The then budget deficit of 7 per cent is now a surplus of 3 per cent. However, the Deputy quite properly points out this will be done at severe social cost. Unemployment has risen to over 20 per cent with more than 2 million people unemployed. Population growth has been 3 per cent per year. The country needs to create an additional 250,000 jobs each year to make an impact on unemployment. I did not have information on whether or not they are doing that. I am not a 24 hour expert on other countries’ problems and I do not pretend to be. The Algerian Government’s goal is to create 1.2 million jobs by the year 2000.

On the journey from the airport, Foreign Minister Attaf pointed to a number of social housing schemes. I asked him the number of units which would be required to at least put a dent in the housing problem and he said 1.2 million housing units would be required to deal with the serious housing problem. He informed me that at present there are about nine people per unit of accommodation in Algeria, so the committee can see the problems which exist on that front.

All in all, the régime has enormous problems. On the one hand it has this terror/human rights problem and on the other it has enormous social problems. Anything we can do for them in the context of dialogue and visits will be done. It is the first time an Irish Foreign Minister visited the country. It was a worthwhile visit. I reported to EU colleagues during the Council meeting last weekend an they were pleased to receive my report. I also will send a report to each of their capitals.

I understand there will be a further discussion within the GAC at some time in the near future on Algeria. Arising out of my visit and, indeed, the visit of other Ministers in the recent past, I have an inkling of hope. This is not to say or to suggest that the ongoing terror will not continue; I am afraid it will.

Senator Lanigan: I thank the Minister for going to Algeria. It was a significant and important visit. There are many problems associated with the huge excesses which are taking place in Algeria at present. One of the problems I, and many people, have is with the claim that this is an Islamic fundamentalist problem. If we take that to its logical conclusion, this would mean that any Christian who believes in their principles would be considered to be excessive in the attitude towards their religion. There is nothing wrong with fundamentalism. That basically means one abides by the religion to which one aspires. However, there is a difference between that and extreme militant excesses, such as those which are claimed to be Islamic excesses. I do not think the followers of Islam or Christianity are alone in excesses which have taken place in the name of the religion to which they aspired, but it appears as if there is a phobia about Islam around the world at present which would claim that it is responsible for excesses in a country in which Moslems per se are involved.

The problem in Algeria is a complex one. The Minister mentioned the economic difficulties and deprivation. If one looks at countries in which there is extreme deprivation and extreme economic difficulties, one will find there are people who will rise up and claim to be Islamic militants, for example, but the root of the problem can often be deprivation and economic difficulties. If one looks at the situation in Iran, one would have to say that the difficulties there were caused to a large degree by the excesses of the rulers of Iran at a particular stage. If the rulers of Iran had not misused their power, the problems would not have existed and we would not have seen the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini.

How do we get over the problems? The Minister’s visit is an important element in, first, attempting to understand the problem and, second, extending the knowledge he gained in the EU.

Has any thought been given to the reorganisation of EU-Arab dialogue? It must be said that at an unofficial level there has been a good deal of dialogue between Europe and Middle East countries, but the last time official EU-Arab dialogue took place was during the Irish Presidency of 1989 under the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Collins. I ask the Minister, in an extension of the role which he has started, to attempt to have the official EU-Arab dialogue reinstated on a regular basis. With that dialogue, it would be possible to address the present situation in Algeria without recrimination or blaming specific groups.

I liked the Minister’s phrase “sideline involvement”. That has not been helpful in any conflict in the past and it will not be helpful in the future. If we can get down to meaningful official dialogue between the EU and Arab countries, the problem of Algeria could best be addressed there. There is a human rights-----

Chairman: Let the Minister deal with that, Senator.

Deputy Andrews: Fundamentalism is inclined to be an exclusive philosophy and it certainly would not sit well with me, personally. It is a joyless type of philosophy.

Senator Norris: Hear, hear.

Deputy Andrews: As far as Islamic excesses are concerned, Islam has its own trans-national focus. There is no question about that.

It has organised itself over the past number of years. The Algerians argue that the Islamic fundamentalist movement is the prime mover in terrorism because it is anxious to replace the Algerian Government. There is conflict between the Government, presided over by Zeroual, Attaf and others, and the Islamists. I understand the Euro-Arab dialogue has been replaced by the Euro-Mediterranean partnership, in which Mediterranean countries operate with EU countries, and that new format, which is part of the Barcelona process, is ongoing.

I accept the Senator’s points; he made a worthwhile intervention. I cannot tell him the precise nature of the conflict between the Islamists and the Algerian Government, the Algerian people, who are in between, are suffering in the most horrendous and terrible manner. I agree with the Senator that hands-off diplomacy is no substitute for the hands-on kind, the sort in which we as a small country should engage. I do not want to put us on the moral high ground; we know how politically dangerous a place that is. Neither do I wish to go down the road of political correctness which I also view as an obscene philosophy. I like to think we, as a small country, have a moral authority in foreign affairs but we must keep it in context. We are a small country on the world stage, but having regard to our size, we have played an enormous role in the United Nations, the EU and the OSCE and have made an enormous contribution. These are the areas on which we should focus our foreign policy as best we can and within our competence.

Deputy Deasy: I congratulate the Minister for visiting Algeria. How seriously does the European Union view the situation there? How many other foreign ministers have visited the country to see the situation at first hand, as the Minister has done? What priority is the situation given at meetings of the council of foreign ministers? Is it major or peripheral? On the last occasion it met, this committee deemed the issue very important because of its proximity to Europe.

I would not worry about our size. A country such as Ireland is famous for pricking the consciences of larger countries, as Shakespeare might say. We may not have great influence, but we can embarrass people into doing something.

I am interested in what the Minister said about the 1995 general election vis-à-vis the 1992 election, because there was an amazing swing in the electorate. I can only deduce that, while the fundamentalists won the 1992 election, there must have been mass abstentions or intimidation in the 1995 one. I could be wrong but I would like the Minister to enlighten us on that.

The general who was elected president received 61 per cent of the vote and he was one of four candidates. It is amazing that the army supported candidate lost the election in 1992 but received 61 per cent of the vote in 1995. Was it a properly constituted election or just a showcase?

Is Algeria a true democracy or is it just a totalitarian state as are many parts of the Arab world and the Middle East and as was the case in eastern Europe? If the Minister did not meet the opposition, where are they? Are they dead, in prison or on the run? Are they free to speak? Do they exist? I would like the Minister to elaborate on that.

Deputy Andrews: The presidential election, in which there were four candidates, was monitored, and it was considered acceptable by the monitors. The garnering of 61 per cent of the vote for one candidate raises questions, many of which go unanswered. I visited the country and met the President elected under that system. In the hour I was with him, I found him to be a man of principles and dignity. He is an austere individual who lives in relative poverty and who does not want any external trappings. In many ways, he struck me as a man dedicated to his country.

The second half of the 1992 election was not postponed but abandoned by the regime on the basis that the Islamists would win in the second round. The sudden transformation three or four years later would raise questions in anyone’s mind. I was there as a guest of the authorities and was in their hands. One has to be careful about how one manages one’s presence on the first visit, not from any sense of fear but rather as a confidence building measure with a view to visiting the country again and pursuing the points raised here with more accuracy.

The General Affairs Council of the EU takes the situation in Algeria seriously. France takes it especially seriously as it has a special interest in the country, having been the colonist there for more than 150 years. Discussions take account of that interest; the issue is raised on a regular basis and concern is expressed about it by the foreign ministers. It has a high priority. Taking account of what Deputy Mitchell stated about EU monitors or someone similar going to the country, it is an indication of the council’s concern and the seriousness with which it views the problem.

I would not like to call the régime totalitarian. It is under siege because of its own feeling of isolation within the international community on one hand and from what it perceives as a terror campaign within its own country on the other. That campaign might be described as a civil war. It is pushing as far as it can given the atmosphere in which it operates within and without the country. We must take account of that. If we have a dialogue with the régime, so much the better.

The Greek Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Pangalos, and the Dutch Foreign Minister, Mr. Van Mierlo went to Algeria in 1997, and I met Mr. Eliasson in the official residence when he was coming out of Algeria. He gave a wonderful resumé of his visit which was very helpful to me. I expressed my appreciation both then and afterwards for his help. The German Junior Minister, Mr. Hoyer, also went there, so there were five visits by either senior or junior Ministers and that should continue apace in 1998.

Senator Norris: I commend the Minister for his initiative in going and his attitude is, by and large, correct in being modest and low key. That does not mean that we cannot examine the situation here, particularly the words concerned. We should also congratulate Mrs. Robinson, as without her intervention attention would not have been focused so clearly on this problem. I hope she continues to take this kind of action. We would not be as aware of the situation if it were not for the wonderful reports of Lara Marlowe in The Irish Times which disclosed the involvement of the Algerian Government in these atrocities. It is far too easy to see them merely as the result of Islamic fanaticism, which is not the case. We now know the situation is far more complex than that. I am concerned by newspaper comments arising out of the Minister’s visit.

First, he quotes Mr. Attaf as saying that religious fundamentalists were the cause of most, if not all, the problems in Algeria. That is not true and is a classic abrogation of democracy in which the incoming military authorities were aided and abetted by France for its own reasons. Once democracy is abrogated one is in trouble. If phrases such as “destabilising the Algerian Government” are used, it should be remembered that it is not a particularly stable government because it is on such an insecure and undemocratic foundation. The Algerian Foreign Minister went on to say that the hands of the Algerian Government were clean, and anything it did would be in the interests of its people. That is a highly dangerous and sinister carte blanche. Does this include torture and the establishment of militia? Massacres laid at the door of the fundamentalists were clearly done by the Government. Amnesty International have pointed out that most of these massacres have taken place next door to military barracks without intervention. Why? There has been no impartial, independent investigation of these incidents.

We should pass a resolution which strongly supports the Government in urging the implementation of the wishes of the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner or whatever appropriate authority to send in two investigators to look into the question of extrajudicial execution and torture. That is one practical thing we could accomplish. The context of these killings is highly significant as it raises doubts as to whether they are carried out by fundamentalists. Amnesty states that in at least two cases several survivors described how people who tried to escape from villages where massacres took place were turned back by a cordon of security forces who stood by while villagers were being slaughtered. They did not come into the villages until after the attackers left.

Whether one accepts these accounts or not, there is no doubt that such attacks regularly occur next to military barracks with no intervention. We need to know the level of implication of the Government. In January 1997 the Algerian Prime Minister signed an executive decree which made the existence of the militias official, which set out a framework for their activities. That is a cause of concern.

There is a problem when it is said that one needs to make a distinction between human rights and terror. What is that distinction? It is dangerous when a charismatic Government figure says one must balance human rights and terror. It is never excusable to engage in the kind of torture and murder going on in Algeria. I am worried by the introduction of the beef deal. That should be separate, and one should not trade human rights for beef.

Chairman: There is no suggestion that human rights were being traded for beef.

Senator Norris: If left unexplained, that implication could be drawn. Given that France has a policy of returning asylum seekers to Algeria on the basis that, if killed, they are not killed by agents of the Government, should we not examine this situation? Does the Minister agree that this should be examined, particularly the notion of returning asylum seekers to the point of first entry to the EU, where they may be placed in danger? The Department of Foreign Affairs should have a significant say in this area rather than apparently leaving it all to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which claims that the Department of Foreign Affairs is not qualified in this area.

Mr. Andrews: I do not wish to comment on the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform as it is doing its best in the circumstances. It has come in for a lot of criticism. Asylum seekers from Algeria would not be returned.

Senator Norris: Would they be returned to France?

Mr. Andrews: I imagine that each case would be adjudicated individually. I take the Senator’s point and it was something I was unhappy about when in Opposition, but I must be more careful as a Minister, as I have discovered. I find the concept of landing in Paris, coming to Ireland and then returning to Paris unusual. It is a matter I would need to go into in greater depth as a Minister.

Chairman: It is called the Dublin Convention. All the implications of it were understood when it was signed.

Deputy Andrews: That is right.

Senator Norris: The regulations were laid out for people but they did not want to understand them.

Deputy Andrews: I must conclude on the Senator’s first point. Forgive me if I do so briefly as I must leave at 11 o’clock.

I was repeating what Attaf and Zeroual were telling me. I was not acting as an apologist for the régime. There is no doubt the régime were, and still are, engaging in hairy practices as far as its population is concerned. The population are victims of the fundamentalists on one hand and the government on the other.

I also pay tribute to Laura Marlowe of The Irish Times who raised awareness in this State of what is happening in that country. She was an extremely brave woman to go there and write the articles she did. On the question of expressions used in the article describing my visit, I was repeating for the sake of the journalists who asked me a number of questions what it is that Foreign Ministers say. Foreign Minister Attaf did use the expression “hands are clean as far as human rights are concerned”.

I had a three and a half hour discussion with them last on Tuesday, 9 December. It was a very strong exchange. He defended his position and I was suggested to him the perceived position of his government. I used the principles as outlined by the EU presidency at Mondorf in discussions with Attaf. I raised the issues of terror and human rights. The Senator asked what is the distinction. It was explained to me at length and I could give the manner of that explanation but this is not the time to do it. I raised matters concerning dialogue, transparency and assistance from EU countries. I argued vehemently as the devil’s advocate in relation to expressions such as “hands are clean” and the other expressions used to explain rather than justify. He was not in the business of justification, he was in the business of explanation and there is a subtle distinction. That is where I found myself. I could not argue more strongly than I did, in a very courteous fashion.

Senator Mooney: I appreciate the Minister’s time is at a premium. I commend him. He has enhanced the already internationally respected reputation of Ireland with this initiative. Does the Minister have any other initiative in mind concerning Algeria? The deaths of ordinary people in Algeria are foremost in our minds. I am pleased he has paid public tribute to the journalist who covered these atrocities. Did the Minister raise the sinister development of the murder of journalists in Algeria? Usually repressive régimes will attack journalists first in an attempt to ensure the atrocities do not enter the public arena. There has been a high mortality rate among journalists in Algeria. Was there any explanation at government level why this is happening?

Does he believe the involvement of France is malign in the overall EU approach? It is significant that the Minister of a post colonial state visited the country in such a high profile manner. It seems murky this issue does not have a common EU position. Are things happening behind closed doors at European level which we should know about?

Deputy Andrews: France has been involved with Algeria for more than 150 years. Naturally it would have concerns on the trade front and on other fronts, particularly the enormous number of Algerians living in France. That is a problem they have on their own doorstep. They would be concerned about that and the ongoing problems in Algeria moving to their own homeland. It is not for me to decide if they are malign or benign. They are our European partners and it would be incorrect for me to comment on that area.

Journalists were murdered in a very structured way to heighten the level of terror. I did not specifically mention journalists, but in the totality of my efforts to condemn all murders they would be included.

Chairman: I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for coming here and speaking at such length to us about the situation as he saw. As he said his view has to be a limited one as his visit was only thirty six hours and presumably did not go beyond the city of Algiers which is limiting in such a large country.

It is disappointing the European Union is not more active in regard to this problem. Their statements tend to say exactly what one would expect, they are clichéd and meaningless. I am of the opinion that they are influenced by the interests of a major member state. That is often the case in EU external policy. If a major member state has an economic or other interest, the policy of the European Union tends to be diluted to take account of that interest. We have seen this to an extent in the Balkans and we see it here. Both regions are very close to the European Union.

They could have a very considerable influence and effect on what happens in the EU. That is why this is a very important issue.

I urge the Minister to convey to his colleagues the fact that a greater sense of urgency is required in regard to this issue. The fact that he is one of very few people who visited Algeria is indicative of the lack of urgency being accorded to the problem. One need only look at the lack of visits to Algeria by those who are much closer to the country than we are for evidence of this.

The biggest tragedy of all is the fact that 80,000 people have died in Algeria in the past five years. For the Algerian Government to cite the importance of an improvement in the economy and a fall in inflation levels is very little consolation to someone who is having his or her throat cut. It will not console anyone to know they are having their throat cut at 4 rather than 39 per cent inflation.

I thank the Minister for coming before the Committee and answering the questions asked of him. It is the view of Committee Members that he should redouble his efforts to make the EU more active and, if necessary, more interventionist in relation to one of the huge human rights tragedies of this decade, if not of the century.

Senator Norris: I propose the following motion supporting the sending of two rapporteurs to Algeria.

“The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs strongly urges the Government, along with its EU Partners, to actively support and encourage the proposed appointment by the United Nations Commission for Human Rights of Special Rapporteurs on a) extrajudicial killings and b) torture in Algeria with a view to their conducting a comprehensive investigation of the situation on these issues in that country and with a view to reporting back to the next session of the Commission on Human Rights which convenes in March 1998.”

Chairman: Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Joint Committee adjourned at 11.05 a.m.

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs

Dé Céadaoin, 14 Éanair 1998.

Wednesday, 14 January 1998.

The Committee met at 2.35 p.m.

Members present:

Also present Senator J. Connor.

Chairman: We have a quorum and are now in public session. The first item on the agenda concerns the minutes of the meeting of 10 December 1997. Is there any matter arising from those minutes? Are they agreed? Agreed. I should mention that we also have the minutes of the meeting of 17 December 1997, but unfortunately they were not circulated in time for this meeting. We can circulate them for the next meeting.

That meeting was with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, in connection with the situation in Algeria. He spoke to the Committee about that and answered questions. Unfortunately, the situation has deteriorated since then and there have been some very serious atrocities. A motion from the Committee was agreed at that time and I hope it will be acted upon. I propose to take it up with the Minister for Foreign Affairs to try to ensure that it is acted upon. It has already been conveyed to him because the position there has deteriorated enormously and there have been some awful atrocities within the past week. It is one of the most serious situations that exists in the world, yet nothing is being done to protect large numbers of entirely innocent people who are being attacked and killed in the middle of the night in awful circumstances.

I understand the EU Troika will visit Algeria shortly and I hope it will have some success. It is a matter of great urgency. I understand that Algeria is being discussed by the subcommittee on human rights.

Deputy G. Mitchell: We have called a meeting of the subcommittee and have invited Amnesty International specifically to examine the human rights aspect of the problem. That meeting will take place next week.

Deputy De Rossa: While we are all expressing concern about Algeria, and rightly so, there seems to be no action other than discussions at various levels. Nobody seems keen to do anything. Perhaps the only real weapon we have is our trade with Algeria. This Committee should make a strong plea to the Government to look at the issue of our trade with Algeria, both imports and exports, and the question of the European Union’s trade with Algeria generally. Action at that level must be taken if pressure is to be exerted on the authorities. From what I have seen of the situation, it is clear the authorities are not innocent in this whole affair. We must be serious about this or the atrocities will continue.

Deputy Briscoe: The silence of the United Nations on this matter strikes me as strange. Normally, you would expect the UN Security Council to have met on a number of occasions, but there has been an amazing silence. I would be interested to know what, if anything, the United Nations are doing about this. They seem to be out of the matter as if it was being left to the European Union alone to deal with these things. I have not heard very much coming from the United Nations. There has been an enormous silence. I am curious, to say the least. Maybe someone else has greater wisdom or knowledge than I have about what is happening. Perhaps somebody with greater knowledge on the subject could comment.

Chairman: At its last meeting the committee passed the following resolution:

“The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs strongly urges the Government, along with its EU partners, to actively support and encourage the proposed appointment by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights of special rapporteurs on

(a)extra judicial killings, and

(b)torture

in Algeria with a view to their conducting a comprehensive investigation of the situation on these issues in that country and with a view to reporting back to the next session of the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights which convenes in March 1998”.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs. Robinson, has tried to do something. I am disturbed that she has not received much support from the remainder of the organisation, nor from any of the major member states of the UN.

Our trade with Algeria is small.

Deputy G. Mitchell: It is worth approximately £14 million in total.

Chairman: Given this, I am not sure it will make that much difference.

Proinsias De Rossa: It would deliver a strong political message, not only to Algeria but to the rest of the EU. It would also set headlines for action by other member states, acting individually or within the Union. It is frustrating that there is abuse of the basic human right to life with apparent connivance by the Algerian Government. It is also frustrating that we are so impotent in attempting to do something about that. The international bodies appear to be powerless to intervene to any significant extent. It is not as if this only arose in the last few months; it has been ongoing for years, yet we are doing nothing but talking about it. The Government would be right to announce its intention to take that kind of action and to raise it within the EU because it is the only thing to which the authorities in Algeria will respond.

Chairman: A difficulty with trade is that a number of the Mediterranean EU countries are major importers of Algerian gas. They possibly have no alternative sources of supply. That may be influencing their attitude and their apparent disinterest in the very serious situation which is very close to some of them.

Senator Lanigan: I disagree with Deputy De Rossa’s suggestion that Ireland impose sanctions on Algeria. The Government is not mainly responsible for the atrocities although it could be argued that it has contributed by not putting down this movement. However, its task is very difficult.

The imposition of sanctions will not work. The Government is supposedly attempting to govern yet it is being opposed by the most atrocious militia group. Nobody knows from where the impetus for this group arises but it is not being funded from within Algeria.

Senator A. Doyle: Can we be sure about that?

Senator Lanigan: We know as much about that as we do about the extent of the Government’s involvement in the prevention of terrorism. If the same kind of terrorism was ongoing on this island our Government would have a difficult job in eradicating it.

Senator A. Doyle: The Algerian Government is involved in a nod and a wink situation.

Senator Lanigan: It is not a nod and a wink situation. It is very difficult to resolve. Certain European countries, especially France, will not become involved in resolving the problem. Given past French experience in Algeria their influence in the EU is a cause for the latter not acting as forcibly as it should.

I cannot see what influence the UNHCR can have other than to do as we do and say that atrocities are happening and must be stopped. Mrs. Robinson does not have enough staff to control her office in Geneva. It is a very small organisation with little powers. The UNHCR can issue statements but it will be ineffective.

The UN Security Council has taken action in places where there were many fewer atrocities and problems. We must put pressure on it to act urgently because the situation has virtually gone out of control. There is no point in pretending that the imposition of sanctions by Ireland will solve the problem.

Deputy G. Mitchell: While I share the sentiments expressed by Deputy De Rossa our trade with Algeria is so small it would be ineffective and would punish many people here and may even punish innocent people in Algeria. There appears to be prima facie evidence that many atrocities have occurred beside military barracks with nothing done to deal with the perpetrators. Indeed, some of the perpetrators may be wearing uniform. It appears that people are able to kill at will without the intervention of the military. That is a matter of grave concern.

The work of the CFSP is on our work agenda. People were killed in the most horrific circumstances during the Bosnian crisis. For example, a tool was made which gouged out both eyes at the same time before a person was killed. I attended meetings of Foreign Ministers which spent much time trying to agree on the wording of a proposed démarche. This exercise continued under I-FOR, a UN led operation. It was only with the establishment of S-FOR, a regional arrangement authorised by the UN but led by NATO, that those involved were taken on and told that retaliatory action would be taken.

We want to have our cake and eat it. We are not even prepared to join something as innocuous as the Partnerships for Peace arrangements, although everybody worth mentioning in Europe has joined it. Yet when people are being killed in this terrible way we want to talk about peace keeping and peace making. Others must make the peace without our involvement while we wring our hands and speak from the high moral ground.

I do not direct these remarks at any specific person because I am part of this charade. The people involved in this violence are only a two hour journey from Paris. The Bosnians live within our Continent. Until we are prepared to make clear the role we are prepared to take in the evolving security and defence architecture, especially in terms of peace making and peace enforcing, nobody in Algeria, Bosnia or elsewhere will be fearful of Ireland or the EU. If they knew we had the capacity to take on peace enforcing they may at least be more reluctant to allow the present scale of atrocities continue. This issue could be addressed when we consider CFSP. We might then be heard with greater moral authority throughout the rest of Europe.

Deputy Shatter: I agree with Deputy Gay Mitchell. In some of the international fora I have attended people have become increasingly cynical about the bleating that takes place in this country, particularly by some Members of the Oireachtas, regarding concerns about conflicts in different parts of the world and the need for intervention when at the same time a Government decision has not been made to join the Partnership for Peace and when, for party political reasons, the concept of Partnership for Peace has been deliberately confused and presented as a NATO organisation. It is an organisation to allow countries with different backgrounds in foreign policy to join together in trying to establish peace in different parts of the world where there are major difficulties.

I have been watching what has been happening in Algeria for many months, as other Members of the committee have. What is happening is an outrage against human rights and is entirely unacceptable. I recall being a Member of this committee during the early stage of the conflict in Bosnia when all sorts of declarations were being made about the EU with individual states calling on the protagonists to do this, that and the other. The Chairman will recall our discussion of the creation of so-called safe havens. I made the point, as did the Chairman, that safe havens would prove to be nothing more than easy targets unless there was real military back-up and protection for those within them.

On occasion we think we are more important than we are. We are talking as one of the smaller islands and as a member state of the EU with an extremely small population in comparison to other member states. The influence we have in these areas is minimal. Success in Bosnia was achieved by the sending in of troops. We did not contribute to that force when it was sent in. The peace was effectively organised through NATO. This is the reality which lead to the Daton accords. We were not part of it.

The conflict in Algeria will not be resolved without international intervention. I remember the regime of Idi Amin in Uganda and the excuse of Ugandan sovereignty being used as a reason why nobody could intervene in what amounted to wholesale massacres. The same excuse was used in regard to Cambodia and the Pol Pot regime which was involved in widespread genocide. The international community sat back, issued declarations, wrung its hands and did nothing.

In the context of protecting human rights and achieving peace, the reality is that in some parts of the world where either tyrants are in control or governments are turning a blind eye to gross atrocities - none of us are quite sure of the degree of complicity, if any, on the part of the Algerian military in what is happening there - all the declarations made by this or any other committee are falling on deaf ears. They are a complete waste of time. What is required is an international decision by a group such as Partnership for Peace, of which we should be a party, that intervention is required to restore order and protect the lives of ordinary people. What is happening in Algeria will be replicated in other countries in years to come until EU states are capable of acting in consort on an international level. I am not pretending that there is a simple solution to the Algerian problem. We are aware of the complexity of the problem and the threat it poses to countries which might try to intervene. There are no simple solutions. However, international handwringing or whimpering by this country when the Government will not decide that we should be part of Partnership for Peace, will be treated less than seriously abroad. Neither is it treated very seriously by people on this island who are concerned about these problems.

Chairman: I do not wish to enter a full scale debate on Algeria as we discussed it fully the last day.

Deputy De Rossa: My proposal has raised an interesting debate about Algeria and a whole range of issues, including neutrality, Partnership for Peace and NATO. This is a smokescreen to some extent. We are talking about the sovereign power of the State to trade or not to trade with Algeria. Does the State believe it should be trading with Algeria while there are atrocities being carried out in which it is clear the authorities are involved to some extent? This is the issue, not whether we act as members of NATO, the UN or the EU. As a gesture to the rights of the Algerian people, we should decide not the trade.

The argument has been put forward that we only export goods to the value of £30 million and that ending our trade would have no impact. I am certain that if the amount was £300 million, the reverse argument would be made, namely that ending trade would have an appalling impact on the Irish people trading with Algeria. The argument based on value, therefore, is not sustainable. Changes in trade arrangements should be on the basis of something being right or wrong. The question is whether we trade or not with a State which is clearly involved to some degree in the genocide of its own people. This is a serious issue. It is wrong to cloud the issue by talking about Partnership for Peace and saying what we will not do. We can have an interesting debate on Partnership for Peace and why SFOR appears to be successful where IFOR was not. I have my own views on this matter and I would like the opportunity to put them forward some day. However, focusing on this is clouding the issue.

I have made a proposal and it should be dealt with in a serious manner. The committee should ask the Government to stop trading with Algeria and to encourage the EU to do likewise.

Deputy G. Mitchell: I understand the frustrations and I am not opposed to the idea. I understand that Algeria is one of the biggest providers of potassium, a major ingredient in agricultural fertilisers. We have to look at the possibility of banning imports as well as exports. We would need much advice before doing this. I am not suggesting that Deputy De Rossa’s suggestion should be ruled out: we should consider it.

Deputy De Rossa: Algeria is not the only producer of potassium.

Deputy G. Mitchell: No, but we always go for the soft options which may punish our own workers and workers in Algeria rather than those behind the atrocities. We need to take advice on the issue, but I am not ruling it out.

Senator Connor: I was not present for the previous discussion on Algeria as I was not entitled to be. However, I was here last year when the Algerian Ambassador in London came before the committee. He answered the questions put to him. I raised the issue of the civil war with him. Before taking action we should hear from somebody of his stature. I do not know whether it would be possible to invite him to come before the committee to answer questions in the light of recent reports from the country. The situation is much worse now than a year and a half ago when he last appeared before the committee.

We should not take any action. I have listened to the reports in the international media and nobody has definitely said that the Algerian Government is involved in the massacres. Although suspicion is strong, they are not taking the action. Our Minister for Foreign Affairs met his Algerian counterpart and Deputy Andrews described him as a strong and decent man. I do not know exactly what was meant by this description.

We should try to get somebody from the Algerian embassy to talk to us.

Chairman: The sub-committee on human rights has taken up the matter and it can examine the issue. We had a full meeting on the issue last month.

Deputy M. Kitt: I would welcome a member of the Algerian embassy coming before the sub-committee on human rights.

The Chairman referred to a meeting in March. Is that a meeting of the General Assembly?

Chairman: No. I referred to the Commission on Human Rights which meets in March every year in Geneva. The General Assembly meets in December.

Deputy M. Kitt: The response from the United Nations has been disappointing and I was concerned that we would have to wait another two months for action. The motion proposed by the Chairman at the last meeting is good but we must-----

Chairman: The idea was that these two groups would be sent by the UN Commission on Human Rights to Algeria in sufficient time to enable them to report to the commission’s meeting in March. However, they have not yet gone to Algeria even though it was proposed by Mrs. Robinson in early December. It is regrettable that they have not been able to go.

They have not been admitted by the Algerian authorities.

Deputy M. Kitt: That is regrettable. I agree with Deputy De Rossa with regard to sanctions but when I previously proposed the imposition of sanctions in the case of Nigeria, the then Tánaiste said they could not be imposed unilaterally but only in the context of action by the European Union. I would support contacting the European Union with regard to sanctions in this case. If there is to be consistency with our response to human rights abuses in other countries, we should take the same action against Algeria.

Chairman: Item 2 refers to Northern Ireland-----

Prionsias De Rossa: Will the Committee make a decision on this?

Chairman: We made the decision at the last meeting.

Prionsias De Rossa: What about my proposal of sanctions?

Chairman: No. This discussion arose from the minutes and a substantive motion on the issue would be required. It should be dealt with by the sub-committee on human rights which will discuss this matter next week.

Deputy G. Mitchell: If Deputy De Rossa wishes to submit a motion, it could be put on the agenda.

Chairman: It could be put down for the sub-committee meeting next Wednesday.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Sub-Committee on Human Rights

Dé Céadaoin, 21 Eanáir 1998.

Wednesday, 21 January, 1998.

The Sub-Committee met at 12.15 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator John Connor also in attendance.

REPORT ON THE CURRENT SITUATION ON ALGERIA

Following a presentation by Ms Mary Lawlor, Director of Amnesty International - Ireland, the following resolution was agreed by the sub-committee:

“The Sub-Committee makes the following recommendations:

(i)That an international investigation into recent massacres and other abuses in Algeria be immediately convened in order to reveal the truth about who is responsible for these atrocities and to make recommendations;

(ii)That the investigation be based, in the first instance, on reports of the two special Rapporteurs on

(a)extrajudicial killings and

(b)torture, on which the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights wishes to visit Algeria and report back before the next session of the Commission on Human Rights in March, and asks that these visits be accommodated by the Algerian authorities;

(iii)That a clause be inserted which allows the EU to obtain accurate information about the Human Rights situation in Algeria in view of the partnership agreement which is currently being negotiated by the EU with Algeria;

(iv)The setting up of an internationl tribunal, along the lines of the War Crimes Tribunal, to charge those guilty of human rights offences and to give them notice now of the intentions of the international community; and

(v)That the above four recommendations form the cornerstone of Government policy in relation to the Algerian situation.”.

AN CHOMHCHOISTE UM GHNÓTHAÍ EACHTRACHA

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

Dé Céadaoin, 25 Márta 1998.

Wednesday, 25 March 1998.

The Joint Committee met at 4 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

! Apologies received from Deputy T. Ahearn, Deputy A. Deasy, Senator E. Haughey.

Chairman: I received a letter, which has been circulated to Members, from the Algerian Ambassador indicating that he will not be attending our next meeting on 8 April. It is a matter for the committee to decide who visits or comes before it on particular issues and, therefore, I am not prepared to accede to his request that nobody but himself should be heard at the meeting. We accept that in these circumstances he does not wish to attend. Dr. Brahimi will attend. He was prime minister of Algeria from 1984-8, a period which was not the high point of Algerian democracy. In the past couple of days I had the opportunity of speaking with a representative in Ireland of one of the political parties in Algeria which has 19 deputies elected to the current parliament. He informed me that he could get at least one of these elected deputies to attend a meeting of our committee and that they would be glad to do so.

Unfortunately, they cannot attend on 8 April. I propose to invite one of the deputies to attend. Dr. Brahimi was never elected and is not a member of the Algerian Parliament. The party in question is the RCD which is in opposition. It is a non-violent, democratic party. An article in The Sunday Independent at the beginning of March by an Irish journalist who visited the party’s annual conference is fairly glowing. The party has 19 deputies, some of whom are elected by Algerians abroad as there are external constituencies due to the number of Algerians living outside the country. These are recognised under the Algerian constitution. I suggest we proceed with the meeting on 8 April without the Ambassador who refuses to come.

Deputy Proinsias De Rossa: I understand the Algerian Ambassador refused to come if he was to be faced with opposition representatives from Algeria. However, opposition representatives will not be present and surely the meeting with the Ambassador could be rearranged. It would be valuable for the committee to hear from and cross examine the Ambassador. A way should be found to overcome what is clearly a device to avoid talking to us. We should not concede so easily.

Senator Doyle: Did he give a reason why he could not or would not come?

Chairman: The point made by Deputy De Rossa, namely, that he could be heard on his own in the absence of others, was conceded to him. There is no question of him being involved in a debate with people from other parties in Algeria or with other points of view. He found it unacceptable that the committee should invite anybody other than himself. I circulated the letter, dated 19 March, which he sent to me. He had a telephone conversation with the clerk, Mr. Kissane, on that date, and asked whether anybody else was due to appear before the committee on the same day. At this point he had accepted the invitation. Mr. Kissane told him it was expected that others would appear before the committee on that date after the Ambassador has finished his presentation. He stated this would change the nature of his attendance; that while he would be representing a sovereign state the others would be representing nobody but themselves; that he would have to go back to his government regarding attendance and that he would probably not attend if others were attending. Mr. Kissane told him he would let the committee know his views on the matter. He asked to be informed as soon as possible if the committee proposed to meet other people on 8 April subsequent to which he would give a decision on attendance, which was likely to be negative. He was informed that others would be attending and he subsequently wrote the letter as circulated. There was no question of a confrontation between him and them. We were happy to bring him before the committee on his own and speak with the others separately afterwards.

Deputy Proinsias De Rossa: The other people are not now going to be here on 8 April.

Chairman: One set will, but a second and perhaps more desirable group, which constitutes elected deputies of the current Algerian Parliament, cannot come on 8 April. Although some of them represent constituencies abroad, they are able to travel to Algeria for meetings of the Parliament and actively part-take in its deliberations.

Senator Lanigan: Who do those who will attend on 8 April represent?

Chairman: They are the Irish-Algerian solidarity group, who nominated or suggested Dr. Brahini, a former Prime Minister of Algeria who is resident in London. He is not an elected member of the Algerian Parliament, he is in exile from Algeria.

Senator Lanigan: Before we give him the credibility of appearing before this committee, how do we attempt to put into context what he does or does not represent? Will we become a committee to which anyone objecting to any régime or government will have a right of audience? Are we leaving what is supposed to be a prestigious committee of the Oireachtas open to this possibility? Does that mean the druids from Kilkenny, who represent no one, can come here?

Chairman: No, it does not mean that. Since I assumed the Chair of this committee I have always been careful to ensure that those who came before it have some standing.

Senator Lanigan: That is what I am asking - what standing has this man?

Chairman: He at least has the standing of being a former Prime Minister. I have mixed views on former Prime Ministers of different countries and I do not think that having formerly held that office necessarily canonises anyone. In my experience throughout the world, former Prime Ministers are a mixed lot, some are better than others. However, at least he is a former Prime Minister and in that sense he is not insignificant.

Senator Lanigan: Supposing we wanted a person to talk about the current state of Romania, would we invite a former Prime Minister of that state who had served there when the country was controlled by the USSR?

Chairman: The committee was faced with the difficulty in recent months that it was hard to get anyone in a representative or formerly representative capacity in Algeria to meet us. In these circumstances the committee agreed to the suggestion of the Irish-Algeria solidarity group that we might meet Dr. Brahili, which was not unreasonable. I have since made contact with a current political party with 19 elected deputies. As I said, at least one of those deputies is prepared to come here - unfortunately he cannot come on 8 April but can come to a meeting soon after that, hopefully the first meeting after Easter. I do not think this man is totally lacking credibility but I agree he has not held office for some time. It was the best we could do at the time and hopefully we will begin to get more information from Algeria. It is an ongoing and complicated situation and like Kosovo it is hard to get first hand information about what is going on there.

Deputy De Rossa: If we have invited this person on 8 April that should stand but we should still ask the Algerian Ambassador to come on a date of his choosing. We can make our own decisions about whether anyone else from Algeria attends on that date. I do not think we should deny ourselves the opportunity to hear him and to put it up to him to come here. It is too serious an issue for us to stand on ceremony about him coming here - we should hear him and use whatever devices are necessary. If he still does not want to come that is his choice.

Deputy Briscoe: The impression I got from the letter was that the Ambassador thought he would be confronted by other people with different views, when the intention was just to meet him, hear his views and allow Members to ask him questions, nothing more than that.

Chairman: I read Mr. Kissane’s note of his telephone conversation with the Ambassador - which was initiated by the Ambassador - and Mr. Kissane made clear that the other people who the committee would see would meet the committee after the Ambassador had finished his presentation. There would be no question of confrontation between the two.

Deputy Briscoe: That is my understanding but is it the Ambassador’s understanding? In spite of that he still does not want to meet us.

Chairman: His letter makes clear that, if he can so arrange it, he does not want this committee to meet anyone other than himself or people representing the present Government. I do not think the committee can accept that. I think we are entitled to hear both sides of the story or, as in some cases, including Algeria, three or four sides, because it is a complex matter. I have no objection to the Clerk to the Committee conveying to the Ambassador that if he wants to come on a date of his own he can but that will not stop us hearing other people.

Senator Lanigan: We should have the people come here and suggest to him that he comes on a suitable date.

Chairman: The committee is adjourned until 4 p.m. on 8 April.

The Joint Committee adjourned at. 5.50 p.m.

AN COMHCHOISTE UM GHNÓTHAÍ EACHTRACHTA

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Dé Céadaoin, 8 Aibreán 1998.

Wednesday, 8 April 1998.

The Joint Committee met at 11.50 a.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

In attendance: Deputy J. Connor; Mr. N. Andrews, MEP; Mr. J. Fitzsimons, MEP; Mr. P. Gallagher, MEP and Ms B. Malone, MEP.

DEPUTY D. O’MALLEY in the Chair.

Chairman: This is the fourth time in recent months that Algeria has appeared on the committee’s agenda for consideration. This is an indication of the committee’s interest and concern over developments in that country. I welcome the former Prime Minister of Algeria, Professor Brahimi and Ms Mary Lawlor, director and press officer of the Irish section of Amnesty International to our meeting. I would ask them to make a presentation lasting not more than 15 minutes which will be followed by a question and answer session.

Professor Abdelhamid Brahimi: I thank the committee for this opportunity to discuss the current situation in Algeria. The Algerian authorities claim the political crisis existing since the annulment of the parliamentary election in January 1992 is the result of an Islamic threat which threatens the country and its institutions. They would have people believe that it is only the crisis which is stopping the rise to power by the Islamic Salvation Front or FIS. I am not a member FIS but I am still a member of FLN since 1955 which was the start of our revolution.

The situation in Algeria is very serious and complex. There are now two alternatives for the country today. First, the government can carry on its policy of eradicating Islamic practices from Algeria. This was introduced in January 1992 following the coup d’état organised by the generals, former officers in the French army before our independence. Promotion from sergeant to general takes only two years in Mobutu in Zaire, who have just gained independence. The régime in Algeria since 1992 has meant that it took former officers in the French army 30 years to reach the rank of general in the Algerian army. Evidence of French involvement is clear.

Chairman: Your presentation has been circulated to Members.

Professor Abdelhamid Brahimi: The economic, political and social situation has deteriorated dramatically since 1992. In 1995, the Algerian government realised it was isolated internally and externally. It tried to start a new policy by returning to a simulacrum of democracy to improve its image. That is why the presidential elections took place in November 1995. The President promised to deliver peace but failed to do so.

The majority in the national elections in June 1997 was very low. The actual figure was less than 50 per cent, not the 65 per cent indicated by the Government. In the capital Algiers, the actual figure was 17 per cent as opposed to the 43 per cent figure officially indicated. People cannot trust the regime any more.

Many foreign observers pointed to the turbulent nature of the elections in which massive fraud was involved with the rigging of ballot boxes and so on in various regions. The current regime does not believe in democracy. Human rights are being violated on a broad scale, people are being kidnapped, killed and tortured on a daily basis and massacres are being carried out on a weekly basis. The regime has attempted to attract a greater level of support from France and other western countries alleging that it is fighting both terrorists and Islamists.

The regime is carrying out a policy of terror and has set up a militia in which there are more than 200,000 soldiers in addition to the 160,000 in the established army. Military expenditure increased by 45 per cent in 1994 and by 144 per cent in 1995 up to a point where $2 billion was expended in 1996. Military expenditure has doubled this year.

Algeria imports 90 per cent of its food requirements at a cost of $3 billion per annum. The budget expended on arms and weapons imports for the 160,000 soldiers in the army and the 200,000 militia members is greater than that expended on food imports. The civil war is not a civil war in the classic sense because one segment of the population is not at war with another. The main problem is that some people voted for FIS. Such people have become the victims of the massacres which occurred mainly in the poorer regions of the big cities. The GIA, which has been established by the army, is being manipulated.

The economic crisis in Algeria is quite dramatic; the GDP per head of population dropped from $2,500 in the early 1990s to $1,300 last year. Overall GDP has decreased from $50 billion in 1993 to $45 billion last year. The industrial sector, public and private, is operating at less than 25 per cent of its capacity. Unemployment levels have increased dramatically from 1,300,000 in 1992 to three million last year. This figure will increase by 260,000 each year. Inflation, which averages between 40 per cent in 1994 and 35 per cent in 1995 has soared to levels which have not been experienced since Algeria gained independence. Food prices for essential food products such as bread have risen by 120 per cent per annum and there has been a sevenfold increase over the course of five years.

Algeria is viewed as a private property, a cake to be shared out among the army, the militia and some civilians. No attention is being given to the increasing levels of poverty in Algeria. People who are calling for peace are being punished for doing so. I was threatened with violence both from the state and from the army when I and other political personalties called for peace and a general dialogue between the regime and the main Algerian opposition parties. We were treated as traitors for doing so.

The situation in Algeria is very dramatic in every respect. The only way to improve the current situation is for a genuine dialogue to take place between members of the regime and the main opposition parties in order to encourage a return to a democratic process. The Algerian people believe in democracy and freedom and we hope that one day we will be able to live in peace and renewed stability. That can only be achieved through fair elections. The people are the source of sovereignty and their verdict should be respected.

Chairman: Before I call on Ms Lawlor, I would like to allow some of the members to express views on the matter because a number of them have to leave shortly.

Senator Connor: I visited your country when you were Prime Minister in 1987. What might have happened in 1992 had the military not interfered in the situation and had the FIS taken over the government of Algeria?

Professor Brahimi: The putchist generals, when they took over in January 1992, said that if the FIS came to power they would ruin the country politically and economically. They would not respect the constitution and the law of the republic. What happened? It is the regime, the Algerian Government, who do not respect the constitution, Algerian law and the 26 international human rights treaties signed by Algeria. The economic and social situation has deteriorated dramatically. In my opinion, as an economist and former member of the Algerian Government, no party, FIS or otherwise, if they came to power would have done worse than the generals have done since 1992. I am sure of this because no Algerian can believe their countrymen could kill other Algerians for ethnic or religious reasons, but it happened.

The RCD Party call themselves democratic, they are democrats on the surface, they do not believe in democracy. They are the agents of the military secret services, as well as former Hamas members. They are linked to the military secret services and manipulated by them.

Mr. Andrews, MEP: You are very welcome here and it is a privilege to meet you on a one to one basis.

The history of Algeria since independence has been very turbulent. Algerian democracy was never based on any model other than the Islamic. We accept that and that is partly why Algeria has developed the situation in which it now finds itself.

You were Prime Minister from 1984 until 1988. I am not terribly familiar with your period in office but if we compare the governments which have been in place, and most of the governments, including your own, were legitimised by the electorate.

The delegation from the European Parliament to Algeria reported that they were upset by the human rights abuses taking place there. They did not at any stage oppose an investigation, as Amnesty International has suggested. Amnesty International is saying that the European delegation which went to Algeria opposed an international investigation into human abuses in Algeria. On the contrary, the European Parliament have called time and again for an investigation to take place. From my point of view the situation in Algeria is horrific; the genocide being carried out by whatever side is a product of the impoverishment of the country since independence and the corruption which exists.

I wish to assure the Prime Minister that whatever support we can give in setting up an independent international delegation, we will give. The Prime Minster knows that is not something which can take place without the permission of the government in situ in Algeria presently. It is not that we have not sought to send a delegation, we have sought to send one. One of the members of the delegation from the European Parliament is an expert on Islam. As a French member she has supported the view that an independent international investigation should take place.

There are statements in your report which could be examined. You talk about “eradicators” and “reconciliators”. This seems to me to be rather strong language to use in the context of such a delicate situation.

Professor Brahimi: I was Prime Minister for five years and I know what happened in my country at that time and I know the reply made to the European delegation on human rights by the President of Algeria, but there are two things which you should know.

First, in the FLN there are some leaders who are against at the violations of human rights, myself included. We are a minority in the regime at this time. The majority in the army and the secret service is behind the violation of human rights or is opposed to any international investigation.

Second, the recession of the 1980s has nothing to do with the situation today. It is a pity and unjust. In the 1980s there was a maximum of 100 political detainees. Currently hundreds are being killed each day - it is horrible. Even if there was a failure of democracy in the past, the horrible things happening in Algeria are not justified. I know different people in the army, some for more than 40 years and some generals for at least 30 years. I do not think they will be able to oppose a decision of the UN calling for an international commission of inquiry.

They cannot do so because they are weak. Evidently they are backed by France. Last week I was told by Joe Stoek, an American activist in charge of Human Rights Watch in America who was in Geneva last week, that France is lobbying the human rights commission to oppose any resolution condemning the Algerian Government in the context of human rights. Something can be done and if a decision is taken by the high commission of the UN, it will be implemented. They are very weak and cannot oppose any such international decision.

The military and politicians, such as those belonging to the RCD Party and others who have militia support, try to eradicate Islam from Algeria. This is very dangerous. Nobody would disagree except themselves who represent the minority in Algeria. The overwhelming majority of Algerians wish to live in peace and have national reconciliation. Politicians who are struggling to achieve this and to return to the democratic process are called reconcilers as they call for peace and national reconciliation.

Chairman: We have the report of the ad-hoc delegation of the EU Parliament which visited Algeria between 8 and 12 February. I have read the report and find it difficult to find any suggestion or request by the delegation for an international investigation. I am somewhat surprised by the tone of the report. A number of members of the EU Parliament are present. The report has been circulated to Members. It is worth examining as much for what it does not contain as for what it does contain. It is not a very forceful document. For example, it suggests the Algerian Government should submit a report to the UNHRC which could be included in an inter-parliamentary dialogue between Europe and Algeria. I thought a report submitted to the UN commission might come from an independent body rather than the Algerian Government.

Mr. Andrews (MEP): Subsequent to the delegation’s return from Algeria - there was some controversy concerning the press conference which took place there - there were a number of meetings and clarification was sought on the issue of an independent inquiry team visiting Algeria in the context of human rights. This has been rejected by the Algerian Government. There have been constant debates before and since the delegation visited the country. As Mary Lawlor will probably clarify, there have been subsequent calls in the EU Parliament for an independent investigation into human rights abuses. The problem rests with the Algerian Government in the context of getting access and permission to send such a delegation. It is not the policy of the EU Parliament to be unsupportive of a visit by an independent delegation.

Chairman: The delegation in its report did not call for it. It might find things in Algeria to be somewhat different than the assessment of others.

Senator Lanigan: There is great need for an international commission to examine human rights abuses. It would appear from what Professor Brahimi said that all the abuses are on one side - he has not mentioned the massive abuses by opponents of the government. It cannot be gainsaid that there have been such abuses. There is no point in pretending that the anti-government forces are lily white: they have committed ferocious atrocities. In the west it would appear these atrocities have been committed in the name of Islam. However, the atrocities have nothing to do with Islam as it would not allow such things to happen. There is no doubt that France is involved with the government. The international intervention is aiding the anti-government forces. Weapons are entering the country from Europe. Much aid is also coming from so-called Islamic sources.

Professor Brahimi: Generally speaking, from my knowledge of the facts in Algeria, 80 per cent of massacres are carried out by the government. The remainder concern Islamic groups and others. GIA are infiltrated.

Deputy G. Mitchell: As a parliamentary committee we are trying to find the facts and not get opinions. The subcommittee has already recommended that the rapporteurs on extra-judicial killing and torture be admitted and that an international independent examination be carried out. I have no agenda and support this approach. I am happy to note that the EU has proposed a resolution to the 54th Session of the UNHCR calling for Algeria. Having listened to the professor’s comments might I ask a couple of questions? The committee has given a lot of time to this matter and I have had frank exchanges myself with the Algerian ambassador when I pressed him on some matters and he pressed me on issues we had decided without meeting him.

The FIS won 188 seats out of 220 in the first round in December 1991. If there was such a result here there would be great surprise. Were those elections free and fair or was there wrongdoing? What was the state of democracy during the professor’s term as prime minister? Were there human rights abuses? Did the regime enjoy public support or a democratic mandate?

What is the relationship between gas exports and the problems in Algeria? I read the editorial in the Irish Independent on 7 January which indicated that early in January a meeting of ministers from 20 Arab countries agreed on draft proposals to fight Islamic militants, including tightening border controls and making extradition easier. What view does the Arab world take of what is happening in Algeria? There seems to be an impression that the fault is on the army’s side and it appears that incidents take place within sight or sound of the army. Is that the case?

Professor Brahimi: For the national elections of 1991 the then prime minister, Ahmed Ghazali, stated publicly that the elections were fair. There was a coup d’état two weeks later, unfortunately. From what I learned from people in Algeria at that time they were happy. They considered it the first time that Algeria had fair, free multi-party elections.

I have been a member of the FLN for more than 40 years. The FLN comprises genuine and honest leaders and members, but also some corrupt people. However, it has nothing to hide. There were some violations of human rights under previous regimes. However, the scale of the violations bears no comparison with what has happened since 1992. The escalation of violence in Algeria since 1995-6 is unconscionable. It cannot be justified by the lack of democracy in a previous period when there was stability and made much progress, even if there were negative events. However, for six years there have only been negatives in the economy, society and politics of Algeria.

Deputy G. Mitchell: What is the Arab world’s view?

Professor Brahimi: The Arab countries are the same. Is there one example of a purely democratic Arab country? There are some monarchies. Our neighbour Tunisia is well known as an oppressive regime and the situations of Libya and Iraq are well known. They find themselves with similar problems to the Algerian regime. The state is mainly responsible for the terrorism and violence in Algeria - the state more than the Islamists. There has been a truce from the armed wing of the FIS since last October, but there is still violence. The main party is FIS and its army declared the truce last October. There are still some so-called Islamic groups who are not acting against the Government responsible for the cancellation of the elections. They are killing poor people who voted for FIS. They are not Islamists.

The Arab countries have some solidarity with the Algerian Government because they because they have repressive policies. There has been a state of emergency in Egypt since 1970 and that cannot be justified.

Chairman: Did you say that you considered the election in 1991-2 as fair and the first such election in Algeria?

Professor Brahimi: Yes.

Senator Connor: There have been elections since then in Algeria which were conducted successfully. Does the professor consider them to have been free and fair?

Professor Brahimi: No. We have proof to that end. The legislative elections in June 1997 were fraudulent and some members of the opposition parties were hurt at ballot stations, indeed some were killed by police because they protested when they saw officials stuffing ballot papers into boxes. I have a report from ONDI in the US which shows proof of violence and fraud during the elections. We have proof about the violence during the elections and the demonstrations of many parties in Algers. The Government has not cancelled such elections.

The RND party was creted only three months before national elections and it attained a majority, 43 per cent of the seats. Nobody can believe that in Algeria. How is that possible in three months?

Because there is no foreign observer for local elections, RND received 90 per cent of the seats. It is like a communist régime or the FLN régime before that. There was 10 per cent left to all the other parties.

According to the amended constitution, the Senate has 144 members, one third of which are appointed by President Zeroual. The other two thirds are elected from local elections. Of 96 seats in the senate, the RND took 80 seats and there were 16 seats left for the other parties. The rest were appointed by President Zeroual. This means that President Zeroual has a majority of more than 90 per cent in the senate, while the amended constitution states that only 25 per cent of the members of the Senate can annul any law adopted by the national assembly, whose members have been elected directly by the Algerian people. President Zeroual needs only 25 per cent to block any law adopted. He controls 90 per cent of the senate.

Ms Malone MEP: It is interesting for me to come here this morning and hear the professor speaking because none of us can claim to be expert on the complicated politics of his country. Recently some of us had the opportunity to meet Ms Salima Ghezali, who I also heard speaking in the European Parliament when she won the Sakharov prize. Of course we are horrified with the continuing massacres and violence. We continually wonder what we can do in this forum and also at European level.

To clear up a point about the delegation, I must admit - the solidarity group and Amnesty International know - that there was huge controversy surrounding the visit by the European parliamentarians, the tearing up of the letter, the conduct of some of the members, etc. Leaving that to one side, as Mr. Andrews MEP said, there are continuing negotiations and discussions in the parliament. I feel confident that we will come out with a firm declaration in favour of an independent inquiry, which is the minimum demand of most right thinking people, and possibly the appointment of a UN special rapporteur on Algeria. From my point of view, the logical conclusion would be the creation of what exists in Rwanda, the setting up of tribunals so that eventually the people who are responsible can be brought to justice. There can never be proper peace in a country until those crimes are properly dealth with.

Deputy Briscoe: Page six of the Professor’s statement states that we must not forget that since 1992 Algeria has had three heads of state and five prime ministers and that many ministers are dismissed after only a few months in office whereas the main military leaders responsible for repression, who are to be found in the highest echelons of the military hierarchy, are still there. He goes on to state that the toll has certainly been heavy since that time, that 120,000 innocent Algerians have been killed since 1992. The question which came into my mind is: does the military call the shots in Algeria? Is that the power behind the government? Does the military decide who is going to stay in government, for how long they stay in government and when it is time to get rid of them?

Professor Brahimi: I can give the committee two or three names.

Deputy Briscoe: Yes, I read the names in the Professor Brahimi’s statement.

Professor Brahimi: I did not mention the names here.

Deputy Briscoe: I thought he had.

Professor Brahimi: General Mohamed Lamari, chief of staff of the army, and General Mohamed Mediene, alias Tawfik, are the strongest men in the country who are acting behind the scenes. General Mohamed Mediene, alias Tawfik, who is in charge of secret services is assisted by General Smai’l Lamari. General Smai’l Lamari is assisted by 100 French officers, the activities of which are co-ordinated by Lieutenant Colonel Jean-Louis Chanas who was involved in the civil war in Lebannon in the 1980s. He is in Algeria as adviser to General Smai’l.

Senator A. Doyle: What was the role of the 100 French officers?

Professor Brahimi: Helping the secret services in Algers and advising them.

Senator A. Doyle: Are they French army officers?

Professor Brahimi: Yes.

Chairman: Are they serving officers in the French army or are they retired?

Professor Brahimi: They are acting.

Senator A. Doyle: Could Professor Brahimi develop that point a little more? To what extent are the French, through their military, involved in the atrocities which are going on in Algeria at present?

Professor Brahimi: I do not say they are involved directly. They are advising men who are involved. For instance, we have a tape of a telephone conversation between President Mitterand and General Khaled Nezzar, on the eve of the coup d’état.

Senator A. Doyle: Does that continue today with the sanction of the French authorities? To what extent are the French active through these 100 French officers at present?

Professor Brahimi: It is very complicated because in France there is Government and political parties but there are entities such as the intelligence services. I think I mentioned in my paper that when Charles Pasqua was minister for the interior in 1993-94 he was given another file on Algeria by Prime Minister Balladur because they think Algeria is a domestic affair. Charles Pasqua appointed Colonel Jean-Claude Marchiani, a former parachutist in fought against the liberation of Algeria. He was assisted in the 1990s by the pieds noir, former members of the Secret Armed Organisation which is famous for its crimes against the Algerian people during the two years before independence. They are strong in the French administration and in intelligence services. Irrespective of the change of government in France, whether to the right or left, they are still there. These are parties who said it is the first time that French army officers acted in Algeria and advised the military there.

Deputy De Rossa: We should not be surprised if French army officers are involved in Algeria. We have had many examples of states in the west sending military advisers to support dictatorships of various kinds over the years. I have no doubt the views expressed today are honest, but I am disappointed that we have failed to persuade the ambassador for Algeria, who is based in London, to come here to talk to us as well.

Our role must not be to seek to make judgments on the political situation but to see what mechanisms the United Nations and the European Union can put in place to stop the massacres. It is a matter for the Algerian people to work out their political future. On that basis, our role should be to support the demands made by Amnesty International and other agencies to send a United Nations rapporteur there. I am not clear what the French strategic interest is in Algeria. I have read the written presentation in which there is a lot of evidence of French involvement. However, it does not explain why they would want to be involved in creating this chaotic and appalling situation.

Professor Brahimi: It is obvious that the second Gulf War and what was called by the then President of the United States, Mr. George Bush, a new world order, was an attempt to strengthen the position of the United States in the Gulf region. France hoped to have its share of the Gulf cake but was not given anything, especially in terms of arms deals with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. It wants to reconquer its lost colonies under the umbrella of Francophonie. Francophonie has become well known in France. I am not inventing this because I see it on French TV5 every day. This new ideology under the umbrella of French culture is to reconquer lost markets. It is a new substitute for French colonisation.

Chairman: When were you last in Algeria?

Professor Brahimi: I left Algeria after the coup d’état. I was told by a general friend of mine to leave the country because I was on the top of the list.

Chairman: Is it correct that you have not been there for six or seven years?

Professor Brahimi: Yes. If I went back, I would not be here today. However, I have contacts in Algeria.

Senator Connor: Is there international support for the Islamists who are causing the terrorism? Are they getting assistance from groups in Iran or Sudan?

Professor Brahimi: No.

Chairman: Who is arming them?

Professor Brahimi: They do not have arms. There has been no trade between Morocco and Algeria since 1994. Tunisia is acting with the regime and protecting its frontier. Some 1,200 kilometres of our coast are protected by the French and Algerian navies. It is impossible for them to be armed.

Chairman: I apologise for keeping Ms Lawlor waiting.

Ms Lawlor: I thank you, Chairman, and members of the committee for inviting Amnesty International here today. I want to clarify what Mr. Niall Andrews, MEP, said. We did not say that the European Parliament was against an independent investigation. The press release said we found the opposition of the European Parliament delegation to an international investigation particularly regrettable especially in view of the fact that since last November the European Parliament, and especially its human rights subcommission, had called for an international investigation.

We cannot become preoccupied with the massacres. We are talking about up to 80,000 people who have been killed in the past six years. Amnesty International has documented year by year the atrocities in Algeria. We would not like the situation to be oversimplified in terms of whether the army is involved or whether it is simply a question of terrorism. We need to remember that although the massacres are shocking, awful and brutal, they still account for only 2 per cent of the killings which have taken place since 1992.

I want to read three short statements prepared by Salima Ghezali, who won the Sakharov Prize and various other human rights and press awards, Karima Hammache of the Rally for Youth Action, RAJ, which is an independent youth movement in Algeria, and Mostefa Bouchachi, who is one of Algeria’s leading human rights lawyers. He has taught international human rights law in Algiers and he has also been a broadcaster. He has defended people on all sides, including FIS leaders, trade union leaders and journalists. He told me last week that somebody asked him why he defended FIS leaders when he will be on their assassination list if they get into power. He said it is his job to ensure everyone has a fair trial.

These three independent people are brave. They work in different capacities for human rights in Algeria. I was privileged to spend a half day with them last week during which we met Deputy Gay Mitchell and Deputy O’Malley. I was overwhelmed by their bravery and the daily risks they take in their struggle for human rights in Algeria. I also applaud their courage in doing the rounds because that is what they must do and for picking themselves up when yet another hope for action by the international community is dashed. Everywhere they go they get sympathy, but sympathy is for the dead. They do not need sympathy but action. They are clinging to life and they need action to pursue their hope of justice and truth in Algeria. There is nowhere for them to go. They must come to this committee in the hope that it will take action.

Karima Hammache’s statement is as follows:

Our youth organisation, RAJ (Rassemblement Action Jeunesse - Rally for Youth Action) was founded in 1993 with the aim of bringing together youth from different cultural and social backgrounds to act on issues which concern our lives and our future. In Algeria 75 per cent of the population is under 30 years of age. After the events of October 1988 when the army shot and killed hundreds of young demonstrators and tortured many others the situation began to change and the country experienced a democratic opening with the emergence of civil society associations, freedom of the press and legalisation of political parties. We, youth, felt that attached great importance to the post-October 1988 changes. However, since the cancellation of the elections and the imposition of the state of emergency at the beginning of 1992 life has become increasingly difficult for youth in Algeria. The general deterioration of the social and economic situation has had a grave impact on young people who have been the most affected by unemployment and violence. A huge percentage of the victims have been youth. Young civilians, conscripts and policemen have been killed by the terrorists or by the police and the army. Others have had relatives and friends killed and abducted, often in front of them. and the rest live in fear.

The RAJ believe that the youth has much work to do to build a better Algeria. One or our slogans is: “if you do not like the world you live in, if you complain that your life in your time is bad, ask yourself what have you done to make it better”. We believe it is necessary for youth of all background to work together to build a democratic society which respects human rights and freedom of expression and association and where you respect and accept each other regardless of political, ideological or religious grounds.

The brutalisation of the violence and arbitrariness of the past few years have had, and continue to have, a disastrous affect on the young people in my country. Young people are growing up in an atmosphere of fear, violence and repression and the prospect for the near future does not look rosy. The first victims of violence, lack of democracy and freedom of expression and association and the spread of weapons and militarisation are the youth as all sides, security forces, militias and armed groups seek to recruit and target young people.

After the RAJ was established in 1993 we carried out many activities in the capital and elsewhere promoting our aims. For example, we held activities to raise awareness on issues of human rights, women’s’ rights, civil rights, freedom of expression. We even campaigned to raise awareness of issues still considered to be taboo such as drug addiction and Aids. These activities took place in universities, high schools, in the streets and also in public. Since 1995-6 the authorities have increasingly prevented us from carrying out our activities by refusing us permission to use public halls and spaces. Some of our members have been arrested and harassed when we tried to hold some activities without the permission of the authorities. We staged a hunger strike for 13 days to protect at these restrictions and harassment but the situation has not improved and our request for permission to carry out activities continues to be denied by the authorities.

Mostefa Bouchachi’s statement is as follows:

I have been a practising lawyer for more than 15 years and my assessment of the human rights situation in Algeria is based on my daily work as a lawyer. Since 1992 the human rights situation in Algeria has deteriorated to a level never reached before since its independence. The daily reality includes torture, disappearances, extra-judicial executions, lack of press freedom and freedom of association. A large number of people have disappeared after being arrested by the security forces from their homes or places of work. These people are not people who have left country or who have joined the terrorist groups but they have been held in secret detention centres and we have evidence of this. Such cases are not confined to specific regions but have happened, and continue to do so, all over the country. We do not know if these absent people are alive or dead. Thousands of parents are looking for their missing children but cannot get information from the authorities.

The fact that since 1992 the anti-terrorist legislation allows any security service to operate anywhere in the country has allowed a greater deal of impunity for the security forces as their actions are more difficult to monitor and control. It is necessary that the authorities take measures to inform the families of the fate of their missing relatives. The families should know what happened to their relatives who were arrested by security forces in the past months and years and who have never been brought to justice. They know if they are dead or alive or, if they are being held captive, where they are being detained. I hope these missing people are still alive. If they are not then we face the situation of a collective extermination of a group of citizens.

As for other human rights violations there is legislation in place to deal with individuals or groups who commit murder or other crimes. Such individuals or groups are criminals who should be severely punished. On the other hand, the State cannot through its security apparatus, commit murder and torture in the name of the law. It is shameful and unacceptable that there should be some voices in Algeria who justify the behaviour of security forces who since 1992 have been using torture on a massive and unprecedented way. As lawyers we have witnessed the fact that most of the detainees before the courts complain of being subjected to torture in secret detention centres. However, there are no inquiries into these cases even though according to the UN Convention Against Torture ratified by Algeria all cases of torture must be investigated. Not only are there investigations but there are individuals and institutions who have deployed efforts to hide such grave violations.

In addition to disappearances and torture there are also extra-judicial executions. People have been killed in security serviced detention centres or in prisons like the case of the massacre in Serkadji prison in 1995 where 100 prisoners were killed. Other people have been murdered by security forces in cold blood in their homes in front of their parents. Unfortunately, there is no condemnation of the crimes committed against these victims.

On the issue of international scrutiny of the human rights situation in Algeria I believe there is no absolute sovereignty in international law and that human rights are among the issues which states accept are no longer an issue of internal and absolute power. In fact by signing the ratifying international human rights treaties the Algerian authorities are bound to respect human rights and the international community has the right and the duty to monitor and ensure compliance with these international human rights mechanism. The grave and widespread human rights violations committed by the security services do not honour Algeria and diminish the credibility of the state, and they should be addressed without delay.

Chairman: The Members have received copies of your statements. Deputy Mitchell and I met the three people who submitted statements last week. I was very impressed by their concerns and anxieties. Karima Hammache referred to the events of October 1988 when the army shot and killed hundreds of young demonstrators and tortured many others in her submission. Were you prime minister when that happened?

Professor Brahimi: Yes, I was prime minister at the time. The riots in October 1988 were not spontaneous even though the Algerian authorities made statements to the contrary in the media. We should ask the President Zeroual and the secret services why these riots took place? There are two reasons for the riots. First, since January 1986 as a result of the drop in oil prices Algeria’s revenues were reduced by as much as 40 per cent during 1986. Therefore, Algeria could not afford to pay for food imports which resulted in a revolutionary climate throughout the country. In 1986 the business community was afraid there would be a national revolt and, therefore, the riots did not take place at the same time or on the same day in these cities. The revolts were organised in this way in order to avoid a popular revolt against the régime. Second, Presidential have been held in 1979 and December 1983. President Chadli learned that at the FLN conference to be held in November 1988 that someone else would be appointed as a candidate for the next presidential elections. These riots had been planned by President Chadli and his friends to stay in power.

When the riots started in October 1988, he said that if there was a problem the Army would be sent in. He gave the Army orders to kill people and said publicly on Algerian television that he was responsible for this.

Chairman: For the torture also?

Professor Brahimi: Yes.

Senator Mooney: Since 1962 has Algeria inherently not been an anti-democratic régime where successive governments have been appointed by the military who effectively control Algeria and where your political status owes its existence to the fact that you were acceptable to the military? Part of the difficulty has been that since 1962 Algerian independence has effectively been a sham in democratic terms and that because of that continuing democratic deficit we are now faced with what we have been witnessing. I do not for one moment deny that Professor Brahimi’s very explicit and detailed exposé of France’s malevolence towards Algeria is untrue. My limited study of Algerian history and of the colonial and post-colonial periods suggest that they still have their fingers in the pie as outlined. In that context, what can we, as a member state of the European Union and an equal member with France, do to make France face up to its responsibilities in this regard? Secondly, how can that impact on what is taking place in Algeria where the Army has firm control?

Professor Brahimi: Something can be done by countries like Ireland and the Scandinavian countries because they do not have a colonial past. Germany might have some difficulty because of their relationship with France within the European Union. The Irish Government could condemn publicly the violations of human rights by the Algerian Government and call for an international inquiry commission. Foreign journalists should have free access to travel anywhere throughout Algeria. The bloodshed in Algeria must be stopped. Pressure should be put on the French Government at European and international level.

Chairman: Thank you Professor Brahimi.

Senator Doyle: I presume the French will deny this line. What is the official French defence regarding this point of view?

Senator Connor: To add to that, the French will state that they support the régime in Algeria because if the régime falls there will be utter chaos in the country and tens of thousands of people will travel from Algeria to France. Does Professor Brahimi agree with that?

Professor Brahimi: Not at all, on the contrary many people will come back to Algeria instead. Last year when I called for an international inquiry commission the French Foreign Minister said there should be no interference in the political affairs of Algeria. Following my address to members of the House of Commons in London last January, French national radio said that what I said was false.

Chairman: As I said at the outset, this is the fourth time this committee has dealt with the Algerian question. It is a problem of enormous human tragedy and it is very difficult to try to arrive at the facts. We have heard from a variety of different people who have very different versions of events. They have very different versions of the reasons for the present situation. They are in deep conflict with one another. The nature of that conflict of opinion is borne out by the fact that the Algerian ambassador who was invited to today’s meeting and who accepted and cancelled his acceptance when he heard that Professor Brahimi was invited. However, we may succeed in getting him to attend another time. We have heard from others who have different versions of events and who lay the blame in different areas. Although we have spent a great deal of time on this, I am not certain we are getting to the bottom of it. Some of the statements made from time to time tend to be strenuously contested by others who convey very different views. All we can do is seek to investigate these matters as best we can.

It is time this committee passed a resolution on the question to try to encourage action and movement of the kind necessary and without laying blame on any side or group within Algeria while trying to discover the truth of the situation. I propose the following resolution to the committee for its consideration and, I hope, adoption:

That the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs:

(i)expressing concern about the grave human rights situation in Algeria, where tens of thousands of people, believed to be in excess of 80,000, including many women and children, have been killed in the six year old conflict;

(ii)expressing solidarity with the victims and their families;

(iii)expressing concern that, in spite of repeated assurances by the Algerian authorities year after year that the situation is “under control and improving” and that “violence is residual”, the situation has continued to deteriorate and, in the past year, violence has reached unprecedented levels;

(iv)expressing concern that the perpetrators of grave crimes, including massacres, murder and torture, have not been brought to justice and seem to enjoy continuing immunity;

the Joint Committee calls on the Irish Government to play a constructive role at the current United Nations Human Rights Commission and in other fora by calling for the appointment of a special rapporteur and for the establishment of an international investigation to establish facts and responsibilities so as to shed light on the situation; and ensure that those responsible for crimes and grave abuses are brought to justice; and make recommendations for a long-term human rights plan of action to address the Algerian human rights crisis with the necessary resources provided to do this; and that the Joint Committee reiterates its commitment to the principle that human rights have no border; and that no human rights situation can be immune from international scrutiny.

I am sorry it is so long but I believe it is necessary to cover the different aspects of the matter. Does the committee agree to the resolution? Agreed.

I thank Dr. Brahimi and we are very grateful to him for coming to Ireland to explain his point of view. We are also very grateful for the full paper he has left with us which contains a longer and more detailed version of what he has said today to which we can refer in future. I also thank Mary Lawlor of Amnesty International for their assistance in this matter, especially for bringing the three people whom she mentioned in her address to see Deputy Mitchell and I last week which was very useful.

The second item on the agenda which I thought was appropriate for the day that is in it was Northern Ireland. However, now that the day has arrived, I am not so sure it is appropriate. The situation in Belfast is so incredibly fluid, I do not think we can usefully discuss it and we should wait until there is a resolution of the matter one way or the other - either a settlement is arrived at and signed tomorrow night or it breaks down altogether.

Senator A. Doyle: Perhaps we could express our good wishes to all those negotiating for an agreement.

Chairman: It is the fervent hope of all members of the committee and of the House that those negotiating will be able to come to some agreement or settlement by tomorrow night. It may take many compromises and many people may have to abandon some of their long-held views but it is absolutely essential they do. I shudder to think what the consequences will be if there is not an agreement. It is playing into the hands of those who wish to engage in serious terrorism. It is alarming to learn that at 12.30 a.m. someone was the victim of a sectarian murder in Derry. We are better to leave it given the exceptional fluidity and the most unusual situation in which are now, that the culmination of long years of effort is due to end tomorrow. There is no certainty it will end successfully but we hope it will. Is it agreed to leave it at that and that we might examine the matter at a subsequent meeting when the situation has been clarified? Agreed. The committee is adjourned until 4 p.m. on Wednesday, 22 April.

The Joint Committee adjourned at 1.30 p.m. until 4 p.m. on Wednesday, 22 April 1998.

RESOLUTION ON ALGERIA

The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, in light of the continuing regular incidences of massacres of innocent people, including women and children in Algeria, held a further hearing on the situation there on 8 April. Following the discussion, the Joint Committee adopted the following resolution:

“The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Expressing concern at the grave human rights situation in Algeria, where up to 80,000 people, including women and children, have been killed in the six-year-old conflict;

Expressing solidarity with the victims and their families;

Expressing concern that, in spite of repeated assurances by the Algerian authorities year after year that the situation is ‘under control and improving’, the situation in fact has continued to deteriorate and in the past year violence has reached unprecedented levels;

Expressing concern that the perpetrators of grave crimes, including massacres, murder and torture, have not been brought to justice and appear to enjoy continuing impunity;

Calls on the Irish Government to play a constructive role at the current UN Commission on Human Rights and other fora by calling for the appointment of a Special Rapporteur and for the establishment of an international investigation to establish facts and responsibilities in order to shed light on the situation there, to ensure that those responsible for crimes and grave abuses are brought to justice and to make recommendations for a long-term human rights plan of action to address the Algerian human rights crisis. The necessary resources should be provided to do this;

Reiterates its commitment to the principle that human rights have no borders and that no human rights situation can be immune from international scrutiny.”.

8 April, 1998

APPENDIX I

* In substitution for Senator P. Mooney.

* In substitution for Deputy M. Kitt.