HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, for this opportunity to speak with you about the human rights dimension of the Northern Ireland peace process. As you know, Human Rights Watch has been monitoring and reporting on human rights violations in Northern Ireland since 1991. Over the past year, we have focused specifically on the issue of police abuse and had an opportunity in June 1997 to communicate to this subcommittee our grave concerns about persistent allegations of abuse against the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) -- Northern Ireland's police force -- and the lack of accountability for gross RUC misconduct. In addition to profound problems with policing, Human Rights Watch remains concerned about a number of outstanding human right issues in Northern Ireland which my colleagues here today will discuss in more detail.

I would like to speak today to the unique opportunity which the Northern Ireland peace process affords all of us -- governments, political parties, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and the people of Northern Ireland -- for success not just at halting the violence that has characterized this conflict over the past twenty-seven years but also for laying a strong and durable foundation for a just peace based on the long-term protection and promotion of human rights for everyone in Northern Ireland. Over the past twenty odd years, Human Rights Watch has attempted to influence many peace processes with the understanding that conflict management -- that is , the cessation of violence -- must be coupled with the creation and maintenance of a strong foundation upon which a human rights culture can be built. Regrettably, our experience tells us that all too often human rights are not addressed at all in the course of peace negotiations. Sometimes they serve as a subtext or are mentioned vaguely as some future goal to be achieved after the political negotiations are complete. Many times -- to our dismay -- human rights are used as bargaining chips at the negotiating table, as if inalienable rights can be traded and bartered. It is indeed rare for human rights to play a central role in any peace process.

This reality should surprise us and, indeed, for many of us who have experience working in conflict situations, the lack of attention to human rights concerns during the full course of negotiations appears to defy logic. It is axiomatic that human rights violations are central to the way in which much contemporary armed conflict is conducted. We have seen in El Salvador, Haiti, Guatemala, South Africa, Angola, Cambodia, and, more recently, in Bosnia and Rwanda that human rights abuses have been the modus operandi by which governments and opposition actors in these armed conflicts have advanced their political and ideological goals. Thus, when these same actors are involved in negotiating a peace, it should appear obvious that addressing continuing human rights abuses and creating mechanisms for accountability for past violations must also be modus operandi of making and sustaining that peace. Without careful attention to human rights abuses, accountability for past violations, and the creation of national institutions -- such as an impartial police service and judiciary for the fair and peaceful resolution of conflict -- violence will inevitably re-emerge.

Human Rights Watch believes that it is instructive to look at some of the mistakes which have been made in the course of other peace processes in order to inform ourselves about the possibilities for positive action on human rights in the Northern Ireland process. While the scale of violations in other conflicts may be greater -- in some cases like Bosnia and Rwanda rising to the level of genocide -- every contemporary armed conflict shares a common feature: human rights violations have been at the heart of the conflict. We have seen instances, for example in Angola, where human rights protections, accountability for past violations, and the maintenance of the rule of law were, at best, subtexts in the peace process. The key focus in Angola was to end the violence and "to promote a spirit of reconciliation" by passing a series of amnesty laws for perpetrators of human rights violations. While the cessations of violence is, undoubtedly, a necessary prerequisite to peace, the absence of a long-term strategy to protect human rights has, predictably, spiraled Angola back into a threatening situation in which violence seems imminent. It is clear that there was a trade-off in Angola between justice and peace which, not surprisingly, has resulted in a current situation in which neither authentically exists.

Bosnia is a different case altogether but provides ample evidence of the dangers of human rights rhetoric without action. The human rights provisions of the Dayton Accords undoubtedly form a comprehensive package of protections for all of Bosnia's citizens. Lack of attention to implementation, however, has resulted in a "post-conflict' environment in which human rights abuses -- such as restrictions on freedom of movement and the right to return to one's home -- are features of daily life. In both Angola and Bosnia the absence of or weaknesses in mechanisms for accountability for past violations have resulted in virtual impunity for perpetrators of gross human rights abuses. In both cases, human rights abuses inherent to the conflict were addressed inadequately through a peace process myopically concerned with the immediate cessation of violence without any provisions for authentically maintaining a just and lasting peace. These are just two of numerous examples worldwide where ignoring human rights in the course of trying to create peace has led to a renewal of violence and threatened to destabilize the original agreement.

Let me say a brief word about chronology. Although many of us will talk about the "human rights dimension of the Northern Ireland peace process" it is imperative to note that there are a number of ways in which human rights can be advanced in the course of the process without actually being part of the substantive negotiations. Indeed, Human Rights Watch strongly believes that there are many human rights issues that cannot and must not be "outcomes" of the negotiations. There are roughly three stages at which action can and should be taken on human rights in the course of peace negotiations. Thus, my colleagues will discuss measures that can and should be taken immediately by the British and Irish governments -- as a matter of compliance with their existing international obligations -- to build confidence in the peace process. Certain issues -- related to prisoners and the final adoption of a Bill of Rights -- may be part of the substantive negotiations themselves. However, the drafting of a Bill of rights should involve a broad-based public debate -- such as the one which evolved in the course of writing South Africa's new constitution -- which could begin now. Finally, there may be human rights issues which will be addressed in the "post-conflict" stage as the people of Northern Ireland go about the business of building a culture of rights. Careful attention to human rights concerns in each of these stages promises a peace secured by confidence in the rule of law and the protection of individual rights.

The conflict in Northern Ireland is ripe for authentic resolution. All the parties at the negotiating table have agreed to the principle of non-violence as formulated in the Mitchell principles. Human rights is on the agenda of the peace talks. More generally, the British government has embarked on a number of welcome initiatives with respect to human rights. The people of Northern Ireland want, and indeed deserve, a just peace. Thus, the task at hand is to continue to encourage everyone involved in the talks process to understand the critical importance of human rights to its success. To that end, Human Rights Watch fully supports the resolution now being considered for passage by the Congress regarding human rights and the Northern Ireland peace process. The resolution rightly recognizes the gravity of past violations and the role that such abuses have played in perpetuating the conflict. It calls for immediate action on some issues and recommends that a mechanism for accountability for past violations be established. In short, the resolution is a signal that Congress is eager to prevent the same lack of attention to human rights issues which has doomed other peace processes and may threaten the success of the Northern Ireland peace process if action is not taken now. Thank you.