We have apologies from Deputies Brian Brennan and Duncan Smith and Senator Joe O'Reilly.

Before we begin, I advise members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate who is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any members partaking via MS Teams that prior to making a contribution to the meeting they confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

Members and witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if speakers' statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Today's business is our engagement on the situation in Venezuala.

I welcome our witnesses: Professor Mary Ellen O'Connell, professor of international law and international peace studies at the University of Notre Dame; Mr. Maurice Sadlier, programmes and policy director of World Vision; Ms Mishelle Mitchell, director of regional advocacy and external engagement for World Vision in the Latin America and Caribbean region at World Vision; and Mr. Peter Gape, national director for Colombia-Venezuela, World Vision.

The format of the meeting is that we will hear the witnesses' opening statements followed by questions and answers with members of the committee. I ask members to be concise in their questions to allow all members the opportunity to participate.

I now invite our witnesses to make their opening statements. We will go to Professor O'Connell followed by our witnesses from World Vision. Can Professor O'Connell hear us?

Yes, I can hear you very well, thank you, all the way from snowy South Bend.

I am here to say that the United States has been involved in a campaign of unlawful military force in the Caribbean and Pacific and against Venezuela since 2 September 2025. As of 23 January, the campaign is ongoing. It has resulted so far in 126 deaths at sea and 83 deaths in Venezuela, plus the unlawful seizure of Venezuela's President and First Lady as well as massive property damage. The impact of this lawlessness will be future erosion of the international rule of law unless there is protest, particularly by actors such as Ireland with an exemplary record of compliance with the international law on the use of force.

As for the boat attacks, which began on 2 September, President Trump has introduced what he calls a new reason for using military force in self-defence, calling the individuals on the boats and their associates "narco-terrorists". By December, however, his focus had shifted to the mainland of Venezuela, when the CIA carried out an attack on harbour facilities in Venezuela. Then, on 3 January, a massive attack involving five different sites in and around the city of Caracas led to the seizure by special operations forces of the President and the First Lady.

The deaths and destruction have occurred in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which is a comprehensive prohibition on the use of military force. Other international law has also been violated, but I will focus on Article 2(4) because of its mandate that all states should refrain "from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations". Most international lawyers agree that the 3 January operation violated Article 2(4). There is less understanding of how the prohibition applies to the small boat attacks. The wording of Article 2(4) seems to indicate that the ban is only against territorial integrity and independence. In fact, Article 2(4) applies to all significant uses of armed force unless one of three limitations applies, and I emphasise that none of them apply in these cases.

Article 2(4) is meant to be comprehensive. The US took the lead in drafting the prohibition in 1945 at the Charter negotiating sessions. The final phrase of Article 2(4), "or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations", was intended, to quote that delegation, to be "an absolute all-inclusive prohibition; the phrase 'or in any other manner' was designed to insure that there should be no loopholes". In addition to the text of the article, the Charter as a whole reinforces the comprehensive prohibition on all armed force. Article 1(1), for example, mandates that states settle their disputes peacefully and comply with international law. In addition, the Charter's two express limitations on the prohibition were drafted to ensure that states would respect the comprehensive prohibition. The self-defence provision in Article 51 and the provisions for the Security Council to authorise the use of force are narrow.

Invitation or consent is another limitation which is outside the Charter but it is also classically a narrow right only to assist a government in effective control to suppress an insurrection on its territory, but only to the point where the insurrection has a reasonable chance of replacing the government. At that point military assistance must end. The Trump Administration has in fact never even invoked invitation as a possible basis by, for example, suggesting that the political opposition wants President Trump to invade Venezuela. Instead, the Administration has linked the boat attacks and the invasion to the right of self-defence under Article 51, which states:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member [state] of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

The negotiating history of the Charter and jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice make it clear that the armed attack provision in Article 51 is the sine qua non. It must originate from a sovereign state and be at scale.

All lawful force must also comply with the principles of necessity and proportionality, meaning that use of force must have a reasonable chance of success in accomplishing the lawful military goal and must be a last resort. Proportionality requires that the use of force be commensurate with that armed attack.

The US has violated all these principles. Ireland is in a unique position to condemn it.

Thank you, Professor O'Connell. I note from your script that there is more. I was enjoying that. You have a little more time. It is worth completing the script you submitted.

That is fine. I will wait for questions and answers. I was told to keep strictly within five minutes so I will leave it there.

Thank you, Professor O'Connell. It was, in the present climate, almost quaint to hear those old values expressed. Thank you for that.

We move on to Mr. Maurice Sadlier, who will be the first speaker who is with us in the committee room.

We will try to be as efficient with the time as Professor O'Connell was.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to be here with members today and for their continued attention to the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela. Recent events aside, Venezuela remains one of the most under-recognised humanitarian emergencies in the world today. After more than a decade of economic collapse, political instability and institutional erosion, the crisis has evolved into a chronic emergency with profound consequences for children and vulnerable families both inside and outside of the country. Today millions of Venezuelans struggle to meet their most basic needs. Children are among those most affected: malnutrition rates remain concerning, access to quality education has declined sharply, and families increasingly rely on negative coping strategies to survive, including school dropout, child labour and family separation.

The impact of this crisis extends well beyond the Venezuelan borders. The displacement of more than 7 million Venezuelans has become the largest migration crisis in Latin America's recent history, placing significant pressures on neighbouring countries, which are struggling with high levels of poverty and inequality already.

World Vision has been responding to the Venezuelan crisis since 2019 and in the broader region for many decades. This has included support from the Irish Government through Irish Aid and the continuous generous support of the Irish public.

I am delighted to be joined by my colleagues Mr. Gape and Ms Mitchell, who are far more qualified to speak about the situation within Venezuela and the region than I am, so I am happy to give my time to them. I will first invite Mr. Gape, who will give an overview of the situation within Venezuela, and Ms Mitchell will speak to the broader regional issues after that.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to brief members. World Vision has been responding in Venezuela and across the region since 2019. We currently have more than 300 staff on the ground. Through our Hope Without Borders initiative, we have delivered over 2.65 million essential services across Latin America, ensuring that children and their families receive critical protection, education, nutrition, healthcare, psychosocial support and clean water at a time when public systems have largely collapsed. For many children, this support is the only line of defence protecting their survival and dignity.

Today Venezuela is entering one of the most volatile moments in recent history. The removal of Nicolás Maduro on 3 January has triggered geopolitical escalation and heightened insecurity. Children, already among the most vulnerable population groups, now face an even more dangerous and unpredictable environment. Their safety, mental well-being, education and nutrition are all at heightened risk. According to the humanitarian needs overview of 2026, 9.6 million people will require assistance this year. A significant proportion are children whose childhoods are being shaped by instability, deprivation and trauma. The drivers of this crisis - extreme inflation, failing institutions, the collapse of essential services, climate shocks and increasing protection risks - are having severe and disproportionate effects on children across the country.

The sectoral needs illustrate the gravity of the situation. A total of 10.5 million people require health assistance, and 90% of facilities lack essential medicines, meaning children are left without vaccines, without antibiotics and without emergency care when they need it most. Protection threats are escalating, including child labour, exploitation, trafficking risks, recruitment by non-state actors, and rising gender-based violence. Children are increasingly exposed to unsafe environments inside and outside their homes. A total of 40% of the population faces food insecurity, with 10% severely food insecure. In practice, this means children are skipping meals, fainting in school, or going entire days without eating. A total of 1.8 million people, including infants and young children, require nutritional support as acute malnutrition rises. Stunting and wasting are increasing and may cause irreversible developmental harm. A total of 5.2 million people lack access to safe water, and 80% of health facilities lack adequate water, sanitation and hygiene, WASH, infrastructure, which are conditions that expose children to waterborne diseases and repeated infections that weaken long-term health. A total of 2.5 million children are out of school, and 90% of learners are not meeting minimum reading and numeracy standards. The loss of learning and the psychological impact of prolonged disruption are creating a generational crisis.

Economic collapse is intensifying these threats. The basic food basket now costs about $630, while the minimum wage remains 40 cents per month. Families are unable to provide even the most basic necessities, forcing many into negative coping mechanisms that directly affect children, including withdrawing them from school, sending them to work, or migrating with them across dangerous routes. Our rapid assessment between 6 and 13 January this year further shows alarming trends with direct consequences for children. One in three households reported that at least one family member went to bed hungry, usually children. A total of 54.8% of adults reduced their own meals so children and the elderly could eat, highlighting the extreme levels of sacrifice families are making. The price of basic foods doubled in January, pushing more children into acute malnutrition. A total of 26% of families reported domestic violence linked to fear and uncertainty. Children are often silent witnesses or direct victims. A total of 56% reported emotional distress, including anxiety, insomnia and appetite loss. Children experiencing chronic stress are showing clear signs of trauma that could have long-lasting mental health consequences.

Despite these critical and escalating needs, Venezuela's humanitarian response plan last year received only 16% of required funding, one of the lowest globally. The newly signed US Government Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, OCHA, agreement does not prioritize Venezuela among its 17 countries, leaving millions of children without the support they urgently require.

We are facing a childhood emergency, not just a national emergency. If we do not act now, Venezuelan children will suffer irreversible harm. They will carry the scars of the crisis for decades. We urgently call on the international community to scale up humanitarian assistance, both inside Venezuela and across the countries receiving Venezuelan children and families. Without urgent, flexible, multi-year funding, this crisis will worsen and the youngest generation, who bear no responsibility for these events, will continue to suffer the most. I thank the committee.

Before going to Ms Mitchell, I want to clarify one startling figure with Mr. Gape. The cost of a food basket.

It is exactly $633.

What is in that?

The basic food basket for a family of five is cornmeal, beans, oil, and tuna. It is the basic food basket that Venezuelans eat.

How long is it sufficient to last for?

For a month.

One month, and Mr. Gape said that average income is-----

Right now, the official minimum wage is 40 cents.

Forty US cents per-----

Per month.

Per month. Okay.

Yes, because of the devaluation.

I appreciate this opportunity. Greetings to the honourable members of the committee.

Since 2015, 7.9 million people have left Venezuela, making this the largest migrant and refugee crisis globally. This painful diaspora is equivalent to emptying 1.3 times the entire population of Ireland. Today, out the 7.9 million Venezuelans who fled their country seeking security, access to food, health and education, 6.9 million remain in Latin America, in countries struggling with fiscal deficits and inequality, that leave very limited space to ensure social protection. This is why funding to deliver humanitarian aid is critical.

Colombia is currently home to 2.9 million Venezuelans, of whom 1.7 million require humanitarian assistance. Peru, on the other hand, hosts 1.6 million Venezuelans. There, four out of every ten experience poverty or extreme poverty. Brazil, Ecuador and Chile also concentrate large communities, a dynamic that continues to put pressure on national health, education and protection systems across the region, which generates social and economic tensions in host communities.

Over the years, the Venezuelan migrant and refugee crisis has unfolded in a context of limited funding, affecting the operational capacity of humanitarian actors to provide lifesaving assistance. This support remains essential, especially as migratory flows continue to shift, with an increasing number of people moving southbound. Amid this challenging scenario, since 2019, World Vision Latin America and Caribbean has provided humanitarian care to the Venezuelan children and their families, through its multi-country response, Hope Without Borders, in seven countries in the region, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile and Venezuela itself. We believe that no child should be left behind. That is why our multi-country programming focuses on cash transfers, food, WASH, protection, education, sustainable livelihoods, and social integration of migrant populations and host communities with a gender-based approach.

This was possible thanks to the generosity of donors, co-operation and UN agencies, and the decisive work of over 2,000 faith organisations throughout the region, which we have empowered. However, we are at a crossroads. Never before has our region witnessed such acute needs, while humanitarian funding has plummeted to critical levels. 2025 marked an abrupt cancellation of humanitarian funds that forced us to reduce our operation from seven to two countries, Venezuela and Colombia. Meanwhile, stringent migratory policies, escalating geopolitical tensions and conflict are fanning the flames of a crisis that already affects 3.9 million children and adolescents on the move in Latin America and the Caribbean. The UN Committee on Children's Rights estimated in 2025 that more than 30,000 children were recruited by criminal groups throughout the region, a figure that is underestimated due to the lack of official data. Venezuelans internally displaced, migrant and refugee children are facing exacerbated risks of hunger, forced recruitment, abuse, trafficking and child labour.

Venezuela's crisis demands urgent action. Our foremost concern is protecting vulnerable children and their families, both the 5 million children facing hunger inside Venezuela and the millions of migrants and refugees across neighbouring countries. As we welcome the committee's engagement on this issue and see today's discussion as an important opportunity to ensure that Venezuela and the children affected by this crisis are not forgotten amid competing global emergencies, we urgently call for restoring flexible and sustained humanitarian funding to protect migrant and refugee children and their families, to support the strengthening of public and migratory policies that guarantee the access of children to essential and life-saving services, and also to strengthen social protection services that restore the dignity and rights of children on the move. I thank the committee. We look forward to members' questions.

I thank the witnesses. We understand they can hear us but cannot see us. That might be a blessing for a period of time. Their contribution was powerful.

We will move to the questions and answers session. Each member has seven minutes, and that includes questions and answers. We will have a second round. I will try to keep a degree of control over it. I ask members to specify which of the witnesses their questions are directed towards. If they are directed to all four, someone might put up their hand to lead the answers. I call Deputy Ó Laoghaire.

I thank the speakers for their contributions. I appreciate that they are taking the time to be here.

Our first thoughts are with the people of Venezuela. From the evidence that has been given, the severe humanitarian situation there is clear. With everything that has been going on in recent months, this is happening in the context of a highly disordered world. It is important to acknowledge the desperate humanitarian situation and the fact that democratic norms were flouted in the past. On a number of occasions, I have quoted the former head of communications for Tony Blair, John McTernan, who is very far from a radical politician. He commented on the abduction of President Maduro that: "Most sensible people are sceptical of kidnapping foreign politicians you disagree with." I think that is a reasonable assessment of the situation. It is entirely possible to acknowledge both realities.

My first questions are for Professor O'Connell. I have two questions on the legal and international framework. First, clearly, other countries are now warily watching their own sovereignty in this regard, for example, Mexico, Greenland, Colombia, Cuba and very likely others. Are there any that stand out to Professor O'Connell that face a more severe threat? Second, the arrest, as it were, has been grounded in US domestic law. Does an intervention like this have any basis in international law?

I thank those in World Vision for the work they have done on the ground. We have had a fair few discussions on the future shape of overseas aid and the huge gap that has been left, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Has there been a USAID presence in Venezuela? I assume there is none now because of the context. Is that potentially being considered in any respect?

My next question is more global rather than being particular to Venezuela. In international development aid, some of the alternatives that have been looked at relate to things like debt forgiveness and so on. Does that need to be considered in this context?

I have a final question for any of the witnesses who wish to deal with it. As well as a return to prosperity, democratic stability is also desired. It seems there is a dialogue between the US Administration and Ms Rodríquez. In the past, there were the Barbados Accords, where, ultimately, both the opposition and the government argued they were being neglected by the other side. I presume that process is probably gone by the wayside. How would the witnesses view a return to democratic stability? Obviously, it is going to be a long pathway. What is the route to that, in their view?

Let me say something preliminary that goes to the legal and humanitarian issues here. Venezuela has huge oil resources. President Trump has already seized some of those oil resources. A $500 million auction happened within days of the invasion, and those moneys have been diverted from Venezuela. One of the concrete things that this committee can do is recommend transparency in where Venezuela's resources are going. They are plainly not going to its people.

With regard to the next potential use of military force against a state to seize territory or other assets, it is hard to predict what President Trump will do next. He was dissuaded from intervening and seizing Greenland by the collapse of the stock market and other real-world pressures on him. Those can continue, and perhaps he will be dissuaded from other such unlawful actions that have so far in Venezuela only led to devastating impacts.

As for the Maduro trial, he is protected under international law through official immunity. He was the sitting head of a government in effective control and he is, therefore, protected from trial in national courts. Venezuela can waive his rights, but not the acting president; it would have to be a legitimate government, and that does not exist right now. This is a vast demonstration of lawlessness and an undermining of the international rule of law, which is part of US law. Official immunity is respected in other cases by the US courts and should be in this case.

How do we rebuild the rule of law in Venezuela, the United States and so many other places? We have to start with the public resistance we have been seeing in the US against lawlessness. We need the help of our friends committed to the rule of law, especially the underlying law, which the Chair said is a quaint set of principles that I put forward. They are the enduring, magisterial principles upon which all order, including the possibility of human rights, prosperity and the protection of the environment, depend.

To follow on from Professor O'Connell, to build the rule of law, we need access to basic services. If 3.9 million children are out of school, the future of the country is very much at stake. We need to start from the ground up and rebuild.

On the issue of aid availability to Venezuela, the UN OCHA and the USA signed an agreement on 29 December for $2 billion for 17 countries, but Venezuela is not one of those countries. While some aid may go there, the vast majority of the aid is directed elsewhere, so there is a gap.

There is also a gap globally and it needs a cohesive response, to respond to the Deputy’s point. There is debt forgiveness, private sector involvement, overseas development and other levels of investment. We need to take a rounded view of that. I think Ireland's Presidency of the European Union in the latter part of this year will be vital. When the MFF is negotiated during that period, we need to ensure there is strong humanitarian funding within the envelope that is negotiated.

Ms Mitchell and Mr. Gape may wish to comment further.

On the USG funding, the US Government has been the largest humanitarian funder in Venezuela. Even since 2019, when diplomatic relations were severed, the US Government has continued to be the largest funder through the UN agencies and INGOs like ours. Of course, we were all impacted by the aid cuts last year. There are a few programmes inside Venezuela that are still funded by the US Government. It still continues to be the largest funder, followed by the European Union.

Out of the seven countries where World Vision responded to aid Venezuelan children and their families, only two remain in our current programming, despite the ongoing and increasing needs as we see the mixed migrant flows going towards the south of the country. Millions of Venezuelans are aiming to return. However, the conditions for them to live in a dignified way within Venezuela do not exist, which, of course, highlights the need for increased funding to address their needs.

I thank the witnesses for their contributions and for painting a particularly stark picture of the humanitarian situation in the country. It is depressing to hear there is a heightened security risk since early January, particularly as it relates to children. We are hearing a very disjointed narrative. On the one hand, the US Administration has said it is saving the Venezuelans from Maduro, but at the same time, Professor O'Connell mentioned that it is removing all of the oil wealth from the country and it is going elsewhere. The fact that Venezuela was not included in the UN OCHA agreement in December is appalling, and sheds a stark light on the hypocrisy of what the US Administration wants us to hear and what is happening in practice.

We talked about the USAID cuts of last year.

We have also seen a lot of cuts from other European member states, Scandinavian countries and other big players such as the UK. Will World Vision speak on how this has had an impact with regard to overall support going to the country? Will the witnesses also speak about access and how easy it is to get food, hygiene facilities and medical facilities in and out of the country?

My next question is for Professor O'Connell, who painted a stark picture as to how far we have come since 1945, when the US Administration was leading on Article 2(4), and now it is dismantling it. She spoke about how US officials use the guise of drug trafficking to legitimise their illegal intervention. When it comes to the other attempts we have seen from the Trump Administration with regard to Cuba, Mexico, Greenland and Iran, how likely does Professor O'Connell perceive that a course of action will be taken? She noted the benefit of counter-statements from Ireland and other states and their importance for reinforcing law. How can we do more of this? She spoke in one contribution about how we rebuild the rule of law. Are statements from other countries around the world enough? Are there more tangible actions we can take? Will she speak about gaps she has seen from the international community when it comes to Venezuela? It would also be interesting to hear from her the difference she saw in the response to Greenland compared with Venezuela. What impact does she see from an academic perspective on the concepts and underpinnings of international law as we know it?

I will address the overall aid and Mr. Gape can speak about access to the country. Venezuela is not alone. World Vision and every other aid organisation in the country is facing cuts. We make difficult decisions every day about which programme we can continue and which we cannot. This is a fact of life at the moment. We have to give kudos to Irish Aid. It is one of the only agencies funding many programmes, especially in education protection. Its five-year, long-term dependable funding is something we need to see more of. We are cutting people and operations because we simply cannot afford to keep going. Difficult decisions are made daily.

Access has been one of the challenges we have had as humanitarian actors in the country. It depends on the state and the municipalities. We have been advocating for the authorities in Venezuela to allow humanitarian actors access to communities. We have to get permission through the state and local authorities to be able to deliver our services in the country. Right now our teams in Venezuela are operating normally. There is a tense calm in the country. Our teams are seeing a greater military presence on the ground and the presence of colectivos, which are the non-state groups. Currently, we are not impeded in our activities on the ground but it is a delicate situation that will be monitored daily by our staff on the ground.

I thank Senator Stephenson for her questions. I am sorry to say there is very little hope the United States will step up and renew substantial aid anywhere. Yesterday, the President announced he will cut financial aid to senior citizens in the United States in terms of healthcare. It is a particularly grim moment for generosity from the United States. That is why I continue to focus on rebuilding the rule of law. It is imperative that we receive assistance from around the world to rebuild the rule of law in the United States. That is certainly part of how we rebuild it among states and communities around the world. We are very concerned about whether the rule of law protecting free and fair elections will really be observed in the autumn. That will be one of the best moments we have to bring the message that most Americans really do care about their basic human rights and their ability to live in a peaceful society.

Things are at an extreme level. One of the real rays of hope for us, and for everyone around the world who looks to the US to be a beacon for the enforcement of rule of law, the protection of human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights and basic humanitarian concerns was the statement in Davos by the Prime Minister of Canada. He said that we have to work together and that there has to be solidarity. The greatest bond of solidarity human beings have is the common bond of law that is true of all of our communities. It is ancient and enduring. It does not end even when there are high levels of violations. It is always there to be brought back, to understand and restate the wisdom of the ancient, deep, cultural, moral understanding of how we live together in society.

We have lost so much knowledge through our short-term interest in fast answers. With quick military force and by reaping the whirlwind of so many uses of military force since the end of the Cold War, we are killing this idea that we are going to improve complex social situations, instead of rebuilding economies, promoting human rights or following the long slow road to rebuilding. We have a lot of work to do when somebody like President Trump is willing to use military force to divert interest away from his falling poll numbers and for other simply inexcusable reasons. That is why it is very hard for me to say where the President will go next. He has a list of places he has said he will use military force against. He is an unpredictable person. The fact the rule of law has been so weakened that a person such as him is able to bring a whole government with him on these uses of force without question is what needs an answer. Prime Minister Carney spoke about the solidarity we need to restate the rules on trade, environment and human rights and, most importantly, against the use of military force, especially the seizure of government officials. That is what needs to happen. Ireland joined the EU 25 in condemning Venezuela but so much more can be said. We need vast new education on what international law says.

I will direct my first set of questions to Professor O'Connell. For 20 years international bodies have condemned arbitrary detentions, torture and political imprisonment in Venezuela. What concrete enforcement protections has international law actually delivered for the victims who have reported this? I know quite a few Venezuelans living in my constituency, who have integrated very well. A number of them have families in El Helicoide prison and they speak about their problems. I want to look at the accountability of international law. If a government systemically violates human rights and ignores international rulings, what real impact and power does international law have over it? At what point does a single mechanism have the force to make Venezuela comply?

I want to ask about the strength of international law and what is effective. The core problem of international law is that the strengths of democratic states are far more efficient than those of authoritarian states; one while powerful state can ignore and the other has the credibility of legal order. On human rights, there is the scale of a reprehensible state undermining the moral legitimacy of human rights and absolute non-intervention. If sovereignty always wins, where are the victims' rights in international law? Where do we stand with this?

On a second point, World Vision and UNICEF are fantastic organisations. They both registered the words "act now" and "we need to act immediately". What does that look like exactly? What is the witnesses' vision of that? Professor O'Connell noted in one of her replies the illegitimacy of the Venezuelan presidency and that the country does not have a legitimate government at this point. When does she believe that legitimate government fell? Has it been 20 years since we had a legitimate government in Venezuela or was it prior to that?

There are a few questions there, addressing what concrete enforcement of people's rights the previous government engaged in, the accountability of the Maduro Government over a period of time and international law, and whether the state itself undermined the human rights of its own citizens. Does that capture Deputy O'Flynn's questions?

Yes.

Those are very important, complex questions that we can only touch on here in any meaningful way. Let me say one thing I have learned over 40 years of teaching international law in the United States and Europe. International law is the only alternative. Yes, it is weak. Human rights are not well protected. However, I have talked to many people in many countries, at many levels of education and so on, and everyone understands today that they have human rights. That is thanks to the tireless work of people who constantly promote the international rule of law and its most important understandings, including peace, human rights, protection of the environment and prosperity. There is no alternative. The great lesson of the post-Cold War period is that military force does not advance human rights. Time and again we have seen the failure of military force. The UN Charter is a document that says all military force is prohibited, except in the very narrow cases of actually needing it to defend against counter-force. In the world today there is only one country that is using force lawfully, and that is Ukraine in its defence against the aggression of Russia. All these other places, where there are attempts to advance human rights through military force, should spend the money they are putting into bombs. For example, the United States is spending money to blow up small boats and make fishermen fearful even to go out into the Caribbean to feed their families. That money could all be used to help support the economies of the countries that have turned to drugs and lawlessness. If the United States had stayed engaged with Venezuela instead of using dumb sanctions to try to push a human rights agenda, if they had invested and engaged with people without this heavy-handed, hegemonic approach, we might be in a better place, but I do not want to do counterfactuals today. We are in crisis situations around the world and the way forward is very clear. It is to bring solidarity against further military violence that kills people. Eighty-three people died and their human right to life was denied. We are not going to promote the human rights of other Venezuelans when that kind of action is allowed.

Okay, thank you.

May I make one comment on the legitimate government issue?

Yes.

Yes, Delcy Rodríguez is charge. She is running the country. There has to be support for her. She has recently said she wants some distance from the United States. International law has a lot of common sense to it. She is the person who is in effective control and must be lobbied to bring a human rights approach to what she is doing, if she wants to have a country instead of all the disasters she is reigning over. That does not mean that the trial of Maduro is lawful. He has international law's right to official immunity.

Just to confirm, the professor is recognising that the present Venezuelan Administration, under Chávez, Maduro and the new president who has assumed office, as a legitimate government.

She is the person who is running the country. She must be dealt with if there is going to be the quick improvement that colleagues have spoken to. Then it is up to all of us as a world community to help Venezuela move towards free and fair elections. That should be done carefully over time so that it is a real set of elections that can have effect for people's day-to-day lives.

Does Professor O'Connell condemn the previous administration of Chávez and Maduro?

Absolutely. I am an international lawyer. I speak about human rights every day. I am talking about ways and means. If we want effective change, we should look to how South Africa became a leading rule-of-law country through careful, slow efforts and a worldwide boycott that helped encourage, but not through violence and military force.

We will have to come back to World Vision for its answers on this. There will be ample time. Senator Higgins is next.

It is welcome to hear a proper, passionate assertion of international law. I worry, even in the statement by Carney that there is an interpretation that says we are moving to a new order now. The betrayal of and failure to deliver on international law is not a reason to say we are now parking international law. It is a matter of challenging large powers that have tried to operate in a "might is right" frame of mind while simultaneously giving lip service to international law. It needs to be about actually reasserting international law and its application to everybody. The idea that it applies to everybody is crucial and the witnesses might comment on that.

Absolutely, there are particular concerns, especially since the last election, about Venezuela. There was a very widely disputed outcome of the last election and human rights concerns have been raised. However, there was a comparatively weak international response to the breaches of international law that took place in Venezuela. Within days, we saw a narrative around Mexico, which is clearly a very well-functioning democracy. We saw comments about Greenland. They were coming from that same place. If you allow the emboldenment of breaches of international law in a context where we may not like a particular administration, that has a knock-on effect in making it harder to gather the international resistance we need in respect of other potential breaches.

I have read some of the professor's previous writing on the prohibition of the use of force and the question of what national courts might do, as well as on the issue of international law around intervention and the imperial control of a foreign country. Will she comment on that and on what we are seeing now in terms of the expropriation of $500 million already in oil resources? She mentioned the boats. Ireland has sadly facilitated the military tracking of boats from Venezuela, which is something that requires further examination from us, in what was clearly a military context. Will Professor O'Connell comment on that? I think many people expected to see stronger language about moving to free and fair elections, humanitarian support and so on. Instead, we have simply seen the language of "we are taking it".

My next question is for World Vision. In 2019, we saw the increase in sanctions. I am conscious of that knock-on effect, if the witnesses could comment on the sanctions. A number of arbitration cases are being taken against Venezuela, including, which I think is wild, Haliburton taking a case against Venezuela because of the US sanctions that were placed on Venezuela. They are saying "sanctions have been placed on you, so we want you to pay us compensation." It is an extraordinary stretch, but I am worried that Haliburton may be paid back before the negative impact of the sanctions is addressed.

We would like to get the Senator's questions answered.

Just on that, that would be interesting. The very last question is for Ms Mitchell, who spoke about the impact of what is happening in migration policy. Are we also seeing that those who may have sent money to family back in Venezuela are inhibited at the moment because of the clampdown on the comparatively very small number of migrants who are left?

We will go to World Vision first for the impact of sanctions and the migration piece.

I am going to defer to my expert colleagues in the field for this one. Mr. Gape and Ms Mitchell can speak to those.

In 2019, when World Vision initiated its operations in Venezuela, we saw the beginning of a very heavy migration flow towards the north. Five years on, we see Venezuelans crossing through very dangerous routes, including the Darién Gap.

Despite the sanctions, World Vision managed to operate internally in Venezuela through local partners. Mr. Gape can speak on how we work with local partners. What we have done, not only in Venezuela, but throughout the region, is empower local partners, especially faith-based organisations, to become humanitarian actors to deliver essential aid to Venezuelan children and their families. This is in general terms.

The sanctions have definitely impacted the work of humanitarians in Venezuela. About two years ago, I appeared before the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and we talked about this. We asked its members to review that policy because the high costs in Venezuela, including the cost of operating as a humanitarian actor in Venezuela, are partly related to the sanctions, but that is not all. At the same time, the reality is that the Government in Venezuela, which is responsible for delivering services to the most vulnerable in Venezuela, needs to do its job and use the resources it has, even with the sanctions in place. Anyone who goes to Venezuela will see that it is not like before but there are resources and they are not being utilised well. As humanitarian actors, we focus on delivering services and what we are advocating for is for political actors do their job well. Otherwise, people suffer.

Professor O'Connell has one minute but we will have a second round. I am sorry to shackle her with that limited time but we will be coming back.

I can be brief. I just want to associate myself with the statement that we have international law. Solidarity has to be in support of the law we have. We do not need to try to reinvent international law. Social science is clear on how to rebuild norms. It begins with understanding what the law actually says and by not allowing for these folks who like to speak to power in order to enhance their own power. It involves speaking to people who know and understand deeply what international law actually says, namely, it prohibits the use of force.

The second point, which is the one I have really been speaking to, is about modelling compliance with international law. There are so many countries in the world fully committed to international law. Ireland is one of them. There are many others, like South Africa, Costa Rica, Australia and New Zealand, and they all can focus on how to rebuild the rule of law, which is what is needed now.

The line about modelling international law is one that landed with me anyway. Deputy Shay Brennan is next.

I want to ask about the current economic conditions and any potential for the medium-term rebuilding and recovery of the Venezuelan economy. In his opening statement, Mr. Gape made a remark - the Chair referred to it - about $633 for a monthly basket of groceries as against a minimum wage of 40 cents. That seems shocking. I just wonder how the economy is functioning at all. Who is selling groceries for that price? More to the point, who is actually working for that money? Compared to $633, that wage is effectively zero, so I do not know who is working for zero.

That is the current situation, and I would be keen to understand how that looks on the ground. Beyond that, though, Venezuela has probably one of the most abundant oil sources in the world. I want to try to understand what the prognosis for any oil-based recovery is. I note that the US was pushing for a $100 billion investment but I am not sure how likely that is. Oil is $40 a barrel at the moment. I think it costs $20 a barrel to get it out of the ground globally, while it costs $80 a barrel in Venezuela. This means global oil prices would need to be about $120 a barrel before anybody would even look at that. I am not sure if that is in any way likely. Part of the reason it is so expensive is the utter neglect of the oil infrastructure and the investment that needs to go in there. However, if it was likely, what is there to safeguard against this being monopolised by political factions or security forces, as has happened to date? This is one of the reasons the oil sector is in such a bad condition in Venezuela. If it is not to be an oil-based recovery, likely or unlikely as that may be, what economic potential could drive the future of Venezuela?

The economic question from Deputy Brennan is the one that really strikes me. Who is buying groceries at those prices and who is working for that income? Does Mr. Sadlier want to address this?

I might start and then invite Mr. Gape to contribute. World Vision probably has some cash programming that provides cash for communities. This is not a universally held opinion within my own organisation, never mind anywhere else, but I do not think we can ask Venezuela or any country to have an oil-based recovery. We know the era of fossil fuels is gone. If we put them on an oil-based recovery, it will be stranded assets and will be contributing to the already occurring climate disasters that are affecting Venezuela and the whole region. We have a dry corridor project there and we are already seeing the impacts of climate change in the region. While an oil-based recovery is a natural one to look at, there are opportunities, as the country is rebuilt, for a green transition. We need to look at what is a more sustainable future for Venezuela. That comes to all of us then as we invest and the question goes to the IMIs and the banks as to what they are investing in in the region as opposed to just an oil-based recovery.

Mr. Gape might speak about the everyday economies of a household in Venezuela and how people are actually surviving at this moment in time.

Most people have two or three jobs just to meet their needs. A school teacher officially receiving that minimum wage cannot live. That is why many teachers have a second job or a third job, either a small business or they do other jobs. That is the reason in many schools in Venezuela, especially in the remote rural areas or even in some urban areas, the teachers only work two or three times a week. They have to use the other days to find other means to meet their needs. As a result, many children only go to school two to three times a week. It is hard. As I mentioned in my statement, the reality is most Venezuelan families do not meet their basic nutritional needs. Historically, Venezuelans have been the taller and larger Latin Americans. However, in the last decade or so, there have been more incidents of stunting and wasting in Venezuela and malnutrition is a big issue. One of our challenges in Venezuela is that we do not have data. We have data internally as organisations, which we sometimes share among organisations, but we cannot publish data. We cannot advocate for the situation in Venezuela, especially on the issue of malnutrition, because we are restricted from publishing negative data on Venezuela by the authorities there.

In terms of the economy, I have friends and family members in Venezuela and outside. If there were to be a restoration of order and confidence in the system in Venezuela, I know many of my friends and family members would want to go home.

One of the drivers of this long-term development in Venezuela is the diaspora. Unfortunately, the most highly-educated Venezuelans left. If there is an opportunity to go back, then that will also drive long-term development in Venezuela.

Beyond the rebuilding of an oil-based economy, we need to speak about rebuilding institutions to ensure the social protection of children and vulnerable families. That is the key discussion: how to rebuild those institutions that are much needed. For example, regarding the education of a whole generation, we are speaking about millions of children who have been out of the school system, which utterly condemns them to poverty. The question is how can we rebuild education capacities in Venezuela. Also, how can we rebuild the institutional capacity to ensure health and not only health but something as basic as the sense of safety of a child? Today, children in Venezuela face long-lasting cognitive and physical damage inflicted to their bodies due to the lack of proper nutrition and the fear that they suffer. These are very long-lasting effects that they will experience. Therefore, we need to speak about how can we rebuild institutions, have policies and the funding to implement those policies that would ensure that children have access to their basic right to nutrition, health, education and protection. We need that for children in Venezuela and throughout the Americas who are unaccompanied or are separated from their parents. That is part of the discussion that we need to tackle in the future to ensure the rights of children from Venezuela.

I thank everybody for coming in today and speaking, and for all their hard work and efforts in Venezuela.

First, I ask the witnesses what they feel about the response by the European Union. Ms Kaja Kallas, during her tenure as the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, made what I would describe as ridiculous or obnoxious remarks that I contend expose her as a deeply unserious person who lacks credibility in her role or even a basic grasp of European history. She said that Ireland's neutrality arose due to Ireland not having a modern-day understanding of atrocities, mass deportations, suppression of culture and language. Can one imagine her saying that to Irish people?

Ms Kallas has worked with Israel, effectively assisting their attempts to supplement UNWRA, despite the European Union, let alone her role, having the right or legitimacy to do so. I must say that the list is endless and I am aware that I am limited for time.

The European Commissioner is not here to defend herself.

Sorry. In response to the events in Venezuela - I suppose this is who is in Europe - what do the witnesses think of what Europe has done? Should they have done more? They have said that they are monitoring the situation without any condemnation of the actions at hand. What impact does the delegation feel this has on the credibility of the European Union, particularly in the global south? Do they believe it undermines the EU when responding to other breaches or threats of international law, say, the situation in Ukraine or Greenland? What do the witnesses infer from the European Union when it says it is monitoring the situation? What do they think that means?

If we look at the statements by the Irish Government in response to the kidnapping in Venezuela, the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, said that the removal of President Maduro from power was a good thing and said that kidnapping is complex when it comes to international law. The Taoiseach refused to criticise the action by the US. What impact do the witnesses think this has on the perception of Ireland and our credibility in terms of having independent foreign policies?

My last question is on the US and Trump and the taking of $500 million worth of oil. What do the witnesses think Trump is using that for? Why did it not go back to Venezuela? Is there nobody standing up for where that oil went? I am sure $500 million would have been very useful to pay for humanitarian, nutritional aid, health aid and education aid in Venezuela. Where do the witnesses think that money has gone? Is there nobody kicking up a racket about that?

Three questions have been asked concerning the response by the EU, the response by the Irish Government and the $500 million oil deal.

I am happy to the last question. My wonderful colleague, George Lopez, is an expert on international sanctions. He has been working very hard on this question of the diversion of the $500 million. He advocates for the sensible and careful lifting sanctions as a beginning of the restoration of the Venezuelan economy. Ireland and the European Union should support that 100%. Things did change at Davos. In answer to the Deputy's very appropriate points, the fear that Donald Trump would make bad trade deals and raise tariffs is so disappointing in countries that are not willing to take a shorter term financial pressure in order to do the right thing and stand by the rule of law. Nobody wants to say anything nice about Maduro. I get that but are you extending the rule of law and human rights within Venezuela if you allow a kidnapping to go unprotested? Maduro should stand trial. First and foremost, he should stand trial in Venezuela where the rule of law and a criminal justice system is restored. How do you do that? It takes a full set of answers, not just money which we do not even know will come now. It also requires support for legal principles that are well known. It is suppressed out of fear and ignorance and those are things we can work on now. I am sorry to say that I do not see quick solutions except perhaps on the $500 million. I do not know why governments around the world are not telling Trump that we know where the money has gone. It has gone to two businessmen who are very close to Trump.

Be careful.

That can be reversed. Back to World Vision.

I am going to have to be very careful because, as World Vision, we are neutral and we have to respect impartiality and neutrality. While I have many personal opinions, I will refrain from expressing those. From our side, we would like to see in all cases strong respect for international humanitarian law and human rights norms. We would expect nations who purport to support those to stand up for those at all accounts. I am not going to comment on those and get myself in trouble because it is only me who would end up in trouble.

I do not want to put Mr. Gape and Ms Mitchell under pressure, as we have up to 300 staff working in Venezuela at the moment and we have colleagues working on the front line across the globe. We are always quite careful about statements we make.

What funding does World Vision get from the EU for Venezuela, broadly speaking?

Mr. Gape might know whether we get European civil protection and humanitarian aid operations, ECHO, funding.

We do. We are a partner of ECHO in Venezuela. Globally, the European Union has reduced its funding for humanitarian work. In Latin America, and if I am not mistaken, I think there has been a reduction of around 30%. The budget that was done last year is being implemented in this fiscal year. To date in 2026, ECHO has, thankfully, maintained its budget in Venezuela from 2025. It is one of the countries in the region that did not get any cuts in ECHO.

How much is that for 2026?

I believe it is €40 million, if I am not mistaken. I would have to double-check.

I will segue with a brief question for Professor O’Connell. What is the academic climate like for her?

In the first number of months of the Trump Presidency, it was particularly fraught on some university campuses. I would value a little bit of Professor O'Connell's time on that.

I thank the Chair for the question. We also need solidarity with the world. At universities and on the streets, our migrant community, of course, is suffering terribly. I do not want to put academics in the same position as so many people in the US who are really feeling the brunt of the decline of the rule of law here but we have all been chilled. When the cuts began, there were major cuts to our research efforts and funding, which is so essential to our understanding of human rights and culture. Members are aware of the major cuts to basic science, medicine and climate research. It has been extraordinary that it has happened so quickly and in such a devastating, pointless fashion. It is a really nihilistic approach to higher education. We are all concerned, as our colleague from World Vision is, that if we say the wrong thing, our university and students will be targeted. We have to be very careful. We no longer feel like we have true academic freedom.

I am a very senior person. If I speak out, I am willing to accept that I may lose my position. I am willing to do that. I have had the vast privilege of extraordinary opportunities to learn about international law and to see the good that it does. I will not be silent but I am being very careful so that my students and my colleagues do not suffer. I am working with a student right now from Honduras. He will not be able to go back to Honduras to do his field work in the judicial system and his work on how to counter militarism within the Central American countries in favour of an authentic rule of law. We are trying to work around his ability to do that basic research and to contribute in that really concrete way to the future of the region but we have to be very careful. I have really appreciated the frankness of this conversation and the ability to speak to all of the committee and to feel like there are people concerned in the world for improving the situation.

I have been a critic of all US presidents post the Cold War for unlawful use of military force. There is an opportunity now in this very bleak moment because people are seeing what we have lost and the opportunity to rebuild, and I am going to be part of that. However, I must be frank to say that even here and now, I am always thinking about my students and colleagues and I do not want them to be targets of this Administration.

I have one other question. It relates to an issue we are very familiar with in this committee because we hear the consequences of it, for example in the context of our own programme in Africa. We have seven programme countries that the Government has traditionally focused on. Everybody is conscious of the cuts in US aid. However, I have heard some commentary of late. Obviously, the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, is a federal programme. Have I heard correctly that some individual states in the US are responding to requests for what traditionally would have been provided federally? Is an attempt now being made to at least provide it from state coffers?

I do not know if our colleagues from World Vision can speak to that. It is always possible. Americans are, in their hearts, very generous, as the post-Second World War era has really shown. I know there is real hunger, concern and commitment to restoring our ability to be generous again. So states have a fair amount. I am thinking that, perhaps, a state like California has tried to step up. We have so many Venezuelan refugees in this country who are under terrible stress right now from what is happening at home in Venezuela but also due to the way they are being treated by the Trump Administration. There may be those organisations lobbying state governments. I cannot tell the committee right now. The need is so great across the board because the cuts have not only been abroad and to other countries but also within the US. We are looking at how we are going to fund our students. We are taking very serious cuts to education and to financial aid for university students. It is really unfathomable. All I can say is that my old Irish spirit that led to the emigration of my family from Ireland to the United States for better economic opportunities will continue. The Irish people have a great tradition of commitment to law and basic moral principles in how they think about the world, and that gives me great hope.

I thank Professor O'Connell. We are into our second round of questioning now. We will start with five minutes anyway. If there was something our witnesses did not get to say in the first round, maybe keep it in mind but there are additional questions. I will start this time with Senator Patricia Stephenson.

This is a really useful discussion for us. I know we are a small group in this room but people are logging on to contextualise themselves. Venezuela is not a country that we would be as familiar with in Ireland in the way we are with similar countries where World Vision works in sub-Saharan Africa. We would have a bigger awareness of them, so it is really helpful for us to understand the context.

Professor O'Connell mentioned that Maduro should stand trial. It is very helpful for us to hear an international human rights lawyer condemn the actions of the Maduro regime in terms of the awful human rights abuses. Both the UN fact-finding mission and the International Criminal Court, ICC, documented possible crimes against humanity by the Maduro regime and high-ranking authorities. It is really helpful to be able, on the one hand, to highlight those human rights concerns and the authoritarianism. At the same time, this is not mutually exclusive to the fact that international law was broken in the kidnapping of a head of state. International leaders have somehow found it difficult in the context of Venezuela to say those things with the same pressure and emphasis, though they deserve that. When we look at the total chaos of the world at the moment, international law is the only thing that we have as an anchor to any sense of decency, morality or legal responsibility. It is really helpful to hear Professor O'Connell highlight that so clearly.

I wanted to bring up Mr. Sadlier's point where he spoke a little bit about the EU Presidency. He spoke about Irish Aid as a unique donor that focuses on education and protection. This is just for us as a committee to reflect on inputs we could have on the EU Presidency around promoting aid and overseas development aid. Ireland, at least, while a small actor, has increased our overall contribution in the last budget, and I am very proud of that. I refer, maybe, to those specific things that get lost, and also that commitment to encouraging other EU member states to commit to multiannual funding, localised funding that goes to local partners first and foremost, non-direct implementation and things like that. That is a kind of commentary for us as a committee.

Okay. Professor O'Connell has to leave in five minutes. With the agreement of my colleagues, I will give her five minutes, and we will allocate the other time to our other three witnesses. There is plenty of time left. Professor O'Connell has the floor all to herself for five minutes. We are very grateful again for her presence and her time. Well, I am very grateful. Senator Higgins is going to ask one question.

Chair, if Professor O'Connell is leaving, could I-----

I am very grateful to-----

I am sorry, Professor. Senator Higgins is going to ask one question.

It is on that question of the imperial piece, which I know Professor O'Connell has written about in articles. I refer to that idea of the imperial control piece and the importance of pulling back on that. She might comment on that aspect.

Terrific. Professor O'Connell has the floor.

I thank the Chair. I am sorry to have to go. I teach a course called international dispute resolution. Those students, from 12 different countries, are the reason I do anything, so I want to honour them. This has been a really important conversation, one of the rare conversations where we have seen a blend of the underlying basis upon which the international order depends, which is the rule of law, and understanding what it is, how to promote it and how to rebuild it.

Then there is the practical end of things when it is not being honoured and how it works is not being understood. We must look at how it can be enforced and better promoted in the face of the hunger of children and the desperate environmental collapse that is happening, and in the context where children cannot even go to school and are falling asleep when they even try.

The ability to bring these conversations together and see how they interact and work together has been extraordinary for me. I am really grateful to all of the committee members. I hope this line of discussion continues. I also hope the committee will look further at the issue and consider listening to some of the economic experts who are working against the ongoing sanctions, which are having undue negative impacts, in a variety of countries. Transparency, and the demand for following international law in economic and financial relations, will have a huge and immediate impact on Venezuela's economy and on the basis on which it can go forward.

One of the things that is underplayed in many conversations is the idea - the false conclusion - that has grown up since the end of the Cold War that it was somehow military force and the US's extraordinary spending on weapons that led to the end of the Soviet Union and enabled democracy, the rule of law and free-market exchange to somehow flourish. It was not. What led to the amazing change was the human rights movement, the Helsinki Accords and the grassroots demands for basic human rights, respect for the human person and the equality of states. I refer, for example, to the demand that Hungary should be considered a state equal to the Soviet Union and should not have been suppressed by it. These enduring human longings are supported by international law in its fundamental principles. In the US, especially, the thinking was that US military spending won that war and therefore it deserved to be the hegemon and that countries needed to answer to it. The European Union's decision that NATO represented a way in which it could benefit from this hegemon's success against the Soviet Union has deformed the 30 years since the end of the Cold War. Now we have reaped what that deformation has finally concluded, with the President of the US saying he is going to invade Greenland.

Before the climate completely collapses, more people are forced to migrate from their homes and more elderly people die of preventable diseases, it is imperative in the United States that we reset, that we give a commitment to law and that we understand that international communities - sovereign states - are equal. Not only must we not have a hegemonic system, but we will not operate successfully on a hegemonic system - we must operate on a system of equality. When we come together in the UN, every state has one vote in the General Assembly. It is on that basis that we should have hope. We have a vision for promoting and building up the four main pillars of international law, which are human rights, prosperity, peace and the ability to resolve disputes using mechanisms of peaceful settlement, such as the International Court of Justice and arbitration. What happened to mediation? We no longer have great mediators like Nelson Mandela and Jimmy Carter. We need such people back. We need to reinvent the great skills that led to the Good Friday Agreement. When we do, we will have a chance of prosperity, of a trading system that honours the environment and of treaty commitments and promises that once again mean something. It is a huge task, but we have no alternative but to embrace it. This conversation has given me a great sense that there are countries and governments in the world that want to see that vision. I am happy to speak again at any time and to recommend other speakers especially my colleague, Professor George Lopez, on the sanctions issue. With that, I must say goodbye and thank you very much.

I thank Professor O'Connell. I know she has had to rush off. Could Senator Stephenson summarise the questions she has for World Vision? Then Senator Higgins will have five minutes to ask whatever questions she wants. I have one or two questions to ask. Then the witnesses will have ten or 15 minutes to answer the questions between the three of them. I hope that is fair enough.

I talked about the importance of Ireland maybe playing a leading role and championing that whole education and protection piece, and overseas development aid, as part of our role in the EU Presidency. The Chair can think about what way we might be able to do that when it comes to the Department of foreign affairs. It would be really good to hear from all of the witnesses about what that means in practice. When aid is cut, certain programmes are cut first because they are not life saving. They could speak to what the impact of those programmes being cut actually has on communities. For example, in the area of protection, I refer to the impact of the increase in sexual and gender-based violence against women and girls. In education, I refer to the lack of bright minds to move forward when it comes to longer term reconstruction, lifting themselves out of poverty, and all of those things. Could I hear directly why those programmes are not actually peripheral and why they are so important to sustainable development aid? Could the witnesses paint a picture of how damaging it is? While we might still be able to do some water programmes and get in food to feed people, what is the impact of those "peripheral" programmes that are the first to go on life and on people's ability to thrive and to develop sustainable, safe and peaceful communities?

Senator Higgins can throw the whole kitchen sink at it now.

I will. That was key, because there has been an ability and a desire within this committee to try to bring some focus to international development aid within the Presidency period. So much is focused on the USA, but as we have heard there are cuts of up to 30% in EU funding. There is an impact not just on the quantity, but also on the quality. I refer to the key principle of untied aid, for example, which has been a very strong principle for Ireland. We are moving away from a very utilitarian approach to aid to one that is sometimes called aid but which is in fact interest promotion. This is a strand that, to be honest, has not had much focus in terms of looking at South America. Within that conversation as well, there was a mention of five countries that World Vision has pulled away from. Ireland has quite active engagement with Colombia in terms of the peace process. We also have representation in Brazil. It would be good to know what the pull away from the five countries means. Is there capacity to look to a bridge to being able to go back to increasing the engagement or to support those countries? It puts into stark contrast some of the complaints we hear about migration in Ireland. Historically, the numbers are so small comparatively, when we look at the much higher numbers in other countries.

I have another question on the migration piece. We all see the repression and the targeting of certain groups such as Somalis and Venezuelans within the United States. Historically in Ireland, many families relied on remittances, the money that came back from family members working abroad. Is that another strand of economic impact that is hitting families, as the insecurity of family members increases?

My last question goes to the point Mr. Sadlier made. He made clear that it was own point, but it is very crucial. We heard from Professor O'Connell about the international element. It is interesting that Mary Robinson, significantly, just this week reaffirmed that we need to redouble our commitment on international law. She spoke specifically about the Paris Agreement and the fact that when the United States left, other countries did not leave. It does strike me that in affirming the importance of international law and the work of peace, Europe could have a stronger line, not just in talking about the charter and the breaches of the charter, but also in ensuring that whatever comes next for Venezuela is rooted in international law. I worry that there seems to be a stepping back from Europe to say it will let the United States kind of take the lead on this and hope it works out, while mentioning the UN charter. Is there not an argument for an active engagement by Europe in situations like Venezuela to ensure we get proper things like peace processes involved? I refer, for example, to the active role of women and civilians under resolution 1325 in building peace and democracy. Crucially, the solution will not be about a large number of companies taking out a lot of oil, giving no money back and, in fact, exacerbating the climate crisis.

Europe could have a role in the environmental, human rights and peacebuilding components of what is next but I am worried that it seems to be standing back. Whatever about other criticisms, standing back on the what comes next aspect is worrying. I know the witnesses are limited in the political commentary they can give but I am interested in their response.

The three witnesses have the floor. There is no time for further questions.

I spent three and a half years working for Mary Robinson, so I might do as she once advised, which was to answer the question I want to answer. I will make some general commentary, after which Ms Mitchell might respond on migration, the remittances and the broader impact on countries in the region.

To clarify, we have stopped one programme that was in seven countries. World Vision is still active in Brazil and all those other countries. We have not ceased operations but that one programme looking specifically at Venezuelan migrants is gone.

The Senator is right that Europe has to play a stronger role. I see the need for much more forceful commentary and leadership across Europe. Listening to a Sunday newspaper panel show recently, there was a lot of commentary about how Ireland needs to redefine our foreign policy to be all about defence. I disagree with that. Ireland often gets nearly bullied in the schoolyard for our principled and old-fashioned foreign aid policy. It is exactly what is needed at this moment in time. It is right, it is principled and we have a role to demonstrate that to everyone. I really am grateful to Irish Aid, the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, and the Minister, Deputy McEntee, for the growth in our aid at a very difficult time. That has to be commended. There is no way Ireland or the EU can fill the gap left behind by USAID. That is impossible and nobody is asking for it. We need to look at championing traditional aid, principled aid or whatever we want to call it within the EU and the MFF, and to demonstrate that it works.

To answer Senator Stephenson's question, I was in Sudan a few years ago and what is there are education, emergency and protection programmes. I asked the parents I met there whether this was really what they wanted at that moment in time. One of the mothers replied that without education, they would be in the exact same situation in 100 years. They knew the importance of education and I firmly believe it is what will bring us back to the rule of law. Citizen engagement and people's ability to claim their rights can only be gained through education. The ability to read and write enables people to go into the marketplace and hold governments to account. People see some of these basic services as not in their own interest but the opposite is true. People can develop their own economies and grow their countries. That is what we will see happening.

Ms Mitchell and Mr. Gape have a lot to say about the protection services. Again, colleagues within World Vision know Irish Aid will fund protection services because it is understood it is life-saving, that a young girl being able to access a child-friendly space in Syria or Venezuela is as emergency intervention that increases the quality of that child's life, not just something that is nice to have. Research that has just been done by colleagues in Venezuela talks about the silence of terror and how children are on alert all the time like they are in a suspense movie. It is a state of hyper-vigilance. Protection in that situation is not a nice-to-have; it is an essential service to ensure children are not terrorised their whole lives and that they have a future.

Ireland might not be the biggest aid donor but the quality of our aid is important. The five-year commitment and the flexibility we have are essential. There is an onus on us all, both in the NGO sector and members of this committee, to champion Ireland's aid work, both domestically and internationally. We have a role within that to ensure people understand the immense impact it is having across all agencies that receive funding from Irish Aid - UN, non-governmental and governments as well. I can talk quite a lot but I will let my colleagues in at this point.

Regarding remittances, I remind members that in 2025, inflation in Venezuela reached 530%. When it comes to the devaluation of the currency, it was at more than 400%. Those are the figures last year. To give an example, beef, a commodity that is out of the reach of the majority of families, rose in price from $11 per kg in December to over $25 in some places in Caracas. That is something our staff has confirmed.

Remittances are a life-saving source of income for a third of families in Venezuela. That comes at a very high price. Remittances are sent by mothers and fathers who had to leave behind their children. Back in 2023, a study we did found that more than 1 million children were left behind in Venezuela when their parents had to flee or migrate in order to have income to send back home. That income is insufficient at this point in the face of inflation and this becomes a barrier to access food and even healthcare. Even when health facilities in Venezuela are open, there are no medicines in many of them. This is why humanitarian aid is necessary and there is an urgency around having flexible, sustained funding in order that Venezuelan people, inside Venezuela and outside it, can rebuild their agency. It enables them to have sustainable livelihoods and to produce income to send back to their country. We are also working to ensure social integration of Venezuelan nationals throughout the Americas.

As Mr. Sadlier mentioned, under Hope Without Borders, our multicountry response, we are in seven countries. This is the response that ended but we are still operating in those countries under other programmes. Sadly, in Chile, for example, the projects we had specifically for the Venezuelan population in Arica and other places had to be suspended in 2025. That project provided access to clean water because, in many cases, Venezuelans live in informal dwellings that do not have access to essential services. It is the same in Peru, where the majority of Venezuelans dwell in the capital city, Lima. Sadly, the project there also had to be suspended due to the cut in funds. We appreciate the generous individual and business donors that are supporting us but those funding streams do not substitute for the very acute cut in funds experienced during 2025 and that will continue in 2026.

I will comment on the challenge the cuts present in prioritising our assistance. In protection, for example, there is still some funding but now, with all donors, especially public donors, we have to justify that our spending is on so-called life-saving activities. In protection right now, donors will focus on case management of incidents. This is a challenge for us because if we want to tackle protection issues, we have to start with prevention. That is a big piece of our work but now we do not have funding for prevention from public donors, who are focusing their resources on case management, which is about the effects of the problem and not trying to prevent it.

Venezuela is an example of the other impact of the cuts. Previously, the mid-term response plan was focused on at least 15 or 16 states.

Due to the significant cuts in Venezuela, it is now focused only on the six most vulnerable states. For organisations like us where before we operated in 11 states, now we have to refocus our resources and our attention because that is where the resources are going. Now, we only operate in four states plus the surrounding communities in Caracas.

Professor George Lopez had been mentioned as somebody who has done writing on the economic side of what we are hearing. Maybe we could get a supplementary written note on what has been mentioned. I thank all the witnesses.

I thank the World Vision witnesses and Professor O'Connell. That was a very powerful session, which provided very useful information for us. I thank the members for their questions. There is no doubt this an extremely important issue. We had witnesses giving us information on Sudan during a recent session. Thanks be to God, there is not a civil war in Venezuela because it is bad enough for children according to the papers that the witnesses submitted. They are in our thoughts.