Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 1 Jul 2005

Vol. 605 No. 6

Treaty of Amsterdam: Motions.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option or discretion, provided by Article 3 of the fourth Protocol set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam, to notify the President of the Council that it wishes to take part in the adoption and of the following proposed measure:

a proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council establishing the European Return Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the general programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows',

a copy of which proposed measure was laid before Dáil Éireann on 3 June 2005.

Question put and agreed to.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option or discretion, provided by Article 3 of the fourth Protocol set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam, to notify the President of the Council that it wishes to take part in the adoption and application of the following proposed measure:

a proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the general programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows',

a copy of which proposed measure was laid before Dáil Éireann on 3 June 2005.

Question put and agreed to.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option or discretion, provided by Article 3 of the fourth Protocol set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam, to notify the President of the Council that it wishes to take part in the adoption and application of the following proposed measure:

a proposal for a Council Decision establishing the European Fund for the Integration of Third-country nationals for the period 2007 to 2013 as part of the general programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows',

a copy of which proposed measure was laid before Dáil Éireann on 3 June 2005.

Question put and agreed to.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option or discretion provided by Article 1.11 of the Treaty of Amsterdam to take part in the adoption of a proposal for an EU Council Framework Decision to strengthen the criminal law framework for the enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 22 June 2005.

Question put and agreed to.

UN Reform: Statements.

This follows on from a discussion that we had in the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs with regard to UN reform. This is the 60th anniversary of the United Nations and the 50th year since Ireland joined the organisation. The United Nations has since occupied a central place in Ireland's foreign policy. A rules-based international order and strong multilateral institutions are essential for international peace and prosperity and are especially necessary to smaller states in the protection of their interests. Moreover, Ireland contributes to human security largely through the United Nations, particularly in the areas of peacekeeping and human rights and through its participation in the UN funds and programmes. It is therefore central to Ireland's interests that the United Nations functions efficiently and effectively.

With the end of the Cold War, there were strong hopes that the United Nations would finally be able to function fully as envisaged in its charter. The organisation, however, faced many severe challenges during the 1990s and the secretariat had to strive to adapt itself to the new conditions. It met some challenges adequately and some, as we know, very inadequately. However, the main problem lay not in the UN secretariat, although there were weaknesses there, but rather in the manner in which the members of the United Nations acted or failed to act through the organisation. It is the members who must act to better equip it to meet the challenges of today.

Making the United Nations a more effective instrument of the international community was one of the aspirations contained in the millennium summit declaration. It had become evident that there was a need for substantial change in the way the UN addresses the purposes for which it was established, namely, the maintenance of international peace and security, the promotion of human rights and the promotion of economic and social progress. The need for improvement in the management of the UN organisation was also evident.

In the five years since, public perception of the capacity of the United Nations to act effectively in fulfilment of the purposes has been further affected by events and circumstances, including the failure of the Security Council in early 2003 to agree on its approach to Iraq and the allegations surrounding the Iraq sanctions regime and the oil for food programme, although the UN secretariat itself bore only a limited share of the responsibility.

In addition, the relapse of a number of states and societies into conflict showed the need for a new approach to states with fragile institutions. The repeated election to the Commission on Human Rights of states whose authorities were responsible for gross abuses of human rights and which made it very difficult for the CHR to censure such regimes demonstrated the need for a new approach to human rights overview at the UN. It also became clear that progress towards the achievement of the development goals was very uneven and that Africa, in particular, was falling behind.

In a statement to the General Assembly in September 2003, Secretary General Annan announced that the United Nations had reached a "fork in the road". He established a high level panel charged with examining current and future threats to peace and security and how collective threats can best address them. The panel reported last year and advocated a new security consensus involving the mutual recognition of threats, including those presented by poverty, under-development and disease as well as by conflict, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

The millennium development project, established by the Secretary General under Professor Jeffrey Sachs, reported last February on means to restore momentum to the achievement of the millennium development goals. While some developing countries have made good progress towards the achievement of the MDGs, others have not, especially in Africa where institutional weakness and civil and international conflict together with funding shortfalls have led many to fall behind.

The Sachs report concludes that the MDGs, including such headline goals as halving of the numbers of those living in poverty and ensuring access to primary education for all, can be achieved by 2015. However, it also points out that this cannot be done on a business as usual basis and sets out a roadmap detailing the investments that will be required in health, education, rural development, road building, housing and scientific research.

Drawing on both these reports, the Secretary General issued his own views in his report, In Larger Freedom, issued last March and containing detailed recommendations for decisions at next September's summit. The summit, therefore, presents an opportunity to restore momentum towards the achievement of the MDGs as well as to enhance the credibility and effectiveness of the United Nations.

The UN Secretary General has identified as a central theme for the summit the rule of law, human rights and democracy. The essential logic running through his recommendations is contained in his proposition that without development there can be no security, without security there can be no development, and without respect for human rights there can be neither.

The Secretary General set out his recommendations in four clusters: development, or freedom from want; security, or freedom from fear; human rights, or freedom to live in dignity; and strengthening the institutions of the United Nations so that they can act effectively in pursuit of these freedoms. The fact that the Government was in a position to support the Secretary General's recommendations in their entirety was one of the reasons that he asked me to become one of five envoys to act on his behalf in the preparation of the September summit. I am the only one who is a serving Government member.

Under the development cluster, developed and developing countries are asked to implement existing commitments to providing the finance necessary for development and good governance to ensure that the aid is effectively used. The European Council has now committed the EU as a whole to reaching the recommended overseas development aid target of 0.7% by 2015, a commitment that Kofi Annan described as putting wind in our sails.

A special focus on Africa and the fight against the HIV-AIDS pandemic is recommended. Other key issues are the early completion of the Doha round of trade negotiations, action on climate change, debt relief and a means of meeting a shortfall in development funding in the years immediately ahead.

Under the security heading states are called upon to renew their commitment to nuclear disarmament and a strengthened non-proliferation regime, and to the control and elimination of other weapons of mass destruction. They are called upon to strengthen the fight against terrorism and reach agreement on a definition of terrorism, the absence of which is delaying the conclusion of a comprehensive convention on terrorism. The Secretary General called for the conclusion of a binding international agreement on the marking, tracing and illicit brokering of small arms and light weapons. He asked for the establishment of strategic reserves for peacekeeping and put forward principles to guide the Security Council when deciding on the use of military force in the maintenance of peace and security.

One particularly important proposal, for a peace-building commission to mobilise resources for peace-building measures to complement peacekeeping efforts and to co-ordinate their application to prevent fragile states from falling back into conflict, has already met with wide approval. The proposal for the creation of such an organ was a central feature of the EU's contribution to the work of the high-level panel prepared by and agreed under the Irish Presidency in the first half of 2004.

Under the human rights heading, governments are asked to acknowledge the principle of responsibility to protect. Some member states regard this as opening the way to interference in their sovereign prerogatives and express concern that it may be used as an excuse for intervention in pursuit of other agendas, which is in contravention of Article 2.7 of the UN Charter. However, it is clear that the international community can no longer stand by when events such as those in Rwanda and Srebrenica and those that recently unfolded in Darfur take place.

Under this principle, individual sovereign states would remain responsible for the protection of their citizens but when a state is unable or unwilling to carry out this responsibility, the international community would have a duty to become engaged, although the use of force would be a last resort. In fact the need for this principle is now well understood by African governments. In essence, it is contained in the founding document of the African Union, and provides the basis for that body's current intervention in Darfur.

The Secretary General has also proposed the establishment of a permanent human rights council to replace the Commission on Human Rights. The new body would function at a higher level within the UN structure, would be directly elected by a two thirds majority of the General Assembly and sit permanently rather than for six weeks each year as the Commission on Human Rights does currently. It would also conduct peer reviews and deal with human rights crises as they arise. It would, however, preserve the best features of the CHR, including non-governmental organisation, NGO, participation. It is also proposed to strengthen of the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, to allow it to carry out more effectively the task of helping countries to develop their institutions and to implement reforms in the human rights area.

The revitalisation of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council is also very important. The Secretary General laid particular stress on implementing improvements in the management structures of the UN secretariat to allow him to act as a chief executive officer without undue and unnecessary interference from the members while maintaining at the same time a sufficient degree of transparency and accountability.

Following wide-ranging consultations in the General Assembly on the Secretary General's proposals, the president of the General Assembly, my colleague, Jean Ping, the Foreign Minister of Gabon, has drawn up a draft outcome document containing the elements for decision by Heads of State and Government at the September summit. These follow the broad lines of the Secretary General's recommendations. There is some way to go before they receive the assent of the membership in general and success will require significant change in positions traditionally taken by many delegations at the United Nations.

This is why the Secretary General appointed envoys to encourage governments to take the necessary decisions in capitals. As envoy I have met on an individual basis 36 foreign ministers, both European and non-European, and plan to visit a further nine capitals before the end of this month.

The efforts of Ireland and its EU partners will now be directed towards improving the draft outcome document to ensure that it has the elements necessary to restore confidence in the United Nations as a body fit to face the challenges of the 21st century and to restore momentum to the achievement of the millennium development goals.

One matter that is not covered in the draft outcome document is reform of the Security Council. This is a particularly difficult issue and the one that receives an inordinate amount of public attention. The Secretary General has made it clear that it is for the UN members to resolve this matter. He has, however, made clear his view that a decision is necessary this year for the sake of the credibility and legitimacy of the Security Council.

As envoy, I have worked to ensure that the political and public preoccupation with this issue does not divert attention from the critical reform and development agenda that will have a much greater impact on the lives of the world's citizens. I am encouraged by progress so far and I believe that a successful outcome is possible in September. The support of its members is essential for the success of the United Nations which remains central to building a prosperous and peaceful world for future generations.

Through the second half of the 20th century a new global organisation grew in stature and respect throughout the world. This organisation is the United Nations, established on 24 October 1945 by 51 countries. Today, United Nations membership totals 191 countries throughout the world.

The use of the term Untied Nations predates the actual establishment of the UN. In fact, the term was used during the Second World War in 1942, when 26 nations made a "Declaration by United Nations" that they would continue to fight against the axis powers.

The global political situation of the time was clearly reflected in the foundation of the United Nations in 1945. China, France, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union were all accorded positions of permanent membership of the Security Council, with a further ten countries to be elected for two-year terms by the UN General Assembly. However, it is apparent to us all that the world has changed enormously since the UN was first established. The debate on reform of the UN, ongoing in the international community, recognises this fact. We have a responsibility to take account of these changes to ensure that the UN can meet the challenges of the present day and of the future. This is what must be achieved and it falls to nations friendly to the UN, such as Ireland, to work on its behalf and to make this happen.

The current reform agenda for the United Nations has its roots in the recent report, In Larger Freedom, published by the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan. This was published with an eye to the upcoming September summit to be convened to take account of progress made since the millennium declaration. If we are true supporters of the UN, it falls to us to consider each of the aspects of this report and not just those parts with which we are comfortable. While the Government may be happy to speak in general terms about the need to reform the United Nations, the Annan report should also cause it to reassess its commitment to meeting international obligations, such as the UN target for overseas development aid.

The report, In Larger Freedom, reminds us of the major challenges facing the world today. Preventing terrorism, progressing moves towards nuclear, chemical and biological disarmament and reducing the prevalence of war are tasks that the international community must undertake. As 3 million people die from HIV and AIDS every year, with countless more lost to disease, poverty and starvation, we have an obligation to see that the millennium development goals are achieved.

This brings us to the question of commitment to overseas development aid. Kofi Annan has stated clearly that the millennium development goals can only be achieved by 2015 if all involved dramatically accelerate action regarding ODA. However, in stark contrast to the wishes of the UN Secretary General, our Government has chosen to decelerate action on overseas development aid dramatically. By abandoning a commitment made before the UN almost five years ago, the Government has walked away from a principled decision made on behalf of all Irish people and before the international community.

This promise was not made lightly and this was confirmed recently by the then Minister of State with responsibility for overseas aid, Deputy O'Donnell, but it has been shrugged off without excuse by the Government. While it is right to discuss UN reform, we also need to get our own house in order. Where is our renewed commitment to aid? By what date will Ireland achieve the UN target for ODA? This is something that the Minister should address in his response. Will the target be achieved by 2010, 2012, 2015 or at a later date? These are questions that the Government must answer through a definitive statement on overseas development aid. I would prefer that it be made in this House rather than through press releases in early September.

The report, In Larger Freedom, also outlines a reform agenda to strengthen the role of the United Nations. This includes streamlining the deliberative process of the General Assembly, reforming the Security Council so that its composition is broadly representative of the realities of power in today's world, reforming the Economic and Social Council and replacing the Commission on Human Rights with a Human Rights Council.

Moves to speed up the deliberative process of the UN General Assembly and to reform the membership of the UN Security Council are welcome and overdue. It is vital that the UN has both the capacity to focus on important issues and the ability to react quickly to changing situations. Broadening the membership of the UN Security Council should reflect the realities of global governance today because a model that was relevant in 1945 cannot be relied upon to be truly representative more than 60 years later.

I have first-hand experience of the need for reform of the way in which the UN operates. I recently attended the UN General Assembly discussions on nuclear non-proliferation but during the first four days of the assembly meeting, the agenda for matters to be discussed still had not been agreed. Obviously, dealing with a large number of people and countries and achieving the greatest degree of consensus and commonality can take time. However, even with this concession, no one could argue that decision making at the UN is anything other than tortured and tortuous. We are also growing in our realisation that the United Nations needs greater input and assistance from the European Union. The concept of the EU forming small military groupings, referred to as "battle groups", is one which has the strong support of the UN. Those groupings will be designed to be in a position to deploy rapidly to global conflict zones in the protection of human life and the prevention of war crimes such as genocide. The world needs this capability, the UN recognises and supports this development, and Ireland should play its part. We need the Government to make clear and focused decisions on this matter, rather than the delay and confusion that has characterised its response to date. At times when people are under the gravest threat to their lives should sympathetic words be all we offer them?

Reform of the UN Security Council is a contentious issue, with countries adopting quite fixed positions regarding future membership and the permanence, or otherwise, of new members. One of the proposed models envisages an increase in both the permanent and renewable members of the Security Council, while the other rejects the addition of further permanent members. A resolution proposed by Germany, India, Japan and Brazil, a group of countries known as the G4, supporting the principle of extra permanent members has been circulated. However, this proposal is opposed by the United States which is opposed to the extension of the permanent seats to these four countries, indicating that perhaps only two additional permanent seats should be assigned. The United States has also indicated that it favours Japan being assigned a permanent seat. Pakistan, Italy, Indonesia, Kenya, Argentina and South Korea are prominent members of an alternative group opposing the extension of permanent membership. What position will the Government adopt on this matter? Does it believe that permanent membership should be extended to further countries and, if so, how would those countries be selected or appointed? When we touched on this matter at a committee meeting during the week, the Minister inferred that because of his position as special envoy he did not want to spell our Ireland's position. In other words, his position as special envoy almost compromised him acting as our Minister for Foreign Affairs on this matter. That should not be the position. We are entitled to know in a debate on UN reform in this House what Ireland's position is on the alternative proposals put forward on Security Council reform.

In the next number of days many hundreds of thousands of people will gather for Live8 concerts in cities throughout the world. These people will be united in a common cause and they will gather to demand debt cancellation for the poorest countries and increased aid and trade with the developing world. Those concerts, and the march through Dublin last evening in which many of us participated, take place with the upcoming G8 summit in mind.

Our focus is clearly on the eradication of world poverty and suffering from illness and disease and I hope this will be seriously addressed by the G8. In recent weeks, the G8 proposal to cancel debt for 18 countries was welcomed. We should not underestimate the importance of that proposal to write off $40 billion in debt, which would save each country approximately $1.5 billion in annual repayments. However, we must also reaffirm support for the position of 100% debt cancellation for heavily indebted poor countries proposed by Ireland some time ago.

As a vital part of this agenda, we must empower people through democracy and political participation. There has never been a famine in a democracy, and where democracy flourishes there also will grow stability, peace and longer-term development.

With this in mind, the unfolding events in Ethiopia are of concern. Earlier this week, I met Dr. Berhanu Nega, an opposition leader from Ethiopia, who chronicled the situation in that country since the election there on 15 May. Opposition parties are deeply concerned at reports of electoral fraud, the imprisonment of political party members and the restrictions regarding reporting of these events by the press. The situation in Ethiopia, by any standards, is serious. Up to 36 people have lost their lives in violence which was linked to public disquiet regarding the manner in which these elections were conducted. The government there has recently charged four newspaper editors for slurring the good name of the security forces after they criticised the police for shooting these people. This has been called an "unwelcome development" by the Ethiopian Free Press Journalists Association — to say it is "unwelcome" is a gross understatement.

It falls to all of us to monitor the potential for human rights abuses in other states and to do our utmost to use our influence to ensure that administrations do not abuse their position of authority. Ireland is a large donor of overseas development aid to Ethiopia, and we should join with other donor countries such as the United States, Britain and other European Union countries in appealing for the fullest co-operation from the Ethiopian Government with the investigation into the recent election.

Investigators are preparing to begin their inquiries into voting irregularities in 135 constituencies. Ethiopia, as a recipient of up to $2 billion in aid per annum, must be clear that cases of human rights abuses and electoral fraud are not acceptable to the international community. While some donor countries have accused that government of illegal killings, arbitrary arrests and torture, I would like to know what action Ireland, as a donor of aid to Ethiopia, is taking to bring pressure to bear on that government.

We, like all countries, have a number of obligations to countries like Ethiopia and there are a number of ways in which they can be discharged. As well as meeting targets on overseas aid, we have an obligation to use our influence to build and support democracy through which a greater dividend will flow for those in the developing world.

At the end of last year, the EU was presented with a case of electoral fraud on its borders in the Ukraine. We highlighted electoral irregularities and many EU leaders raised their deep concern regarding electoral fraud in that state. At that time, the European Commission President stated that it was the duty of the EU to state clearly our dissatisfaction at the manner in which the elections were held there. Undoubtedly, the public concern and condemnation that accompanied the electoral irregularities in Ukraine were of assistance in ensuring that the elections were held again, and that the true voice of the people was heard.

The situation in Ethiopia should not be any different, and we must raise our voices in support of committed democrats in Ethiopia. This matter should be addressed by the G8 Summit, and I hope the summit countries will make a clear statement directed to the Ethiopian Government — I understand its President will be at the margins of that summit. The views of the world leaders should be expressed in a forthright and clear manner at the way in which democratic principles are being swept aside in that country.

I want to use the 15 minutes available in the most positive way possible to deal with the important meetings that will take place at the United Nations in September, to discuss the general issue of UN reform. There is a recurring theme, which is entirely misleading, in some speeches that have been circulating in the build-up to the review of the reform of the United Nations. It is that the United Nations failed in some respect at the time immediately prior to the latest invasion of Iraq. This is to confuse matters and I have not the time to delay on it this afternoon. However, the United Nations Charter was broken. There was no opportunity — and neither does it now exist — for the exercise of pre-emptive strike in the UN Charter. In addition, the process of design of resolution at the United Nations was seriously impaired by the production of a resolution that was interpreted by those who wanted it as a charter for war. However, it was described here, as elsewhere as a resolution that would avoid war. In the context of that there is an entire misrepresentation of the French position in the Security Council. Thus the "failure" as it was called of the United Nations to be of one mind to go to war became construed as a type of failure of the United Nations.

The United Nations was degraded by the production before it in the speech of Mr. ColinPowell, of a tissue of fiction and worse, carefully constructed untruths. Some of us had access to bits and pieces of this, which was not based on primary intelligence and much of which was provided by the United Kingdom. Let us say that it was that which destroyed the United Nations in that period and an appalling consequence continues to be paid for it to this day.

I turn to the more positive side because on the subject of reform a number of fundamental issues will have to be discussed. It would be a pity if they are all distracted into a discussion on reform of the Security Council, because there are more fundamental issues to be discussed. It is a fundamental issue but it is not the sole one. Perhaps the concentration the Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, has placed on the world millennium development goals is correct. Our Minister for Foreign Affairs, when speaking abroad has, in fact, taken up the divisions Mr. Kofi Annan has in his presentation as a cluster of freedoms. Certainly, freedom from want and insecurity is best achieved by the meeting of the world millennium development goals.

We have been here before, however. In the 1970s there was a significant appeal to self-interest in the Brandt report. Then, in 1989 — it seems a long time ago, now — a fine report by UNICEF pointed out what it would cost simply to meet the basic needs. At that time the figure was put as between $30 billion and $50 billion, which was the equivalent of one 20th of military spending. In that year the UNICEF report estimated the cost of providing primary education as $5 per person, basic education literacy $25 per person and sanitation as $6 per person. There are times when the world has missed opportunities to make a significant intervention where it matters — where 2 billion people live in poverty, 30,000 children die every day and half a million mothers die in pregnancy.

Professor Geoffrey Sachs, when writing to the Secretary General of the UN, makes the point in his Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals. He suggests that the cost of achieving the goals are entirely affordable, well within the promises of 0.7% of GNP made at Monterrey and Johannesburg:

The required doubling of annual official development assistance to $135 billion in 2006, rising to $195 billion by 2015, pales beside the wealth of high income countries — and the world's military budget of $900 billion a year. Indeed, the increased development assistance will make up only half a percent of rich countries' combined income.

When Professor Sachs makes this statement in his report, I would suggest to the Minister that this could be achieved. The achievement of the World Millennium Development Goals between 2005 and 2015 would have the effect of lifting 500 million people out of extreme poverty, 300 million would no longer suffer from hunger and 350 million would have access to clean water. Taking the figures I have quoted, one could say that the 30 million children who otherwise might have died would live, and so forth. The Minister might agree with me that our approach must be an integrated one, combining debt relief with aid, trade and reform of the international financial institutions. It is important that debt relief is not taken out of the funds available for aid. Otherwise one would slide back. Additionality is a fundamental principle.

As regards the conditionalities which may cluster, we must remember that in the case of Uganda, for example, that country was not able take $65 million at one stage for AIDS/HIV because it was in breach of the budget it had agreed with the International Monetary Fund. That is the fourth component, namely, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. We must take the world millennium development goals as the phenomenon to which the other initiatives must adjust themselves. It should be inconceivable that the WMDGs are regarded as anything else. I have given the example of Ghana, before. Ghana, in the original debt relief initiative, post-1999, had imposed on it through an IMF condition the privatisation of Ghana Commercial Bank, which had a number of small depositors. The cost, when the public rejected this, was the loss of $1 billion in debt relief. This type of madness must stop.

Coming to the UN reform, I hope there will be a reassessment, even if it is through the modest reform of the Economic and Social Committee. At least the twin institutions of the IMF and the World Bank must be restored to their origins, within the family of the United Nations. One of the bolder proposals for UN reform was to create a type of economic security council in which the World Millennium Development Goals might be addressed with all the authority of the United Nations.

I want to make some practical points as well, because that is my purpose, today. I hope in time those three reports that came out in the early 1990s from Mr. Erskine Childers and Mr. Brian Urquhart on administrative reform within the United Nations, will be looked at. I liked the structure of their reports. They dealt, for example, with a much stronger proposal for reform of the administration of the United Nations. If Mr. Kofi Annan is to float across the world, quite rightly, trying to build up regional structures and so forth, there is a great case to be made for an assistant General Secretary of the United Nations running the organisation. Again, what was originally envisaged for the United Nations was that it was all to be in one building, not necessarily in the location where it is now. The scattering of its offices has given rise to some inefficiency.

It is a criticism not just of this Government, but of many Governments, that the tiniest UN organisation gets the smallest funding in Ireland, namely, the United Nations Association. It should be far stronger and built into the education system at primary and secondary levels. It should be properly and better organised in terms of having someone able to speak about the work of the United Nations, because there is great public interest in that. As regards the history of the General Assembly, there was an enormous influx of countries in the 1960s. One of the powerful forums is the UN Decolonisation Committee. We now move into this new atmosphere in which we find ourselves, with an enlarged UN membership.

I want to address the important issue as regards the way the Labour Party has to review its policy on the UN and move it on. In the Minister's speech today, there is a discussion, for example, on the right to protect. I have spoken on this before. It is the difference between humanitarian protection and intervention. Humanitarian intervention has been abused since Mussolini invaded North Africa. It is seen as the person deciding he or she has the right to intervene in a country and it has had different justifications.

Humanitarian protection is the idea that a vulnerable minority cannot be protected by those who should do so and a vulnerable minority is not being protected by those who should do so. On what basis have they been invited in? I admit it means that significant progress on the work of establishing universal rights must be achieved. Universal rights do not just mean western-sourced rights based on the individual but rights based on communities and rights drawing on fundamental principles of Islam. The failure to make progress on what was there as the dialogue between civilisations which might have yielded a rights framework is serving as a missing backdrop to that set of principles around which could be constructed what Dr. Sanoon has described as humanitarian protection.

I certainly am willing to go into that dialogue and it is something we must do. The cynics who are criticising Africa in so many different ways are not being helpful towards us. I challenge some of those who suggest that I, who support the right of school children to attend school in any country in Africa or to have clean water, do not want to put the imposition that I will not deliver aid until I am in a position to approve of the Government. That is too easy, and other ways exist. One can make the reasonable demand that the moneys given by Ireland go to help those in desperate need of health care and primary education. I assure the House the money is used in that way because I have been to Africa.

After 1999 the most heavily indebted countries received different forms of debt relief with appalling conditionalities. This has been empirically studied by Hinchcliffe in his notes on the impact of the HIPC initiative on education and health public expenditures in African countries and in Relief Works: African Proposals for Debt Cancellation and Debt Relief Works, by Romilly Greenwood and Sasha Blackmore. They examined how the money was spent and showed that in Benin, 43% of such debt relief was expended on education in 2002 and allowed for the recruitment of teachers for vacant posts in rural areas. A total of 54% of the aid went to health, of which one fifth was used to recruit health staff for rural clinics and the remainder was allocated to implementing HIV-Aids programmes.

In Mali, 5,000 community teachers were hired. In Niger the money was spent on rural education, health, food security and water systems. In Malawi, 3,600 new teachers were trained every year. In Burkina Faso, 39% of HIPC relief was spent on education, 33% on health and a further amount on rural roads.

I say to those who raise questions to look at the whole continent of Africa and the tapestry of different conditions, and read the studies before making criticisms. To strike a rhetorical stance will they say we should not spend our money until this, that and the other is perfect? This is a very serious issue. Not all countries are in favour of the integrated approach on debt, aid and reform of the international financial institutions we might wish to advance. Such countries would be very glad to seize on an excuse to suggest that governance is impossible and that corruption is endemic. This would be an appalling, cynical evasion and it must be stamped out immediately. The decade to 2015 will be a great time and a moral test in which we will see how much progress we have made.

Some issues are missing from the report which has been made available to Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations. These include the issue of bonded labour. It is very important that this House debates the issue — not on a Friday — to include changes at the level of the Department of Finance. I suggest people from Development Co-operation Ireland go to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. At trade level, anything we do in December in Hong Kong must not contradict what is being debated now. The EPAs negotiated between the European Union and Africa must be examined. For all those reasons I hope that when the House resumes it will be on a day when the Chamber will be full and many more Deputies will be interested in what will be the last great opportunity for us to do something moral, necessary and important for the world.

I am pleased to contribute to this debate on the role of the United Nations and the urgent need for its reform. I wish to share time with Deputies Gormley and Ó Caoláin.

This debate has been given more relevance by last night's protests in Dublin when thousands of people participated in the campaign, Make Poverty History. I attended the protest and was heartened to see so many young people, people whom I did not normally see at protest meetings. Ireland has the opportunity to develop this support from the wider society.

I have always supported the United Nations even when it was not trendy to do so. I will always challenge those who seek to undermine the United Nations, whether in this House, the EU or the White House. Their agenda is to undermine the United Nations and I will defend it at all costs. However, I accept that reform is urgently required with new ideas for the development of the concept of the organisation.

I commend Irish soldiers who have served under the United Nations flag, some of whom have given their lives in the cause of international peace in conflict areas such as the Middle East. I pay tribute to them and their families for their work. Those of us who want a strong, independent, neutral foreign policy do not believe Ireland should sit on the fence and stay out of conflicts. It is rather a question of defending innocent people in different countries while retaining the integrity of being independent and respectful to those host nations. This is the value of the United Nations.

However I accept that reform is urgently required. I welcome recent developments, particularly the positive role of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, for which I commend him. Ireland should aim to build on the respect in which it was held 30 years ago and which may be slipping. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has a duty to develop this independent and strong foreign policy line and I wish him well in his endeavours.

The priority issues on any agenda must be to end wars and tackle world poverty. The international community must not tolerate wars and famine. There is enough wealth in this world, particularly in the west and in Africa, to feed everybody and to provide proper education and health services. The issue now is how the broader international community distributes that wealth. It is a crime of international proportions that so much wealth is not being distributed to the most needy, be that in Africa, the Middle East or Asia. The debate about the creation of wealth is over. The wealth exists and it is a question of how it is distributed. I do not accept that money can be expended on arms, but health care and primary school education in many countries cannot be provided. It is not an option to hide behind the so-called war on terrorism and countries which do so should be regularly challenged in every national parliament. Deputies should be vigorous in sending out this message which enjoys cross-party support.

We must face up to the reality that Ireland is wealthy. It is unacceptable to cop out of our commitment to allocate 0.7% of GNP to development aid. I do not accept the concept that the world's poor and oppressed, particularly in Africa, must wait on international action before being given their fair share. Rather than seeking a slice of the cake, the peoples of Africa should be running the bakery. They must be able to run their countries and distribute their own resources and wealth. I commend countries in Africa which have given a lead in this respect.

I welcome this debate on the United Nations, which is urgently in need of reform, and wish the Minister well in his role. He must ensure that respect for the United Nations becomes more widespread.

I welcome this opportunity to debate the issue of reform of the United Nations and wish the Minister for Foreign Affairs well in his position as a special envoy of the Secretary General. The Green Party has always supported the United Nations as the basis of international law. This is the reason we support the triple lock mechanism and seek to have it enshrined in the Constitution.

A United Nations mandate, so often dismissed by those who believe it is an impediment, is essential and has served Ireland well. Those who dismiss it will use the opportunity of the tenth anniversary of events in Srebrenica to attack the United Nations again. I want the Minister, in his role as special envoy, to be a vocal defender of the United Nations when such people emerge from the woodwork. It is simply untrue that the UN was responsible for the slaughter in Srebrenica. Anyone who has read David Rohde's book, Endgame, the most comprehensive account of events in Srebrenica, would tell the Minister that this is not the case. The reason for the slaughter was the failure of Dutch troops operating under General Janvier with a full peace enforcement mandate to call in close air support. The regrettable truth is that the Dutch troops did not even like the people they were defending. Let us hear the truth as we approach the tenth anniversary of Srebrenica. It is essential that Mr. Slobodan Milosevic and Mr. Radovan Karadzic are brought to justice for this most reprehensible and tragic episode.

The House must examine many aspects of the report on reform of the United Nations, but has little time to do so. The report calls for collective responsibility to protect civilian populations from genocide and ethnic cleansing and states that the wider international community should be able to intervene but only using force as a last resort. The Green Party would support such a broadening of the UN mandate.

Deputy Michael Higgins raised pre-emptive strikes, a crucial issue in the controversy surrounding the war in Iraq. The report states that five strict criteria for acting pre-emptively must be met, as follows: the threat should be defined, the purpose of intervention should be clear, intervention should be a last resort, the means should be proportionate and the consequences should be examined. The Green Party is wary of pre-emptive actions. Why is the crucial word "evidence" not included in the criteria, given that lack of evidence was the principal problem with regard to Iraq? As we now know, there were no weapons of mass destruction.

A crucial reform would be to hold to account those who make promises before the UN General Assembly. It is unacceptable that the Taoiseach made a solemn commitment in front of the General Assembly that Ireland would increase its overseas development aid to 0.7% of GNP by 2007. However, having made a commitment to the world's poorest people and secured sufficient votes to be elected to the Security Council, he welshed on the deal. This was shameful behaviour about which there was palpable anger among those who marched on the streets of Dublin last night. If the Minister believes in reform, he should ensure a measure is introduced to prevent others from behaving in the irresponsible manner in which his Government acted.

The Minister should also examine the growing trend to use the new threat of terrorism as an excuse to increase arms sales. Deputy Michael Higgins cited a figure on annual expenditure on arms of €900 billion, which featured in a report by Jeffrey Sachs. A more recent figure indicates that the annual value of the arms trade has increased to €1,000 billion. This is an incredible sum, a fraction of which would be sufficient to eliminate world poverty. Let us not use the new threat of terrorism as an excuse to bolster the arms industry.

Before he heads off to New York, I ask the Minister to give two commitments to the House. First, will he give us a timetable for meeting the target of 0.7% of GNP? Second, will the Government sign up to the arms trade treaty, as I have requested on many occasions, and urge others to do likewise? All I ask is that the Minister, on the last day of the session, make these two commitments in the House.

Sinn Féin has been calling for a Dáil debate on the United Nations reform proposals since they were first published last December. Squeezing in a token one hour debate on the final day of session on the last possible opportunity before the UN summit is a disgraceful way to treat the vital and highly complex issue of UN reform. I cannot possibly deal adequately with it in the five minutes available to my party.

Sinn Féin would support an early recall of the Dáil in advance of the September summit to debate this issue with the thoroughness and seriousness it deserves, ideally allocating a separate debate for each of the four major sections of reform proposals and an overall debate to conclude with a Dáil resolution.

My party has been calling for comprehensive and progressive reform of the United Nations for many years. We therefore welcome the new focus on this profound challenge and await the outcome of the historic September summit with great interest. While I commend the key role being played by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in promoting the Annan reform package and genuinely wish him well, I regret that the Government has not involved the people more. Essentially it has bypassed Parliament and the people.

The United Nations has made a massive contribution to catalysing a basic international consensus around decolonisation, economic development, human rights, women's rights, anti-racism, environmental protection and social and economic rights. It has created a constructive alternative to the competing military alliances of the past. Through the UN Charter, the universal declaration of human rights and other international instruments and conventions, it has changed the international landscape for the better and set rights' benchmarks which we use on a daily basis in our work. While it has been deliberately emaciated by opponents of the checks it imposes on absolute power, for all its flaws the UN system still offers the best possible hope of international peace and justice available to the peoples and nations of the earth. Sinn Féin is genuinely committed to UN primacy as the backbone of Ireland's international relations policy and our own policy of positive neutrality in action.

Sinn Féin must evaluate the UN Secretary General's proposals and the outcomes of the September summit against what we believe are priorities for reform, namely, democratisation and capacity building. Specifically, will they democratise the UN Security Council by eliminating the veto and permanent membership and establishing a regionally representative democratic executive? Will they significantly increase the UN's ability to lead peacekeeping operations and, most importantly, to prevent genocide and stop other crimes against humanity where the individual state concerned is unable or unwilling to do this? Will they prevent abuse of state power through unilateral pre-emptive action, such as we have most recently seen in the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Will they strengthen the ability to monitor and enforce human rights? Will they give more powers to the UN Economic and Social Council to manage global economic affairs equitably and in the interests of all? Critically, will they end the funding crisis that has plagued the UN for decades and provide more stable funding for capacity-building?

While Sinn Féin may not agree with every detail of the Annan proposals, there is much that is worthy of strong support and overall they represent a significant improvement on the status quo. Annan’s plan is a commendable effort to learn from the shortcomings of the past 60 years and establish consensus on a plan for the new millennium.

As a republican internationalist I agree with the Secretary General that we, as peoples and nations, are united by moral imperatives and by objective interests. The UN is a toolbox but it is also a process. It is a forum for global co-operation through which human beings are inching away from global conflict and towards global unity, slowly, as these processes must always be if they are to endure. Above all, the UN is only what we make of it. Let us support in every way we can this opportunity for change. I reiterate my good wishes to the Minister in his role.

I thank Deputies on all sides for their comments and their support for the Government's efforts on this important issue. The Secretary General referred to the logic of his recommendations: without development there can be no security, without security there can be no development and without respect for human rights there can be neither. Deputy Michael D. Higgins referred correctly to the integrated approach, not just on development but across the recommendations.

Opposition Deputies must criticise the Government on specific issues and make whatever political capital they can. I am not trying to score any political points——

The Minister is trying to score points.

——but commitments were made before on overseas development aid and, unfortunately, they were not adhered to. The Government is making a genuine effort to make a decision on the commitment of reaching 0.7% of gross national product over a set timeframe. We will make our decision before September but it will be based on presumptions because we are looking into the future, although we will indicate a clear timeframe for this issue. Irrespective of who is in office after 2007, it is incumbent on all parties to adhere to whatever commitments are made at the summit in September.

Opposition Deputies are being grossly unfair to the system of development aid we have delivered when they denigrate what this country has already done. Ireland was chosen as an envoy country because we have a record that is second to none in development and peacekeeping.

Absolutely.

The fact that we are a small, neutral country with no vested interests means that we have no conflicts of interest. We are strategically represented in the EU and have a voice that has been heard over the years. One of my predecessors, Frank Aiken, was the first person to propose a treaty on nuclear non-proliferation, which was called the Irish resolution in the 1960s.

Elements of the media sneer at Kofi Annan telling me that the United Nations would be a great system if every country were like Ireland. He said that because in the quality, quantity and delivery of development aid over the years, we are second to none. It is untied to trade, unlike most other countries.

Will the Minister answer the questions he was asked?

The Deputy might not want to hear what I have to say.

We are running out of time and I would like to get answers to some of the questions posed instead of this lecture.

We hear a lot of nonsense and we denigrate ourselves. Many countries, however, making great strides in development aid to Africa are also trading in arms there, something we do not do.

The Minister cannot be 100% sure of that.

We can hold our heads up high on our position.

During my time as envoy, I have tried to make a contract between developed and developing countries, the core issue in the Monterey consensus. I have insisted that the EU be part of a contract with Africa when it comes to the table to discuss increased levels of ODA. The EU, which some people denigrate, has blazed a trail on ODA. As a result of the decision made at European Council level some weeks ago, the EU, between now and 2010, will increase ODA into Africa in particular by €20 billion.

We must secure a contract between the EU and the African Union to bring development to the continent. I agree with Deputy Michael D. Higgins, many African states have made dramatic changes in governance and it is wrong to criticise them. We must help them and that is why part of our aid goes to good governance and the building of capacity in these nations. I accept what Deputy Michael D. Higgins said about the Irish United Nations Association and we have dramatically increased funding to it.

Deputy Allen raised recent events in Ethiopia. We have condemned what happened both through the EU and on our own. The Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, called in the chargé d'affaires on 10 June and made clear our concern on the matter. We are talking to other countries that donate aid to Ethiopia to examine where we might go.

What about reform of the UN Security Council?

The Government has not yet decided what we should do. This goes to the core of what I want to achieve. No matter what city I visit, the first item on the agenda is the Security Council. It is reprehensible that so much attention is given to bums on seats. These countries should be concentrating on bringing their development aid up to standard and stopping the arms trade into Africa. There are 600 million small arms in the continent and 300,000 people die every year because of their use. These are the issues that should be addressed, not the UN Security Council.

India is trying to get a place on the Security Council.

Top
Share