I join other members in welcoming our visitors from the European parliament. Tá an-fáilte rompu agus tá súil agam go mbainfidh siad tairbh as an chuairt atá siad ag tabhairt ar an tír seo. I hope their visit will be profitable. We have only a brief opportunity for an exchange of views. To enable the delegation to relate the views of a foreign affairs committee from a member country to those of a committee of the European Parliament, I will refer to some of the issues we have been discussing this year. As a strong supporter of enhanced powers for the European Parliament, I believe we should speak very frankly to each other. As we face into European Parliament elections next year, there is an immense problem among European citizens, in terms of loss of political trust. Among other things, the loss of political trust is related to issues which have occupied a great deal of time at meetings of this committee during the past year.
Thinking back on some of these issues, as one of the longest serving members of the committee, I find that some issues have not changed and some have worsened. The most incredible event of the past year was, undoubtedly, the strike against Iraq. No foreign affairs committee at national or European level can retain any credibility if it fails to take an unequivocal position on the principle of pre-emptive strike. I cannot accept the sincerity of anybody who speaks of multilateralism and an increased role for the United Nations while equivocating on the principle of pre-emption. Pre-emption is a dangerous principle. We have seen it extended, not only by the United States Administration but also in the context of Israel's attitude towards Syria. The language of those who seek to justify the principle of pre-emption is extraordinarily similar and is a major contribution to the justifiable loss of trust on the part of citizens right across Europe.
Developments in this regard have been facilitated by a damaging confusion in certain quarters.
I compliment the delegation on the clarity of the position adopted by their committee in not running the issue of the strike against the twin towers into the anti-terrorism debate. However, those who seek to use pre-emption have done so in a cavalier fashion, abusing language, distorting facts, fabricating reports and alienating the public. That is clearly evident and the public will speak on it. Frankly, I do not believe the European Parliament has been served well by the Commission's representation of it in the Middle East on the quartet and the road map. In fact, the representative of the European Union has been humiliated more than once in the course of his visits to the Middle East. The vacuum created by an ambivalent US attitude towards the road map was not adequately filled by the European Union at a crucial time, in my view. That task remains unfinished.
On development aid, many delegations have appeared before this committee over recent years and that will continue. It is right to draw attention to the volume of aid from the European Union to the Middle East and all over the world, by comparison with that of the United States, where, I believe, aid represents about 0.1% of GDP and is heavily tied and conditioned. Perhaps that is a matter for another day. During my initial involvement as a parliamentarian, development was spoken of with optimism. As an academic for 25 years, I wrote in this area. However, development aid today is 30% less than in 1980. On debt, the traffic from south to north is €128 billion per day. We are also aware of the situation to trade, following the collapse of the Cancún conference.
I wish to refer to our Chairman's comment about our pride in meeting our UN target. The reality is that whatever aid is transferred globally is less than 48% of what is exploited in trade terms. Cancun has ended with a disastrous result, in terms of the abandonment of the Doha commitment to a development round. All of us, in our respective foreign affairs committees, will be challenged as to how we respond to that situation. There are basic issues on which, I regret to say, I do not see an enthusiastic convergence in the Union at times. I refer, for example, to the calculation of our relationship with Africa. For every 1% of GDP additionally spent on health and education in any one African country, child mortality falls by 24%. Why are we not campaigning, with one voice, for a sustainable debt that takes account of such matters as child mortality? Regrettably, we have not yet reached that point on aid, trade, debt and other issues.
In terms of rebuilding trust and taking a positive view, a number of things are possible. One such possibility is to realise that the discourse is totally inadequate. The position of those who speak of security in an entirely military sense is quite extraordinary. They are in a minority in terms of political and philosophical writing on this subject. Security, in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, included such issues as eliminating poverty and removing the sources of insecurity. How does it contribute to security to demonise all of Islam? What debate is there on political Islam, moderate Islam and so forth? How widely held is the suggestion across Europe that the Islamic state is inherently undemocratic? I would welcome a debate on that. While my colleague, Deputy Mitchell, seeks a debate on neutrality, I seek a debate on Islam during the Irish Presidency.
Of course, I would also welcome a debate on neutrality, having written in the 1970s and 1980s about positive neutrality. Positive neutrality involves a discourse that does not need war. In fact, in the Irish case, it precedes the existence of the State. It involved the question as to why working people should die fighting other people's wars. It rolled on from there and was concluded, though not initiated, by Mr. de Valera. Today, it is about building an adequate definition of security that includes the elimination of poverty and the understanding of other cultures, ethnicities and religions. It also relates to the question of eliminating wasteful expenditure on the arms trade, on which many of our colleagues in Europe have a disgraceful record of exporting large volumes of arms to the poorest countries in the world. It also involves addressing issues of aid, trade and debt, so as to create a sustainable capacity for living together.
I have noticed that certain waves, as it were, go through Europe. There was a certain moment when most speakers on internationalism in the United Nations agreed with the UN resolution that regarded the blockade of Cuba as illegal under international law. Now, many countries have suddenly been able to leave aside the illegality of that resolution and have put pressure on Cuba in an extraordinary way, seeking a common European position that will address the human rights side of the equation, but not the illegality of the blockade.
All of those issues are a matter of fundamental trust. Those of my constituents who regularly discuss foreign affairs issues with me expect those issues to be addressed during the Irish Presidency, as do I. In case there may be any impression that we believe all we are told on Africa, NEPAD suits the donors very well. As we know, foreign direct investment is less than 0.4% of world FDI - in fact, it is nearer to 0.1%. International money ran away, as it were, from Africa, but attempts are being made to get it back. The NEPAD initiative is centred around four countries that have given much more to transnational corporations than they have to elaborate discussions with their own people. Consideration needs to be given to pursuing a needs-based approach to the economy, for example, as well as restructuring sustainable debt above the line I mentioned. I am sorry for speaking at such length. I wish I had more time to speak, however, because the presence of my valuable and estimable colleagues is so provocative to me.
