Let us proceed. We have a very important appointment later in the evening in Farmleigh House. Our first speaker is Mr. Norbert Mao, MP, from Uganda who will address the topic: Have national parliaments the will to end human disease, poverty and suffering and to promote human development? That is the challenge faced by all in parliament. Mr. Mao will circulate the full text of his substantial speech but as he will speak from notes, his delivery will be brief.
Human Development.
Chairman
Mr. Mao
Mr. Chairman, let me repeat how impressed I am that parliamentarians from developed countries are gathering to discuss their commitment to developing countries. This is fantastic. I do not want to flatter members but they may not know how important it is to me that the member states are discussing their commitment to developing countries.
The conference of chairmen has great agenda setting capacity. Even if we do not come up with bright ideas, the mere fact that issues have been put on the table is important. That is the impression I get having come from Africa. The delegates are going back to basics which is what we need to do. If we are failing to keep our commitments, what can we do to keep them?
When I went to get my visa at the Irish Consulate in New York, I told the vice-consul that I would get myself a souvenir. When she asked me what souvenir would I get, I told her the Irish harp. She asked me if I knew how big and heavy the Irish harp was and told me not to expect it to be some tiny object I could carry onto the aeroplane. Obviously, I did not know what I was talking about. Sometimes we talk but do not realise that we do not know what we are talking about. I speak humbly when I address the delegates as I am not sure of the things about which I am talking.
Dr. Dudash from the World Bank gave us two reasons last night on the importance of this gathering. First, it is in the enlightened self-interest of European countries to face the issues of poverty, HIV, AIDS, debt reduction and so on. At the end of the day, the markets in developing countries need to be sustainable if we are to have any useful trade between north and south. Second, there is a moral imperative. It is the right thing to do. We need to lend a hand to those less fortunate and there has to be a balance between that enlightened self-interest and the moral imperative.
Last Christmas I visited a family in Springfield, Connecticut. They told me about their daughter who was in the peace corps. When she returned from a year of service in Africa, she detested everything American. She did not like the leather seats on her father's SUV and when she opened the refrigerator, she felt disgusted that they had so much when people in Africa had so little. Her father coined a phrase, that she was adjusting to affluence. That is a problem and I am not sure if there are any counsellors to deal with it.
People like Bono have visited Africa and stood side by side with important decision-makers whom they have challenged within earshot of the poverty stricken population. That is a sign that they are doing what the South African ambassador challenged us to do — to put a face on the problems. This is absolutely critical. The five time Grammy award winning musician, Alicia Keys, recently travelled to South Africa and stated on her return to the United States that she had seen the level of poverty there and people living with AIDS, people her own age and younger. She saw babies who were orphans because AIDS had taken their parents' lives. She said what was happening was incredible while we were sitting here just chilling. We should not be sitting here just chilling. We have to do something, however small, because the problem is so overwhelming. It looks like our priorities are wrong.
UNICEF released a report and demanded a $25 billion commitment, which it claimed was roughly equal to the amount Americans spend on beer in one year. It is also equal to the amount the world's military spend on its armies every 13 days. This same $25 billion could provide adequate nutrition, clean water, basic health care and primary education for all of the world's children. We are not asking for people to become teetotallers. We are just asking that they realise that the beer drinking will stop abruptly if the problems of the world are not solved. There has to be a way to strike a balance.
I have been reading a little book about Zimbabwe called Rooms in the house of stone. This relates to the main point of my speech about our development outlook. The author, Michael Dorris, was a member of the board of Save the Children and wrote the book having visited Zimbabwe the same way parliamentarians go on missions. He wrote that, even with roughly half of its total population officially in need of food assistance, Zimbabwe was the success story of a region that includes Mozambique, Angola, Malawi and Zambia, all far worse off in one way or another. Zimbabwe had the political infrastructure, the network of good roads and the system of dependable communications required to be stable but not if it must impoverish itself in order merely to survive, not if it must buy food with money earmarked for crucial economic development.
Today, Zimbabwe is not the promising country about which he wrote in 1993. Ironically, it followed the rule book and played the development game. It devalued its currency and went down the liberalisation path, yet somehow the economic decline continued. When people turned around to blame the Government, it did what all totalitarian regimes do. Totalitarianism is the last resort of scoundrels. When a government cannot deal with the demands of its people, it becomes totalitarian and starts to blame someone else. When a society is so besieged with problems, it loses confidence in itself and looks for a strongman. In this case, Robert Mugabe had to start resorting to strong arm solutions. What he did was not right and Zimbabweans are fooling themselves if they think the Government had to abdicate its responsibility and blame someone else. However, it is also necessary for us to ask ourselves whether our model of economic development really will deliver the results, whether the things we are asking developing countries to do will eventually bring about development. It is necessary for us to deal with this.
On the other hand, the so-called nationalism of Mugabe is also deceptive. From my African outlook, it is like when one approaches a tree with an axe, the tree is deceived because the axe has a wooden handle. Any tree that thinks an axe is its friend just because the handle is made of wood is a foolish one. That is the situation in Zimbabwe. President Mugabe claims that his party is nationalist and that Britain is the problem. That axe will still cut them down, despite the common denominator of having a wooden handle. That is a fact we have to face.
African states need to be left with the capacity to intervene. Pushing the market model is not wrong but we have to realise that 70% of Ugandans are not part of the market. They are in the informal sector. If we are to design an economic programme, we have to enable the Government to respond. Otherwise we will exclude the weakest. Former American Vice-President Hubert Humphries stated children were in the dawn of life, the elderly were in the evening of life, and that those who were sick were in the twilight and shadows of life. The capacity of African states to respond has been withered so much that the only role for them seems to be security. I do not know where America would be if it did not have the New Deal with which to respond.
I do not know where the Scandinavian countries would be without social democracy. While we preach free markets and liberalisation, we must realise that the market may not be the best distribution mechanism in economies where the majority work in the informal sector. Whether one believes in Karl Marx, he was right about one thing — capitalism is the best system for productivity but may not be the best for distribution, at least not when there is a crisis.
I stress a few suggestions for delegates to think about. We should declare our principles. I appeal to delegates not to feel shy about holding African leaders and institutions to high standards of accountability and service delivery. African leaders may sometimes aim at the hearts of foreign politicians in order that they can soften their heads. They do not want foreign politicians to take a hard approach, use their heads and demand accountability. Developed countries must not feel shy about demanding that African governments deal with corruption and govern their peoples better and resolve conflicts. These are fair demands. It is not enough for African politicians to come to Europe with tear-jerking stories in order that we can get away with many of the misdeeds referred to today.
This brings me to the so-called new breed of African leaders. My position is not very impartial or objective on this issue because I am a politician in Uganda and have declared my interest in running for President in 2006. However, I make the point that the manner in which a person becomes a leader can determine how he or she will conduct himself or herself when in power. The new breed of African leaders who impressed the West so much were not democratically elected. Meles Zanawi, Isaias Afewerki, Paul Kagame, Yoweri Museveni — these are the leaders lauded by Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright as the beacon of hope for Africa. Not surprisingly, Eritrea was soon fighting Ethiopia while Rwanda was fighting Uganda in Kisangani.
It is important to encourage the positive efforts of leaders. The leaders I have mentioned made some positive efforts and at least kicked out worse bullies than themselves and tried to restore order. However, the Africa we want to build is one where the people control their governments. I am afraid that the praise the western world heaped on the new breed of African leaders got into their heads. They forgot that they had shot their way into power and began to think that they could become regional powers. This explains the recklessness with which the Ugandan Government went into the Congo and the current trend in my country where the Government is trying to change the constitution to allow our President to rule for more than 20 years. These issues must be put on the table. I hope when European politicians next talk to the Ugandan Government, they will tell it that having a good political system will release the energy of the people.
The capitalist system operates because of efficiency, which comes from freedom, which comes when people do not feel oppressed. It works in a roundabout way. When people are not certain who is to be President or whether there will be a peaceful election, it undermines investment and, in a certain way, the good purposes of the fight against poverty. The delegates at this conference and the politicians of the European Union are in a position to influence African governments and take a stand. They can tell President Museveni that while he has been a relatively good President when compared to others and a champion in the fight against AIDS, it is important that he should finish his term and leave.
Uganda has never had a peaceful change of government. When changing government, the President must either go into exile or start a war against the incoming government. We await the gift for the first time of having an incoming President shake hands with an outgoing President. Delegates cannot know the amount of energy this would release in my country. I reiterate that European politicians should not feel shy about judging African governments by their fruits and what they produce for their peoples.
I also wish to discuss the responsibilities of Africans themselves. The development path we have taken is the correct one. We must fight poverty as the number one strategy because most of the ills of our societies, whether AIDS or armed conflict, feed on the poverty of our peoples. Fighting poverty is an important and legitimate agenda about which we must not stop talking. I read about a pastor who had persisted in preaching in a particularly seedy neighbourhood. He was asked, as he was not getting any converts, why he persisted preaching daily about the love of God. He answered that he persisted so that the rumour of God's love did not die. We must also persist in order that the rumour of development and the raising of the standards of African peoples does not die. That is why this conference is so important.
African leaders should share positive stories with European politicians in order that they do not give up. We should tell Europeans that the strategies being used to fight AIDS in Uganda are working and that the HIV-AIDS committee in the Parliament of Uganda is an experience that can be replicated elsewhere. We must tell them that international networking at the parliamentary level, such as the one Mr. Bas will discuss, can work. For example, such a network enables a Member of Parliament in Uganda to send information to the United Kingdom. When the UK international development committee visited Washington to meet the World Bank, we sent it a secret agenda and told it to tell the World Bank it was a message from Africa concerning trade, the opening up of European markets and so on. The committee, of which Mr. Hugh Bayley and Mr. Tony Worthington were members, was happy to embrace our agenda.
When delegates at today's conference come to hold discussions with their governments in Europe's parliaments, they will be in position to tell them that they know a Member of Parliament in a particular African country, for example, Zambia, who can be contacted by telephone to provide feedback about how European taxpayers' money is being spent. Politicians have a selfish interest in so doing. We want to look good during elections and at other times, which provides an important incentive to supply this information. Networking is positive and the information delegates have on the parliamentary network and the World Bank will go a long way towards solving this problem.
Donor fatigue comes about because ordinary people are not sure what aid is achieving. I strongly support the idea of sending citizens from developed countries who will roll up their sleeves and do something. I know that the United Kingdom has the Voluntary Service Overseas organisation while the United States has strong internship programmes. However, the younger generation is now being mobilised by anti-development aid political wings in Europe and elsewhere and told that aid money is being stolen and not doing any good. Therefore, it is important that the young realise the situation is not as clear-cut as this. Good is being done and must be pursued.
African leaders must promise to fight corruption, govern our peoples better and allow credible economic teams to run our economies. Uganda has managed to fight inflation because, eventually, our politicians left the ministry of finance and central bank alone. They decided to employ people who could stabilise our currency, irrespective of their political emotions. Uganda's economic team is one of the best, it is world class. In parliament we established a budget committee and obtained the advice of good economists. This has enabled us to have a reasonable debate because politicans, if they are well informed and pointed in the right direction, can debate with the development economists in the World Bank. I invite the committee to support these efforts. Whenever members receive proposals for building capacity or parliamentary committees from parliaments in the developing countries, I urge them to accept. Ultimately, this institutional support is more enduring than that offered to an individual president, however colourful he or she may be.
I would like to share a short story about a man who was an acrobat. He could roll a wheelbarrow full of sand on a tightrope across sky scrapers. He was very adept at his craft. One day when a group of spectators gathered to admire his skill, one of them suggested that he should try to perform the same feat at Niagara Falls. He replied that he would be willing to do so if his admirer would agree to sit in the wheelbarrow. This is the challenge we present to committee members; if we get it right in Africa, will they be willing to sit in our wheelbarrow?
Sr. Isabella Smyth
I do not know much about the political will of your respective national parliaments but even if we had enough evidence to answer this question with a convincing yes, there would still remain a number of burning questions. Do national parliaments have the skills and capacity to achieve these goals? Who are the other main agents in the great amphitheatre where this global change will be enacted, and what must they do? I intend to focus on just two of the many challenges facing the national parliaments of the European Union.
As a young missionary, more than 30 years ago, my first overseas assignment was to Tanzania. Those were exciting days, just three years after Mr. Julius Nyerere had signed the Arusha Declaration of 1967. Soon after the banks had been nationalised, I went to visit our bank manager in Singida to discuss plans to send a mobile unit to our rural hospital where I was the administrator. This meant that staff could be paid by cheque and enabled to open savings accounts. In other words, they were putting people before money. It would not have involved huge profit for the bank but was putting the right order on things. In the spirit of those days, this was regarded as highly desirable and for a time it actually happened.
As we know, Mr. Nyerere's Christian socialism did not please the great powers of the West and he was reluctantly forced to turn to China for external aid. From the perspective of the West, this placed him close to those who were on the wrong side, in the very destructive Cold War of those days. Some ten years later, when Mr. Nyerere courageously published the mistakes made in the implementation of the Arusha Declaration, printed in English as well as Swahili, he pointed out the central role of capital in any social and political programme.
I was later assigned to Brazil. Among other matters, I worked as the English editor for an ecumenical news agency in Sao Paulo. This meant that, as well as Catholic colleagues, I had daily contact with personnel from the Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian and Presbyterian churches. We all shared a deep commitment to justice for the poor. One could say we were equally drenched in a life-giving liberation theology. One day, around 1987, the Presbyterians told me they were expecting an important visitor from the United States. They felt he would not be an easy man to entertain as he was the editor of a Republican newspaper but he had told them he wanted to see poverty. As I was the only person on the team who spoke English, I got the job of taking him around.
I met this North American visitor at the Hilton Hotel. We took a taxi as far out as the city centre taxi driver was willing to drive. He dropped us off at one of the bridges over the River Tiete. Here, it was said, the air was so polluted that simply breathing was equivalent to smoking nine cigarettes per hour. The American visitor stood for a while, leaning on the parapet of the bridge and gazing down at the endless flow of heavy goods vehicles. Below us was the eight lane highway that ran on either side of the river. He watched the huge trucks, trundling southwards with their merchandise, to all the cities in the southern part of Brazil, on to Uruguay and Argentina and down to the Cone Sul. Then he asked me whether this endless flow of commerce ever stopped. He was a reflective man. I replied that it never stopped, day or night.
We took another taxi for some more miles, until that driver was unwilling to travel further, as it would be beyond the area where he felt safe. Then we switched to a local taxi which dropped us a few kilometers from where I lived. We were now in a valley, in what was once the Serra, but the creeping city had long since denuded the hillsides of their trees. All around us, small cement brick houses and wooden shacks perched on the high ledges, filling every available square metre, in an architecture that defied gravity. By now, our visitor was sweating heavily under the burning sun. I, therefore, suggested that we stop at a little bar on the edge of the dusty street where he could have a cold beer. As he drank it by the roadside, he gazed up at the densely populated hillside. This staunch supporter of Ronald Reagan, editor of a Republican newspaper, was silent for a long time, gazing up and thinking. When he had finished his beer, he turned to me and said that, although he had strongly defended capitalism all his life, he could never defend a capitalism that produced this.
My first point, therefore, is concerned with the degree do which national parliaments have a real say in how we shape our world. Is it national parliaments or those who control the world's capital who have more say? It seems that nobody will put an end to human disease, poverty and suffering and promote human development unless we can convince everybody that capital must care. My call is not for more philanthropy, though we are happy, of course, to use philanthropic grants, nor am I merely asking for a more effective response from the Bretton Woods institutes, though that would also be very welcome. What we need is a cultural shift that reflects a sense of real responsibility on the part of all those who control the world's wealth and resources. When I say capital must care, I mean the kind of caring which involves the participation of the end users in an attitude of genuine partnership and mutuality. The challenge to national parliamentarians is to find mechanisms and rewards that will encourage those who control capital to take this responsibility seriously. This cultural shift will not be easily achieved. I do not think it can happen without the close collaboration of our writers, poets and performing artists who can help to create the climate for change.
I shall now address my second point. As delegates know, traffic in human beings is now the third most lucrative source of income for organised crime syndicates, after drugs and guns. Statistics abound. The United Nations estimates that some 27 million people are being held in slavery worldwide. The International Labour Organisation believes the number of persons, mostly women and children, trafficked across international borders reaches four million each year. The European Commission estimates that each year 120,000 people, mainly women and children, are brought illegally into western Europe. Most of these are women trafficked for the sex trade. Of these, some 40% are minors, between 14 and 18 years of age. This lucrative business thrives on the desperation of poor families who are willing to sacrifice one or more daughters to this trade in the hope of escaping the poverty trap. Two 13 year old west African girls, for example, bought in London for €1,200 each, were soon working as child prostitutes. Each of these little girls was earning €400 per hour for their owner.
In recent days the world has been shocked by the horrifying images of prisoners in Iraq being stripped naked and humiliated to facilitate interrogation. However, there was no hue and cry when, on 9 February this year, the US ambassador to the Holy See, James Nicholson, told journalist John L. Allen of the National Catholic Reporter that a witness had told a conference, sponsored through his office, about an auction of women in eastern Europe who had been stripped naked in order that handlers could view them on an elevated platform, walk around and bid on them.
In Italy, three weeks ago, on 6 May, the latest group of 90 women and girls were assembled at the temporary detention centre in Ponte Galeria before being flown to Lagos in an act of repatriation. The International Office for Migration has a new four storey facility in Lagos to house 200 women in transit. There is another in Benin city with capacity for 30 women. On arrival in Lagos, missionaries and Nigerian religious women try to meet the returnees and help them in their difficult transition. The Nigerian Conference of Women Religious is training selected members for the ministry of healing to women and children being deported from our European cities, after being exploited here within our national boundaries.
The committee might have heard of the tireless work being done in Italy and its neighbouring countries by the Consolata Sister, Eugenia Bonetti, on behalf of the Italian Conference of Women Religious. In a recent e-mail she writes of the "delicate healing ministry" needed by women who are repatriated, having been exploited in different European countries. She says: "Women after such an experience feel broken and disappointed, humiliated and rejected even by their own families." We could, of course, remind these exploited women that three years ago the European Commission, on International Women's Day, 8 March 2001, declared that it would be a priority to fight against the trafficking of women and children to Europe. We could say the Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs, Antonio Vitonino, announced that the Commission intended to propose that such women should be offered a temporary permit of stay, if all member states supported the proposal. This would be something like the T-visa already introduced in the United States which allows victims fleeing slavery to gain legal standing while their cases are being heard. We could also tell the victims of exploitation in our European cities that on 28 February 2002 European Justice Ministers signed an agreement to launch an EU drive against human trafficking.
We would understand if these 90 exploited women, awaiting deportation at the temporary detention centre in Ponte Galeria, were demanding something more concrete than the signing of an agreement or the declaration of an intention. They would rightly point out that it would need the concerted effort of all of us as individual citizens of Europe, as activists in the NGO and religious networks, especially at inter-faith level, and the politicians of EU member states.
The defence of victims of human trafficking is a dangerous business. Members might have heard of the murder in February this year of the Brazilian missionary in Mozambique, Duraci Epinger, who at 53 years of age was beaten to death with a hammer when she answered the door to a caller. She was a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. She was among a group of missionaries who had raised alarm bells in 2001 about an alleged organ smuggling ring. She had reported to her church leaders that she had received death threats from suspected organ smugglers following these revelations.
This is a time to recall the famous words of Brutus to his soldiers in Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar": "There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune". This is such a time. Although we are far from winning the war against human trafficking, there is a mobilisation of public opinion and networking building to the kind of flood that can produce effective action for significant change. Let me just mention a few examples, among many initiatives.
Caritas Europa, with its headquarters in Prague, is the lead agency for work on human trafficking on behalf of the worldwide Catholic network known as Caritas Internationalis. It is working closely with CORNET — Christian Organisations against Trafficking. Together they have an impressive work plan for 2004. Two weeks ago 800 international delegates of the Worldwide Conference of Women Religious, who were gathered in Rome for their annual meeting, reaffirmed their commitment to work on behalf of those trapped in the human trafficing industry.
As well as the impressive work being done by the NGO network in the United States, we read of initiatives and advocacy work in the Philippines, Thailand, Japan and elsewhere in Asia, not only to create legislation that punishes those who engage in the trafficing of human beings but also to legislate to provide protection and services for victims. This is the reason I believe now is a propitious time.
I refer to an important submission made just one year ago in April 2003 to the 59th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. It was made by a coalition, including Anti-Slavery International, and a bunch of Christian agencies. They pointed out that 115 states had signed the protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children. However, they stressed the importance of domestic legislation. They said there was little likelihood of making significant progress in the fight against human trafficking unless we incorporated into domestic legislation the policies and procedures outlined in Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the 2002 UN document entitled, Recommended Principles and Guidelines on Human Rights and Human Trafficking. In the name of the men, women and children who are the victims of trafficking and being exploited in our European cities, even as we speak, I beg members to work for this essential domestic legislation in their respective national parliaments. Their efforts will be accompanied by our prayers.
Chairman
I now call Mr. Noel McDonagh, chairman, Self Help Development International.
Mr. Noel McDonagh
I thank the conference for inviting me to attend this meeting. The question posed is broad and multi-dimensional with many inherent complexities. To begin with, it is fair to ask what competence or experience do I have that would suggest I am qualified to address the question. I am the chairman of the Third World development organisation, Self Help Development International, which was established in 1984 in response to the devastating Ethiopian famine of the time with the specific mandate to address the causes of famine rather than its results. It is specifically not a relief agency. Its single focus is on long-term development, the development of sustainable rural communities by working on the ground with communities to help them to help themselves.
My submission which members can read gives a brief description of the work we do. However, it is probably useful to refer to the operational policies we employ to achieve our objectives. I would describe these as representative of our basic philosophy which gives rise to some of the other issues to which I will refer.
We have four fundamental principles on which we operate. First, all of our activities are run on what we term a "bottom up" ownership basis. The projects are, therefore, owned by the beneficiaries. Second, we work in total partnership with the authorities in the respective countries and avoid at all costs the establishment of parallel structures. Third, we do not engage expatriates of any kind in countries or fields of operation. In other words, all development is based on the capacity available in the various countries and built upon from there. Fourth, we have strong and robust entry and exit strategies.
All projects have integration as an overriding principle. We aim to achieve economic progression with communities which would normally vary in size from those comprised of 25,000 people at the lower end up to those comprised of perhaps 300,000 at the upper end. Such communities would have been food deficient. We have brought the people concerned through the various stages such as food self-sufficiency; surplus; trading; joint trading; joint purchasing; primary co-operatives and, finally, unions of co-operatives. In this way millions have moved from food deficiency to the early stages of sustainable development at very low cost, namely, not exceeding €10 per head. In all of the areas in which we have become involved there has been no famine, notwithstanding adverse drought conditions; communities are considerably less vulnerable and all export food and seed to other areas within their own countries.
The organisation has evolved and implemented a simple and effective model of development. It is now exploring how to harness current and future information and communications technologies to promote the model on a much broader geographic base throughout Africa. In all of our activities we work closely with Development Co-operation Ireland in a relationship underpinned by a mutual understanding of and respect for the complementarity of official and NGO competences and capacities, a topic to which I will return.
Do national parliaments have the will to solve all of these problems? Only they can demonstrate that they possess that will. It might be better to ask if they have the power to do so. In the short term the answer to that question is no. It will take time to solve all of the problems of under-development in the world. That time must be spent doing certain things. The nature of problems must be understood and analysed and they must not be underestimated or over-simplified. The underlying causes of such problems must be established and strategies put in place to address them. In addition, activities must be planned to implement the strategies while appropriate structures must be put in place to manage these. A pyramid must be put in place.
In that context, the question might perhaps be asked again but in a different way, namely, can the parliaments contribute to the reduction of under-development or accelerate the rate of progress of development? The answer to this question should be an emphatic yes, subject to some conditions, namely, that parliamentarians must have the will to do so; that there is the necessary capacity in terms of knowledge, skill, resources and organisation; that parliamentarians can mobilise the support of society for its initiatives; and that the parliaments can exercise the necessary influence over governments. As regards the latter, in modern parliamentary democracies power lies with the Executive — the government. The challenge to parliamentarians is, as far as possible, to depoliticise the issue of development. In that way they must be able to influence their governments to meet the challenges inherent in reaching the UN target of 0.7% of GDP and the various other goals set in respect of addressing the question of development in the long term.
Assuming that the pre-conditions are met, there must be intensive debate and macro-analysis to identify and generate consensus within parliaments on the main areas of interest and focus. We must ask what should we do, where should we do it, how should we do it and in what, where and how should we specialise. As the problems are vast, it will not be possible to do everything.
There are many causes of the distress that we want to alleviate. These are: catastrophic natural disasters such as major earthquakes which require massive relief intervention rather than development initiatives; recurring natural disasters such as famine, drought, pestilence; man-made disasters resulting from abuse of the environment such as desertification, destruction of tropical forests, etc.; chronic endemic economic and social deprivation and under-development, resulting from lack of access to knowledge, resources, credit and markets; humanitarian deprivation arising from issues of human rights deficits and so on; and pandemics and epidemics such as HIV-AIDS, malaria, etc. There are, of course, many other causes, each of which requires a specific focus, specific solutions, specific strategies and policies supported by specific expertise.
When particular areas of interest are identified and policies and strategies put in place, many options can be considered for appropriate action such as direct bilateral action and indirect multilateral action through the many EU, UN and other specialist international agencies, the World Bank and other development banks, etc. The important factor in becoming involved in aid work in that way is to ensure maximum influence is exercised on the respective policies and actions of such agencies. Another area to which consideration can be given is the support of NGOs, missionary and other humanitarian organisations.
As a result of the specific experience of Self Help Development International, I wish to make some points on bilateral interventions, the support of NGOs, their inter-relationship and complementarity. Many bilateral interventions have now adopted a sectoral approach, attempting to achieve a sensible and workable balance between conditionality, on the one hand, and additionality, on the other. Sometimes, donor countries combine with each other in this type of initiative in sectors such as health or education or agriculture. Within this, great emphasis is normally placed on institutional development, almost to the exclusion of any community dimension or involvement. Conversely, the NGO and other independent initiatives tend to focus more on communities; in this case, however, often to the exclusion of any dimension of institutional development.
Self Help Development International firmly believes there will be no sustainable development of any kind unless and until there is parallel co-ordination and synchronisation of concurrent institutional and community capacity building. On the one hand, institutions must have the capacity to respond to the demands of developing rural communities. On the other, rural communities must have the capacity to respond to the initiatives being proposed by developing institutions. If these interdependent capacities are not available, an essential element to support partnership is missing; in the absence of such partnership, there can be little or no progress. I often use the analogy of the scissors to describe this. It is impossible to cut material with a one blade scissors. One needs the action of the two blades working together. This will be a fundamental issue for development in the years ahead.
This is the complementary dimension to which I referred when outlining the activities of Self Help Development International. One of the challenges facing all of us in the years ahead is how to evolve the obvious complementarity of all the sectors involved in development into cohesive and effective partnerships — how to make the sum of the parts greater than the whole. The potential of this dimension has been well recognised in Ireland in recent years and has been strengthened through the process of the multiannual programme system, MAPS. This process has the advantage of both optimising the potential of complementarity and supporting the longer-term planning fundamental to development planning as well as strengthening the concept of partnership. In this, the Irish Parliament, Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and the DCI are to be commended and complimented on what is perceived by all those involved as an enlightened approach.
How can parliaments respond to the challenges posed by the question put to us? All parliamentarians cannot become expert in this particular field of endeavour but if parliaments are to be effective in the topic, exercise responsible and positive influence on government and elicit support from their societies, it is essential that a select number do become expert because they will become the advocates for the continuing support of and subventions to development aid and interventions in the future. They will become the leaders of an accelerated initiative to address human diseases, poverty and suffering and to promote development.
Chairman
Our final speaker is Mr. Jean-Christophe Bas who joined the World Bank in 1989 and was a policy adviser to the European Parliament between 1984 and 1989. He is a director of the Aspen Institute and development policy dialogue manager in the World Bank. People often complain the World Bank does not talk to them enough. However, the manager of the dialogue on development policy is with us. He is the bank's interlocutor for the parliamentary network. He will leave his script aside and give us an upbeat summary of the main points.
Mr. Jean-Christophe Bas
I thank the Chairman for his kind introduction and inviting me to participate in this debate. I am delighted to be in Ireland which will soon join the G5, a select club of countries which have achieved the 0.7% objective. This group should try by all means to expand quickly. I congratulate the Irish Presidency and the Chairman for deciding to focus its biennial meeting on the topic of honouring the commitment to developing countries.
The notion of delivery and commitment or implementation is of tremendous importance when we look at the role of Europe in development. Both European countries and the European Union are playing an increasingly powerful role in development policy and financing. Europe provides approximately 60% of world development aid and approximately 45% of the World Bank's resources for financing the world's poorest countries. This means that parliamentarians, as representatives of 400 million citizens around Europe, have a tremendous responsibility and role in the delivery of the commitment made in recent years.
Looking at the session, the common theme among the four panellists is that we were a little puzzled by the question. I have two pertinent questions, the first of which is whether we are talking about parliaments in rich countries or poor countries. Looking at the audience and the topic of the seminar, I understand the question is about the capacity or will of parliaments in rich countries to play an active role in poverty eradication. I emphasise the tremendous importance and increasing role of parliaments in development countries in eradicating poverty. This would also be worth discussing in detail at some point.
There are wonderful stories that I would be happy to discuss in other circumstances about the role of parliaments in extremely poor developing countries in promoting good governance, fighting corruption and championing economic and social reform. I would also like to reiterate what Norbert Mao mentioned about the need for parliaments and governments in the northern hemisphere to support efforts to strengthen parliaments in developing countries. I understand we are talking about the political will of parliaments in donor countries.
My second question is whether we are talking about political will or political capacity. If we are talking about political will, when it comes to questions about allocating more foreign aid or giving better market access to products from developing countries, parliaments and parliamentarians — we should not only focus on parliaments as parliamentarians are critical actors — are confronted with a dilemma between domestic pressures, which are in most cases always urgent and legitimate, to put more money in pensions plans and pension reform, education and health services and international commitments to allocate more money for foreign aid. This dilemma also reflects the one confronted by voters and public opinion between natural generosity, which gives them the will to more actively support poor countries, and their own priorities, which are always domestic.
Until recently, allocating more for foreign aid was mostly about moral values and generosity; it was not driven by any other interest. There was, however, a lack of consistency. Hilda Jonsson was Minister with responsibility for development co-operation in Norway when the first meeting between parliamentarians and the World Bank took place in The Hague in spring 1999. The title of her speech was, "The role of parliamentarians in the fight against policy as seen by a former development Minister", exactly the same topic we are discussing today. While she listed many issues, she mentioned one crucial topic, namely, the constituency problem. She said the poor constituencies, or half the world's population, were not capable of throwing us out of our seats. MPs tend to concentrate on local issues; our constituencies have priority. That is how it is.
Until recently, very few observers, including in the media, were aware of the growing risk and threat of poverty to the system in their own countries. Very few realised that an unbalanced world posed a risk to rich countries and was not just a problem for poor countries. The collapse of the Twin Towers on 11 September 2001 dramatically ended the artificial wall which had divided the rich and poor world. People now understand much better the effect of the poverty chain. Poverty triggers hunger, migration, disease, environmental problems, war, conflict and so on. More and more understand that it is in their own interest to help poorer countries to become more stable and better balanced. The dilemma between internal pressure and generosity is probably organised differently. People understand there is a direct link between poverty and instability. The President of the World Bank has said we must urgently focus attention on what is called the war against poverty.
We can assume there is the political will to deal with the issue. There is no doubt that there is the political will to play an active role in poverty eradication. The question is how we can make this political will compatible with the pressure of domestic issues. This is where parliamentarians can play a crucial role as advocates for development. The second issue is whether parliaments and parliamentarians have the capacity to play an active role. Do they have the tools to play a crucial role in poverty eradication? This is where they can play the role of agents for change.
I would like to elaborate on the notion of parliamentarians being advocates for development and agents for change. On the need to deliver on commitments and taking into account domestic pressure, parliamentarians in rich countries have a tremendous role to play and a great responsibility to explain to the public and interest groups what is at stake, why it is important to promote development, allocate more support for foreign aid and create a stable environment which will be indispensable in promoting peace, growth and development. They have a responsibility to explain how foreign aid works, how effective it is and why it is important to provide better access for poor countries. There is also a need to explain that the globalisation process is not always about winning, that there will be trade-offs. In some sectors countries will win while in others, there will be problems, as a result of which they will lose. Therefore, there will be trade-offs.
Parliaments and parliamentarians are better placed than anyone else to explain these challenges in simple language. As bureaucrats, we are not very good at communicating the key challenges. Wolfensohn is very good at trying to capture what they are. It is difficult to explain to citizens the imbalance in allocating $50 billion for foreign aid while $350 billion is allocated for agricultural subsidies and $900 billion for military expenditure. It is wrong that half the world's population is living on less than $2 a day while every cow in Europe is subsidised to the tune of $2.5 a day. These images create developmental challenges, issues on which parliamentarians have a key role to play in educating their constituents.
This teaching role implies that parliamentarians are knowledgeable and fully aware of these complex issues. In this regard, this meeting can play an important role in exchanging views, raising the level of knowledge among the parliamentary community and promoting collaborative action. A key feature of this new world is that nothing can be solved by just the corporate or private sector, governments, NGOs or parliamentarians. There is a need for collaborative action where all those who have the capacity to play a role discuss issues and learn from each other.
I agree with Sister Isabella who said the role of enterprise was crucial. It is important for parliamentarians to discuss with the private sector the issue of the responsibility of that sector in promoting development and eradicating poverty. This is a matter of corporate social responsibility. It is also important for parliamentarians to work closely with NGOs which have a capacity to set the agenda.
I have always been struck by the total disconnection in many countries between researchers and policy-makers, which in most cases is ignored. These sectors would have much to gain in working together and exchanging knowledge. This is what is referred to as CDF, comprehensive development framework, an invention of Jim Wolfensohn which is now used by the whole development community to look upon the development problem as global, to take a comprehensive view and not to have a narrow focus. Gender, for example, is typically an issue in every constituency, to which the private sector, governments, researchers, NGOs and religious organisations can bring expertise, value and solutions to the problem. In the Mediterranean countries one group of actors can be a champion in promoting development but can sometimes also be an obstacle. That is the reason there is a need for collaborative action.
The second aspect to consider is political capacity. Do parliaments have the capacity, tools and instruments to play the role of champions of poverty eradication? A very strict reading of the constitution or legal framework shows this capacity to be limited. Article 3.2 of the articles of the World Bank states it shall deal with a member only by or through its treasury and central bank. Article 4.10 states the bank and its officers shall not interfere in the political affairs of any member. This means that what Dr. Dadush and I are doing today in having this open dialogue with parliamentarians is breaking the rules of the articles of the bank. Fortunately, the world is changing and everyone now agrees there is a need for a collaborative approach and to talk together but we still live in a constraining legal environment and framework. That is the reason there is a real need to look at practice. In looking at the legal environment I say the capacity of parliaments is limited. If we look at innovative practice, I say this capacity is growing.
We cannot disconnect this debate on parliamentary capacity from the broader debate on global governance. In the absence of any kind of global governance structure where there would be a clearly assigned role for parliaments which might take decades to bring about parliaments are progressively and quickly designing their own role in the global fight against poverty in a very inventive and creative way. I would like to give some examples of how they are innovating and creating an important role in the poverty debate.
I was struck recently to read that the Belgian Parliament had passed a resolution stating that from then on every law passed by it would provide for a preliminary reading to ensure it was in accordance with the millennium development goals. This is something that can be replicated in other countries. There are simple ways for parliaments to play a role in promoting development and a better role for developing countries. I take the opportunity of Mr. Hugh Bayley's absence to mention that during a recent select committee debate he asked the Minister with responsibility for development what was the United Kingdom 's position on the representation of poor countries on the board of the bank and the IMF. This was along the same lines mentioned by Mr. Norbert Mao. The select committee was the messenger and the conveyor of the requirements and concerns of parliamentarians from Africa. Mr. Bayley played that role.
The oversight function and accountability dimension are extremely important. The week before the annual meetings of the World Bank and the IMF which take place in the last week in September the Parliament of the Netherlands is organising a public debate on the Netherlands' priorities in the Bretton Woods organisations. The representative of the Netherlands on the board of the World Bank and the IMF will participate in the debate and the public hearing. This is an interesting model of accountability. Many countries can use the same system of calling their representative on the board of multilateral organisations to explain how he or she participates in the decision-making process. In France, for example, there is a recent tradition — it is in its fourth or fifth year — that the Minister for Finance who is the shareholder representing France on the board of the World Bank produces an annual report on France and the multilateral organisation. This report is sent to the Parliament and there is a public debate in which the Minister for Finance participates. This is a strong element of accountability and transparency. These are a few examples of what can be considered best practice and which can be replicated everywhere.
I will say a final word on the regional and global level and the capacity for parliaments to play an important role. In today's interdependent role, real action and real progress can only come though an effective coalition which will unite rich and poor countries for a common purpose. This need for advocacy for development and accountability and openness motivated the creation of the Parliamentary Network of the World Bank less than four years ago. This organisation, of which Mr. Norbert Mao is the vice-chair, is an independent group of parliamentarians which comprises approximately 500 MPs from 90 countries. It provides a unique platform for dialogue, interaction, accountability and knowledge-sharing between MPs, as elected representatives, and the senior leadership of the bank. I am glad, Chairman, when you introduced me, that you mentioned the dialogue aspect of my role because we see dialogue as a two-way street. It is not a question of communication or PR but of dialogue, learning from each other and talking together in order to work better and have a learning agreement.
The Parliamentary Network of the World Bank organises an annual conference which discusses more than the agenda of the World Bank. It also considers the development and poverty challenges. The president of the World Bank participates in this annual event. Therefore, it offers direct interaction between parliamentarians from rich and poor countries and the senior leadership of the bank. The heads of the IMF and the WTO and representatives of the UN system also participate. This global organisation has a policy dialogue at the global level with the senior leadership of the bank and is also profoundly anchored in many countries.
There are four regional chapters. A group of approximately 40 parliamentarians in India and approximately 50 MPs in east Africa are working on a regular basis with the World Bank offices and have a chance to impact on the bank's policy orientation and project design. This is important in terms of openness. In that regard, I speak of parliamentarians from rich countries. The Parliamentary Network of the World Bank will soon launch a regional chapter for parliamentarians from rich countries at which they can exchange experiences on what it is to be an MP from a rich country and the problems they encounter on a regular basis. This will bring parliamentarians from the United States, Europe, Japan, Australia and Canada together. It will be a unique platform which will assist those parliamentarians interested in engaging in a discussion of the challenges posed by poverty eradication.
The Parliamentary Network of the World Bank also created what is called a parliamentary implementation watch of the millenium development goals, a parliamentary mechanism which follows and monitors progress made and their achievement. It also provides concrete tools for parliamentarians to put pressure on their governments to make progress. The Parliamentary Network of the World Bank is slowly becoming an official interlocutor for the bank and other multilateral organisations. Every year a network delegation participates in the annual meeting of the IMF and the World Bank as part of the consultative process.
I do not wish at this stage to go into all of the parliamentary network programmes. With the Parliamentary Network of the World Bank, we have developed a system of questions and answers similar to Question Time in the Irish Parliament which is unique at multilateral organisation level. Elected parliamentarians can ask any question of the World Bank regarding policy orientation and project design to which it will respond. That is an interesting example.
Parliaments can play an important role. A great deal is already happening which is for the good of all. The capacity of parliamentarians to represent the will of the people will help to make them more effective in the fight against poverty.
Chairman
I thank Mr. Bas and his colleague for the information they have provided for us. I wish to make a brief comment on his reference to the Norwegian MP, Ms Hilda Jonsson, in terms of our constituencies having priority, as most of us recognise. It is true that one must watch one's constituency or lose one's seat next time round as I know all too well having been a candidate in nine general elections. Ireland has multi-seat constituencies in a system of proportional representation. Not only has one to watch one's constituency, one also has to watch one's colleagues.
When speaking to representatives of UNICEF about Zambia, they pointed out that the second highest contributor per capita in the world to UNICEF funds, directly from the people as distinct from agencies and governments, was Ireland. We should not forget this. The people are watching and listening to us speak of the problems and what we are trying to do about them. Many are willing to support good actions which help children, women and countries. As politicians and parliamentarians, we must bear this in mind.
The problem with which we are immediately faced is that delegates from five countries, Spain, Macedonia, Estonia, Belgium and the Czech Republic, as well as the European Parliament wish to make contributions. However, we have run out of time. I propose that we hear from them for about 15 minutes tomorrow morning. Translated into English, Garda Síochána means guardians of the peace. I sometimes feel I have to remind some of my colleagues in Government of this. It is an important role. However, members of the force are standing by to return delegates to their hotels and have asked, as it is after 6 p.m., that we leave immediately.
I congratulate all of the delegates on their stamina. We have heard from great speakers who have provided much information throughout the day. I also thank everyone for their patience and ability to absorb so much. We will resume tomorrow at 10 a.m. when we will deal with globalisation issues. I advise delegates that the coaches will leave almost immediately and that the coaches to Farmleigh House will leave their hotels at approximately 7.30 p.m. They can now relax. Farmleigh House, the home of the Guinness family, is a nice place to relax for the evening.
The joint committee adjourned at 6.10 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 25 May 2004.