JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 24 Oct 2006

Foreign Conflicts: Presentations.

Chairman

For a discussion with officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs of the current situation in Darfur, I welcome Mr. Rory Montgomery, political director at the Department; Ms Ciara O'Brien, deputy director of Irish Aid; and Ms Pauline Conway, head of the Department's Africa section.

Recent reports from Darfur suggest the situation is deteriorating rapidly. With the end of the rainy season, there is a real prospect that military activity by both sides will increase and all-out war looks ever more likely. The possible involvement of countries neighbouring Darfur such as Chad can only make matters worse. Should that occur, the fate of millions of displaced people will once more become an issue of the gravest international concern. The will and ability of the international community, especially the United Nations and the European Union, to address what many see as a humanitarian catastrophe or even full-scale genocide will once more confront us all. We must ask ourselves what can be done to end an appalling tragedy that has so far cost the lives of over 250,000 people, many of them women and children.

The news that the Sudanese Government has ordered Mr. Jan Pronk, the UN Secretary General's special representative, to leave Sudan within 72 hours can only increase the organisation's difficulty in operating in the country. If Mr. Pronk is not allowed to return, the question arises as to whether the United Nations wishes to appoint someone to succeed him to ensure the Secretary General remains fully informed of events in the country at a time when the Sudanese Government continues to block the deployment of a UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur. I understand measures in that regard are well under way.

Against that grim background, I ask Mr. Montgomery to make his presentation and update us on the situation.

Mr. Rory Montgomery

I thank the committee for inviting us. Pauline Conway is the head of our Africa section in the political division and Ciara O'Brien is from Irish Aid. These two parts of the Department are intertwined and work extremely closely together, which is essential because of the development aid and political dimensions.

As the committee is aware, the conflict in Darfur since 2003 has caused significant social upheaval and human suffering. The situation is very complex, both politically and climatically. It has developed out of years of political, economic and social marginalisation of the region, but the complexity should not obscure the fundamental point of the level of human suffering. Estimates vary, but we believe at least 200,000 people have lost their lives as a direct or indirect result of the conflict and more than 2 million people have been displaced from their homes and their livelihoods.

Currently, 3 million people, half the total population of the region, rely on humanitarian aid, but continuing violence and attacks on humanitarian workers make it very difficult for agencies on the ground to provide displaced persons with the help they need. The UN estimates that 40% of those requiring assistance in Darfur are not receiving it because they cannot be reached. An estimated 234,000 people are cut off from food aid. This shrinking space, both geographical and political, for the delivery of humanitarian aid is of major concern to the agencies, including Irish NGOs.

There are also concerns that the situation in Darfur may spill over into Chad. Recent reports indicate that 55,000 people in Chad have fled their homes in the past six months as a result of the proximity of violence related to Darfur. This is in addition to the estimated 200,000 displaced persons from Sudan who have moved into Chad.

Respect for the humanitarian principles of neutrality, independence and impartiality is essential and attacks which affect humanitarian workers are a direct contravention of international humanitarian law. We are concerned about the safety of our people on the ground, about the NGO community in general and about the capacity of NGOs to deliver the assistance they are there to supply. Ireland has provided over €16 million in humanitarian assistance to Darfur since 2004 and total Irish Aid funding to Sudan in that period exceeds €32 million. Our key humanitarian partners include the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the World Food Programme and Irish NGOs, including Concern, Goal and Trócaire, all of which were met by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on his visit there in July.

The Government has made it clear that it is gravely concerned about the continuing humanitarian and political crisis in Darfur and is using every avenue to urge concerted action to resolve the crisis. In July, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, was the first EU Foreign Minister to visit Darfur since the signing of the peace agreement in Abuja in May and he had the chance to visit the largest displaced persons' camp at Abu Shouk. I was part of his party on that occasion and it made a deep impression on all of us, as it has done on everybody who has visited it. The Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, and his predecessor, Deputy Tom Kitt, also visited Sudan. Our ambassador in Cairo, who is accredited to Khartoum, visits regularly, as do officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Our Minister met the Sudanese Foreign Minister, Lam Akol, in July in Khartoum and made a point of seeking and obtaining a meeting with him in September in New York at the UN General Assembly in New York. Our Minister also made the situation in Darfur a key element of his address to the General Assembly on 26 September and in the meeting he had that day with the UN Secretary General.

Since the outbreak of the current conflict, the entire international community, the African Union, the EU, the US and the UN has been actively engaged, both with the Sudanese Government and the rebel factions to try to restore peace, end impunity and enable the displaced people of Darfur to return to their homes and begin to rebuild their lives.

Unfortunately, while the level of killing is less than it was at the height of the crisis, the international community's collective effort has fallen short of success. Successive ceasefires have been broken by all sides, the Sudanese Government has not implemented its pledge to disarm the Janjaweed militia, the African Union force, AMIS, has proven unable to meet all of the demands upon it, and President Bashir refuses to agree to the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force. While the Darfur peace agreement of late 2006 was rightly hailed as providing a comprehensive framework for the restoration of stability, since it was signed by only the Sudanese Government and one of the main rebel factions, little has been achieved in terms of implementation.

As the UN Secretary General warned in his October report, Darfur is at a critical stage. Insecurity is at its highest level and humanitarian access at its lowest level since 2004. Two of the rebel factions that refused to sign the peace agreement have been intensifying their military activities. Those parties that signed the agreement have been guilty of widespread and significant ceasefire violations. The recent renewed offensive by the Sudanese army in northern Darfur is causing further suffering and displacement, including in eastern Chad.

A recent report by the UN's panel of experts monitoring the Darfur arms embargo indicated that the embargo is being blatantly violated by all parties in the region, including the Government forces, Janjaweed militias, rebel groups and insurgents from Chad. The situation is complicated by splits and reformations into new alliances among the rebel groups since the agreement was signed. A further complication is the Sudanese Government's insistence that all non-signatory groups be excluded from the ceasefire commission established under the agreement and its predecessor. The Government has indicated that it does not consider the various agreements and ceasefires applicable to new alliances even if the personalities involved are the same in many cases.

The African Union has implemented the ceasefire commission's exclusion order and played an important role in brokering the peace agreement, which has led to accusations by non-signatories that the ceasefire is a recognition of the African Union's bias. This has limited AMIS's ability to patrol in certain areas and camps, something of which we were aware on our visit to Abu Shouk.

Against this grim backdrop, the international community has focused on three basic objectives, namely, trying to maintain and improve the flows of humanitarian assistance, trying to widen the support base for the Darfur peace agreement, and strengthening peacekeeping and ceasefire-monitoring capacities.

The essential argument of the non-signatories has been that the peace agreement's provisions are deficient in terms of the groups' future security, including the disarmament of the Janjaweed militias, and levels of compensation for displacement, which has become an emotive issue. Some have argued for the negotiation of a new agreement, but others believe it is more practical and realistic to focus on the implementation of the current agreement.

Following efforts by various parties, including active efforts by the EU special representative, Mr. Pekka Haavisto, it was encouraging last week that President Bashir agreed to negotiations under Eritrean auspices between his Government and the non-signatories. It is hoped that the talks will begin shortly and result in agreement on an implementation protocol to the peace agreement, but the negotiations may be long and difficult since the non-signatories differ in their aims. It is nonetheless envisaged that the negotiations will be observed by the international community, including the EU.

The deployment of AMIS, the African Union's ceasefire-monitoring mission in Darfur, began in August 2004. Its mandate includes contributing to a secure environment for the delivery of humanitarian assistance and the return of refugees and internally displaced persons. It has 7,200 police and military personnel, but started at a smaller size. It has done a reasonable job in its areas of operation, but it has been hampered by numerous problems, namely, its small size, logistical command and control shortfalls, a lack of enforcement capacity in its mandate, and a lack of co-operation from the parties. The African Union does not have the experience of the UN and some others in running a mission of this type. Indeed, this is the first such operation under the auspices of the African Union.

Owing to concerns in the international community, including the African Union, about AMIS's ability to fulfil its role, the need for a transition to a UN mission was agreed this year. Correspondingly, on 31 August the Security Council authorised sending 17,300 UN troops and 5,300 civilian police to Darfur to support the implementation of the peace agreement. However, the resolution invited the consent of the Sudanese Government and, regrettably, since President Bashir remains, at least for now, firmly opposed to the implementation of this decision, deployment of a peacekeeping force cannot proceed.

In the interim, on 20 September the African Union's Peace and Security Council decided to extend the mandate of AMIS until the end of this year. This decision will prevent a short-term total vacuum in Darfur, but it is generally held not to be a long-term solution. It is to strengthen the force with a further 1,200 troops from African countries. The UN will provide some logistical and material support, and 180 staff, and the Arab League has pledged some finance.

More generally, the international community has already committed additional funding to enable AMIS to continue until the end of 2006, but at its current strength of 7,200. The EU has given extensive support — political, technical and financial — to AMIS, including over €413 million since 2004. The EU has been by far the biggest supporter of AMIS. Much of that funding comes from Community funds and some from member states. Ireland has provided €3 million, including €1.5 million pledged in July to ensure that AMIS has the resources to fulfil its mandate to the end of this year. This is a small part of the overall humanitarian assistance we have offered and four personnel from the Defence Forces have also served with AMIS.

Despite the fact that this AMIS Plus, as it is being called, might have some greater capacity, the international focus is very much on continuing to ensure that a UN mission should take over when the AMIS mandate expires. The pressure on Sudan is coming from a range of sources. Egypt and the Arab League are both actively discussing with Khartoum the possibility of blue-hatting the AMIS force to turn it into a UN force. The US has a new special envoy, Andrew Natsios, who visited Sudan last week.

Perhaps most promisingly, the presidents of Nigeria, Gabon and Senegal — another committee of wise men — are due to meet President Bashir soon to find ways of dialogue to lead him to accepting a UN force. The EU, in this context, has been undertaking a major diplomatic effort with the Sudanese directly — in our own way, I suppose, the meetings with the Sudanese Foreign Minister have been part of that process — and countries capable of influencing Sudan, such as China and other Arab League members, are trying to persuade them not to undertake any further or new military offensive in Darfur and to agree to a transition to a UN force. As part of this process, at the end of September the President of the Commission, President Barroso, with colleagues, visited Khartoum and Darfur. There was a further meeting and discussion with the Sudanese minister at the EU-African Union Troika meeting in Brazzaville on 10 October.

The Sudanese Government, including in the meeting with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has raised one or two specific points of detail regarding the UN resolution which, in our view, ought to be possible to address. However, at the same time most of what the President has stated by way of objection is framed in more fundamental terms, and that is an interesting question. Within the Sudanese Government there is some evidence of mixed opinions which may offer further scope for progress and pressure.

To bring the story up to date, the EU last week adopted strong conclusions on Darfur, reiterating support for a UN force, reminding the Sudanese Government of its collective and individual responsibility for protecting its citizens, and calling on all signatories to commit to the Darfur peace agreement. It confirmed the extension of the EU support to AMIS until the end of 2006.

The matter was also discussed at the informal European Council in Lahti on Friday last, and just before lunch I received a copy of the letter from the President of the European Council, the Finnish Prime Minister, Mr. Van Hanen, to President Bashir. It makes essentially the same kinds of points that have been made in previous conclusions, but it is a further attempt to apply pressure.

I mentioned that the political situations in the various parts of Sudan are interrelated. There is the comprehensive peace agreement between north and south made in 2005, whose implementation must proceed. If progress is not made in that regard, the long-term prognosis for stability elsewhere, including in Darfur, will be undermined. There is also an issue on the eastern border.

The Darfur situation is evolving in a highly complex context. The situation is extremely difficult and there are significant humanitarian aspects on which Ms O'Brien will be happy to comment further in response to questions from members. At the same time, the efforts to move along on these twin tracks of widening the agreement and winning support for transition to a UN force are continuing. Substantial efforts are being made in a very difficult situation by a range of international actors. It is impossible to know whether they will be successful but no effort is being spared. We will do what we can and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, have been very vocal at EU meetings and elsewhere in ensuring this issue remains firmly on the agenda. At official level, Ms Conway has been very active in proposing various ways of strengthening EU conclusions and so on at meetings. In a multiplicity of ways, we are doing our best and, while it remains to be seen whether our best is good enough, we will certainly keep trying.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Montgomery. The Sudanese Government is not prepared to extradite people to the International Criminal Court but it has established a special court itself. The Government has not refused to co-operate with the ICC but it believes its own special court should be able to deal with the situation. This issue is raised repeatedly in regard to the ICC. I am reminded of the principle, aut dedere, aut judicare, which means “judge yourself or hand them over”. Officials do not want those issues to become a stumbling block to peace and progress but people want justice. What are the prospects in that respect?

Mr. Montgomery

The Chairman has put his finger on a difficult issue, not only in Sudan but elsewhere. Yesterday I met the new ambassador from Uganda, based in London, who is presenting her credentials this afternoon. Efforts have been made by the Ugandan Government to open a dialogue with the Lord's Resistance Army. The army's leaders have been indicted by the International Criminal Court but they are proceeding on the basis that the Ugandan Government will not seek to execute the warrants against them for the time being. The Chairman is correct that this issue is difficult. We are a strong supporter of the ICC and, in the long term, societies cannot be built on the basis of impunity.

One of the arguments used from time to time by the President of Sudan against the deployment of a UN force is that it could have a role in pursuing those sought by the ICC. A number of warrants have been issued-----

Ms Pauline Conway

Not yet. Investigations are under way.

Mr. Montgomery

This is not part of the UN force's mandate but, at the same time, this argument is used. This issue has come up but the focus is overwhelmingly on trying to reach a political agreement with the Government in Darfur to allow the UN mission. At the same time, there would be great reluctance to see this as a trade-off as regards the functions of the court.

Chairman

How one would do this is a debate in itself. If they are prepared to co-operate and a court could be organised which meets the requirements, that would be helpful, as we do not want the peace process to be held up. I will deal with the other point later.

Deputy Allen

I thank Mr. Montgomery for his useful contribution which keeps us up to date on what is happening in this region. I have no questions as his presentation was clear-cut. However, it is extremely difficult to accept that the Sudanese Government is continuing to ignore the pleas of the civilised world in regard to what is happening there. It is pursuing a military solution where no such solution exists and the only people suffering are the civilian population throughout the territories concerned.

In regard to the expulsion of the UN envoy, Mr. Pronk, in the context of the sensitive situation there, what was he doing giving his personal view on a website? I am not excusing the Sudanese Government for what it has been doing but it was foolish, to say the least, for that man to give his personal views on a website and, thus, give ammunition to a government that was hostile to his role in any event. How can that be redeemed? I presume that man is unacceptable to the Sudanese Government in the short and the long term. Will we be asking for a quick replacement of this individual so that matters can get back to where they were before that incident?

In regard to what the Chairman said about Sudan blocking a major UN military force because of fears that such a force might take it upon itself to arrest war criminals and have them tried by the International Criminal Court, does Mr. Montgomery consider there is any hope of a UN force getting in there and taking positive action to address what is happening, because at present it seems a hell-on-earth situation?

Senator Kitt

I also welcome Mr. Montgomery. I wish to make two points. In regard to our partners in Darfur, the World Food Programme and UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, given the refusal of President Bashir to deploy a UN peacekeeping force, are there concerns for the safety of members of NGOs such as Concern, GOAL and Trócaire? Mr. John O'Shea of GOAL has spoken strongly on this matter. If those people advocate the deployment of such a force but the president strongly refuses to do that, could this give rise to a conflict that would lead to concerns for the safety of these people?

On the issue of Deputy Carey's letter to the committee proposing the tabling of an all-party motion in the Dáil and Seanad on the current crisis in Darfur, I would welcome such a motion. As for the procedures for doing that, I hope it will be done.

Deputy M. Higgins

I very much welcome Mr. Montgomery, Ms O'Brien and Ms Pauline Conway. It is valuable and urgent that we have a discussion on the situation in Darfur. It would be useful if, some time before the debate that might take place in the Seanad and the Dáil, we had a presentation on the geometry of this conflict. I have spoken to members of the public who are moved by the images of populations being displaced and so forth and it is important they be able to put matters in context and obtain an accurate impression of the kind of conflict that is taking place.

It is important to bear in mind that what is taking place is of the character of a set of proxy wars, where the various parties to the conflict are operating to different agendas. If we are to debate Deputy Carey's motion in the Dáil or Seanad, we should examine the United Kingdom's proposal for an international conference on Sudan and Darfur. President Bashir has reservations about such a conference because he does not want it to be at the highest level, involving heads of state. He seems open to suggestions that it could be organised at the level of foreign ministers.

It would be very valuable if Ireland took the lead in that regard. Ireland should offer to organise such a conference, which could be called phase 1. The Irish position should be that we are willing to facilitate an international conference, at foreign affairs minister level, which would appear to have — with some reservations — the support of the Sudanese Government. Such a conference could represent phase 1 of a process. Phase 2 could be the United Kingdom's proposal for an international conference on Sudan and Darfur.

I make the aforementioned suggestion because it is clear as one attempts to unscramble the different initiatives that repeating those that have been offered to date will not be sufficient. Therefore, at these conferences, one should have as a principal topic the 2005 southern Sudan peace agreement. If that agreement is not rescued, it is clear that the situation in Darfur will descend into a heavy government response to what is a perceived insurrection and below that, a set of conflicts which are civil and ethnic in character. Therefore, one must try to sustain the only framework available. Discussing the 2005 peace agreement has the advantage of offering significant assurance to the Sudanese Government.

I disagree with my colleague, Deputy Allen, regarding Mr. Jan Pronk. If he was indiscreet, that is a pity. However, he is a very experienced international diplomat and foreign affairs expert and the atmosphere in which he has made his remarks is difficult. A debate is taking place in the United States as to whether one can call what is happening genocide. That is a separate issue from whether, if one concludes that it is genocide, one should say so and whether to do so is useful to the diplomatic effort.

We were at a point, before the acceptance of the southern Sudan peace agreement, where no international body or expert was in any doubt that the Sudanese Government armed the Janjaweed. There is also no doubt that the arms that have been captured from the Sudanese authorities, in military conflict, are in the possession of the rebel forces.

The most worrying and deteriorated aspect of the situation since we last discussed the issue is the factionalism that has emerged on both sides of the agreement from the forces involved in armed conflict. These are the signatories versus the non-signatories, and the further divisions within both the groups of signatories, those people who appeared to have moved along. There are parallels in events in other parts of the world. Those who have moved along, as it were, towards agreement have found themselves losing support.

There is also the old fallout from the appalling detritus of empire. There is an issue, based on race, effectively, between black people perceived as being vulnerable. It should be remembered that the Chadian forces supporting the rebel movement in Darfur have a very simple message. They are saying the United Nations is being impeded from defending 2.5 million people who happen to be Africans rather than Arabs, which is a crude distinction. Therefore, the conflict is continued for their protection. People are looking at that kind of statement and assessing the position of China on the Security Council, which is singularly unhelpful. We should make that view perfectly clear to the Chinese ambassador. China's position on this conflict is unsustainable, immoral and wrong.

If we are not going to get it developed at the level of the Security Council, one is talking then about going through the other mechanisms available to us, such as the general Council of the European Union. That is inclined to be responsive rather than proactive. I thought there was considerable merit in the United Kingdom's proposal to have an international conference. We should do something urgent and innovative, running perhaps the conference that might be on offer, or a preparatory conference of Foreign Affairs Ministers. I state this knowing what I am saying. This is very different from ministers for foreign affairs meeting on the margins of the European Union Presidency, for example, or such ministers meeting in bilateral talks. If structured properly, such a conference would have the capacity to produce new suggestions.

On conclusions which can be drawn, I will file another consideration. A very long time ago ambassador Sanu, who was experienced in the conflict in Somalia, developed the concept of humanitarian protection, as opposed to humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention is regarded as the great undermining of the principle of sovereignty. There had been an evolving set of thinking in diplomacy circles that humanitarian protection would be a viable concept. Now is surely the time to bring this concept forward.

It cannot be argued there is a principle of sovereignty that takes precedence over the threat of genocide. I am speaking very carefully. Therefore, for that reason, if I had a criticism to make — I am trying to be positive in what I am saying so far — it would be on the slow failure to provide the African forces with both the resources and personnel required. It has been painfully slow. It is a long time since we were told the African Union's monitoring mission was short of personnel and practical resources.

Other members of the committee have raised the issue of the international aid effort. Other factors will spill over relating to, for example, the position of refugees in Chad. The competition emerging on the ground between relief agencies, to some extent, in terms of resources is not very helpful either.

The more one thinks about the issue, the more one realises the principles of the framework agreement of the 2005 southern Sudan agreement, which dealt with issues such as yield of resources, aspects of autonomy and respect for diversity, etc., were probably the best moment we had. We need to get both signatory and non-signatory forces to the agreement into the one space. The conferences I have suggested, the preparatory example and that in the United Kingdom, probably offer us, however badly, our best prospect.

Senator Norris

I apologise as I will have to leave the committee briefly in a few minutes to deal with another matter. I welcome the clear and cogent presentation, which is what we would expect from Mr. Montgomery and his team.

Mr. Jan Pronk is a very distinguished and humane man and I would regret if, despite what may have been an indiscretion, we did or said anything that would further undermine his position. He responded in a very human way to what is a calculated horror perpetrated by a Government on its own people. There should be room for this kind of undiplomatic indignation in the face of such a catastrophe. I would tend to support him.

With regard to support for the African Union forces, is it not the case that many countries, as is typical in these situations, stepped up to the television cameras and claimed they would give all kinds of money but then failed to cough up? We are talking about 17,300 UN troops and 5,300 civilian police. Is there any prospect of the UN being able to raise such an army given that it is having difficulty scraping up troops as it is? I note the reference to 180 military police and technical staff. Are any of these personnel Irish, as I had heard?

I refer to Mr. Montgomery's comments that although the Darfur peace agreement was wonderful it its way, little had been achieved in terms of implementation. That is true but there is another way of looking at the situation. Much has been achieved in the way of fragmentation, which is disastrous, so that the non-signatories are now fighting among themselves and against their former partners.

I see this as a very human situation because, like my colleagues, I have been briefed on it by constituents who are ordinary Irish people disgusted by what is happening. They have written to inform me of what they know, either at first hand or through reports, of the situation in the camps where the conditions are desperate. As the men are afraid to leave the camps, the women are sent out to gather firewood and other basic essentials. When they go out, they are routinely raped. It should be put on the record that rape is a weapon of war consistently used by and with the approval of the Sudanese Government against its own population. That should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

There is a further aspect the committee might consider at some stage. I have been approached by a group concerned about investments. China could certainly help to resolve this problem, if it so chose. The reason it does not do so is because it is pursuing its own interests in the area of mineral resources such as oil, gas and so on. A series of shadow companies with names such as China Gas, PetroChina and I do not know what else — I forget their names but Mr. Montgomery and his colleagues will know them — and including companies from the United States and Canada, have a strong interest in what they can get out of this situation.

I have been told it is quite likely the National Treasury Management Agency, which is investing for our pensions, has wittingly or unwittingly invested in these companies. The group that has been lobbying me and others suggested it would be useful to disinvest as this would send a practical signal of disapproval. The group also suggested it is perhaps time — I feel it is time — that we insert into the terms establishing the National Pensions Reserve Fund an ethical framework with regard to funds invested on behalf of the people to provide for our pensions. We all look forward with relish to getting our pensions but at the same there is an argument that we do not want our pensions paid for with dirty money.

I apologise for having to leave briefly. I should be back in five minutes. I do not intend any discourtesy.

Senator Henry

As members are only too well aware the women come off worst in situations like this. In Africa, the women and girls must leave the camps to gather sticks for firewood. They are then raped on a systematic basis by whomever is passing by. The problem is that the stigma for the woman is appalling and as well as suffering a brutal assault she runs the risk of both pregnancy and the transmission of HIV. Many of these women had come from rural areas where there was a very low incidence of HIV. I attended a recent meeting in Brussels where this issue was discussed. People were in such despair about how to protect these women that it was suggested that female condoms be made available in refugee camps as the only possible way a woman has of protecting her own health. If she becomes pregnant, she may be virtually expelled from the family and she may become involved in illegal abortions. The transmission of HIV is becoming a very serious problem.

Has there been any suggestion that UNFPA or UN aides might be asked for advice? I am not asking them to send anybody out there, but could they give advice as to anything that could be done to help in this terrible situation? While it is great that rape is now recognised as a war crime, a prosecution a long way down the line is not a great comfort to these women.

Chairman

Mr. Montgomery has heard the views of members. It would be fair to say that people are appalled by what is happening and the inability of the international community to do what is needed. We know a great deal is being done and more than half of the €33 million Ireland has given since 2004 has been spent on humanitarian assistance. Other countries have done likewise. What is the prospect for the UN being in a position to take over the situation in conjunction with the African Union force and everybody else involved in December? Is there any prospect of getting the UN blue berets into AMIS? We are almost into November, which makes the issue seem more urgent. Will the resources and funds be there? I know we will play our part. We have a great reputation for making available the money we promised, but there is a reluctance to pay up and this can slow down the movement of the UN. Will Mr. Montgomery state his view, having listened to the various contributions?

Mr. Montgomery

I thank the Chairman and members for their contributions. It is clear from what has been said that this is not a matter of controversy in Ireland or elsewhere in Europe. Different people place the emphasis on different aspects of the problem but there is a very powerful desire to try to do the right thing. To work out exactly how to achieve it can be difficult. At the end of my reply I will ask my colleague Ms Ciara O'Brien to comment on the issues raised by Senators Kitt and Henry on some of the details of the humanitarian response.

To begin with Deputy Allen's question regarding Mr. Jan Pronk, it remains the case that in the eyes of the Secretary General he is still his envoy to Sudan. He is due to report on the situation to the Security Council tomorrow. The Secretary General's spokesman said yesterday that he still had full confidence in him.

I cannot help observing, as an aside, that the issue of blogging is interesting. A conference on blogging was held here recently in which, I believe, Deputy Cuffe was involved. The Finnish President of the Council of Ministers got into hot water at the start of the Finnish Presidency because of opinions he expressed in a blog. Blogging is meant to be a more spontaneous, open and frank exchange with the public than the average press release but it can lead to difficulties. This is something which all of us must bear in mind in the period ahead.

A more fundamental question relates to the prospects for the deployment of a UN force. Despite all the efforts made and the multiple contacts made at various levels with the Sudanese Government it is still not possible to say. There are a couple of schools of thought on this. When the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and the team were in Sudan in early July we had a chance to talk to a number of the resident EU heads of mission there. I have also had conversations with people in the Foreign Office about this. The conventional wisdom, certainly up to September, was that sooner or later President Bashir would agree to the deployment of a UN force. There have been other occasions when he has refused absolutely to go down one road or another sought by the international community and in the end has found a way of doing so without losing face. That is one theory. The question then becomes one of how to find an appropriate context for making progress.

The other school of thought is that President Bashir is deadly serious about what he has said and that he has anxieties, not so much related to the International Criminal Court as to the entire presence of a UN force in this region. There is already a UN force in southern Sudan and that was not an insuperable point of principle. Much of the rhetoric he has used has been tailored to an Arab and Muslim audience. He has spoken about Crusaders, the Iraq example, Iran and a range of other issues. The current international climate may be one in which he does not feel such pressure as he might.

The African Union has been trying very hard but so far without much success. One hopes the current group of three wise men will succeed. I was struck, when in South Africa in June, to hear that the South Africans were about to try very hard at the African Union summit in the Gambia, but that effort did not pay off.

The jury is still out on this question. There are different theories. The problem, in part, is that one gets different signals from within the Sudanese Government. This is an issue that must be taken into account when we think about the possibility of a foreign ministers' conference. The Sudanese Foreign Minister, Mr. Akol, is from the south. He held out some prospect to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in July of a process that could lead to the deployment of a UN force. His own leader, Salva Kiir, has spoken in favour of a UN force on the model of the force currently in southern Sudan. The difficulty is that in this matter authority seems to lie very much with President Bashir himself and with the circle around him. It is difficult to know how to read the various signals one gets from other sources.

Ms Ciara O'Brien will reply to Senator Kitt's point.

Deputy Higgins set out a wide range of issues. As I tried to convey in my opening remarks, he is correct to state that, as he put it, the geometry of the conflict is highly complex. While the fundamental issue may be one of a Government that has failed to protect and has actively moved against some of its citizens, there is also a myriad of cross-currents. Fundamentally, there is a huge issue of environmental degradation and competition for resources. If I remember correctly the figures provided to us by one of the non-governmental organisations we met in July, the population per sq. km. has risen from four per sq. km. in the early 1970s to something approaching 20 per sq. km. at present. Consequently, competition for resources plays a major part in this issue. Undoubtedly, many issues add significance to examinations of the fundamental issues of resource allocation and the sharing of power. The international conference as proposed by the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was meant to do so.

Deputy Higgins has given us food for thought as to whether something conducted at a lower level might be valuable. We will reflect on this issue and will discuss it with the Minister. One potential issue is the question of how useful it would be to engage with the Sudanese at a sub-presidential level.

The question was raised whether the UN would be able to put into the field the requisite 17,500 troops and 5,000 policemen. Leaving Korea aside, which was a rather different kind of UN operation, at present more people than ever before — since peacekeeping in its present guise began — serve on UN missions internationally in peacekeeping and related operations.

The Deputy is correct to observe that the prospect of getting additional troops, primarily from African and perhaps from some Arab countries, is by no means guaranteed. This is a real issue. However, there is still a sense that the possibility of a UN mission would have advantages over the African Union mission in Sudan, AMIS. This is not simply about money and troops. It also concerns the capacity of the African Union as a headquarters to direct such a mission. At present, it has an extremely limited capacity. This issue does not simply pertain to equipment. Equally, it concerns experience in the use of such equipment, as well as command and control in a multinational environment. A range of other factors exists.

Along with the Minister, we met the deputy AMIS force commander in El Fasher in July. He was most impressive and expressed an extremely frank view on its limitations. The African Union undertook what was meant initially to be a quite modest ceasefire monitoring mission, which has had more burdens placed upon it subsequently. It considers that a transition to a better-funded, resourced and more professionally directed UN force is the best way to proceed.

Deputy Higgins also raised the responsibility to protect. A number of speakers at the general debate in September, including the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Kofi Annan, made the point that this fundamental principle exists, to which effect must be given.

On the position of China in the Security Council, it happens that yesterday, I read a most interesting article in International Affairs on the question of its African diplomacy. Undoubtedly, China has become an very important trading partner of Sudan and other countries. China adopts the policy of absolute respect for the sovereignty of individual states. It is consistent in this regard and this is not simply an African policy.

Senator Norris

Except Tibet.

Mr. Montgomery

In the longer term, if China is to play a role in the international architecture commensurate with its economic power and size, it must address such issues. I do not know whether it will do so in the current context. Efforts have been made to raise these kinds of issues with the Chinese authorities, including an effort made during the visit of the Chinese Vice Premier to Ireland in September 2006.

In respect of disinvestment, Ms Conway informs me that we have received representation from the Irish Endowments Investment Company, which sought a meeting. We have replied and offered to meet it and look forward to hearing more from it. I do not know if there are any general political points to make. Perhaps Ms O'Brien might like to say something?

Ms Ciara O’Brien

I will address a few points on the humanitarian situation, particularly Senator Kitt's question about the security of humanitarian workers. We are very conscious of the situation that is increasingly developing across a number of conflicts in which humanitarian workers find themselves. A total of 12 humanitarian workers have been killed in Sudan since May, a death toll which I understand is greater than that of the previous three years combined. These were both local and international humanitarian workers, so no preference has been shown.

The UNOCHR and the WFP were mentioned. The UN operates a system of phases in terms of security which goes up to phase five. At a certain point, for example, phase 5, the UN will pull out of the area in question. Traditionally, actors such as non-governmental organisations, NGOs, and the International Committee of the Red Cross will remain at a higher level of security risk, which we are also conscious of. We have been in an ongoing dialogue with Irish NGOs with regard to their own contingency plans. Trócaire has told us that it has contingency plans in place. It works through local partners so it would not use Irish nationals on the ground.

I understand that GOAL has been in a very difficult position because, in recent months, it has been forced to gradually pull out of many very valuable projects in which it has been engaged in recent years. GOAL informed us yesterday that it has basically pulled back into its base in Kutum in north Darfur, is not operating any projects or programmes and has, unfortunately, been forced to abandon a number of projects as a result of the security situation. Similarly, Concern is very limited and is forced to remain at its base in El-Geneina in west Darfur and not go out into the field very often. The security situation changes daily so, with daily assessment, there are some opportunities to change and access areas which were inaccessible a few days before, so that at least is a positive development.

The main issue, apart from the security of workers, concerns the rates of delivery to affected populations. The solution in terms of minimising the effects of the security situation on humanitarian delivery is to ensure a constant flow of funding, which I understand was mentioned earlier. Our priority, along with our donor partners, lies in maintaining the food supply lines. It is one thing if there are security constraints but funding should not be an issue that prevents delivery.

With regard to sexual and gender-based violence and Senator Henry's very valid points regarding women and girls outside the IDP camps, the most practical efforts being made to minimise and, where possible, prevent these types of activities involve keeping women and girls within the camps where they are far more secure. To the extent of its limited ability, the AU operates what it calls firewood patrols, which involve AU officers accompanying girls and women who go out to seek firewood. The small scale of this force makes such patrols difficult at times. The practice of producing fuel-efficient stoves within the IDP camps, which, again, minimises the need for anyone to go outside the camps, has been quite successful.

In respect of issues surrounding the transmission of HIV-AIDS, we work with a number of NGO partners who are involved in a consortium with the UNFPA to examine having consistent policies across all the NGOs in terms of how they work with women and girls in terms of mitigation and prevention. As Senator Henry noted, the HIV-AIDS rate is relatively low in a country like Sudan but will increase, given the potential for increased transmission where militias and armed elements operate. Where we discuss matters with our NGO partners, we deliver a clear message in terms of their coming together to use a consortium-type approach which involves working with the UNFPA and UNAIDS. We are also talking to the International Rescue Committee, a very respected NGO which has developed various models in terms of working with sexual and gender-based violence. We are looking at supporting it in Darfur in the coming months.

Deputy M. Higgins

The role of the Central African Republic and Chad in the region is worth addressing. Ms Conway may wish to comment. An African-proposed regional dialogue would have considerable merit. Again, I will speak candidly. I am not convinced South Africa has exhausted its diplomacy in this or other issues. It has a self-imposed inhibition in dealing with the heads of other African states. It has been unfruitful in Africa and I am speaking very carefully.

Avoiding a deeper, longer and sustained conflict between Arab Africans and non-Arab Africans will require a regional response. Security issues feed into this conflict from Chad. Political and military insurgency in the Central African Republic feed into the situation in Chad which, in turn, affects the situation in Darfur. I am convinced that nothing but the best of humanitarian efforts have been made. However, political initiatives must be taken in the short term and the time scale involved is approximately six weeks. We would then see in December whether the present uneasy level of conflict had deteriorated.

Chairman

I welcome Deputy Carey back from his work at the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body.

Deputy Carey

I did not think I would make it in time for the meeting.

Mr. Montgomery

To respond to Deputy Higgins, without doubt there is an important regional dimension. The situation in southern Sudan is linked to the DRC, Uganda and the situation in Eritrea to the east. There is also a difficult relationship with Chad.

On the role of South Africa in the African Union, I sense it is true that there is a certain inhibition within the African Union for one country to pursue or attack another too vigorously. I understand why. There is a strong tradition of African solidarity, not least vis-à-vis the outside world. People within the Union are also conscious of the real dangers of a sub-Saharan-African-Arab split.

These are important issues and perhaps explain why even though the correct noises have been made and the permanent staff of the African Union have undoubtedly come to terms analytically with what it feels it ought to do, I am less sure everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet at the emotional, political level. Having said that, South Africa, a country of 45 million or 50 million people, has done a huge amount in the region and on the continent. It bears an enormous burden financially and in military deployment. It is unfair to expect it to carry it on its own. I do not state that is what Deputy Higgins suggested but it would be unreasonable to expect it to carry such a load on its own.

Ms Conway

The African Union Peace and Security Council will meet again in mid-November at head of state level to discuss the situation in Darfur.

Chairman

I thank the officials for coming before us. They provided us with an informative presentation and valuable support information which the committee will find helpful. We had a thorough examination of the situation, particularly when the extra information is taken into consideration. The gravity of the situation is clear for all to see. The priority must be to strengthen the African Union force in the region or to find a way to deploy UN peacekeeping forces in Darfur, despite the objections of the Sudanese Government. We wish the delegation every success in this respect. We hope the statement from the European Council last Friday calling on the Sudanese Government to accept UN Security Council Resolution 1706, allowing for the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force in Darfur, will not fall on deaf ears in Khartoum. I thank the delegation for its work.

Sitting suspended at 3.45 p.m. and resumed at 3.50 p.m.