I welcome the Minister and call on him to address the House.
Overseas Development Aid: Statements.
I welcome this opportunity to make a statement to the House on developments in Ireland's programme of official development aid. I should also like to report on my recent visit to Africa where I saw Irish aid projects in Somalia, Zambia and Tanzania.
The Programme for a Partnership Government has restored ODA to a position of prominence on the agenda of the Government. For the first time we have committed ourselves to a precise ODA target — 0.2 per cent of GNP in 1993 and a pledge to increase it by 0.05 per cent each year thereafter to make steady progress towards achieving the UN goal of 0.7 per cent of GNP as soon as possible.
The Programme for a Partnership Government also sets out a number of areas for priority action which will give our aid effort a significant boost in terms of its domestic and international prestige. We are committing ourselves to a range of initiatives which correspond to the types of programmes which we have successfully developed in the past under the bilateral aid programme.
We will begin to expand our programme in the so called priority countries already designated as the main recipients of Irish bilateral aid. These new programmes will continue to be focused on the less developed districts and regions of these countries, including urban areas. I want to stress that we are focusing our attention on the poorest regions. The Irish aid programme to which I will refer later is very correctly and appropriately directed towards these regions. I am stressing this particularly after my visit to Africa. A high priority will be accorded to the provision of basic needs — primary education and health care, water and sanitation.
We have also committed ourselves to establishing new priority countries in which to develop programmes of bilateral aid. Explanatory missions at official level have already commenced and this will allow us to gather sufficient information to enable us to make our choice. At the moment, as the House is aware, we are focusing our attention on Africa but I am anxious that we expand our programme and I am looking in particular at southeast Asia. These are issues on which I will come back and report to you when my programme has been agreed.
At the heart of all our efforts and central to the Government's motivation in strengthening its commitment to development co-operation is the desire to address the underlying causes of the extreme poverty in many parts of the developing world.
The influence which a small country such as ours can bring to bear on the international community can be seen in the case of Somalia. Senators will recall how Deputy Andrews, then Minister for Foreign Affairs, and President Robinson, did much to draw world attention to the plight of the Somali people in the aftermath of famine, war, and the indifference of their leaders to their tragic situation. It is important to point out that Deputy Andrews — and this has been mentioned many times since his visit — was the first Minister for Foreign Affairs to go there, he was there twice at the height of the famine.
I visited Somalia earlier this month and it was heartening to see, half a year later, the changes that have come about in such a short time. Senators will be happy to learn that the most acute needs are now being met and the worst of the starvation and malnutrition has passed. Sufficient quantities of food are now getting to the people of Somalia, in particular to the women and children.
The horrific pictures we all saw of young children with emaciated faces, and the sense of desolation these scenes conveyed, have been replaced by scenes of playful, even mischievious, children with smiling faces. Feeding centres have been converted into schools and I visited some of the classrooms. I do not wish to exaggerate the extent of the progress that has been made as the facilities are very basic. However, when I visited those schools the pupils were reciting the alphabet or singing their national songs but they were sitting on the floor. The teachers provided only basic facilities, using blackboards if they had them. The horrific scenes of starvation have disappeared but the situation is still very finely balanced and it could revert to what it was unless the international community, including Ireland, gives the country the attention it deserved.
What has been achieved is due largely to the remarkable work of NGOs, particularly Irish NGOs, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the forces gathered under the US leadership of UNITAF.
Irish volunteers and Irish relief workers played an outstanding part in bringing hope to the people of Somalia and Ireland has every reason to be proud of their work which enjoys widespread international recognition. I wish to pay tribute to their heroic efforts.
Many problems remain however. NGO personnel continue to work in difficult and dangerous circumstances. When I was in Mogadishu, I attended a memorial Mass one month after the killing of Valerie Place. I also visited the school in which she worked, the Pan-African centre in Mogadishu. She is very fondly remembered by her colleagues and by the local Somali people, who loved her. They spontaneously erected a memorial in her honour, which speaks for itself. We should also remember the deaths of Sean Devereux and other relief workers, as well as soldiers and civilian workers with UNITAF.
I discussed the security situation in a series of intensive meetings I held with representatives of Irish and other international NGOs, with UN agencies, and in particular with Admiral Howe, Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, with the US Special Envoy, Ambassador Gossende, and with General Johnston, officer commanding UNITAF.
As a result of these discussions, I put forward proposals which I feel should improve communications between the UN and the military on the one hand, and the NGOs, the Red Cross and other relief workers, on the other. This I see as essential in helping to improve the general security environment for all those working in Somalia.
I have been assured by Admiral Howe that he is taking my recommendations on board and that the UN is seeking ways of improving the security of aid workers. I received a letter, dated 31 March, from Admiral Howe and I will quote some of the points he made:
I have also formed a task force of my most able staff personnel to make recommendations on specific steps we can take to improve the security of NGOs.
Your specific recommendations are being integrated into our current efforts concerning NGO security. Our Chief Administration Officer, Doug Manson, is establishing a routine system of flights around the country that can be used to move NGOs and a limited amount of their cargo (such as mail, etc.). We are reviewing ways to improve the security of vehicular movements in the zones as well as the storage of large sums of cash. Your input will be very useful in our ongoing efforts to deal with this most important issue.
This letter arrived recently and I am pleased that there has been a follow-up to our meetings.
A commitment to contribute more funds to meet the immediate and longer term needs of the Somali people is set out in the Programme for a Partnership Government. I have announced that the Government will fund a project to rehabilitate primary schools in the Mogadishu area. This will cost £0.5 million and will be managed by Concern. I am satisfied it will meet a real and pressing need. It was an unforgetable experience for me to go there in the early days of my new Ministry and to see children sitting on the floor in the classrooms of those schools. Some of the classrooms had worn out blackboards and some are still waiting for blackboards. I am sure the House would agree that this is an effective way to help those people.
Our commitment is to build structures and I know the House would agree that spending £.5 million in this area will be money well spent. It will have a tremendous impact on the young people in Somalia who are trying to rebuild their lives. Ireland will continue to play a leading role in the formulation of Community policy towards Somalia. We will also continue to support the work of humanitarian relief and rehabilitation in Somalia.
While we must all welcome the improvement in the situation in Somalia, regrettably, I have to report that during my stay in the Horn of Africa I became increasingly aware of the deterioration in the food situation in southern Sudan. Before I left for Africa, I had met with aid agencies involved in southern Sudan and, following more detailed briefings in Somalia, I decided last week to allocate £500,000 to Irish UN agencies working in southern Sudan to support their relief efforts. I raised the issue with the Commission in Brussels and among our partners in the EC and in the coming weeks I intend to consider what further action the Government can take. Another Somalia must be avoided. In the next few days I will meet with representatives of aid agencies which have been there since I made this announcement. I will continue to monitor the situation and work to help our aid agencies.
I also had the opportunity to visit Zambia and Tanzania, to see bilateral aid programme projects in the two countries. It is important to remind ourselves that aid effort works in two ways: there are non-Governmental organisations like Concern, Goal, Trócaire, the Red Cross and many more and there is the bilateral aid programme which is run by Government. Tremendous work is done by Government bilateral programmes and I will detail three projects to illustrate the important work of those programmes.
I visited Zambia in 1988 and met a wonderful nun, Dr. Mona Tindale who singlehandedly ran maternity clinics in the suburbs of Lusaka, a project she pioneered in 1982. When I returned on this occasion I was pleased to find that her project, which provided pre-natal and post-natal services for women, had greatly developed and there are now about ten clinics in Lusaka. There were almost 100 women at the large new clinic being run by the local people. Dr. Tindale is back in Ireland at present. I was very impressed with the impact this service has had on the lives of the women of Lusaka, which has a population of two million people. It has taken the burden from the national hospital which simply could not cope. The service is now being provided in the community and that is a perfect example of the kind of work carried out by the Irish bilateral aid programme.
I also visited northern Zambia where there is a project to provide a safe supply of drinking water for 340 communities. It involves the provision of a well for each community. One can appreciate the impact a safe water supply can have on the lives of children: it is a matter of life and death. That development leads to further developments in education on nutrition. It was quite impressive to see the impact of this project on the local people.
I would also like to mention the role of women in these communities. The women are to the fore in organising committees and in ensuring that everything runs smoothly. The Irish aid programme involves talking to the communities to find out what their needs are, for example, where the community wishes to install the well. That is the success of the Irish programme. Other countries wonder why the Irish aid programme has worked. They have tried to do the same work but they have not spoken to the local community and to be successful a project has to be community-based. In the water supply project the Irish aid managers consulted the community about the wells and that achieved a successful result.
The third example of the success of bilateral aid programmes can be seen in Tanzania, in a place called Kilosa. The Prime Minister, John Malacela, considers this programme to be an example of how things should be done. The programme in Kilosa is called an integrated programme where the Irish aid personnel, with the local council, are involved in education projects, health projects, in providing roads and social welfare. A back-up system and structures are being established by the aid personnel. I mention these projects to record my appreciation of the programmes achievements because sometimes the bilaterl aid programme can be the Cinderella of our aid activities.
I had useful discussions with President Frederick Chiluba in Zambia and with Prime Minister John Malacela, in Tanzania, as well as with other leaders in both countries. Both President Chiluba and Prime Minister Malacela emphasised to me, in extremely warm terms, their high regard for the activities financed under Ireland's official aid programme, in particular because of our practice of targeting the poorest of the poor, and because of the close co-operation between our project and the communities and administration they are meant to support. President Chiluba and his colleagues made the point that the Irish programme was playing a vital role in helping Zambia meet its obligation under the World Bank inspired Structural Adjustment Programme.
Senators will be aware that President Chiluba reintroduced a state of emergency in Zambia some weeks ago. He, as well as the other Zambian leaders I met, emphasised the extreme reluctance with which this decision had been taken and their firm intention to restore the rule of law as quickly as possible. I made it clear that Zambia's friends would follow progress closely and were very keen to see a return to constitutional normality.
A Chathaoirligh, I spoke earlier of the work so many young Irish people are doing in Somalia. Irish volunteers are to be found all over the developing world, not just in emergency situations but in areas where they apply their skills to tackle some of the fundamental problems which prevent people in some of the poorest countries in the world from enjoying a basic quality of life. It was in recognition of the splendid work which these young people carry out that the Programme for a Partnership Government has asked tha Agency for Personnal Service Overseas (APSO) to aim to place, 2,000 volunteers overseas in 1997. I will meet shortly with APSO to review the progress it is making in this matter.
I heard from APSO volunteers about their work when I was in EL Salvador recently to attend a meeting between the countries of Central America and the European Community. The APSO volunteers are working with the Segundo Montes community of returned Salvadoran refugees in one of the poorest and most war-torn parts of the country. The community receives financial support from a number of sources including the EC and Trócaire. The leader of the project told me of the appalling conditions and treatment which the refugees suffered. Almost every family lost members in the war.
Segundo Montes is now a functioning community of 8,500 people with a basic education system, a community bank, a community policy force and a community radio station. Jobs have been created in small workshops, chicken and rabbit farms have been set up and an electricity generator, courtesy of the ESB, supplies power to the workshops. The enthusiasm and imagination as well as the basic skills of the Irish volunteers has brought hope and a sense of community to a people who had all but lost their pride, dignity and self-respect. Such simple projects, involving basic skills and training, can make an inestimable contribution to the prosperity of small local communities.
The Programme for a Partnership Government spells out the areas for the future expansion of Ireland's ODA. A more detailed plan is being prepared and will be published in June. The plan will give details of the areas of expansion and of the new arrangements which the Government hopes to introduce to increase the openness and accountability of Irish aid.
One initiative which will be included in the plan is the setting up of a new advisory body on ODA. I am convinced we need an independent source of advice on the running of our aid programme, that it should be compact and have real powers. I am at present considering what the specific functions of this body will be but I can assure Senators that it will be no mere talking shop but will have a genuine role to play in shaping policy and the details of the programme.
The European Community has a central role in the search for solutions to overcoming the enormous poverty in so much of the developing world. The entry into force of the Treaty on European Union will give added force to that endeavour. Ireland will continue to play its part in devising and implementing new policies and in strengthening and enhancing existing ones. The ultimate objective must be to make the aid we give both bilaterally or multilaterally more effective.
At the same time, we must be mindful of the changes in public attitudes towards aid. In Ireland, the generosity of the Irish people has resulted in a high level of voluntary contributions to aid agencies. The same cannot be said about other major aid donors where there is widespread evidence of disenchantment with official aid for developing countries with a real risk of a falling off in donor effort. As part of our endeavours to overcome this danger, we must ensure that the quality of our aid and the positions we adopt at international level on aid-related matters are in conformity with the aspirations and the concerns of the Irish people.
We must do more to inform people of the content and successes of our aid programmes and secure their support for the national goals and targets which we set. In this context, I am examining the role our schools can play in providing information and heightening awareness because I think the potential of the education system has not been realised.
Any measure of what a country does in terms of its financial contribution to developing countries cannot and should not ignore the voluntary efforts of the general public. Private support in Ireland for non-governmental organisations involved in development has steadily grown. Today, Ireland has the highest rate of private development assistance, as a proportion of GNP, of any country, a remarkable, generous and commendable achievement. Ireland's aid programme is small when compared with other donors within the European Community but, as many Senators will know from their own contacts, it enjoys a very high reputation.
It is now accepted that development programmes must meet the needs of present generations without placing an intolerable burden on future generations. This concept of sustainable development must lie at the heart of what we do in our aid programmes in future. It is a concept which implies that economic growth must provide fairness and opportunity for all the people of a country and must do so without destroying that country's finite resources.
I am aware of the problems arising from the heavy burden of debt carried by many Third World countries. This is a major issue for the world community and needs to be tackled at global level. The role which the Government can play is to support the efforts of the main agencies through which this problem is addressed, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
I am conscious that structural adjustment programmes which many developing countries have adopted often entail severe hardship. This is especially so when such programmes coincide with natural disasters, like the recent severe drought in southern Africa.
Through its membership of the international financial institutions, Ireland has consistently argued that the poorest sections of society must be protected from the harsh economic and social impact of adjustment programmes. Alleviation of the social consequences of structural adjustment is now an integral part of World Bank programmes. We will continue to stress the need for debt forgiveness to be part of economic adjustment programmes involving the least developed countries.
The fundamental aim of aid effort in the short term should be to provide people with a standard of living which is adequate and comprehensive in terms of basic needs. Without attempting to prescribe their future policy, the aim should be to assist developing countries to pick out those elements of the western model of industrial development that can fit into their subsistence based economy model. This is a very important point: we are not there to dictate how they should run their society but to listen and to help.
These together with other measures will make a positive and lasting contribution to helping the poorest people in some of the poorest countries find and enjoy a more dignified life.
A Chathaoirligh, may I thank you for the opportunity to report on my recent visit to Africa and I welcome the invitation to come here to discuss this important subject. My visit to Africa was timely and I hope it will help me in my ministerial responsibilities. I look forward to hearing the views of this House. My approach to this area of development is that I am here to try to fulfil my responsibilities but I will listen to the Members of this House, to aid agencies and members of the public who have expertise and an interest in this area. We should work as a team to ensure that the extra money being provided under the Programme for a Partnership Government will be used to the full and directed to the right areas.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House for what is a very important debate. As a Deputy he took an interest in this issue and nobody will question the sincerity of his commitment and dedication as Minister of State with responsibility for Overseas Development Aid. Since his appointment he has done great work and has proved his commitment to his task. This morning he outlined his plans for the future.
I welcome the announcement in the section of the Programme for a Partnership Government which deals with overseas development co-operation and the aspiration of the Government to increase their overseas development aid as a percentage of GNP to 0.25 per cent, the level at which it stood in 1986, and to aspire to a further 0.05 per cent increase each year until it reaches the recommended UN level of 0.7 per cent of GNP by 1997. This year the Government is hoping to achieve 0.2 per cent of GNP which is a very welcome increase. A lot of ground has to be made up to return us to the 1986 level of 0.25 per cent.
This announcement was made in the Programme for a Partnership Government. That is a very clear commitment and I hope this programme will not be sacrificed in favour of something else as happened in recent years. When financial difficulties arose there was a cut back in this area.
We need to look at this issue from a global point of view and recognise that our difficulties are minor, and minimal, compared with the difficulties of ensuring the essentials of basic survival. I do not think the people of Ireland would condemn the Government if it continued to increase overseas aid even in difficult times because the Irish people have shown great generosity towards Third World countries and areas experiencing difficulties and famine since the foundation of this State.
The Programme for a Partnership Government is commendable. One area to which I would like to refer to is the aim of increasing our aid to the UN goal of 0.7 per cent of GNP. This would mean increasing our aid by about £22 million, which is a relatively small amount of money. We receive £1.8 billion per year from the EC and this increase in aid will mean donating approximately seven days worth of that money to the Third World. Taken in proportion, it is not a huge amount of money, and I would ask the Minister to review this matter.
In the Programme for a Partnership Government there is a very welcome reference to the Government's intention to make private and corporate contributions to Third World agencies tax deductible. I hope the Minister will be in a position to ensure that this promise will be incorporated in the Finance Bill which is due to be published shortly. This development has been welcome by the agencies and we now have an opportunity to ensure it is incorporated in this year's Finance Bill, and undoubtedly the Minister of State will pursue that at every level. It would also encourage corporations and companies to provide the necessary support. As the Minister has said, we can be proud of our tremendous history of missionary and volunteer work in the Third World. The reputation of our volunteers is known worldwide and they should be highly commended for their generosity and the way they acquit themselves. They are excellent ambassadors for Ireland. They approach the difficulties there in a unique way because they recognise the dignity of the person and of the community. They do not charge in but make contact with local communities and establish a rapport with them. I take the opportunity again of complimenting them on their tremendous work.
Unfortunately, Sean Devereux and Valerie Place recently lost their lives while working as volunteers in the Third World. Indeed, the Members of this House have already extended sympathy to their families, and have praised their tremendous work. I urge the Minister, although he has outlined it in his speech, to do everything possible to ensure the security of volunteers and aid workers in Third World countries. It is unacceptable that the United Nations will provide security for the transportation of food, particularly in Somalia, but will not provide security for those who are distributing the food. That is unacceptable and the Minister should pursue this actively at UN level. I hope there will be a change in policy on this matter.
It is accepted that East Africa is in crisis. The difficulties have increased over the years because of constant famine and war. The effects of drought and desertification in Ethiopia, Somalia and much of the rest of East Africa have been exacerbated by civil war and political unrest. The response of the food aid donor nations has increased in recent years but no one could pretend that it has come anywhere near solving the problem. Much more is needed. Civil war and political unrest have added enormously to the physical and logistical difficulties of supplying and distributing food aid. Even if peace and political stability were restored to the region, it would take some considerable time for the indigenous food production to increase to the point where it could make a significant contribution to the needs of the people.
The situation urgently demands a political and a physical plan. On the political front, we need a concerted plan, with the support of the entire United Nations, to eliminate the political obstacles to the supply and distribution of food. On the physical side, we need to plan for the amounts of food needed and for its distribution.
The Minister recognised the difficulties in the Sudan. There is an important role for the EC to play there. A specific time-scale should be set out for this kind of plan and it must extend for at least five years. Nothing significant can be done about indigenous food production in any shorter period. In the meantime, the EC must question the morality fo storing huge stocks of food, cereals and beef in intervention, while thousands are dying from famine in East Africa. I urge the Minister to put pressure on the EC to release some of that food to help relieve the plight of people there.
The current world trade system and much of the development effort in recent decades have resulted in the imposition of a monoculture in many of these developing countries. This has made them highly vulnerable to price fluctuations in their major markets, highly dependent on imports of basic raw materials, including food, and has reduced rather than increased their capacity to support their populations. This must also be addressed.
Adherence to western economic models and aspirations has also led to a greater dependence on external sources for intermediate technology and skills. These models of development have contributed to rapid degradation of the environment. Rain forests have been cut down leading to problems of soil erosion and flooding, cities have grown far beyond their capacity to accommodate the rural influx and water and air pollution in some areas are at levels we would not tolerate in the EC. We should not tolerate it elsewhere.
The developed world has already gone far in repeating in the Third World the mistakes made by the West. We need to target overseas development aid to take account of this; otherwise we will fail. We also must address the attitude of NGOs going into underdeveloped countries. I refer here to agencies such as the World Bank and the UN. The aim of such agencies should be to eventually make themselves redundant in their job. They should leave a community that is self-sufficient, self-reliant and capable of getting on with its business. There is a fear abroad that there are some agencies who might wish to keep communities reliant on them. I am not referring to Irish operations but to larger international groups. This needs to be addressed at UN and EC levels. The communities in the Third World, if given the proper advice, direction and resources, can become self-sufficient. This has happened in some instances; it can happen to a greater degree, but much depends on the attitude of the NGOs. I ask the Minister to keep a watchful eye on that issue at international level.
The Programme for a Partnership Government provides for increasing the number of volunteers from 400 to 2,000 and that they would be trained by APSO before being sent overseas. I have certain reservations about this, although the intention behind it is good. Unless individuals are sent out with specific tasks in mind, for a specific job, it could become a case of merely filling a quota. I wonder how well resourced APSO is to provide the necessary training and preparation to increase our numbers by such a dramatic figure. I hope the Minister will be in a position to employ more people in APSO, but I would not like volunteers to be sent abroad simply to fill the quota of 2,000 or to reduce unemployment in Ireland. That would not be a good idea.
The Minister should make sure the work of the additional volunteers sent overseas is as effective as that of the 400 already abroad. It must not be a slipshod operation for the sake of meeting the commitment in the Programme for a Partnership Government, because there has to be a structure, a task and an objective for every volunteer who goes overseas.
It is interesting to note that 58 per cent of Irish volunteers are female. Women are to the fore in this field; education and health are the primary concerns of development workers. The Minister said that it is local women who are organising the communities. It is interesting that women are making a very significant impact in this area. Is that because men realise there is no economic benefit or money to be gained?
Could it be the maternal instinct?
I would question that. If there was a great deal of money involved would the percentages be reversed with more men than women abroad? I will wait and see what the men have to say on this matter.
The developed countries have a responsibility to ensure that the mistakes we have made are not repeated in the under-developed countries. This is especially important in relation to the environment, an issue which has to be urgently and seriously addressed.
Food for survival is the fundamental issue: stockpiles of food in the EC and throughout the world are grossly immoral while unfortunate children and their parents are dying in East Africa. That is unacceptable. No political or economic justification at European level can justify that situation. I hope the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, will seriously address this issue at European level. Everybody in Ireland would support their effort to release food from intervention.
I understand that discussions took place in Sudan recently with the United Nations and peace talks are currently going on. It is important that the United Nations is constantly prodded to bring about peace in Sudan, because it is important not to let the situation get out of hand. The various groups should be brought together and a serious attempt made to bring about peace.
I wish the Minister well. He has done a very good job to date within the resources available to him and under the constraints he has to operate. Any support which can be given from this side of the House to help him carry out this onerous task will be forthcoming.
I welcome the Minister and congratulate him on the fine job he has done so far.
I want to place this debate in a wider context than the national level and look at it in almost philosophical terms, or at the international level because movements to meet basic needs already exist in some form in almost every country. There are thousands of organisations in both industrialised and developing worlds campaigning to promote education, to protect children against disease, to end hunger in the world, to encourage breast feeding, to combat specific problems such as iodine deficiency or vitamin A disorders, to support immunisation and polio eradication, to promote today's health knowledge, to help street children, or to protect people who are abused in the home, in war etc.
The majority of such groups are now located in the developing world and their growth has been one of the most remarkable features of recent years. A 1990 report from the OECD states:
From the middle of the 1970s, a trend of growing importance has been the emergence of indigenous NGOs in the south as active partners in development efforts. In the 1980s, conservative estimates put their number at 6,000 to 8,000.
In the industrial world also many hundreds of organisations are involved in this struggle and against the worst aspects of poverty. Some focus their efforts on raising funds for practical projects in the developing world. Some are engaged in the long-term processes of public education or in campaigning for political and economic change. Many are involved in both of these activities. As I have already said, there are thousands, of organisations working in big and small ways politically and practically, nationally and locally, towards the achievement of basic social goals.
This cannot yet be described as a movement that has sufficient weight of public and media support or the sense of time related common aims to begin bringing to bear the sustained political pressure which is needed. Only when the climate of opinion begins to turn, when mass malnutrition, disease and illiteracy are widely perceived as unacceptable and shameful, will today's solutions be put into practice on the same scale as today's problems. To achieve that change, literally millions of people and thousands of organisations will have to be prepared to stand up and be counted in support of their cause.
In both developing and industrialised nations there are particular occupational groups which could potentially make a decisive difference. In particular, the media in most countries is becoming the chief midwife of peaceful change. It is communication, not violence, that has delivered so many nations from dictatorships in recent years. It is communication that is nourishing democracy and popular participation by creating new levels of public awareness. It is communication which has built the environmental and women's movements over the last decade. It is communication that has made possible the dramatic rise in immunisation levels in the developing world and it is communication that could now make a similar massive contribution to the cause of meeting basic needs.
In so far as it is possible to generalise, media coverage of basic poverty issues tends to consider only what is and not what could be, to focus only on the actions taken and not on the opportunities missed or on the larger picture of need. If the media is to make a serious commitment to both stimulating and reflecting growing public support for meeting basic needs, I believe a new kind of journalism against poverty will have to be pioneered. Local priorities and local circumstances will dictate the nature and content of that journalism but its aim must be to keep the public and our political leaders interested in and informed of, the main facts and trends, the gains made and the needs still unmet, the new technologies and the attempts to apply them on a sufficiently large scale, the human consequences and the economic implications.
Media professionals are best able to decide how this contribution can be made, but in the gap between today's capacity and today's reality, there is scope for a decade of reports and investigations, analyses and editorals. The style of the coverage will vary but media proprietors, editors and journalists will find no shortage of subjects which, on grounds of both national importance and human interest, could sustain a decade of intense media attention in support of basic needs goals.
Sporadic and casual reports will not lift this cause. Nothing less is required than a period of intense and sustained media attention to and scrutiny of, the progress being made towards meeting the basic needs of the poorest quarter of a nation's people, but if a sufficiently large number of respected media professionals were to take up this challenge in the year ahead, then the public and political pressure to meet agreed basic needs goals would be very substantially increased.
As I have stated, support for meeting basic human needs has long been forthcoming from a wide variety of voluntary organisations. The extent and importance of that support in helping many millions of families to meet their needs and to cope with some of the greatest of human difficulties and disasters is much underestimated. In particular it is widely assumed that such contributions are of vastly less significance than Government aid programmes. This piece of conventional wisdom needs serious reappraisal.
Voluntary organisations in the industrialised nations disburse approximately $5 billion each year in support of programmes to meet basic human needs. Aid from the western industrialised nations totals approximately $40 billion a year. Bilateral and multilateral aid directly allocated to meeting basic needs is approximately 10 per cent of this figure, about $4 or $5 billion dollars a year, roughly the same as the amount donated by the voluntary organisations.
There is still room for hope that the changes occurring in the political and economic landscape as the world emerges from its political ice-age may be creating more favourable conditions for a successful advance against the worst aspects of poverty. We look at the collapse of the Soviet Union and of faith in monolithic politics and highly centralised economic systems. This has ended the Cold War and opened up new possibilities for disarmament, economic reform and the advance of democracy. If realised, all these possibilities would further the cause of meeting basic needs. The end of the Cold War has made possible a reduction of that vast share of the world's resources, physical, financial, scientific and managerial, that has so long been devoted to war and to military repression. It has, therefore, raised hopes that a greater share of such resources might become available for alleviating some of the great social problems facing the nations of the industrialised world, for halting and reversing the damage that has been done to the environment and for investing in the eradication of poverty and the achievement of sustainable economic growth in the developing world.
At the moment all of this remains on the shelf of the potential, but in the industrialised world, military spending has largely withstood the geo-political earthquake that has occurred. Overall military expenditure stands at approximately $750 billion a year; that is the equivalent of the combined annual incomes of the poorest half of the world's people. That is a frightening statistic.
Another frightening statistic is that, in real terms, the United States is today spending approximately 50 per cent more on defence than it was over ten years ago. Projected spending in the five year defence programme that was presented to the US Congress last year, 1992, envisaged a decline so gradual that expenditures in 1996 will be 25 per cent higher in cost in dollars than they were in the year of Nixon and Breshnev. In Western Europe, where the political and military situation has been utterly transformed in the last five years, there has been a great deal of talk of defence cuts but no one knows about the climb in the levels of military spending.
Nonetheless, change is surely in the air for some of the poorest and most militarised nations of the world, where the Cold War has for so long taken a heavy toll. In Ethiopia, for example, 500,000 soldiers have been demobilised in the last year, the military share of the total Government expenditure has fallen from almost 60 to 30 per cent, and spending on health and education has risen from 12 per cent in 1989-90 to almost 20 per cent in 1992-93.
In a debate on the Ethiopian question two or three years ago in the Seanad I raised this question and at that time the European Community was giving $300 million a year in aid to Ethiopia, most of which I believe was used by Mengistu to napalm his people. Thank God, he has gone from office. The first anniversary of the new Government in Ethiopia was celebrated not with a parade of troops and military hardware but of people bearing olive branches and waving flags on which were emblazoned the white dove of peace. If the diversion of funds from defence to development remains mainly a matter of potential, the ending of the Cold War has already begun to help the cause of the world's poor in other ways. Chief among those ways is the substantial progress which has already been made in many nations towards the demilitarisation and democratisation of society.
The days are now gone when military dictatorships could derive political legitimacy, military equipment and economic aid merely by saluting the ideological flag of one or other of the two super powers. In this sense the significance of the ending of the Cold War can hardly be exaggerated. Forty years of Cold War rivalry has contributed to the militarisation of political cultures in many developing nations, helping to fertilise the weeds of dictatorship and to seed new trainees. The results have been a waste of resources on an extraordinary scale. Military spending in the developing world has quadrupled in real terms in only 30 years. Over much of that time militarised elites have governed for the benefit of the few. They used their weapons more often against their own citizens than against foreign aggressors, and succeeded only in denying people their rights without meeting their needs.
In addition, the people of the developing world have also had to pay the cost of military culture in the coinage of war itself, and no one has paid a higher price than the children. In the last decade alone, more than 1.5 million children have been killed in wars, more than 4 million have been physically disabled, 5 million have been forced into refugee camps and more than 12 million have lost their homes. The effect of this on progress towards meeting basic human needs has been particularly devastating. The famine and deprivations endured in recent years in such countries as Chad, Ethiopia, Liberia, Mozambique, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda, have all been either caused or exacerbated by military conflict. Crops, roads, markets, schools, hospitals and clinics have been destroyed. Trade and commerce and the very means of earning a living have been disrupted. Civil liberties have been crushed along with the hopes of billions of people for a minimally decent life.
To some of the victims of this long running tragedy, the ending of the Cold War has brought new turmoil and new devastation; to others it has brought hope. In the last three years alone over a third of the world's nations have changed the course of their political development in the direction of democracy. This is good news for a movement to meet basic human needs in the years ahead. For the more progress that is made towards democracy, the more the poorest groups in society will begin to exercise a degree of political influence. The advance of political and press freedoms can also help to create the kind of environments in which people and their organisations can work for the changes that will enable them to meet their own needs. Political and press freedoms are central, not incidental, to the cause of meeting human needs.
The ending of the Cold War may also further democracy by redirecting aid away from some of the countries that blatantly attach far greater priority to military spending than to meeting human needs. Aid to over-militarised economies is ceasing to be perceived as essential to the foreign policies of donor nations.
There is little support among the taxpayers of the industrialised world for helping to finance the purchase of weapons and the waging of wars in the developing world. It is likely that aid will increasingly begin to flow according to the new contours of the post Cold War period. At a meeting of 18 donor nations in Paris in December 1991 it was agreed in principle that reduced arms spending and progress towards democracy should become important criteria for the allocation of aid in the 1990s.
Germany has already announced a cut of 25 per cent in aid to India because of excessive armaments. Japan has informed the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea that there will be no consideration of either aid or credits until all nuclear facilities are open for international inspection. The Independent Group of Financial Flows to Developing Countries — IGFFDC — which is chaired by the former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, and includes the former Presidents or Prime Ministers of Canada, Nigeria, Peru and the Republic of Korea, has recommended that the future allocation of aid and loans should favour those countries which spend less than 2 per cent of gross national product on military capacity.
The main aid-giving countries are also among the main arms selling countries. It remains to be seen whether a similar stand on principle will be taken in relation to weapons sales to the developing world or whether the hypocrisy will continue.
In the industrial world, those who support progress towards meeting basic human needs should also be aware that increases in aid are not enough. The proportion of aid given for the purposes of directly meeting the basic needs of the poor should be increased to at least 20 per cent. The flow and direction of aid should also be influenced by whether aid is likely to be used to bring additional benefit to the poorest quarter of the recipient country's population as opposed to providing services for the not so poor, or allowing Governments to spend more of their own resources on prestige projects or on the military.
One way of assessing this likelihood is by regularly monitoring progress towards the agreed basic goals. Far from being too idealistic a notion, the idea that the flow of aid and loans should be heavily influenced by the likelihood of their being used to meet basic needs is an idea being currently considered by the institution that is the world's largest source of development finance. In October 1991 the President of the World Bank told the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank that poverty eradication should be the bank's over-riding objective and that the volume of bank lending should be linked to efforts to reduce poverty.
The evolution of such new criteria for aid and loans could both assist and be assisted by a greater public concern for aid in the industralised world. Public support for aid in Ireland is not dead but it has been seriously wounded by the widespread, and largely justified, perception that aid is not being primarily used to meet the needs or enhance the capacity of the poorest, or to directly attack the worst aspects of poverty. Mobilising public support for increases in aid, therefore, depends to a large extent on making aid programmes more worthy of that support. That responsibility is one that sits on us as a donor nation and on the recipient developing nation with equal weight.
In addition to the potential reductions in military spending and the actual advances made by democracy, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War have led to economic reform and the adoption of market-friendly policies in many countries that have laboured under highly centralised economic régimes. The result is likely to be the demise of inefficient State-owned companies, more productive use of resources, and the liberation of people's energies and initiatives. This development also holds out the hope of accelerated economic growth. For those who are or may become involved in such a movement, it is also important to be aware that economic growth, even if achieved, does not of itself mean that basic needs will be met.
In a great many countries today, including many industrialised nations and many developing nations that have enjoyed rapid economic growth in the past, the poorest 20 per cent have not shared in the benefits of that growth. In the United Kingdom and the United States, for example, the 1980s were years of almost continuous economic growth in which the poorest of their people have not shared at all.
The recent return to growth in Latin America illustrates the same point. Economic reform in the late 1980s and early 1990s has helped to push GNP growth beyond 3 per cent a year in Latin America as a whole. In Brazil, where the income of the richest 20 per cent is 33 times greater than that of the poorest 20 per cent, the benefits of a return to economic growth are shared so unequally that the poorest derive little or no benefit from the process. Similarly in Venezuela, where economic growth touched 9 per cent in 1991, the poorest families have seen little improvement in their standard of living and many have found that the cost of meeting their basic needs has risen faster than their incomes. The links between economic reform, economic growth and meeting basic needs, are anything but automatic.
Specific government policies are not only necessary to promote the right kind of growth but also to translate that growth into improvements in the lives of the disadvantaged. Market economics is not a panacea for social progress. If governments abandon their responsibilities the result will be societies in which inequalities continue to increase, economic demand counts for all and human needs count for nothing.
It is the responsibility of government to support parents by investing in health and education for all their children, to construct safety nets so that the minimum needs of the vulnerable are met, to make available to all the basic benefits of advances in human knowledge that have little commercial interest, and to offset the inbuilt tendency of market forces to favour the already advantaged. Basic needs will not be met and basic investments will not be made by an invisible hand.
The end of the Cold War, the collapse of Soviet communism, the widespread movement towards political democracy and economic reform, have all raised a worldwide hope that this century could end as optimistically as it began disastrously. An unprecedented opportunity has suddenly been presented; it is no more than an opportunity and it will not remain open for ever. The industrialised nations, which have urged democratic politics and free market economics on the developing world, should not do everything in their power to create the international environment in which such policies can prove themselves. If this can be done, then the economic and political reforms now being so widely implemented, could engender the kind of progress from which the poor might also derive some benefit. By the advance of democracy, the poorest classes would acquire a little more of the political influence which, in most cases, is the missing link between what could be and what is being done to eradicate poverty. By economic reform, increasing numbers of the poor should be able to meet their own needs through their own efforts and incomes.
When we think of last year's many specific tragedies, two in particular — in Somalia and the former Yugoslavia — touch us all. There are other tragedies that go unnoticed, even greater than the emergencies which so often command our attention. No famine, flood, earthquake or war has ever claimed the lives of 250,000 children in a single week, yet malnutrition and disease claim that number of child victims every week of every year. For every one of those chidren who dies, many more live in such ill health that they will never reach the physical and mental potential with which they were born.
When little or nothing could be done about this larger scale tragedy, neglect was perhaps understandable but slowly, quietly, without the world taking notice, we have arrived at a point where this tragedy is no longer necessary or acceptable in a world with a claim to civilisation. The time has come for a new age of concern. Political and economic change is beginning to create the conditions which, however, difficult, offer new hope for overcoming the worst aspects of poverty.
The technology and strategies for controlling malnutrition, disease and illiteracy have been tried and tested and are now waiting to go into action on the same scale as the problems they can largely solve. The convergence of all these different forces means it is now possible to achieve one of the greatest goals that humanity ever set for itself, the provision of adequate food, clean water, safe sanitation, primary health care and basic education for virtually every man, woman and child. We stand on the edge of a new era for concern for the silent tragedy that poverty inflicts on today's children and on tomorrow's world. Whether the world will enter decisively into that new age depends on the pressure that is brought to bear by people like ourselves as politicians and by the press, public and professional services for all nations. None of the great issues that are assuming priority today, for example, achieving equlity for women, environmentally sustainable development, and political democracy, will or can be realised unless the most basic human needs of the forgotten quarter of the earth's people are met. This cause must also become the concern of all. We must examine public and private spending to ensure it is targeted at human needs, and create specific planning tools and parliamentary structures for these analyses.
Representatives from 85 Parliaments and seven international parliamentary groups recently agreed on these and other actions. They met in Santiago, Chile, in October 1991 at a world conference of the Interparliamentary Union. One of the guiding principles of the IPU is that it works for peace and co-operation among peoples to strengthen representative institutions. After debating human development and its implications for economic growth and democracy, the parliamentarians unanimously approved 24 recommendations. Among others they call for all countries to make a firm political commitment to redirect current spending to human development, especially countries with heavy military expenditure. They called for donor countries to reassess their aid priorities, and for recipient countries to realign their expenditures so as to increase the human expenditure ratio. They called for global action on human development so that by the year 2000 all would have access to primary education, primary healh care, safe water, adequate nutrition and opportunities for productive, remunerative and satisfying employment. Mr. Aldo Ajello, a former member of the European Parliament and the Italian parliament, suggested that parliamentarians could establish human development committees to help place those issues at the centre of political debate and make sure that what was impossible today could become possible tomorrow. This is a task to which we could and should apply ourselves with maximum vigour in the days and years ahead.
I would like to refer to a speech by the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Kitt, at the joint seminar organised by the Institute of European Affairs and by Trócaire. In it the Minister referred particularly to Article 130u of the Treaty on European Union which states:
Community policy in the sphere of development cooperation, which shall, be complementary to the policies pursued by the Member States, shall foster:
—the sustainable economic and social development of the developing countries, and more particularly the most disadvantaged among them;
—the smooth and gradual integration of the developing countries into the world economy;
—the campaign against poverty in the developing countries.
Community policy in this area shall contribute in the general objective of developing and consolidating democracy and the rule of law, and to that of respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The Minister in his speech said;
During negotiations of these articles, Ireland argued that the thrust of the Community's aid policies should be directed towards the least developed countries and to the poorest sections of the population in all developing countries. It is clear from the Articles...that we were successful in ensuring that this approach, which closely mirrors our own priorities, was adopted by the Community.
A further Article, Article 130v, states that:
The Community shall take account of the objectives referred to in Article 130u in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries.
The Minister said:
This means that in future the Community must have regard to the negative impact which its policies in areas such as agriculture, trade or the environment are likely to have on the economies of the developing countries.
He concluded by saying:
For my part, I should like to assure you that I will play whatever part I can to ensure this is carried out.
I give a similar assurance, as I am sure would anybody in democracy, that we will do our part in ensuring that we implement policies that will assist and aid the poorest of nations so that they can hold their heads high in future.
May I share my time with Senator Honan?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the fact that the Minister has responsibility for this area of activity. I heard the Minister speak on overseas development some years ago at a seminar organised by former Senator Katherine Bulbulia for the Association of West European Parliamentarians for Action Against Apartheid. I was impressed with the Minister's genuine interest in overseas aid and the plight of Namibia which we were discussing at that stage.
From my long involvement in the Irish Red Cross Society, overseas committee, I am aware of the importance of overseas aid not only for developing countries but also, and more importantly, for Ireland as a country and for Irish people involved in overseas aid. I am continually impressed how socially acceptable Ireland and the Irish are to recipient countries. This is in part because of our history as a colony which experienced famine and it is a factor in our good communications with many of the counties where we have an involvement.
We were never a colonial power; therefore, we are socially acceptable in a way many other countries would not be. The number of donor countries acceptable to many recipient countries is quite small. Recipients can be selective about their donors on occasion. While they will take large amounts of money, the personnel who visit them are often from a limited number of countries. Therefore for our size this country has major responsibility for overseas aid. The visit by President Robinson to Somalia and the speech by the previous Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, when he spoke at the United Nations after his visit to Somalia domonstrates that we are in a strong position to speak on behalf of these countries. We are perceived to be non-aligned and able to give a strong independent voice.
The reports that come back from Africa, South America, Central America and the Far East are full of praise for our overseas aid workers. This is because we make an effort to fit in when we go abroad. Most Irish people learn something of the local language and local customs. They do their work with a certain amount of humility and this cannot be underestimated. No matter how skilled, volunteers must be acceptable to the people in the donor country. They have a human dignity of their own which must not be threatened.
Our main involvement in sending aid has been to areas where we have had a missionary association, such as Africa and the Far East, and to countries where Irish people were functionaries of the old British Empire. A long tradition of close association with Irish people has developed in these areas which is good. However, there is a need to examine carefully the kind of aid sent.
The amount of money the Government has put aside for aid in the past two years has been outrageously low, particularly when we are asking for and receiving increased aid from the EC. I hope the Minister will push the case for more aid very strongly because in that same two years the amount of money given in overseas aid by the Irish public to non governmental organisations increased. It is not the wish of the public that the amount of Government aid should be cutback.
The Minister is considering the reinstatement of a committee like the Advisory Council on Development Co-operation. It was a serious mistake to disband this council in 1991 and I am pleased with developments in this respect.
Practical aid sent to the developing countries must be targeted at the poorest areas. It is unfortunate that we cut back on aid to the Sudan as the situation there is now worse than in Somalia. We must monitor these situations, as a cutback in one year can have disastrous results in the next. However, what we are doing is very important and deserves praise. Many countries send money in the form of loans, whereas, generally, we have given money as grants which is more generous. While there may be complaints that we are not sending enough, at least we give grants which is better for the recipients. It is difficult to keep track of money when it is sent abroad. Unfortunately, cash has to be sent because if supplies only are given, there is no incentive for the local growers to help their economy to operate effectively. Local organisations must be given funds to buy crops and to employ local personnel.
We are in a fortunate position when sending supplies. After the Gulf War I went to Iran. I would like to pay tribute to our ambassador there, Mr. Frank Cogan and his wife Pauline, and to Mr. Sean Finn, another Irishman who was the head of the United Nations desk at the time in Tehran. Without their help I would have been unable to go to the Iran-Iraq border to see what was happening to the aid. I would not have been in a position to go there at all were it not for the fact that I was Irish and that a middle-aged Irish women was socially acceptable. Many other people would have been considered to be making threatening noises on that border.
The aid we send is very good, particularly medical aid. I am not talking about personnel here but the drugs and the medical supplies that we send because many pharmacists and doctors from Third World countries trained and did post-graduate courses here or in England and they are familiar with our drugs. Drugs were sent from other parts of the world. China, for example, sent many supplies but they had great difficulty working out how to deal with them because they were unfamiliar with the equipment and the dosages.
In addition it is worthwile stressing that we sent simple items; there was no point sending complicated items. I helped an extremely nice Dutchman who was searching for bits for a field hospital. I gave him hints, like I saw an operating table in a certain place and he said he found five beds in another place. Sending less expensive equipment is often more important than sending expensive items.
I stress that one should be very suspicious when asked for four wheel drive vehicles. In the Third World a four wheel drive vehicle goes to the local chief and it is almost equivalent to a ministerial Mercedes. I hate to say it but I have not seen many four wheel drive vehicles put to good use. They are used by one person only. It would be better to send less sophisticated equipment. Money could be spent on equipment produced in Ireland; Irish firms are not only generous about giving this equipment, they will also sell it at very good prices.
As regards food, we are in a very good position to send sugar and dairy products such as dried milk but not butter, which are extremely important. We must be careful about sending baby milk in case of discouraging breast feeding there. We must stress the need for clean water. Tinned meat products, sugar, flour and blankets, basic items produced at home are exactly what are needed. I have been to these areas and I have seen what was sent and what was needed.
We must not be downhearted about not sending expensive equipment because tractors are very often useless there. Some 80 per cent of agriculture in many developing countries is carried out by women and we would be far better off sending a few thousand hoes rather than a tractor. It is important to examine what a country needs when sending aid. Tractors lie idle waiting for spare parts because there is no money to buy the parts. To get a year of use from expensive machinery is quite good.
I ask the Minister to keep an eye on the sort of projects to which money is given. A civil engineer told me that if any more lavatories were built in Africa it would be the ruin of the country. They are capable of providing their own sanitation. What they need is clean water. He told me that to his relief when he went back to one project, the lavatories were being used as grain stores. He thought that was a much better use for them. It would be better to put money into starting clean water projects.
Senator Lydon spoke about the break up of the Soviet empire. It is important to remember that the Soviet empire — and I am using the word "empire" because of the countries around it—sent a lot of technology and aid to the Third World. I wonder if we should consider sending technology to countries of the former Soviet Union. We sent aid in the form of personnel during and after the Armenian earthquake. Many countries seem to put most of their money into educating doctors and lawyers but in broadly addressing the situation there is very little done in the way of training for pharmacists, laboratory technicians, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, hospital administrators and accountants in hospitals. We have many people with expertise in these areas who would be willing to go to these countries. President Clinton was able to send large amounts of money but we could send large numbers of personnel because it is to our advantage for the former Soviet Union to improve their situation. We could not help all the Soviet Union but perhaps we could choose areas or even cities and try to do something there.
Aer Rianta has been very successful in setting up operations in Russia. When there was a train crash and a fire broke out in the surrounding area plastic surgeons went from Ireland and helped. We have a good relationship with the people there and many Irish people have learned Russian. The Minister might look at this area because while the poorest need our help we do not want to see the Soviet Union descend into chaos; we need to get it back into a position where it can be a donor country again.
I am aware that my time is almost up but I ask the Minister to examine the position of overseas people who come her to train. Without these doctors the Irish medical service would fall apart because about 50 per cent of non-consultant hospital doctors are from the Third World. In fact, there are far more foreign medical people working in Ireland than there are Irish medical people working abroad. I ask the Minister to use his influence to get the Department of Justice to facilitate these people and their families by providing visas. Some of them are terrified to go to London to do an examination in case they have trouble getting into Ireland again. In view of the service they are providing — and we are supposed to be training them — I would be grateful if the Minister would look into this matter and use his influence with the Minister for Justice.
I, too, welcome the Minister. Like Senator Henry, I am pleased Minister Kitt has responsibility for this area. In his address this morning he reported on his recent visits to Africa and other countries, and none of us can have any doubt about his commitment to this very important area, which as he said, reflects the commitment of the Irish people to under-developed countries in the Third World. I wish him well in his term of office.
Over the past decades there have been nothing but catastrophes in many parts of the Third World, particularly Africa and Latin America. In these countries, and in many less developed countries, living standards continue to decline. Obviously the constant threat of famine and civil war have led to a lack of confidence in the future for many of these countries as a result it is very difficult for many of them to implement or to make long-term plans.
Slow and painful progress has been made in providing primary health care and establishing primary education but in many instances, due to outbreaks of war and famine, these measures are halted. Over the years Irish overseas aid workers have been going to countries such as Africa, when there was a crisis. The problem is sorted out for a while but a decade later, the situation is worse than it was originally. There has been a reduction in the amount of aid given to the Third World. As a result, the poorer counties are now using their limited resources to repay loans to western banks. Third World countries repay more to world banks than they receive in aid from developed countries. This is an area which must be examined.
There are many causes for the many crises in the Third World. High interest rates on debts incurred contribute greatly to this as it leaves poor countries with less capital to invest in development. The amount and market value of goods exported to the developed world is decreasing. This is probably due to the recession in the West which means that European countries like Ireland have become increasingly protectionist and therefore less willing to provide a market for Third World goods. I believe GATT is working against Third World countries. We must look at this area to see if what we are doing is hindering their development. Ireland is giving large amounts of aid to the Third World but are we preventing development in these countries?
The combined annual overseas development aid from the developed world amounts to 1.5 per cent of Third World income. This is a very small amount. Decreases in commodity prices for the Third World or a rise in world interest rates could have a devastating effect on these countries and could wipe out any benefits enjoyed from the aid received. As Senator Henry and the Minister said, the significance of aid is greater than the amount given, particularly in Ireland where considerable aid is given by the people rather than by the Government.
I welcome the Minister's commitment to reach the target of 0.7 per cent of GNP by 1993. He said that we have now pledged to increase aid annually to achieve the United Nations' target of 0.7 per cent. That is very important and is to be welcomed. As the Minister said, it reflects the desire of the Irish people to contribute to Third World developments. He also said that the Programme for a Partnership Government sets out a number of areas for priority action and that the Government was committed to a range of initiatives with correspond to the programmes we have successfully developed in the past under the bilateral aid programme. That too is to be welcomed. The Minister gave three examples, two from Zambia and one from Tanzania, of successful projects under the bilateral aid programme. The two in Zambia related to maternity services and to the provision of wells and water; the project in Tanzania dealt with integrated programmes.
Irish people are accepted because they work with the local people and involve them in their activities. They do not dictate what should be done. The key is to involve the people. There is no point believing that Irish aid workers will always be there. Our aim should be to enable these people to help themselves and we are going about this in the right way.
The Minister also mentioned nongovernmental organisations and agencies which provide personnel for projects overseas. We discussed the prospect of having 2,000 volunteers overseas by 1997. This is in recognition of the splendid work being done by our people in programmes abroad. I welcome this. If we meet the UN target of 0.7 per cent of GNP, we would be able to provide 5,000 professionally trained personnel for work overseas. The Minister's aim to place 2,000 people overseas by 1997 is to be welcomed, but if we spent the money which has been targeted we could provide 5,000 trained personnel abroad. This would have a great effect on Third World countries, particularly when we already have agencies in place and people with the skills necessary to train and place individuals where they would be of most use.
I also welcome the Minister's statement about a plan which will be published in June which highlights the area for future expansion of Ireland's overseas development aid. We look forward to its publication and to the Minister's proposal to set up a new advisory authority for overseas development aid. Perhaps the new Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs could examine our protectionist policy in the EC and the level of interest which must be repaid on overseas loans. This would be welcomed by all Senators.
Ireland's aid programme should be an expression of our people's solidarity with the people of the developing world and it should reflect the voluntary contributions they have made. I welcome the Government's decision to increase overseas development aid but must review the principle underlying our aid contribution and this must accompany our annual increase in aid. Budgets must be allocated on a long term basis and granted immunity from cut-backs in departmental expenditure. There is tremendous goodwill among the people and they would not like to see cut-backs in this area. We must remember that since Ireland is a small country and we cannot provide the answer to world poverty we should use our membership of the EC and the United Nations to press for action on issues of vital importance to the long term future of the Third World. Fair commodity prices and improved market access for products from developing countries are two ways to achieve this.
We must not forget the people's generosity and the work which Concern, Trócaire and World Vision are doing. Money which the people have donated to these organisations should be matched by the commitment of the Government. As the Minister and Senator Henry said, our foreign aid workers are professional and helpful and are accepted in every country. This is satisfying and we must continue to work at it. Although money is important, it is the time and expertise which these people give to the Third World that is vital. The recent tragic death of Valerie Place in Somalia demonstrates the extent to which the Irish people are committed to improving the Third World. It is the generosity of spirit, combined with Government support, which will provide hope for developing countries.
I join in the welcome extended to the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt. He has the unique advantage of being acceptable across party boundaries in the position he now holds. It is unusual, in a Government, that the right man or woman obtains the right job but it is true in this case.
It is difficult to debate Third World development aid in these luxurious surroundings. It is hard to visualise oneself in Sudan, in the slums of Delhi or as I was recently, in Mombassa and Nairobi. It is difficult to get a sense of that reality here.
Any member of Government with decision-making power in relation to development aid — an awesome power since we are concerned with situations of life and death — should exercise great care when directing aid. Our development aid contribution is less than the recommended 0.7 per cent of GNP because politicians lack the generosity and courage of the general public who support overseas development aid. If one said to the people, in a budgetary situation, however serious, that we must choose between cutting the subvention to CIE or cutting development aid to the Third World, the response would be surprising. In the midst of a recession more money is contributed by the Irish people to Third World organisations than by any other country.
The Programme for a Partnership Government states: "Irish aid agencies make the highest voluntary contribution to Third World development of any OECD country". Voluntary contributions place us at the top but with regard to governmental contributions at the bottom Government and people are out of line with each other. There is a lack of political will in relation to ODA and no political party holds the high ground on this matter. Concern for people of the Third World is shared by everybody; it is not a party political issue, in fact it is the least party political issue of all. No party has a monopoly on charity, wisdom or concern. It is a national concern but a problem for Irish politicians.
I refer briefly to the Programme for a Partnership Government which states that "In recognition of the value of this voluntary contributions provision will be made for private and corporate contributions to recognised Third World Agencies to be made tax deductable". I hope this will happen but it is a complex area. In the US and the UK voluntary contributions are tax deductable. It can be done in this country by deeds of covenant, which are also tax deductable. There is another system under federal income tax law in the US whereby one can designate a percentage of one's tax to a specific area of national life. This gives people the opportunity to decide where some of their deductions will be spent.
The imbalance between voluntary contributions to the Third World and governmental contributions will be corrected by 1997. According to the Programme for a Partnership Government Ireland will increase its contribution to the Third World to 0.7 per cent of GNP by 1997. If we are unable to deliver on some aspect of the programme, let it not be this one. I hope the Programme for a Partnership Government will be fully implemented but this must not be done at the expense of the poor and hungry. If this is not achieved how can we continue to wax lyrical about how much we are loved abroad? Let the facts shows that we pay as well.
With regard to multilateral aid, both the UN and the EC have said to certain Governments that unless they stop purchasing arms, food aid will not be given to their people. It is ironic that Governments who buy arms are in many cases the cause of hunger among their people. They have already demonstrated that they could not care less. It is like the four wheel drive vehicles of which Senator Henry spoke. Once a chief acquires a jeep, the people are of no consequence. It is nonsense to say to the Indian Government that unless they allow us inspect its nuclear facility we will not supply aid because the Indian Government decided in favour of nuclear power while its people starved. They will not be influenced by such an ultimatum. I would like someone from the UN to go to the Punjab and explain to a starving child there that food cannot be supplied because the Indian Government will not allow us to inspect its nuclear facility.
When I visited Kenya recently I saw a huge archway outside Nairobi saying and I quote: "Nairobi welcomes President Arap Moi" and I thought: "Here we go again". It is all happening again. Irrespective of the attitude of Governments in Third World countries we must look after the people there and multilateral aid is not the best way to do that. If more money is allocated to bilateral aid, our services to those people will be more effective.
Mr. Robert McNamara, a former Secretary of Defence in the Kennedy Administration said at one time that more people are killed by decisions taken in the banking halls of the world than on the battlefields. He subsequently became head of the World Bank and after a number of years in this post became disillusioned and now believes that the World Bank is as much a cause of poverty as some dictators. The more money allocated to bilateral aid, the more effective our development aid will be.
My son is spending his second year working in Zimbabwe, in a place outside Harare called Motoko. I encouraged him to go to Zimbabwe when he wanted to do so. He is living in dreadful conditions there but his commitment is appreciated by the Zimbabweans. It is good to see Irish men and women there. I have received tapes and letters from him telling me about his African friends. He has become fully integrated into that society and was accepted by the people once they realised he had as few resources as they.
The Minister in his speech said that he hoped to place 2,000 people overseas, eventually. We should seldom give cash aid. Some countries are in a position to do so and it suits them to write a cheque so to speak. Other countries may be a reservoir of expertise in the form of doctors, nurses, carpenters or administrators. Some countries are grain bins and can ship grain as aid. If less money is swallowed up by organisations like the UN or the EC, we may become less involved in multilateral aid and thus transfer resources to bilateral aid. We could make progress in helping other countries while also helping to solve our own unemployment problem. There is nothing wrong with solving two problems at the one time and we can do that with honour. I am a great believer in bilateral aid and I praise all the organisations involved.
It is not just with regard to development aid that we can provide this corps of people. This is something which should be part of UN strategy. There are few nations in the world acceptable as peacekeepers; Ireland is one of them. We are acceptable to Third World countries and other countries throughout the world for reasons outlined already. The UN should organise a peacekeeping corps in this country, available to go where needed.
The UN troops, not American troops, should have been first into Yugoslavia and the Sudan. The UN operation should be carried out by non-partisan troops, built up over time rather than simply painting a truck from army khaki to white. There should be a trained corps of professional peacekeeping soldiers available in this country. When colonial powers intervene to protect their own interests they have paratroops and marines on stand-by all the time. Yet, there is no such power to intervene on behalf of the starving and deprived in many parts of the world.
I asked at the beginning, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, to share my time with a former Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Senator Daly and I hope that is agreeable to the House. I hope that at the end of this Government's term it will have fulfilled the commitment given in the Programme for a Partnership Government regarding the percentage of GNP given in overseas development aid. If so, then I will leave this Administration happy.
Does the House agree to the sharing of time with Senator Daly? Agreed.
I would like to thank Senator Magner for sharing his time with me. He commented on the unreality of discussing this critical matter in these surroundings. This is part of the kernel of the problem. When visiting many of the under-developed countries one may find, in the midst of poverty and deprivation, palatial buildings and outlandish parties. The question arises, which is fundamental to the debate, of how to tackle distribution of wealth in countries to ensure that the tragedies happening at present are minimised and eliminated.
The seriousness of the situation was brought home to us recently in a document by Mr. Colm Roddy of Campaign Aid, entitled "Official Development Assistance and Ireland's Role in the Modern World". He makes the following point:
Resources are very unequally distributed in our world, 83 per cent of the population receive only 18 per cent of the world's income. The gap between rich and poor countries continues to widen, alarmingly. Average incomes in Ireland grew by 12.75 per cent between 1979 and 1989. Incomes in much of Africa and Latin America fell by between 10 and 25 per cent during that period. Nearly half of Africa's population now live below the poverty line.
This is a further indication of the alarming crisis in the developing countries and the necessity to tackle it urgently. There is an opportunity for us to play a meaningful and worthwhile role as the Government have already done. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy T. Kitt have already made their contribution towards highlighting the shortcomings in the developing world and we will have to continue to play that active role in the future.
It is beyond the capacity of Ireland alone to deal with these problems and it requires a huge international response from donor countries. In Africa alone it is estimated that unless donor countries continue their funding, starvation and famine will continue to escalate rather than diminish. In recent times the acute problems confronting developing countries have been exacerbated by war and famine but no single initiative can resolve all the problems in Africa. A combination of Government mismanagement over many years and huge debts which have to be repaid at high interest rates is crippling the prospect of economic recovery.
Desertification and conservation problems in agriculture have tended to put the rural communities in the developing countries at more risk. Civil strife in urban areas may lead to catastrophe, as happened in Somalia and the Sudan or is about to happen in Mozambique. It requires a highly organised, co-ordinated international response to deal with these problems and we must be seen to play our part.
I am glad to have this opportunity, as I had recently when this House discussed the tragic circumstances leading to the death of Valerie Place, to put on record the contribution made by our President, our past and present Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Ministers of State. We have to support them fully in this work. It is time that divisions on these issues were put aside in the interest of getting a united, all-party approach to a problem which is beyond our capacity to solve alone but towards which we can make a meaningful and positive contribution. As we speak, Irish aid effort is taking place in many countries around the world.
While the crisis in Africa is a top priority at present, we must not forget there are problems in other areas such as the Philippines, El Salvador and other countries in Central America. The problems affecting Rio de Janeiro are beyond the capacity of anyone to understand without the benefit of first-hand experience. I had the opportunity when I attended the Earth Summit in Rio to visit some of the slums with priests from County Limerick who were working there. In one small parish alone, 400 people suffered violent deaths as a result of drug-related anarchy in the first four months of last year. This time last year we debated the Rio Convention in this House. It is almost beyond belief that within one year of the conclusions of the Earth Summit in Rio the situation today is worse than it was then and is deteriorating still more rapidly. Many developing countries fear that the problems of Central Europe will result in fewer donations of goods, services and finance for them. The developing world is at a critical stage. In Africa the population is increasing faster than the growth in incomes and in the economy. This indicates that not only is this an immediate and critical problem but it will continue for the foreseeable future and will call for the most profound response from the countries that can make the most meaningful and positive response.
All the agencies must be complimented for the work they are doing but, unfortunately, they are not doing enough. Millions of people are threatened with death, starvation and malnutrition, and they lack education and basic health services. At the same time, proposals have been made in the present GATT negotiations to limit food, beef, cereals and milk production. Is it not within the capacity of the political leadership in the world today to find a way to manage these huge resources to ensure people will not die of starvation, malnutrition or will not lack basic health and education services?
I wish to put on record my appreciation of the voluntary organisations working with governmental organisations. There should be a closer partnership and co-operation between the voluntary organisations and Government agencies. The contribution by aid workers is remarkable, considering the conditions under which they work.
Organisations like Trócaire have been to the forefront in the campaign to raise awareness in Ireland of the urgency and the need to donate resources to help solve problems in developing countries. I want to put on record my appreciation of the work done for Trócaire by the former Bishop of Galway, Eamonn Casey and by Brian McKeown, who retired recently from Trócaire and who made a major contribution over a long period to the development of that organisation. The contribution of Father Aengus Finucane, Father Jack Finucane and the Concern agency particularly for their work in Africa, has been recognised and favourably commented on, not only by people in Ireland but internationally. I also wish to put on record my appreciation for the work done by Trócaire, Concern and Campaign Aid. This work, as I said earlier, should be carried out in partnership with the Government agencies.
I visited Irish personnel working overseas on Government programmes. These programmes have a tremendous impact in places like Kilosa of Tanzania where an Irish aid programme under Irish Government agency personnel helped to provide such basic needs as housing, education and health and maternity services. This programme had a direct impact on the community in that area. I welcome the commitment made by the Minister that this work will be expanded in the new development programme. While in Tanzania I spoke with Pauline Conway, development co-operation officer in Dar-es-Salaam who worked tirelessly with Irish personnel on various projects. I found a great community spirit among the Irish personnel there and their work was highly praised and acknowledged by the President of Tanzania and the local population. Similarly the work done in Zambia by Brendan Rogers and by Irish engineers from the cement industry who are helping to build up the cement business is also greatly appreciated.
All this valuable developmental work is, to a large extent, going unnoticed here. We have an opportunity in this debate to bring this work to the attention of the public who do not really know where the Irish aid programmes are centered. Specialists in this area and people who study these matters are fully aware of what is taking place but the public is not aware of the very valuable work done by, say, the personnel of the Electricity Supply Board and the education organisations who have established schools and training centres in places like Tanzania at enormous cost and risk to themselves.
Valuable work is also being done in Lesotho where Pat Curran, development co-operation officer, has been working with Irish aid agencies and with Irish personnel from almost every county in Ireland; Senator Magner said his own son is in Lesotho. I met Mary Quigley, a neighbour from Curraghclare, working in the most backward part of Lesotho in conditions which people who have not seen them would find difficult to imagine.
It is important that the public is informed of the work done by Irish aid workers. I strongly urge the Minister to continue to make available details of Irish aid programmes so that when we are allocating funds to these programmes, people are fully aware of the uses to which they are being put, the impact of the programmes on local communities and their effectiveness in saving lives. Irish finance, Irish aid workers, Irish Government agencies and Irish personnel are saving lives in Africa today. The Minister said he proposes to identify additional countries to which we may give development aid. However, there are areas where Irish personnel are at present working in terrible conditions and they would be very grateful for additional funding.
When considering any expansion of the recipient countries we should also look at individual projects in places like Rio where Irish missionaries are working in the most terrible conditions and at enormous risk to their health — some of them have developed major health problems. Irish aid programmes should pay more attention to the education and training of personnel who are going abroad to prepare them to deal with the difficulties they will encounter. I wish to put on record the magnificent work being done in many of our training institutions which provide courses for aid workers. More resources must be devoted to education and training.
In the overall policy area the Minister is wise to have established an advisory committee. The last advisory committee was abolished but it was always the intention to put a different type of committee in place. However, he might take account of the working group study which was carried out by the previous ACDC.
I wish the Minister success in his work. I hope he will continue to highlight the critical situation in the developing world and the necessity for an international response to deal efectively with it.
I welcome this debate. I also welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt back to the Seanad. On his last visit we discussed a motion on the protection of overseas development workers in Somalia. That debate and the current one demonstrate the interest of Senators and the Minister in this issue.
There are indications that we are beginning to face up to our national responsibility to developing countries. One indication was the approval given by the House for the establishment of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. I welcome paragraph (9) in the order for that Committee, which refers to co-operation with developing countries. It will be an opportunity for Senators and Deputies to contribute to the development of our aid programmes. This debate is an educational opportunity for Senators as well as for the public. Prior to speaking in such a debate one researches the issue and my research into this matter has been an educational experience for me.
I welcome the Minister's intention to consult with the relevant agencies and formulate a plan that will be published in June. A comprehensive plan for overseas development aid is important because both the amount of funding and its uses have varied over the past number of years. There was an increase in funding from 1990 to 1991 because of the Gulf War but, as Senator Taylor-Quinn pointed out, funding has been reduced over a number of years. I welcome the proposed consultations between the Minister and APSO which will result in an increase in the number of foreign aid workers. I am glad the Minister listened to aid workers and particularly to the NGOs, on his visit to Somalia and other places.
The increase of funds for overseas development aid from 0.17 per cent of GNP last year to 0.2 per cent this year is welcome, as is the commitment to a yearly increase of 0.05 per cent until we reach the 0.7 per cent required by our agreement with the UN. It will take some time to reach that goal of 0.7 per cent but we are making progress after the decrease of previous years.
Senator Henry referred to the decrease in relation to Sudan. Bilateral aid from this country to Sudan was cut from £1.493 million in 1986 to £0.585 million in 1991. As the Senator pointed out, the decrease at a time of serious famine in Sudan indicates the need for consultation about where our bilateral aid should go. Having endured famine, colonisation and the resulting problems we should be aware of the difficulties for African, Asian and South American countries which have a similar history.
We receive developing aid from the EC and it is no credit to us that in our budgets, choose the easy option of reducing overseas development aid instead of reducing other spending. I welcome the reversal of that trend this year.
Many Senators have referred to the involvement of Irish people in the Third World. The Minister stated we have the highest rate of voluntary participation and financial contribution in the world. The fact that the President, the Minister of State, and the former Minister for Foriegn Affairs have visited Somalia demonstrates the commitment of the Irish to the Third World.
It must be acknowledged that the history of colonisation has been a history of exploitation. Loans from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have caused as many problems as they have solved because Third World countries spend more money servicing their debts than they receive in aid. Their debt outlay is huge and that problem must be examined and solved through international agencies like the UN as no small country can undertake the task alone. The country is in a crucial position to be a constructive catalyst for change in this area. We are on good terms with Third World countries; we are neutral from the military point of view and we have no axe to grind. These countries look for Irish agency workers rather than people from other countries. We should play a positive role in the UN with regard to Third World development.
Senator Magner referred to the fact that multilateral aid is usually administered through loans from the UN and the World Bank rather than through grants. Aid from Ireland is donated, by way of grants rather than loans. We must insist that there is more grant aid rather than loan aid because the loans impose a debt on these countries which must be repaid.
We need a radical examination of global aid administration. Is UN spending effective? Senators have referred to supplies of four wheel drive trucks and other machinery and the fact that the important thing is to find out from the local communities what are their needs. That is the method of agencies like Concern, Goal and Trócaire who work in partnership with the local communities. Partnership is a buzz word at the moment but it is an important word in this context. Aid should be given in a spirit of partnership and solidarity and not as a handout. Aid should respond to the real needs of the communities in these countries. Ireland has a good record in that respect.
Senator Lydon referred to the armaments industry and the fact that more money is spent on arms than is spent on development aid. That is a problem, which must be tackled at international level. Being neutrals Ireland can play a crucial role in that regard. The spending on arms by countries who cannot afford to feed their people is astronomical. If the UN is worth its salt it should tackle that problem.
In the area of international trade there are many trade restrictions in the EC and under the GATT that work against the interests of poor Third World countries. There is an ongoing, campaign to remove restrictions on textile imports from Bangladesh. I know Concern ran shops that stocked products made in Third World countries. There were beautiful handcrafts from Bangladesh and Ethiopa which were made mainly by women, employing many who would otherwise not be able to feed their families. There are restrictions on the selling of these items in EC countries and currently, a campaign which we should support is trying to alter that situation.
I wish to refer to a film I saw a long time ago about President Nyerere of Tanzania where he talked about the problem of marketing and world trade and its effects on third world countries. The product to which he referred was hemp which is used in the making of ropes and is one of the major exports of Tanzania. He said that as long as a standard quantity of hemp makes less money from one year to the next it will be very difficult for developing countries to develop properly. The market system is a major problem for third world countries. I will conclude by saying that this debate is very important. I hope it will lead to further discussion of this issue because there is a need to radically examine the whole question of development aid.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. It is not his first visit here and I am sure it will not be his last. I would also like to congratulate and commend him on his humanitarian efforts on behalf of the Government and also for the personal commitment he has brought to the plight of Irish aid workers in world trouble spots over the last twelve months. This is an indication of Minister Kitt's compassion.
I have no doubt from the report which the Minister of State presented to this House today that his interventions have contributed towards boosting at least the morale of Irish aid workers abroad. During his many visits abroad he has brought to the attention of governments in countries where Ireland is involved in overseas development aid, the views of the Irish people on a variety of topics relevant to those situations. There is a need to reappraise our role in Third World aid and I am pleased to note that the Minister of State outlined the Government's proposals in this respect which I will deal with in a moment.
I remember reading last year about donor banks, especially in the UK, who provide significant monetary aid to developing countries. If those countries renege on their debt, which is of immense proportions and is crippling economic development because a large proportion of gross domestic product is required to service the interest I understand the donor banks can claw back the loan in tax on company profits. In other words there is no risk for the donor banks if the debtor country reneges on a loan. Does a similar situation apply in this country in the event of a default? I ask this because when one glances through the financial press and observes the detail of annual reports from Irish banking institutions there is always a substantial figure described as overseas loans which have not been paid. It seems to me that the banks are probably including that figure in their pre-tax profits. I raise this issue because if that is the case, as it seems to be in the UK, then the situation is probably similar in other developed countries. In effect the banks are not only failing to assist these countries but they ensure that they do not lose if the country reneges on the loan. This opens up a whole new perspective on overseas aid.
Is this Government honouring a human rights obligation with regard to overseas aid? Is any qualification or condition attached to giving aid to Third World countries with questionable political systems or where democracy has failed to flourish? Those of us who have studied the colonial history of Africa, where much of our overseas aid goes, will concede that Western style democracy has not taken root there to the extent that the colonial masters expected. This is not surprising given the history of the development of the African continent over the last hundred years where lines were drawn on maps without reference to tribal or ethnic communities. This left a legacy of strife and civil war to be addressed by Governments such as our own.
Somalia is probably one of the best examples of post-colonial problems. Nigeria is also constantly struggling to establish its own form of democracy and despite several variations has been unable to achieve an agreed settlement. The system seems to change every so often due to ethnic strife in various parts of the country. Sudan, to which the Minister of State referred, has also experienced ethnic tensions, primarily because of the colonial imposition of borders in the latter part of the last century.
I am curious to know whether this Government — and I realise it is a delicate and sensitive issue because overseas aid is given willingly with the highest of motives—attaches any importance to the political structures in aid recipient countries. Does it make its concern about political structures known to the political masters in recipient countries? I could not help but reflect on the Carter years in America. Many people criticised President Carter for his human rights record during 1976-80 but I think it stands as a shining example of what a powerful politician in the West can do to refocus and reorient people's thinking towards human rights. If we are giving Irish taxpayers' money in aid, we should attach conditions regarding human rights.
I am glad to know that a new policy document on ODA will be presented in June and that the Minister of State is contemplating an advisory body. I hope the advisory body will encompass the enormous expertise on overseas aid which is available here. I also believe that this Government has a role to play in the European Community on this issue; community policy on overseas aid needs to be refocused.
A serious situation has developed in Sierra Leone, a North African country which does not always feature in the news in the same way as Somalia or Sudan. For the last number of years a civil war of the greatest intensity has been waged there to the extent that it has jeopardised the stability of surrounding countries. A considerable community of Irish citizens primarily priests of the Oblate Order are working in Sierra Leone. I have received correspondence in recent months which testifies to the intensity of the civil war in parts of the country, especially around Kenema where Irish priests run a seminary. I do not wish to sound alarmist but the situation gives cause for concern and could be life threatening if it continues unchecked. I am sure the Minister will agree we have a responsibility to Irish citizens abroad, especially those who are threatened by war or by circumstances outside their control. Will the Minister investigate the position of Irish citizens in Sierra Leone and will he go there when the visits Africa again? This is a timely opportunity for me to bring this matter before the House and to the Minister. The conflict in Sierra Leone is one of the forgotten wars in Africa.
There is a need to analyse the underlying cause of the famines in Africa. It is not enough to increase our contribution to the Third World; we should not pat ourselves on the back because of the large amounts of Irish non-governmental aid raised by our people. We should do more. We are unique. We have no credibility problem in Africa, because of our involvement with the local population. The Minister stated that African Governments are appreciative of our contributions. Sometimes we forget how small a country we are. A penny coin would blot out Ireland on the world map. Although we are small geographically, our heart is bigger than the largest country.
My contribution will be brief. While I welcome the opportunity for statements on the overseas development aid programme, I regret that it is not a full debate on the wider issue of foreign policy.
I welcome the commitment to progressively increase funding for famine relief to 0.7 per cent of GNP. We have been derelict in our moral duties in working in that direction over the last few years. It is true that we have experienced difficult times economically but this is nothing compared to the horrific sights of starving people in famine-stricken countries. I also welcome the commitment in the Programme for a Partnership Government to significantly increase funds this year and to work progressively, and hopefully speedily, towards the target of 0.7 per cent of GNP. I am sure this view is shared by Members on all sides.
I compliment the Minister and congratulate him for his contribution. He said that the Programme for a Partnership Government sets out a number of areas for priority action into which our aid will be channelled. He also spoke about the importance in terms of domestic and international prestige. I understand what he is saying and I welcome his concern but my personal concern is more for substance than form. Focusing on bilateral aid programmes for specific regions is a good way of ensuring that our relatively modest contributions achieve the maximum impact. There are many regions seeking aid, but we could make the best use of our resources by adopting a region or by funding specific functional aspects of aid, such as contributions towards water preservation, agriculture and training.
The Minister also said that the visits to Somalia by the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, and by President Robinson indicated that we could have a greater impact in foreign affairs than our geographic or population size would suggest. I agree with this statement. These visits helped to highlight the extraordinary difficulties in that country. They also showed that Ireland is in a unique position vis-a-vis the developed world and the Third World. This stems from two factors. First, we are bottom of the developed league. We experience similar problems to the Third World with the more predatory and economically advanced ex-colonial nations. Until recently, we shared the experience of being a colonised nation. This puts us in a unique position to speak with, and on behalf of, the developing world a fact that has never been properly exploited. We could, and should, operate more actively as a bridge between the developed nations and those at the developing and under-privileged stage.
We share with many people the experience of invasion, dominance and exploitation, but we have also benefited to a degree from our colonial experiences. Because we were colonised, we should be more conscious of the trauma suffered by developing nations and be in a better position to assist them. Historically, the Department of Foreign Affairs has preferred to be linked with the developed nations, such as the United States and Britain. We have frequently adopted a foreign policy in line with that of the British Foreign Office or the American State Department. For example, we have willingly followed the lead given by Foggybottom for years on subjects like the policy on China.
Our party recently adopted a role, of which I was very critical, on Cambodian representation at the United Nations, and the Minister shared my views. While Irish overseas development, non-governmental and volunteer organisations played a significant role in, for example, the cause of peace and justice in Central and South America, Government were too reticent in expressing views commonly held here.
I would prefer to discuss the situation in East Timor in a wider debate, but I will just make a passing reference to it. I am sure Members are aware of the genocide being perpetrated there by another Third World nation who developed regional super power status because of support given by developed countries, with whom we have cordial relations. We should use the good offices available to us and tell those countries the consequences of their actions in regions like East Timor, El Salvador, Nicaragua and others.
The Minister paid particular attention in his contribution to Irish aid workers and to non-governmental organisations. They are the real foot soldiers, the forward troops of Irish foreign policy in so far as foreign policy represents the will of the nation as opposed to views which are refined and well honed in Iveagh House.
The Irish have a great affinity with small nations and they have a generous affinity with people who suffer around the world. It is one of the great achievements of this nation that so many Irish men and women in religious orders, and in recent times, secular groups, have contributed so much that is positive to the development of the Third World. The contribution of organisations like Trócaire, Concern and Goal is something of which we can all be proud. Nuns, priests, brothers and religious of minority denominations have contributed a great deal. The Dublin Leprosy Mission, located not far from this building contributed not only to missionary work in under-developed nations but to the development of the cure for one of the great plagues that has visited tropical countries.
Irish people have a very refined sense of justice. I was proud when Members of the Oireachtas, members of religious order, and bishops made known their feelings about the injustices in Nicaragua and El Salvador to the President of the United States — a country with which we enjoy the closest and most cordial relations — on his visit to this country.
I applaud the Government's commitment to move as speedily as resources will permit to fulfil the 0.7 per cent of GNP target; it is a modest target. The Irish people have shown great generosity in their voluntary contributions of food aid and a willingness to support efforts to help the Third World. I believe that if the question were put directly to the people they would support a transfer of more resources.
Ireland's contribution to ODA should not be thought of simply in terms of cash. We have the capacity to serve particular needs in the developing world. We have a well developed education system with most of its institutions unfilled for a quarter of the year. Ireland has a well developed system of Government and public administration which, albeit not perfect, fits well with the types of administrations which are being put in place in the under-developed world. Ireland has a responsibility to make available to the Third World the expertise we have gained in our short period as an independent nation. Civil servants and politicians from emerging states, not just in the Third World but in the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe, should be welcomed here to study and train. Our system of Government is far from perfect, but at least it is developed. We have training systems in place that we could and should use more fully to increase the development aid we make available to the Third World.
I compliment the Minister. I am grateful that we are at last making the effort to reach the 0.7 per cent of GNP target. However, we should speed up the process.
Acting Chairman
I take this opportunity to compliment the Senators who took part in this important debate. It is my privilege to call on the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy T. Kitt, a fellow Galway man, to close the debate. I thank him especially because it is Easter and I know he is very busy.
I thank all who contributed to this debate. I was anxious to listen to Members' views and I am delighted this debate has taken place.
I thank Senator Roche for his comments. I share his belief that the Irish people have a refined sense of justice. He mentioned the need to give this effect at political level in relation to China, Tibet and Cambodia. He and I have spoken about this many times in the recent past. Senator Roche also referred to the situation in East Timor. He can be sure that the Government will continue to condemn the Indonesian invasion, and not just sympathise with the people of East Timor, but highlight their plight and assist them in every way possible at national, EC and international levels. I will do my best to reflect the people's sense of justice in the course of my duties.
I thank the Senators from all parties who paid me warm tributes today. I am conscious of my responsibilities in trying to implement this very comprehensive plan. Senator Taylor-Quinn was correct in saying that there is a great deal of work to be done expanding the programme. I want to assure Members that my Department is working very hard to ensure that the necessary preparations are made because the programme will not be expanded by accident.
Senator Taylor-Quinn and Senator Magner also raised the question of tax deductibility. Although this is a matter principally for the Minister for Finance, I am in contact with the voluntary agencies who have emphasised the need for care in drafting the regulations. My Department is in contact with the Department of Finance on the matter and I hope an announcement will be made as quickly as possible.
I agree with Senators' comments on the work of the Irish aid workers; indeed I emphasised this in my opening statements. I shall continue to give priority to security. Senator Taylor-Quinn and Senator Honan mentioned the target of 2,000 APSO volunteers. I share Senator Taylor-Quinn's anxiety that the quality of the existing programme be maintained and I am in regular contact with APSO on this question. Increasing the number of APSO workers is a difficult task. This is not a job creation exercise but a process of finding good and committed people. If I learned anything from my visit to Africa — and it is not patronising to say this because it is an acknowledged fact — it was that we have good people in places like Zambia and Tanzania. Aid and assistance in building up structures requires good managers of programmes. My predecessor Senator Daly, who also visited Africa, referred to this and he named Irish managers who have many African people working with them.
It is no mean undertaking to provide 2,000 volunteers but I will do my best working with APSO and others.
I also welcome what Senator Lydon said about the role of the media and the importance of communications in increasing development awareness. This is an area in which we have not been as successful as we would wish, but it is an area in which I hope to increase our activity in the coming months. I hope, too, that the advisory committee I will be setting up will help me in the area of communications.
A number of Senators referred to the environment and the environmental damage being done in Africa and other developing parts of the world. I share their anxiety: environmental effects are systematically examined in the appraisal of all bilateral aid projects. My Department is also examining what specific programmes for environmental protection can be built into our activities.
I agree with Senator Lydon on the link between democracy and development and the link between aid and military expenditure, a point also raised by Senator O'Sullivan. Ireland has taken a consistant stand on these issues at international fora and in our bilateral relations with developing countries. Senator Lydon referred to the demilitarisation process in Ethiopia and the effect on soldiers who find themselves without jobs. I also saw evidence of this when I visited Central America. It is a very real problem and must be addressed.
Senator Henry rightly emphasised the acceptability of Irish aid workers, including volunteers and Red Cross delegates. I greatly admire the way in which they operate and I regard it as an importent objective to ensure that the reputation of Irish aid is preserved unblemished. I also share anxiety about the situation in southern Sudan in particular. I will remain in contact with the agencies who are present in that part of the country with a view to seeing what further action on my part would be appropriate.
I am not sure I can fully agree with the Senator on a number of points of detail which she raised, such as sanitation and the use of four wheel drive vehicles, although I may have misunderstood her. The bilateral aid project depends on personnel using four wheel drive vehicles. The Senator spoke of the chiefs of the tribes using such vehicles and her comments have been noted. From my experience four wheel drive vehicles are central to the work of the bilateral aid projects.
The Senator quite rightly, referred to donating basic equipment. I referred in my opening remarks to the kind of porjects I saw there. It was my second visit to the maternity clinic project in Lusaka which was set up in 1982 by Dr. Mona Tindale. On this occasion when I went back, these maternity clinics had been set up all over Lusaka and the suburbs. It was a perfect example of the kind of very basic facilities and assistance women need in their communities, and it took the burden off the national hospital. Public representatives there, especially the Health Minister, kept referring to the practical assistance which was being provided and the effect it had on the women in the local community.
The other example I mentioned was the provision of wells in Northern Zambia where, again, basic needs were being provided for. The sanitation issues are resolved to some degree and the Senator made that point because she addressed the real issue, namely water. When water is provided these issues are resolved. It is important to listen to the people and to hear how they wish to address these questions.
Senator Henry also referred to the provision of technology to the former Soviet Union. Last Monday at the General Affairs Council of the European Community I attended a meeting of EC Ministers and Ministers from Finland, Norway, Sweden and Austria. The Finnish Minister referred to the fact that after the Second World War the United States looked on western Europe as an area that needed urgent and immediate attention, first, because it was necessary and, secondly, because it was an area that obviously had potential for development. The point was made — and I take the point — that we should adopt in western Europe the same attitude to the Soviet Union and eastern and central Europe because of the necessity for urgent aid, and also because of the potential for development in those countries.
We cannot ignore these places. Aiding development there will cause us many problems, including problems with our economy initially but we must look on it as an absolute need and in the interest of the Community we must treat this matter seriously. I will be looking at this during the coming weeks. There are a number of meetings in the coming months between the EC and these countries and I will be watching developments closely and examining how best we can deal with this issue. The Senator also mentioned the question of visas. I will look at the visa problem to which she referred. It needs examination.
I am grateful to Senator Honan for her kind remarks about the Irish programme. We regard the target of 0.4 per cent by 1997 as an important step on the road to the UN target of 0.7 per cent. Reaching this target will also enable Ireland to speak more authoritatively in the EC, the World Bank, and other international gatherings on issues such as debt-trade arrangements. This programme has given the Tánaiste, Deputy Dick Spring, and me much more authority to speak in international fora.
Senator Magner and Senator Daly referred to the difficulty of discussing aid choices in the elegant surroundings of this Seanad Chamber. I agree with that as I listened to the debate. In that context it was appropriate that I went back to Africa last month in order to familiarise myself again with the situation there. There were two points of note about the situation there: first, that the needs of the people are real and basic — water, schools, health, food and transport; secondly, that Irish aid is working well and is respected. Other countries are trying to copy the approach we have adopted there.
I hope other Deputies and Senators will get the opportunity to see the situation at first hand because so many people, Senator Daly in particular, made a very significant contribution, where he recounted as I did, what he saw when he was there. We really need to do more of that, and not just by way of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. There must be other opportunities for Senators and Deputies to know what is happening. It is very good for the morale of our people out there when they are visited by Members of the Oireachtas.
Senator Daly referred to the danger of punishing people twice, once for their poverty and once for the sins of their Government. He mentioned the balance between multilateral aid bilateral assistance, a point also made by Senator O'Sullivan. At present the breakdown is about 2:1 multilateral aid to bilateral aid. I wish to inform the House that it is my intention in the coming five years to shift that balance to 2:1 in favour of bilateral aid and I would be reflecting the wishes of this Chamber in doing that.
It will be difficult. It will mean more work and it means an increase in bilateral aid from £15 million to £90 million per year. Aid needs advance planning and we will do our best to meet this target. It is much easier to give money to international organisations. I am much happier, and the people and the Government are happier, if aid goes to where Irish people are active and where they are making such a positive impact. At the same time we must continue to put pressure on the international agencies to maintain their commitment to developing countries in spite of donor fatigue, the problem of debt and the inadequacies of Governments.
Senator O'Sullivan raised the question of trade and restrictions on imports into the EC of manufactured and agricultural imports from developing countries. She is correct to say that trade questions can be more important than aid flows. It is, therefore, very important to ensure that developing countries get the most favourable terms of trade possible. However, the issues are not simple. Frequently there is a conflict of interest between the least developed ACP countries, which enjoy preferential access to EC markets, and the more developed countries such as the Philippines. Neither can we close our eyes to the situation in the textile sector in Europe.
Senator Mooney raised the question of debt. I would like to make it clear that all Ireland's bilateral aid is in grant form. We have no official debt in the countries of which we are speaking. In the EC we have consistently supported a liberal position on the question of debt forgiveness; I referred briefly to that in my opening remarks. The Senator rightly asked some questions. If a debt is in arrears it is normal practice to reschedule the payments. In some cases partial forgiveness is offered. Private debt, which was referred to by Senator Mooney, is a very specialised field and is the primary concern of the London Club as part of the international debt strategy which is proving relatively successful in coping with this problem.
We are also clear where we stand on human rights. This was mentioned by a number of people, including Senator Mooney. We have attempted at all times to encourage the Government in question to move in the right direction and I have made this point at a number of fora where I have spoken. This is no longer just an Irish position; thanks to the Irish input it is now an EC position. The link is there between human rights, democracy and development. When I was in Tanzania and discussed their process of democratisation with Prime Minister Malacela he made that point. A number of Senators said that countries need time to get through this process step by step and that is a valid point. We should not go out there with the big hammer making demands. Once the process is established we should be there to support it. Yesterday I met with a number of Tanzanian commissioners who have come here to look at our Civil Service, the Department of Finance, the IDA and the ACC, to see how they can build up their democratic institutions. They are delighted with the aid and back-up provided by all our agencies. The doors have been open to them and their Prime Minister expressed gratitude for all assistance received. Last year the EC adopted a resolution on linkage between Third and First World nations to which we gave full support.
With regard to Sierra Leone and the civil war, the protection of development workers is now a major theme in our development activities and in Somalia it is a matter of direct and ongoing concern to me. I have noted Senator Mooney's concern in regard to Sierra Leone and can assure him that I shall have the matter examined as urgently as possible.
I thank Senators for their contributions. It has been a worthwhile debate and I look forward to other opportunities to share my experiences and ideas with Senators as well as listening to their comments. I know that Senators have a contribution to make in putting together an exciting programme in the months and years ahead.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I would like to thank the Minister. When is it proposed to sit again?
It is proposed to sit at 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 28 April.