Select Committee on Foreign Affairs debate -
Thursday, 16 Dec 1993

Vote 39 — International Co-operation (Supplementary Estimate).

Chairman

Before we proceed with the main business of the meeting I welcome the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, and his officials. On this occasion especially, I congratulate the Tánaiste and his officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs for the magnificent outcome to the peace initiative in the Joint Declaration and for the co-input which was obviously made by him and his Department in its formulation. Hopefully the declaration will have the desired result.

The business of the morning is the Supplementary Estimate concerning the contributions to peacekeeping, which are mandatory and assessed on an ongoing basis. They have increased with the commitments in Somalia and the former Yugoslavia. There is also an increase in the aid input to eastern Europe, which obviously needs stabilisation. This year the committee has looked closely at various peacekeeping operations which involve an Irish input. That, of course, is the focus of the work of the United Nations sub-committee, which will be reporting early next year on possible reforms in the whole peacekeeping process. The Estimate before us is on international co-operation. The Tánaiste is working to time constraints because Chairman Arafat is visiting us also and I would like to bring the meeting to a close by 11.15 a.m., if that is acceptable to the committee. A suggested timetable has been circulated. Are these arrangements agreed? Agreed.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Spring)

Thank you for your encouraging words and welcome. We were certainly encouraged yesterday on our return to the Dáil to receive the welcome which we did and the support which is vital to all of us in our efforts to establish peace on this island.

I was very pleased to have the opportunity early this year to have discussions with your committee on the revised Estimates for Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation for 1993. It was a most useful exchange of views and I look forward to having a similar exchange and exercise next year on the 1994 Estimates.

The specific matter for consideration today is the Supplementary Estimate of £1,904,000 arising on the International Co-operation Vote for 1993. This is made up of an excess of £1.824 million on Subhead A of the Vote — Contributions to International Organisations. There is in addition an excess of £100,000 on Subhead — Assistance to Eastern Europe. Adjusted for an anticipated saving of £20,000 under Subhead B on our mandatory contribution to the CSCE in 1993, the net requirement is for a Supplementary Estimate of £1.904 million.

The greater part of the Supplementary Estimate relates to the increased cost of Ireland's financial contribution to United Nations peacekeeping operations in 1993. This arises in the main from the fact that the major operations, in Somalia, former Yugoslavia and Cambodia, have all cost substantially more in 1993 than could have been anticipated. In addition, substantial costs arise from the establishment of the UN operation in Mozambique last December. The mission in Angola has also resulted in increased assessments for UN member states.

It was decided in June 1993 that financing of the UN operation in Cyprus, which had previously been funded by voluntary contributions, should in future be financed by way of mandatory assessed contributions by member states. The establishment during 1993 of new missions in Rwanda, Georgia and Liberia — and provision for one in Haiti — will have financial implications for the future.

The dramatic escalation in peace-keeping expenditure by the UN in the past five years in unprecedented in its history. From a figure of $231 million in 1988, spending has risen to $2,700 million this year to date. The final figure is expected to be over $3 billion for 1993. In common with other member states of the United Nations, Ireland is legally obliged under Article 17.2 of the UN Charter to pay its mandatory assessed contribution to the peacekeeping budget. I believe it is right to continue as we have always done — to pay our mandatory contributions in full and on time.

Underlying this Supplementary Estimate is the fact that it has become impossible to forecast accurately the extent of our contribution to the peace-keeping budget over a period of a year. The peace-keeping operation now in the field vary significantly in size, mandates, duration and costs. Some are likely to continue to expand, others are in a wind-down phase but it is clear that the overall cost of UN peace-keeping is likely to increase for the foreseeable future.

In his report on the financial situation of the United Nations published on 18 October 1993, the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, underlined that "as regards peace-keeping, accurate cash flow projections for all but the most stable of operations are virtually impossible to make with any degree of accuracy . . . . experience has shown that the pattern of payments by member states is not susceptible to accurate forecasting. Consequently, no attempt is made to project peace-keeping cash flow for the balance of the year."

It is clear that the main reason for what the Secretary-General has described as the "critical" cash flow problem facing the United Nations is the failure of many member states to pay their contributions to the regular and peace-keeping budgets in full and on time. The Secretary-General said on 24 November 1993 that only 71 member states had paid their 1993 assessments in full by that date and that by the end of the year a total of $400 million will be owed to troop contributing countries, which include Ireland.

Since I last addressed this committee, I have again raised with the Secretary-General the unfair burden borne by those troop contributing nations who pay their own peace-keeping and regular budget assessments on time. I am glad to inform Deputies that some progress is being made in this respect and that we have received three payments on peace-keeping arrears during 1993. Two of these payments followed my meeting with the Secretary-General in September and amount to a total of just over £2.8 million. Ireland is still owed £11.4 million in peace-keeping arrears and I will continue to press this matter on every appropriate occasion with the Secretary-General and with those member states who are significantly in arrears.

I would like to comment on the current position with regard to several of the UN operations of particular interest and concern.

Of those peace-keeping operations which have broken new ground, the UNOSOM II mission in Somalia is the most important. In my statement to the joint committee on 29 June 1993, I went into considerable detail on the background to UNOSOM II and the evolution in traditional peace-keeping which it represented. The Dáil agreed on 6 July 1993, under the terms of the Defence (Amendment) Act, 1993, to the despatch of a contingent of the Defence Forces to serve with UNOSOM II. Our 80-strong transport unit is located in Baidoa and its period of deployment will expire at the end of February 1994. The question of our continued participation in UNOSOM II will be reviewed early next year. The Security Council will itself undertake a fundamental review of the mandate of UNOSOM II by 1 February 1994. More generally, under the terms of the Defence (Amendment) Act, 1993, the Dáil will have the opportunity in the New Year to consider a report on Irish participation in UN peace-keeping for 1993.

UNOSOM II is the largest and most challenging peace operation ever undertaken by the UN. Some of the events earlier this year in Somalia will, understandably, have caused concern. As I said in my statement to the UN General Assembly on 1 Octofiber, the overriding objective of the UN in Somalia must be political reconciliation and national reconstruction. The situation has improved considerably and I am satisfied that the primary of the humanitarian and political objectives of the mission are now generally accepted. UNOSOM II appears now to be on the right path and I believe that the lessons from the UN experience in Somalia are being absorbed.

Ireland's largest single contribution to UN peace-keeping continues to be in Lebanon where a contingent of 681 personnel is currently serving. In July, the Security Council renewed the UNIFIL mandate for a further six-month period to 31 January 1994 and in October the Government decided to maintain our commitment to the force.

The security situation in the Irish area of operations in South Lebanon remains of paramount concern. The Taoiseach and I made strong representations to the Israeli authorities arising from the sustained bombardment of the area in July. The agreement reached in September between Israel and the PLO is, of course, a major development, but we have also seen in recent weeks how difficult the road ahead will be. I am satisfied that UNIFIL will continue to perform a vital function for the foreseeable future both in terms of restoring international peace and security and in contributing to the humanitarian needs of the local population.

We believe that there is an urgent need to improve the operational management and command and control functions, in peace-keeping operations and I devoted a part of my General Assembly statement to these themes. The Irish delegation co-sponsored a General Assembly resolution adopted on 30 November 1993, calling on the Secretary-General to take urgent steps in this area and particularly to improve consultation with the troop contributing countries.

We should not lose sight of the fundamental reason for the deployment of peacekeepers in so many parts of the world nor should we forget the successes of the past year. In Somalia itself, for most of the period since the establishment of UNOSOM II, the country has been peaceful outside the South Mogadishu area. The work of rebuilding the Somali nation is underway and people there no longer starve. The UN operation in Cambodia has achieved considerable success and has now completed its mission there. Ireland provided 12 military officers and 40 gardaí to this operation and thus contributed to the holding of free and fair elections and to the re-establishment of peace in that country.

A fact frequently cited — but none the less sobering for that — is that the amount spent on UN peace-keeping is equivalent to less than 1 per cent of worldwide military expenditure. Ireland is required to pay 0.18 per cent of this. I feel sure that the members of the committee will agree it is in keeping with the basic thrust of our foreign policy that Ireland should continue to discharge fully its financial obligations under the Charter in relation to UN peace-keeping.

I should like to turn briefly now to Subhead I of the Vote. Most of Ireland's assistance to the newly independent countries of Eastern Europe is channelled through multilateral aid programmes such as the PHARE and TACIS programmes of the European Community and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The Department of Foreign Affairs also operates a modest programme of bilateral assistance. The primary purpose of the provision of technical assistance to Eastern Europe is to help the countries of Eastern Europe to emerge from their economic problems. This humanitarian duty also has a political dimension. Assistance of this kind is proper to the vote for international co-operation, although it does not qualify as ODA in the technical sense. An allocation of £280,000 is extremely modest in comparison with what our EC partners are doing in this field.

The bilateral technical assistance takes the form of providing grants to Irish consultancy companies active in the region. The level of assistance provided has been modest and demand from consultants is very great and exceeds the supply of funds in the subhead. We propose an additional £100,000 to cope with the increased demand for assistance.

Experience has shown that the assistance given to Eastern Europe from the Vote for International Co-operation has the extremely beneficial side effect of opening doors for Irish companies in Eastern Europe. We know that Irish consultants have obtained follow-on contracts from the EU and the World Bank as a result of initial support provided by the bilateral technical assistance programme. The areas in which we have been able to help include tourism promotion, training, small enterprise development and energy where Irish companies and State bodies have a successful track record.

This year for the first time Ireland contributed £80,000 to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to set up a fund for use by Irish consultants in Eastern Europe. Again, this should give Irish consultants access to more EBRD work. In conclusion, I commend this Supplementary Estimate for your approval.

Chairman

In accordance with the procedure of the Select Committee, I call for an opening statement on behalf of Fine Gael.

Mr. Connor

The Fine Gael Party and, I am sure, most members on this side of the House, support this request for a Supplementary Estimate. The headings under which it is sought are very worthy.

The Minister has given an outline of the activities of the past year, particularly the peace-keeping activities, in which we have played a significant part throughout the world. One welcomes our participation in such peace-keeping activities. We are heartened to see the progress that has been made in Somalia. A little over a year ago Somalia presented a picture that was little better than Armageddon. Thousands of people faced starvation; there was anarchy throughout the country, with no form of civil administration; and the country was in the grip of war-lords. While there have been hiccups since then, in terms of the sometimes insensitive behaviour of the American troops who are carrying out a special mandate, we must admit that the operation has been a tremendous success. We pay tribute to the role of our Irish troops who played their part as, if I remember correctly, a transport group.

It would be remiss if members of this committee and the House did not pay tribute to the Irish aid workers, the NGOs, working in Somalia on behalf of agencies such as Concern, Trócaire and GOAL. Their personnel in Somalia, many of whom faced personal danger during the year, were major contributors in the humanitarian assistance programme in that country. They distributed food, gave medical assistance and participated in the range of humanitarian aid activities that were so badly needed by the Somalis in the past year.

Cambodia has also been mentioned. So far, the programme there has been a great success and we wish the people of Cambodia good luck in the transition to democracy. Cambodia is another country to have emerged from an Armageddon situation. Ten years ago nobody would have thought, that the progress we have seen in the last year would be achieved. The country is relatively stable in comparison with what one would have expected on foot of reports from that country prior to the election. The reports suggested that the Khmer Rouge would not accept the results of the election and would revert to internal insurgency which would destabilise a democratic government. That has not happened thus far. I met members of the new Cambodian Parliament in Dhaka last week and they were confident that the transition to democratic government would go smoothly. They were hopeful that their country would within a few years function as a normal democracy.

The great problems for these countries are economic. One would plead with the developed world to accept its responsibility to do all it can to ensure that these democracies are not allowed to falter and die. The one factor that can undermine a fledging democracy, especially one where previously there was chaos and no tradition of democracy, is the economic reconstruction that must take place alongside the establishment of democracy. Economic reconstruction, because there are always losers in the process, is a major threat to any democracy. The developed world has a duty to come to the assistance of countries like Somalia, when it reaches that stage, Cambodia and the African countries which have embraced democracy in recent years. The pressures of economic reconstruction can give an opportunity to demagogues and other anti-democratic forces in these countries. That is the greatest single threat to the continuation of democracy.

This country should play as great a role as possible in terms of economic assistance to these countries. One hopes that the new GATT will improve their terms of trade. The final negotiations, which were rows between the most developed countries, like those in the EU, the United States and Japan, almost jettisoned the agreement. Little was said about the need for fairer terms of trade for the developing world and what that would mean for its economic progress, because the expectation of people in places like Bangladesh, which I visited last week, is so small. The impact of one million dollars, which we consider to be a small sum of money, would be great in countries like Bangladesh and Cambodia. Yet we are tardy about providing such funding towards appropriate economic projects and reconstruction. I realise that ours is a small country with limited resources. However, our influence is great and the Minister for Foreign Affairs has a very good reputation in this area. He has always raised his voice on our behalf and has consistently echoed the basic tenet of our foreign policy that the powers that are economically stronger than us have a moral obligation to contribute a greater level of their resources towards economic reconstruction.

In his address the Minister made the point that only 1 per cent of all military spending in the world is spent by the United Nations on peace-keeping. Billions of dollars, under what we call the new world order, are spent on the military to the great economic cost of so many countries in terms of social advancement. The priority of so many countries, even those that have embraced democracy, is still to target huge amounts of their budgets for military spending that is often quite unnecessary. Perhaps it is part of their tradition of insecurity, or due to their vanity, but the scourge of military spending is a drain on the economic resources of many developing countries, it is money which should be spent on education, health and other forms of welfare.

I may have wandered from the subject under discussion today but I am sure the chairman will forgive me for doing so. In conclusion, we support this Supplementary Estimate. It is a modest sum of money; if it were larger or if we increased our overseas development assistance as a percentage of our GNP it would not cause difficulty for members on this side of the House. We consider it unsatisfactory that while there was a significant increase this year, and I understand there will be a significant increase next year, we will neverthless fall far short of the United Nations target. We will still find ourselves having improved hardly on the European league of countries in the amount of assistance we give. Last year, if I remember correctly, we were second from the bottom. Even with the increases we will provide in 1994, we will hardly improve that position. I find that a great pity. Nevertheless, one always welcomes any additional funding we give in that area. With your permission, chairman, I will leave it at that and no doubt the other spokespersons will have something to add.

Chairman

Thank you, Deputy Connor. Deputy De Rossa was here and he has asked to be excused. There will be no opening statement from the Technical Group, and the Progressive Democrats representative, Deputy McDowell, also is excused. Apparently the counter attraction of the Order of Business must be overwhelming. That finishes the opening statements. We can go now staight away into the general debate, which will follow the normal procedure.

Mrs. Owen

I understand we are talking about international co-operation. I take the opportunity to join in the wishes, aspirations and hopes that the Joint Declaration signed yesterday between our Government and the British Government will bring about the longed for and hoped for peace in this island of ours.

The Minister said that he needs an extra £1.824 million under subhead A and that most of it is for UN peace-keeping. First of all, what is the role of the Department of Defence in funding our peace-keeping operations and what is the breakdown between what the Department of Foreign Affairs spends and what the Department of Defence carries for peace-keeping operations?

Secondly, I naturally share with the Minister the disappointment that there are still approximately 113 countries defaulting on their UN payments. Three weeks ago the UN sub-committee of this committee visited the UN and the figure we were given was about £12.5 million owed to Ireland. I see it is down to £11.4 million, so whether it was your visit in September or our visit in November, we will claim a little bit of the credit for getting some of that money back. It is very important that we, as a very good member of the UN, continue to urge the other 113 countries, with some of whom we have very close relations to pay up. The US owe millions of dollars; a deal was worked out but unfortunately this seems to have collapsed and they seem to be reneging again. Perhaps in our general discussions with the US Embassy in regard to visas for Irish people going to the World Cup we might add a codicil to those discussions and talk to the US Ambassador about urging her Government to pay up some more of their contributions. Clearly, a country the size of Ireland cannot really afford to continue to be owed this kind of money, and I think most Irish people would want us to participate as fully as possible.

When the Minister is adding this extra money into the 1993 Vote, I would like to know to what percentage of GNP this brings our ODA contribution. When we talk about our annual percentage of ODA being brought to the 0.7 per cent that the UN has dictated, this year really is the first year we have seen an increase. That increase has been brought about by giving moneys to former Yugoslavia and so on. I would have hoped that we could continue to give additional moneys to our bilateral aid countries and indeed the sub-Saharan region in Africa, which is really a great deal poorer. When you look at the per capita income of some of those countries, it is in the low hundreds of dollars annually, whereas, bad and all as things are in middle and central Europe, you are talking in thousands of dollarsper capita. Therefore, relatively speaking, tragic and all as the situation is in former Yugoslavia, we must never forget our responsibility to those for whom our aid is absolutely a lifeline.

I welcome the fact that we are making more money available for former Yugoslavia. In answer to a Dáil question on 15 December it was stated that since the conflict began the Government have allocated £1.2 million in emergency humanitarian assistance to the international relief operation in former Yugoslavia. Is that £1.2 million in the Vote we are looking at here, or has that come from somewhere else? I find that at times the Foreign Affairs Vote can be quite complicated. As an Opposition Member you think you have found the Minister out and that there is some way in which the budget has been reduced from the previous year; but you find it has been transferred into the agricultural budget or into the defence budget and, of course, you have egg all over your face. You look in that budget and find that it is now under the world food programme or something else. I just want clarification on this. It looks as if in this year the budget we have made available for Eastern Europe is £280,000. The conflict is going on for only about two years? So where did this £1.2 million come from? It also says that Ireland has played its part in the EU programme of humanitarian assistance. Where do we find that in the budget?

I wish to raise an issue — I know this has been circulated to many members of this committee and it is relevant under International Co-operation — and that is the actions we take as an EU member. I believe we must be careful that such actions are consistent with the kind of actions we take under our international co-operation and development co-operation budgets. It is absolutely ludicrous that on the one hand we assist the poorer countries in Africa to improve their infrastructure and become self-reliant and, on the other hand, agree at EU level to the dumping of subsidised frozen beef into western Africa. It just does not make sense to hand out charity as it were and then where countries are making an effort to build up their own indigenous industries, to support exporting frozen beef to countries in west Africa. We all know the devastating effects of this kind of dumping. I received an answer from the Minister about this but I am not overly happy with it. It seems to be, as it were, sustaining the use of refunds for exports of beef as if that somehow is an excuse for getting rid of EU beef into west Africa when it is killing their markets. One only has to read the article about this yesterday in The Irish Timesto realise the effect it has. I ask the Minister to be as vigilant as possible in ensuring that EU policies are not inconsistent with our own development policies.

Mr. Gallagher

(Laoighis-Offaly): I share the sentiments expressed to the Minister by the previous speakers in regard to yesterday’s agreement and simply hope that at this stage those to whom it is addressed will take it seriously and respond in the way that both Governments hope.

In relation to this Estimate, I welcome the Minister's remarks regarding the improvements secured in payments from the United Nations. It has been a considerable source of worry to many people in this country that because of the under-funding of the United Nations by many of the bigger powers in the world, countries such as Ireland who contribute to peacekeeping have suffered financially. A sum of £2.8 million has been received and £11.4 million is outstanding. Is there any indication at this stage of a plan to clear that £11.4 million debt? What kind of contacts have been made to ensure that this will happen?

In the course of his comments on the UN he mentioned that at the General Assembly he had raised the need to improve command and control structures in peace-keeping operations. This is something which concerns this committee, especially in the context of the committee's deliberations on Somalia.

I look forward to the opportunities which the committee will have in early 1994 to review our contribution. I believe we were correct to participate in the operation in Somalia, despite some of the comments made at the time by members of this committee. However, I believe it is time for the committee to undertake a review and I hope that at that stage improvements will have been made at UN level in the command and control structure.

My second point relates to the remarks of the Minister for Foreign Affairs on Cambodia. Again, we have played our part in the improvements that have taken place there, but considerable concern was expressed here last week about the widespread use of anti-personnel landmines in Cambodia and Angola and other such countries. Members of the committee spoke of the need for international action in arms control, especially with regard to combating the export of antipersonnel mines. I would like to believe that in the coming year this country could support, and, if necessary, initiate improvements in that area.

Finally, I support the increase in the Estimate for assistance to Eastern Europe. I believe it may be slightly different in intention from what Deputy Owen understood it to be, but there is a certain amount of self-interest under this Vote. Irish companies benefit from the technical assistance and I am aware of a number of organisations which have welcomed aid and benefited from it under this heading. However, the Eastern European countries like to deal with Ireland and Irish agencies. There are certain similarities in scale and history. In addition, we have experience of economic development over the last 30 years to which I believe they can relate. Therefore, while it does benefit Irish companies, many of the Eastern European countries prefer to deal with a country of a size such as ours rather than some of the larger European countries who have direct economic interest in Eastern Europe. I welcome the increase in this heading and I support the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Durkan

Like other speakers, I wish the accord signed yesterday, and all those associated with it, every good fortune in the times ahead. I hope the process which has now started will continue in this direction without interruption.

Regarding the Vote before the committee, and the issue of bilateral technical assistance raised by the last couple of speakers, it is true that our primary concern must be for the least well off in African countries. There is a future investment in this process arising from the ties and linkages we can establish with these countries, because at some stage in the future they will doubtless improve and, as result, the linkages being forged now will be of some benefit to us.

My colleague, Deputy Owen, mentioned the dumping of EU beef and other foodstuffs. It is somewhat ironic that this should happen. We have considered various locations throughout the world over the last couple of years where we would have wished the EU and various other agencies to dump or airlift their products——

Mrs. Owen

There is a difference.

Mr. Durkan

I agree with the Deputy. Those were areas where there was no possibility of the people fending for themselves. It is ironic that we should decide to airlift materials into areas where there is such a possibility. It is an old technique used by other well developed countries in the past and I hope we will discourage it. My colleague can be reassured that I was not going off at a tangent. I am aware of the situation in that arena.

I would like a little more information about Eastern Europe. For example, how does our contribution compare with other EU countries in terms of GDP and so on? My attitude to this issue would also be a little mercenary. I certainly would not like to see us holding back, for two reasons. First, assistance is needed and, secondly, many of those countries have had a history over the past 50 years or so of having technical assistance, for want of a better phrase, on their borders and, more generally, in their communities. Therefore, it will take a little time before they will be evolved sufficiently to fly on their own, as it were. In addition, there will be a considerable benefit to the rest of the EU when those countries develop and it would be shortsighted of us if we did not ensure that our contribution was at least on par with that of our EU colleagues.

Mr. Bree

I join with my colleagues in congratulating the Minister, especially on the events of yesterday. Only 12 months ago, before he took office, the Minister made it clear that the issue of peace on this island would be a priority for him. Since he took office he has made it a priority and those of us in his party realise and appreciate the amount of blood, sweat and tears he has put into that whole process over the past 12 months. Hopefully it will be successful and we will see peace on this island in due course.

I support the Supplementary Estimate. Any funding spent on peace-keeping operations can only be viewed as an investment. If one considers the success of the operations in Mozambique, Cambodia and Somalia, one will appreciate the need for peace-keeping operations.

However, there are major difficulties still facing many countries throughout the world. In this respect, Haiti and Liberia were mentioned earlier and over the past number of weeks the committee has considered at length the on-going difficulties in Angola. It was made clear to the committee that lack of funding by the UN and by the international community in Angola has led to further chaos, death and destruction in that country. Therefore, funding is a priority in many Third World operations.

The committee should express its deep concern over states which are significantly in arrears to the UN. States which can spend millions, indeed billions of dollars, on armaments are reluctant or slow to pay for UN peacekeeping operations. Again, during its recent deliberations on Angola, the committee learned of the amount of anti-personnel mines the USA had provided to insurgents in Angola. Daily, these are maiming men, women and children and yet when it comes to providing funding for peace-keeping operations the USA Government is one of the major defaulters. This small country should be making it clear that this is unacceptable.

Finally, in many areas Irish personnel, especially people in the Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána, have risked life and limb in UN peace-keeping operations. Indeed, a number of our people have made the supreme sacrifice in UN operations. In this context what we are being asked to provide today is very little and I fully support the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Connor

Regarding subhead 1, which deals with assistance to eastern Europe, It has been pointed out to the committee that the funding is channelled through multilateral aid programmes such as PHARE, TACIS and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. As the Minister will be aware, this bank did not have an auspicious start. One hopes that it has put its house in order.

Regarding this loan funding, obviously at favourable rates, to East European countries, one country is largely forgotten and it is one of the poorest countries in the world. It is in Eastern Europe and it has been largely forgotten and overlooked because of the conflict in neighbouring Yugoslavia. It is Albania. Albania is one of the poorest countries in the world and is the poorest country in Europe. It is a country which should be targeted for far greater assistance. It is a small, backward country with no tradition in foreign relations in the last 40 years. It was totally xenophobic under Hoxha and his people. It now suffers from that in the sense that it cannot relate to the outside world the way other countries can.

The assistance we give towards Eastern Europe goes to the European Bank for Reconstruction and to the PHARE and TACIS programmes. We probably have a good follow up as to where these moneys are going. We should make the point that there are scales of priority in Eastern Europe with which we would like to be identified. We should identify as far as possible with the poorest countries and the countries in greatest need of development. One thinks of Albania, Romania and Bulgaria. That is not to take from countries like Hungary, Poland and the two new republics that were formerly Czechoslovakia. But they enjoy far greater levels of development than do the other countries. I make that point about that small, wretched little country. It suffers from a high degree of poverty and wretchedness which is in part due to its recent history, the way it was governed and the way it relates to the rest of the world, etc. I do not think we should forget it. I would like the Minister to respond to the fact that we do not have a great say over how our modest funding to the European Bank of Reconstruction is actually dealt with afterwards.

Mr. Spring

I thank Members for their contributions and for their remarks in relation to yesterday's initiative. We will all be working in close consultation in relation to our aspirations and hopes for that initiative. I will try to deal with the various points which have been raised. If Members want to refer back, I will try to give as much information as I possess.

At the outset, Deputy Connors cited some of the success stories we should never forget. In particular, I would cite Cambodia. None of us five years ago would have forecast how quickly that country is rebuilding. It is always good to have a focus on a good story, because there are enough bad stories and unsuccessful outcomes in various programmes.

A number of Members raised the question of the United Nations and the question of the contributions owing. Deputy Owen raised the question of the distinction between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Defence. The Department of Foreign Affairs pays all the assessed contributions to the United Nations for its peacekeeping activities, the Department of Defence pays costs of the Defence Forces involved in peace-keeping operations. Approximately 7 per cent of our armed forces are at present on UN peacekeeping duties. The Department of Defence is subsequently reimbursed by the United Nations. I do not have the precise Defence figures, but we can get those if the committee require them for comparative purposes as much as anything else. We are owed about £10.5 million and we have discussed this on a number of occasions.

Mrs. Owen

The Minister said £11.4 million in his speech.

Mr. Spring

That includes Cyprus. That is £10.5 million on the UNIFIL account and £0.9 million for the rest. We received £2.7 million in April of this year and we again raised the question in May and September. We received further arrears payments of £2.7 million in October and £1.3 million in November. I have to say that from my contacts with the Secretary General he is very conscious of the money that is owed to Ireland and has been making efforts. To give an idea of the scale in terms of the major defaulters, the United States, in terms of its regular budget, owes $48.5 million and the Russian Federation owes $284 million. In relation to the peace-keeping accounts, the United States owes $130.8 million and the Russian Federation owes $467.2 million. I have discussed these with both administrations.

Mr. Bree

Will the Minister accept roubles.

Mr. Spring

We will accept anything we can translate at this stage. Deputy Gallagher raised the question of the command and control structure of the United Nations. We were involved in the resolution at the UN and that resolution was adopted. We will see progress in that area.

In relation to Somalia, there wil be the opportunity to review that next year. It was breaking new ground from the point of view of our peace-keeping troops. It has been extremely successful and the reports back from Defence personnel are to such effect.

In relation to Cambodia and Angola, Deputy Gallagher and other members raised the question of the anti-personnel landmines. We have all seen the stark figures in relation to Angola as presented to us recently. There are two aspects of this, one is the clearing up of the landmines that are in situ and, secondly, the whole question of restriction of sales of landmines. We are at present having discussions with like minded countries to ourselves to see if we can have an international code of conduct for the export of conventional arms. That would be a step in the right direction. When we see the horror of what is happening in Cambodia and, more recently, Angola, because of these mines, it behoves all of us to do everything possible to get them out of circulation as quickly as possible.

The question of trade and the dumping of beef stocks from Europe to Africa has been raised. I would be very concerned about that. I am sure Deputy Owen is well aware of the CAP reform. We have had a lot of difficult discussion over a number of years. Obviously, these are to bring European Union prices closer to world prices. That is a step in the right direction. It is something we have to monitor very carefully. I would also make the point that the European Union is by far and away the biggest contributor to all the international aid programmes. In regard to Yugoslavia at present, we are away ahead of any other contributions from any other country in the world. That is probably a balancing factor.

Deputy Connor raised the point of what £1 million would do for a country like Bangladesh or projects in Bangladesh. I would be very conscious of that. We have tended, because of the limitations on our aid programme, to ensure that we aim them at the poorest of the poor. That should be our priority at all times. There are two aspect: to assist these people in the various projects and, if we can, to establish trade links. It is the old slogan of trade, not aid. Ultimately, that would be our aim wherever that is possible.

As regards the question raised by Deputy Connor in relation to Albania, I am aware of the grave problems facing Albania, a country whose doors were closed for many decades. I would be prepared to consider the question of aid and perhaps we can discuss that on another occasion. There are horrific stories emerging from Albania as the doors are being opened up.

There is the whole question of assistance to Eastern Europe. I agree with Deputy Gallagher's remarks. Many emerging democracies in Eastern Europe would in many cases be historically like-minded to ourselves. I would like to feel that our assistance is at all times non-threatening and that we are in a strong position to assist. Overall, our aid is very small; but notwithstanding that, it is important and it is one area which we would continue to have as a priority.

The extra £100,000 for Eastern Europe referred by Deputy Owen does not count as ODA. It does not affect the GNP figures in ODA. Our overall spending in ODA would be around £53 million in 1993. That is an increase of £13 million on 1992 and most of that increase went to Africa, which would be our priority. The increase next year will be another £17 million, bringing the total to about £70 million. I would like to think that during the lifetime of the Government we could achieve and maintain our targets, something which Governments were not able to do for many years in the 1980s and since then. The £1.2 million for Yugoslavia came from the Emergency Humanitarian Relief Fund. In terms of the expenditure on Yugoslavia our contribution also comes out of our contribution to the European Union and does not come out of the Foreign Affairs Vote. If I have missed specific questions I will return to them.

Deputy Owen felt she was on a mystery trail at the outset in relation to the Estimates. There is no intention to be other than frank and forthright because I value the contribution to be made in discussions with the committee in relation to all our programmes. Although small in scale in relation to many of our European colleagues, they are extremely important. This country has a proud tradition in the United Nations and in our overseas development aid programmes, and I would like to feel that there is a strong commitment from this Government by virtue of the increases. It will be my intention to continue to make progress and at all times I would like to discuss those programmes with the committee. Some members of this committee have a great deal of experience with regard to Africa, in particular, and eastern Europe and I would value their contributions and guidance. That is one of the main functions of this committee and my officials welcome its assistance.

Mrs. Owen

I am not sure I understand what the Minister means by the UN in relation to the Department of Foreign Affairs, that that Department pays all the assessed figures. Does that mean that the Department of Defence pays the salaries the men and women would get anyway, and if a peace-keeping mission will cost, say, US$500 million, it is assessed percentagewise?

Mr. Spring

We are assessed for 0.18 per cent of each operation and we pay that directly. Obviously, if one wants to short-circuit the accounting, one might ask why we do not pay the Army directly ourselves. That is not the way the UN works. We pay our contribution and after the Army personnel are active in the field we hope to get our reimbursements to the Department of Defence as quickly as possible.

Mrs. Owen

Recently, when the subcommittee visited the UN it found that all members had been asked to set up a 50th anniversary national committee. It is not just in order that people can be given places on a committee but to try to improve the understanding of the work of the UN, through school programmes, television and radio programmes. There is a wealth of material available from Assistant Secretary Gillian Sorensen. I am disappointed that it has not yet been set up and I would ask the Minister to get the committee up and running early in 1994 — because 1995 is the 50th anniversary of the UN — and to ensure that the committee has a wide spectrum of talents and skills from the media, overseas volunteer personnel and officials, and, if it is possible, some members of this committee. It is important to set it up as quickly as possible; a number of countries have already done so, and their television stations are getting material ready so that by 1995, with the reforms commenced or under active consideration, the younger generation will understand the role of the UN in the world.

Mr. Spring

I am informed by a usually reliable source that about 12 countries have already set up their committees. There is an opportunity for us to inform young people in particular about the United Nations. I regard the Charter of the United Nations as an important document. It is a major document in the evolution of politics and peace-keeping. As the Deputy will be aware, we have been rather preoccupied for the last number of weeks but it is my intention to set up a wide-ranging committee in early January in relation to the United Nations to arrange a series of events for this important occasion and opportunity. I will be looking for suggestions — we have a lot of ideas already — as to what can be done. Given our role in the United Nations it would be important that we have a well organised committee to organise activities during the 50th anniversary.

Chairman:

Thank you, Minister, particularly for the last remark. I feel strongly that this contribution deficiency on the part of the major countries is appalling. I am sure the Minister is doing his best in that respect but if the United Nations is to be taken seriously it is appalling to have that default situation emerging. I thank the Minister and his officials for their attendance and their contribution to the debate. I also thank the members of the committee.

I propose that the following report be made to the Dáil:

The Select Committee has considered the Supplementary Estimate for the services of the year ending 31 December 1993 in respect of Vote 39 — International Co-operation. This Supplementary Estimate is hereby reported to the Dáil.

Report agreed to.

Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.

Chairman:

The next meeting of the Joint Committee will be this afternoon at 3.10 to hear Chairman Arafat.

The Select Committee adjourned at 10.45 a.m.