Deputy Owen was in possession.
International Development Association (Amendment) Bill, 1983: Second Stage (Resumed) and Subsequent Stages.
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
When we adjourned this debate yesterday I was talking about the spending of money by this organisation and the accounts of projects which the money was being spent on. It is interesting to note that in 1980, 80 per cent of Ireland's development loans went to countries with very low capital incomes. By low capital incomes we are talking about £475, that is £400 per annum so it does not take much imagination to realise how difficult it is to survive on that kind of income. So 80 per cent of the IDA's development loans in 1980 went to countries with a low per capita income as opposed to 34 per cent of the bilateral aid money going into these countries.
Despite criticism that may be levelled at these very large, multilateral organisations, the money is going to the countries that need it most. We have heard that approximately 131 countries are members of IDA, about 22 are Part I members and about 109 are Part II member countries. About nine of these Part II countries are developing countries themselves but they have now progressed to the stage where they themselves can become donors to this fund. All the other countries who are Part II members give small subscriptions to become members in order that they may benefit from raising loans from IDA.
For example, Bangladesh have paid a very small percentage to become a member of IDA, but in 1983 alone they got accrued credits of approximately £367 million in approved loans for a very wide range of projects. Bangladesh is a country in which many Irish people are interested, especially through the work of our Concern volunteers. The kind of projects that were approved for financing in 1983 included agricultural and rural development, the sinking of wells, transportation, education, business management education and training projects.
Perhaps on the surface these projects may not immediately get approval from the general public because they do not think they are getting to the root cause of the problems people have, but if we do not build up structures and institutions in these least developed countries they will not be able to use the capital and the loans that are being given to help the people ultimately to sustainable development. Telecommunications, public administration, industry, energy efficiency, refining, rehabilitation projects and a wide range of agricultural and rural development to the tune of £100 million has been approved in 1983. Therefore, we can see that by being members of this organisation, these countries by a very small membership fee, as it were, can draw on these concessionary loans which have a 50-year repayment period. The emphasis in the IDA in the last few years is very welcome when we see that they are beginning to recognise that the emphasis early on in their life was perhaps not always what was best for the countries.
At present £30 billion is available and pledged to IDA. One must question why these vast sums of money do not appear to be improving the least-developed countries because there is no doubt that in the last two or three years the situation of the people in these countries has not improved; if anything the gap is widening between the rich and poor countries. I asked yesterday why 80 per cent of the wealth of the world still rests in the hands of 10 per cent of the world population.
This debate gives us an opportunity to look a little bit more deeply at the thrust of the North-South dialogue. In the last few years, unfortunately, the North-South dialogue, which is the dialogue between the countries of the developed world and the South, known as the developing or Third World countries, has been changing to an East-West axis, more so in the last few months when we see the East-West axis of all the discussions relating to Nicaragua and the most recent invasion in Grenada. This is a very serious situation and the main powers must consider it very carefully. The North-South dialogue received an impetus at a meeting in Mexico in 1980 and global negotiations were to take place to try to set up a new international economic order. That is the thrust of these discussions, because paying moneys to groups like IDA is not enough. It is not enough for the big, industrialised countries to write cheques and to think that that discharges their responsibilities to the Third World.
The proposal for these global negotiations on all issues relating to raw materials, energy, trade, development, money and finance came about at a meeting in Mexico in 1980. However, nothing much has happened since then. The developing countries have seen these proposals as a logical progression of the demand for a new international economic order and they had hoped they would be the start of progress aimed at renegotiating these post-war economic settlements. Unfortunately, I am sure they are very disappointed and disheartened at the lack of progress because I do not think any of the developed countries had their hearts in the agreement to have these global negotiations. The lengthy series of discussions and negotiations have failed to produce any kind of coherent and integrated philosophy. Politically, it was felt that perhaps all you had to do was to keep talking, to give an indication that there was some will there. Talking at the end of the day will not solve the problems nor, unfortunately, will vast sums of money pumped into various projects because if the will is not there the answers that the least developed countries are looking for will not come.
When President Reagan assumed office in January 1981 the assumption that dialogue could continue was questioned and he agreed that the Third World development remained a crucial and abiding concern of Western governments. However, the US policy derived from a very different political and economic interpretation of the situation from that accepted by Washington for the two previous administrations. If one is accused of perhaps dwelling overly on the role that the USA have to play in the new economic order, then it is perhaps a valid criticism that the USA, because of their size and the power they hold, must, of necessity, be the main instigator in discussions and in the change and thrust of development in these least developed countries.
It is my perception that the Reagan administration sees the North-South dialogue as unreal and a distortion of the East-West dialogue, which they feel is more important. Naturally, one can accept that they feel threatened by the strength of the East and feel it important to protect their own borders. If if comes to a situation where the protection of their own borders and the protection of their allies is the only reason behind their getting involved in undeveloped countries, then we are not moving anywhere and the 20 years of development progress will be for naught. Until the Americans realise the importance of the role they have to play, no progress will be made.
Perhaps it would be timely at this stage to dwell on the role that a very small country like Ireland has to play. Recently I met an American ambassador and he said it was easy for a small country like ours to criticise a big power like America and to condemn them for some of the actions they had taken, especially in Latin America, because Ireland's bluff will never be called, to do anything about these countries. My answer to that ambassador was, perhaps not, we have not the army, the mind, the money to intervene in these countries, but we have a historic concern going back over many centuries of being an oppressed nation. We have responsibility to speak out about the human rights element, about what these big factors are doing to the less developed countries. This is where our strength lies.
Ireland should be commended for the role it has played in the UN and around the world and it must continue to do this. This matter was introduced in a report submitted recently by the German counterpart of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Joint Development Co-operation. The committee system in the German Bundestag is more developed than it is here and every resolution put before the German Parliament is discussed by the committee system. In the report submitted, Parliamentary Paper 9/1344, the emphasis they wanted to place on human rights was in the area of arms and the arms race. One passage in that relates to the whole area of super powers. I quote:
A decisive factor governing development in the Third World countries in the eighties will also be the extent to which we succeed in creating and maintaining peace world-wide and in limiting the arms build-up. The industrialised countries must face up to the structural changes in the world economy and show themselves willing, by changing the framework conditions of the world economy, to reduce factors which inhibit development and to co-operate actively in building up an efficient, just and social world economy.
No doubt an examination of the human rights issue and the economic factors in relation to both developing countries and Germany itself has been a priority purpose to the policy that they have adopted, but I welcome the emphasis that they are now seeking to place on development, and I continue to quote:
In the development co-operation of the Federal Republic of Germany, one of the main aims of Federal Government policy should be the non-violation of human rights. When reaching decisions on development co-operation, the Federal Government should therefore also have regard to the non-violation of human rights as well as to social progress and social justice, in particular respect for minimum social norms and trade-union freedoms in the developing countries. In development co-operation, preferential support should be given to countries which are endeavouring to build up democratic structures. Within the framework of its development policy, the Federal Government's supreme goal should be to serve people. In states where arbitrariness, intimidation and physical threats characterise the relations between the governing and the governed, the only projects, if any, which should be promoted are those which directly benefit the indigent population.
I give an example of how this kind of policy has heretofore not been enacted by many Governments and agencies. Some years ago a programme in the Philippines was to create a dam which was going to dispossess and displace 100,000 of the poorest people of those countries. Many organisations were helping to fund that project, but one of our own people set out to find out exactly what was going to happen and then a number of countries and organisations, including our ESB, sent people there to see exactly what was happening. That project was shelved — not stopped unfortunately — but a very close watch is being kept on it.
I quote this example to show that some of these projects appear to be very enlightened and important and very much in line with development, but on closer examination by countries like Ireland the human rights element can be shown up and the projects can be shown, if proceeded with, to be more detrimental to the people in the countries than to abandon them would be. In this instance people might have got water as a result of this project but they would have been people already in the cities and in order to provide them with clean water 100,000 of the poorest people there would be dispossessed without any effort to find alternative accommodation and shelter for them. This is an emphasis that Ireland, because of its size, can place on development policies.
This Bill gives £2 million to the IDA. The total money available to them is 13 billion dollars, and against that £2 million is a drop in the ocean. Our commitment it to play a major part in highlighting the emphasis that must go on non-violation of human and civil rights in the projects financed by these loans. The Reagan administration, therefore, have a major responsibility in the policy they adopt in both security and development. It is not enough any more to continue to balance economic aid to countries against military aid. They must look very closely at their military aid. Small countries like Ireland can take their place at both the diplomatic and political level and make it known to the embassy people that they are aware of the growing concern being voiced about the policies being adopted particularly in Latin America and in more recent times in Grenada and emphasise that the Reagan administration should consider very seriously what they are doing.
One should be able to say that there have been some positive developments since the beginning of the year. The Brandt Report refers to the OECD and the cause of interdependence and calls on all nationalities to keep the North-South dialogue open to a large extent. The possibility of getting this dialogue going again is something about which I would have grave doubts, particularly in a recession in all industrialised countries which are concerned with dealing with their own problems. I add a cautionary note. It would be easy for us here to forego that commitment. We have to consider our bilateral programmes. At the same time we have not much say in multilateral aid. We are more or less tied into that as a member of the UN and the EEC. Whether we like it or not, we cannot really get out of that unless we give up our commitments, which will not happen. The danger is that we might well forego or reduce some of our bilateral aid programmes, which would be a very grave step, even given our present shortage of finance. That would be an irresponsible action which in the long run would be of no great benefit to our own poor. It would be a lessening of our commitment to those who are so low down on the poverty scale that their needs are immeasurable. That the UNCTAD Sixth Meeting did not break down but produced a modest body of work is considered a relative success by our EEC partners in the North-South high level group. There was a danger that nothing would come out of that meeting but as long as these groups keep talking they keep a world perspective. Until we ensure that world perspective we will not get the development and the evening out of the world's natural resources and wealth.
All countries, developed and developing, are being forced, because of the present financial and trading realities, to adopt necessary domestic adjustments. The task facing Ireland, a country with a constructive and open-minded approach to the problem of development, is to ensure that the process of adaptation does not give rise to unacceptable burdens, particularly for the least developed countries, but acts to mitigate, to the extent which our influence will permit, the worst side effects of the present world recession. Bad as may be the effects of the recession here, one cannot imagine the situation in countries whose development is so low that they are continuously in a state of depression. If this debate does nothing else but set down a marker for the job which our Ministers are doing at the moment, preparing our Estimates and getting ready for our budget, then it is a timely debate. It is highlighting the need to continue our programmes here, to seek out injustices and not be afraid to speak out even against countries and governments with which we have a good relationship. We have that responsibility and must have the courage to continue to speak out as heretofore in the fora of the United Nations and the EEC.
I reiterate my call to the Minister for Finance who attends the annual World Bank meeting to continue to examine closely the areas where International Development Association money is being spent. The real purpose of this Bill is to highlight this organisation which is part of the World Bank. The Minister must continue to monitor and not just rubberstamp the projects on which the loans granted to the least developed countries are spent. A time will thus come when we will not need legislation such as this because these organisations will eventually become obsolete as loan organisations and will be just supportive groups and the day will come when we will no longer have least developed countries, but developed countries with different types of government all working in close harmony.
I shall be relatively brief. I congratulate the last speaker on her speech here this morning and on her appointment as Development Aid Committee chairperson.
Some time ago, we had a meeting with the American Ambassador, Peter Dailey, after which I wrote congratulating him on his openness and frankness and his ability to enter into dialogue with us and treat us, not as a second or third rate nation, but as a first rate nation, as an equal. I have had considerable difficulties with the Americans because of various aspects of their policy, particularly in Central America and the Philippines. Nonetheless, they are frank, free and open enough to invite us to discuss those differences, to put their points of view and to let us put ours. That is something from which other nations could learn a lot — nations not a million miles away from us, either.
I want to put on record that people have accused me of being anti-American. However, as Deputy Owen has said, this approach is not anti-American, it is pro the American people. It is pro the concept of American freedom, the old concept of free speech and liberty. I want to make that absolutely clear. The United States, being such a large country, so diverse in its politics, religions and economy, has obviously made major errors in foreign policy. It is not unfair to say that many in Europe consider President Reagan as probably one of the most frighteningly reactionary Presidents the United States has ever produced.
President Carter began a campaign for human rights and developed them so finely and with such dedication that in Central America the 45-year-old most awful dictatorship in Nicaragua fell because he withdrew support. He also withdrew support from EI Salvador and just before the elections was in the process of vetoing any military support there. Unfortunately, he did not win the election and Reagan took over. The policy in Central America instantly changed, as it did in South West Africa and Namibia. The position under the Carter regime of government in these areas was very similar to that in Central America. His campaign for human rights and the long drawn out battle for the independence of Namibia from the awful brutality of the white fascists in South Africa was making progress for the first time. The South African whites realised that Carter might well not win the election and the indications at the time were that he would not. They put the matter of Namibia on the long finger. Immediately on President Reagan's accession, he reversed the whole process on human rights development in America but did not reverse the process of new thinking within the American churches, Protestant, Catholic and the missionaries. That process is embedded in the American people as a result of President Carter. The American House of Representatives has consistently taken a liberal and sincere approach to finding a real solution to the situation in Namibia and Central America. Unfortunately, the whole horrible position there is quite easily misrepresented by those who wish to do so.
In our support for human rights and justice throughout the world, not just in the American dominated sphere, but in the Soviet dominated sphere, we have a campaign for the human rights of Soviet Jews and have sought relief for the Franciscans persecuted in Czechoslovakia — with some success, I might add, but this is not published. It is of no consequence really when we succeed in some small way. I just want to make that absolutely clear because this is my first opportunity to address this House on the matter of development aid and related topics.
There is nowhere in the world where there is not some conflict, some difficulty, some problem. We have the situation not 100 miles away in Northern Ireland where there is difficulty and conflict and so we cannot be the first to pontificate but as a small nation we must take our responsibilities seriously. Certainly the approach being taken on the issue of development aid by successive Governments has been reasonably good. In the group of richest nations we are one of the poorest and I do not believe we can go any further or any quicker than the Government are going. The Department as a whole have done a very good job. There is room for some criticism. The concentration of development aid in two or three countries is not necessarily a good thing perhaps but I have not enough information at my disposal to say definitely that it is or it is not.
The Department under successive Ministers have taken the whole issue of development aid very seriously indeed. Yesterday I spoke to a member of the United Nations in Geneva who expressed concern that Ireland was not putting enough money into development aid in the Third World generally. While I agree, and while I would like to see a great deal more money being spent, as a small nation we are not necessarily in a position to send the kind of money we would like to. We must adopt a different perspective. We must make our position as a neutral nation felt. At the United Nations our position must be quite clear on issues such as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the United States invasion of Grenada. There is no valid reason for North Americans to be in Grenada any more than there was any valid reason for the USSR to invade Afghanistan. It is well known that when super powers invade some area they very rarely leave that area and not in my lifetime will Afghanistan be free from the influence of the Soviet Union and not in my lifetime will Grenada be free from the influence of the United States of America.
There are many areas throughout the world to which we could encourage voluntary workers to go. Actually when voluntary workers go overseas we give them very little assistance. When they return home they are entitled to nothing. They lose all their increments. They lose their social welfare entitlements. They have no transition period at home having worked in Africa, Asia, Central and Latin America. Restoring their entitlements to them would be a small thing. When they return to Ireland we should provide them with some kind of social assistance until such time as they find work. That would be a relatively small gesture we could make to these people.
There is increasing awareness here of the necessity of taking a strong moral position on the whole issue of development aid, human rights and nuclear arms. The centre in Summerhill has developed something particularly interesting in the sense that it is working right in the heart of the most deprived and depressed areas in the country. It has now opened a Third World centre and is providing a greater comprehension between the people in the most deprived areas of our country by forming a link between them and the people in Africa and Asia and elsewhere throughout the world. Their work deserves great credit and great encouragement. It would be no harm if the Minister and others acknowledged the kind of work these people are doing.
The Minister made an excellent speech in Tipperary town. The peace festival there was a very important one. It broadened the base of our understanding and gave us an opportunity of travelling into rural Ireland to talk about the issues. They had a tremendous comprehension of what we were doing. There was no criticism from the audience. The conference dealt with an important matter of vital interest. It was a wonderful development. It is not simply Dublin, or Cork, or Galway, or Limerick for that matter which are taking an interest. It is small groups in rural areas who are taking an interest in development aid and human rights and the whole issue of nuclear arms and peace. As I say, it was highly successful and I am glad now to be able to put on the record of the House my congratulations. I hope other small towns throughout the country will follow the example given.
We live on an island. If we want to go to mainland Europe or Asia we have to take a boat or a plane and, from that point of view, it is somewhat difficult for us to comprehend what is happening in the world outside. We are relatively isolated and possibly somewhat introverted. It is possible we may consider our position as one of righteousness but our people have always responded to Concern and Trócaire. They have responded generously to all the organisations interested in the Third World and I would like to pay tribute here to all those organisations which have heightened awareness among the people, not just in Dublin but throughout the country, of conditions in the Third World. I hope that process will continue. I wish it every success. We are all aware of the appalling situation where each day upwards of 14,000 children die of starvation, malnutrition, disease and pestilence while simultaneously billions of pounds are being spent in developing new arms.
Is it not reasonable to refer to the insanity of the nuclear arms race which is continuing and besetting Europe more than any other region in the world with Pershing and Cruise missiles and SS 21s, 22s, 23s? Europe is the focal point. The last war on American territory was the American Civil War. In the Soviet Union they had the Napoleonic War and the crucifixion of the First and Second World Wars. They are paranoid, and very distrustful of the western world, and not without legitimate reason. We should also be cautious in our approach to them. The fact of the matter is that, rather than pointing their nuclear weapons at each other across Alaska and Siberia, Europe will be the disaster area once again. The major cities in the East and West—Washington, New York, Moscow and Leningrad—will survive. We will be the victims of the nuclear arms race. People are dying daily in their thousands from malnutrition and from starvation while this insanity continues.
Is there any greater argument for the fact that we should sustain and develop our neutrality so that we can have a real say in the United Nations? Our voice would be heard in Geneva, in Brussels, in the EEC and in the Council of Europe. Our position is acknowledged. We are open and honest about our neutrality. It is an honest neutrality, not a phoney neutrality. When the Americans invaded Grenada we said: "Maybe it is right or maybe it is wrong. They are our friends and we will not do anything about it", but when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan we supported the various sanctions. Our condemnation of brute force should be general, whether it is brute force in Grenada or Afghanistan. We should take a close look at what we mean by neutrality.
I do not want to live in any society other than the western society. I find it an acceptable society. It is free and open and as good a democratic system as it is possible to find for my needs and the needs of the Irish people. We have an obligation to make our voice heard more strongly at the United Nations and throughout the world in general, always emphasising the need for justice and peace.
I do not want to leave the House today without referring to the many Irish women who have made their voices heard in Greenham Common. Some have been arrested and some have been attacked by the armed forces and the police. I understand that the British Minister for Defence, Mr. Heseltine, has indicated that some of them may well be shot if they intervene in Greenham Common. I admire those women. I encourage them and I hope they will continue to express their distaste for the developments in Europe.
I want to refer again to Central America. Grenada has been attacked. Next we may find Nicaragua being attacked. I want to say this, and I can say it from my heart because I have certain information. If the blockade of Nicaragua is the beginning of the invasion of Nicaragua, it will not be like Grenada. In Grenada some of the elements of the invasion appear to have been welcomed. In a small nation of 110,000 or 120,000 people not surprisingly there were bitter divisions and some people appear to have welcomed the Americans. They will not be welcomed in Nicaragua. There will be a holocaust there. It will not end there. What is happening in Nicaragua cannot be defeated. It will spread throughout Latin America, and the peace and stability of the region will be in jeopardy.
Rather than continuing to harass the Government in Nicaragua in the way they are doing, the Americans should do what they did in Europe after the war, that is, provide humanitarian aid. Marshall Aid prevented the taking over of western Europe by forces which were not friendly to our way of thinking. What the Americans are doing is a disaster. It reverses all the efforts President Carter made to restore human rights to the masses of the people in that area.
I want to pay tribute to the Minister of State for his genuine and sincere commitment to this region. I want to pay tribute to his staff. They are committed people and they are doing a very good job. There is much that we can talk about later on the whole issue of development aid. I hope the Department will create more awareness of these problems among the Irish people. In our schools and colleges we should teach the necessity for what we are doing. We should not just provide slide shows of the wonderful work Ireland is doing, like a General Motors advertising campaign for the Department. We need a campaign to make people aware of what is happening. With checks and balances the problem of starvation and hunger in the world could be solved. I was in University College recently and the Third World Aid Society had a few bits of paper to hand out. I do not blame the Department of Foreign Affairs for that, but I blame the young third level students for not having more than little bits of paper to hand out to students they were trying to recruit into the Third World societies. I said so to them.
I will conclude by congratulating the Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe, on the work he is doing. I hope he will continue to press his senior Minister for more funds, more support and a more enlightened and less subservient attitude to the United States or any other State. Let us act independently as a neutral nation having regard to the awful developments which are taking place in the world today.
I want to say a few words about this Bill which mentions in the explanatory memorandum Part I and Part II Members, Ireland being a Part II Member. I would like the Minister in his reply to outline the precise difference between Part I and Part II Members because this point is not clear.
The special contribution that gives rise to this Bill is part of a rescue operation which arises from a change of heart on the part of the American Congress. Action taken by the American Congress, perhaps without recognising that there would be a spin-off action, has resulted in other member states having to pick up a certain amount of slack. In this regard the Irish contribution of a little over $2 million or.11 of 1 per cent of the total contribution to the funds used by the IDA, is not an enormous contribution but is a recognition of our commitment to the work of the IDA. If every country was to meet its commitment to the emerging nations the International Development Association are trying to help, the world would be a better place.
It is realistic to say that future economic problems for this country are not likely to arise so much from an international recession, or wage increases at home, or international war, so much as perhaps flash-points at certain relative points throughout the world, for instance the Suez Canal where certain raw materials and essential goods may be delayed. As well as a commitment to the poorer countries, the emerging states, and as well as an intellectual and humanitarian commitment, we have a certain amount of self-interest in being committed to the objectives of the International Development Association. We cannot, in isolation, say that we hold what we have and we are going to ignore the rampant poverty that exists in some of these countries which the IDA are helping to help themselves. The objectives of the IDA are very worthy. They commit about $3½ billion to help states, some small and some very large, like Brazil and China, to overcome economic difficulties and local difficulties, increase the economic viability of the state, and improve the quality of life for the citizens of that state. They help to create a better life for us by ensuring that there is peace in the world and that poorer states which develop certain necessary commodities are not held back because these commodities are needed in the western world.
I would like to see the IDA developing. It is now in its 23rd year and there are over 130 member countries. Not all the countries of the western world who could contribute to the development of the IDA do so. Some 90 per cent of the association's lending goes to countries with a per capita income of $475 or less and, according to the Minister's speech, interest free loans for 50 years with capital repayments starting after ten years are made to these countries. That is a very significant contribution and a very significant amount of money for a world organisation to make available for to help the poorer States.
The IDA is one of three international financial organisations in the World Bank group — the World Bank itself and the International Finance Corporation, founded in 1956 are the other two. The World Bank has a very strong reputation dating back to the end of the second world war in developing stability within the economies not just of the western world but of the world generally, and in later years of trying to transfer some of the wealth in the western world to the less well off countries. That is a very worthy objective, which we, as a smaller state, should seek to develop. We should try to persuade the new superpowers to take their responsibilities more seriously by contributing to this development. I understand membership of the association is open to all members of the World Bank, but not all have joined. Not all countries are members of the World Bank. This means a very large number of countries are not taking their responsibilities seriously. I wonder if through the IDA we could not persuade other countries to look at the good work being done by the International Development Association and persuade them to get involved by making a contribution as well.
The association, like the bank and the corporation, make money available to help support high priority projects which foster economic developments in the developing world. The bulk of these projects, over 40 per cent in value terms over the period 1977-82, are in the agricultural and rural development areas and are aimed directly at improving the lot of the poorest sections of the population in the countries involved. That is the type of objective we should be hoping the EEC would take towards some of the regions in Ireland, particularly having regard to the current debate on the super-levy. The rural and agricultural problems being faced by the Third World are very extreme but relative to the European situation we can relate to the kind of difficulties these people are facing, albeit at a much different level.
Basic infrastructure, urbanisation of population, water supply, and industry projects have taken up most of the work of the IDA since its creation. It cannot be denied that this sort of peaceful involvement of western, mostly nonaligned, countries is a very worthy association which should commend itself to greater commitment. There is a very worthy association which should commend itself to greater commitment. There is a long list of borrowing members of the IDA — Afghanistan, India, Kenya, Yemen Arab Republic, Sudan and Sri Lanka. None of these countries can be said to be taking the IDA for a ride. All are greatly in need of assistance.
According to a World Bank publication IDA in Retrospect:
The international Development Association (IDA) was established over 20 years ago to provide concessional assistance to low income countries. Its origins lay in the recognition that, for many of the poorest countries, private capital and existing aid arrangements were not adequate. The World Bank, which has led the multilateral aid effort after World War II could not lend to the poorest countries without damaging its own credit position in international capital markets. Furthermore, the low income countries could ill afford to take on loans carrying high interest rates and short maturities to finance projects with long pay-back periods and earning little or no foreign exchange. India became a particular problem in the late 1950s, when its ambitious development plans were thwarted by a rising debt burden and growing food shortages.
It can be seen that the IDA, far from being the wing of any particular political philosophy, is an independent group which has grown out of a certain post World War II necessity. During its first 22 years the IDA committed $27 billion to finance 1,300 projects in 78 countries. That speaks for itself.
Some of the projects assisted by the IDA include $100 million to Bangladesh to increase agricultural production, $20 million to Benin for rural development, $35 million, a relatively small amount, to China where more than 440 tonnes of grain and soya beans can now be produced annually as a result. That relates to what I said earlier about our self-interest in ensuring that the association is properly developed. We have a type of smug feeling in Ireland that we are part of the western economy. We are told from time to time that in the terms of GNP and national income we are not doing well compared to our European neighbours. We should remember that within a decade our country has developed at such a rate that it is hardly recognisable. That does not take into consideration the fact that we have a terrible unemployment problem and that certain people are still suffering. However, in terms of consumer goods there is no doubt but that we have been riding high for the past ten years. Relative to some of the countries in the Third World some of our problems are not problems at all. That does not mean that we should not strive to sort out some of our problems, and unemployment and housing are our most serious.
However, there are problems which people manufacture and purport to consider as problems but we all know they are not problems at all. Most of our problems are brought about by greed on the part of us all. Everybody wants a better shake all the time. I do not know how we give the lead in sorting this problem out. Some may say that had we not taken our 19 per cent increase last week we would have given a lead but we did not take it for more than two years and nobody followed. I do not see how people would follow now.
If we were to say that everybody should make a sacrifice right across the board for some good reason, I believe we could remove this national greed and erase some of our problems. Our problems are not great compared to those of Third World countries and those of other countries in need of economic development. We must continue to strive for a fair distribution of the wealth that exists here and ensure that our resources are used to eliminate the remaining relative poverty that exists in regard to housing and unemployment.
We take for granted the fact that we are now a part of this economic entity but what of the change that has taken place through the last century? What of the changes that are constantly taking place? If one looks at a map of Europe for 1862 and one for 1922 one will see the way places like Austria, Ireland and the states of Italy have changed. Those states have lost their economic independence and power and become a unit competing against France and other countries. In 1860 that would not have been thought possible. There has been a change in the boundary between East and West and some countries have become poorer while others have become wealthier.
We are taking for granted a situation which may not last. For instance, in South Korea where there is a low wage/high production economy the economy is lifting off. We should also consider the way Japan has developed in the last 25 years. It may be that the change will bring an emphasis on developing Asian countries rather than on European economies and that we at some time in the future will find ourselves looking to those countries for assistance. That will be the case if we do not mark our cards properly, show more restraint and be more pragmatic when dealing with our affairs. Already there is a big movement in Asia and a great economic lift. We must ask those countries to join us and accept their responsibility to other developing countries seriously so that we do not find ourselves in the future in the position of some of the emerging countries. Some people think that there is no such thing as going back, that all we can do is go forward and that the more one has the more one can get and develop but that is not necessarily always the case. If we are not careful we are going to price ourselves out of the market to such an extent that we will have to look to the IDA for assistance rather than being a member of that organisation giving assistance to other countries.
I should like to refer to the question of neutrality and of how this relates to our economic contributions to other countries. The word "neutral" is a very peculiar one. I believe the late President Kennedy asked if a nation can be neutral between tyranny and liberty or can an individual be neutral between tyranny and liberty and my answer is that one cannot be neutral between tyranny and liberty. Our problem is identifying who the tyrants are. Some tyrants stand out but others are not as easily identified. In making money available through the IDA we must be careful not to fund tyrannical regimes who oppress their people. We should be selective. While the IDA is providing money to Uganda I do not see why it should have provided money to an Idi Amin-led Uganda, to prop up a tyrant who would hardly use the funds in the best interests of the people. We will have to be sure that the money being spent by the association is not propping up tyrants in various parts of the world. If we cannot be neutral in individual cases, can we be neutral at all? What are we neutral for? What are we neutral against? This is the subject of a question I have tabled and I will pursue the matter when it is reached but I believe that as providers of economic benefits — in this case more than £2 million — to other countries we have a right to ensure we are not providing funds to undesirable people.
Why is it that The Workers' Party do not have a representative in the House for this debate? For all the legislation that has been introduced and at Question Time daily those Members jump up claiming their party right and the ridiculous Standing Order prevents 70 Members on this side having the same right to contribute as those two Deputies. Why is it they are not present to discuss the IDA? Is it because the Soviet Union are not taking their responsibilities to the international communities seriously? What is the reason for their lack of interest in this debate? Are they interested only in the red emerging states? It is time we asked questions about this. Where are the so-called friends of the poor who have motions on the Order Paper every day? The only poor they are interested in are those under the red flag in various parts of the world but there is no interest in the needs of anyone else.
What is the contribution of the Soviet Union and its satellite states? Its contribution has been Afghanistan, Poland and Czechoslovakia. It was the Soviet Union who attempted the first takeover in Grenada, yet everyone has been screaming and calling blue murder about the American-invited invasion of Grenada. What about the first attempt by Marxist extremists, supported by Cuba, to overthrow the regime? There has not been a mention of that. If the Americans had shot down 269 innocent people in a jumbo, embassies from Dublin to New Delhi would be burned. Two standards are applied.
We must be clear about who are the tyrants. Where there is tyranny in other democratic states we will have to try to eliminate that tyranny. However, how can one work with a state that has a wall built round it as in the case of East Germany to keep in its citizens? How can one compare that situation with the United States? A lot of emotional nonsense is spoken on this subject. It is probably good for getting oneself on chat shows but when considered impartially there is no comparison between the Soviet Union and what it does and the actions of the United States.
I congratulate the United States on the stand it has taken economically since the Marshall Plan and its general stance in helping democracies. However, America should not waste its goodwill by throwing its weight around in Central America. All of us who are committed to open democratic States—there are very few of them in the world but we are one of them—should tell the United States that we support their general objectives so far as democracy is concerned but we will not have anything to do with their throwing their weight around in Central America. They should be warned they are only playing into the hands of the real tyrants. That is what we should tell the United States, particularly considering all the talk about Nicaragua and Grenada.
I wish to say a few words about the peace movements and the national bodies who help overseas such as Trócaire, Pax Christi and St. Vincent de Paul, a society who do valuable work at home and also in countries overseas. Those bodies should be given due recognition. It is not always possible for us to give them funds and in any event I do not think it is a good plan to supplant voluntary work. We should give a few words of encouragement and thanks to those who work for peace, justice and economic development throughout the world.
In comparison with under-developed countries we are doing very well but we also have great poverty. To people who propose certain taxes and oppose other taxes and some who describe themselves as representatives of stake-holders in our society, I ask them to think of the needy at home and abroad who also need help. Many of those needy people do not have their own homes and are lucky if they have a local authority flat. While we have commitments to the international community we also have commitments to those at home and in particular to those who have no stake in our society. There are dreadful housing and unemployment problems in this city and throughout the country and we cannot forget that. State aid and private funds do not get to the most needy. There must be planned action so that the better off will be aware of their responsibilities to the less privileged in our community.
The appointment of Minister of State for Overseas Development was excellent. That may not get much publicity in the national or provincial press but the appointment is an important one. I hope the Minister of State will develop that office and will try to persuade our friends in the EEC to take a deeper interest in helping emerging states in the Third World.
I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate for a variety of reasons. It was during my time as Minister for Finance that the sixth replenishment to the International Development Association was made. As a consequence of the adjustments that have to be made having regard to the American contribution, this legislation comes before the Dáil today.
In the first instance I wish to address myself to the general international economic situation and the impact that has on those who benefit most directly by way of the International Development Association, namely, the LDCs—the least developed countries. If the developed countries were to think only in selfish terms they would quickly come to the conclusion that the international recovery, signs of which are emerging, will not become a reality and will not be substained unless we can create the capacity in what are called the developing countries to generate economic activity not just for their own advantage but in terms of our selfish interests as well.
There has been a major shift in the economic world order in the last decade. While that has been occurring, unfortunately there has been one constant element: that the least developed countries have remained the least developed and the gap between them and the developed countries, the club we joined in 1973, has widened, obviously because of developments in regard to oil supplies and the growth in the economic and political power of the oil suppliers and the dependence of other countries such as us, but particularly the least developed countries, on oil.
One of the consequences of that major shift in the international economic order has been to render chronic what were acute problems in the least developed countries. That is why this Bill should be seen not as a continuing contribution on our part to the rights — that is what they are — of the least developed countries but as a clear recognition that we will not get balanced world economic development unless we realise that the developing countries have a major contribution to make to that balanced international economic order.
The international economic depression that we are emerging from — it may not be so clear in Ireland — has been a consequence of the growth of the petro-currency countries and of the fiscal decisions of some major developed countries, particularly the US and to a certain extent the UK and others. They pursue policies that may seem right in their own jurisdictions. The US has a self-contained economy because approximately 80 per cent of its resources are produced in its own internal trade. The US can talk about fiscal control, of reducing budget deficits, of high interest rates, all of which may be right for them but which have major repercussions for the international economy.
Some of the decisions recently taken by the developed countries, particularly the US and Britain, have had damaging impacts not just on us but on the developing countries. The strength of the dollar, in which the oil bills have to be paid, may have posed problems for Ireland but has posed almost disastrous consequences for many of the developing countries, almost all of which depend on oil. The international recession, about which to some extent we can be relatively objective — things are worse than they were here, a position that does not all derive from the international recession — for the developing countries means that the beginning of the process of economic development has been further postponed. The development of their infrastructure, the first vital element, has been injured very considerably and their capacity to educate for the new technological era has been hindered.
To bring about the new economic world order, which will be the guarantee of world stability in the political as well as the economic sense, we must appreciate that those least developed countries must not always be cast in the role of donees of our charity and we in the role of donors of this charity, because they, too, should be equipped for the technological era. Therefore we should gear all our programmes to helping them to develop the vast resources they have, particularly the personal resources. Much of what I have been saying must equally apply in respect of our own attempts in Ireland.
We are talking about the need to make a major impact on the international economic order through the actions of bodies like the International Development Association. Of course it is important to appreciate that we can contribute to replenishments like this but these replenishments will go only a small bit of the way to cope with the damaging consequences of political or physical decisions taken by major powers. We are living in an interdependent world and the major countries, particularly in the EEC, have a special responsibility. When they sit around tables talking about what is right for them in terms of disciplines, authority, controls and regulations, they must realise that some of these decisions can set back by 20 years the beginning of progress in those least developed countries. That has been happening in the last decade particularly. We may have suffered by the energy crisis but our suffering has been nothing like the recession that has hit those other countries. Therefore, the gap between us has been growing all the time.
There are so many agencies and organisations dealing with the problems of the least developed countries that one of the difficulties is to co-ordinate all of the actions. In this instance, the World Bank, through the International Development Association, has a major role in the provision of soft loans for the development of infrastructures. Of course the contributions are never adequate. Even in difficult times I do not think that our extra contribution of £2 million to be paid over a period of ten years will be adequate. We must look at our marketing strategy in the developed countries. Ireland has a lot of ground to make up in this matter. We use those countries as suppliers of cheap raw materials but we also use them as major consumers of our industrial products.
Those countries require agricultural development, but who supplies them with the tools and equipment for that development? Obviously it is the developed world. Those countries require development of their tourism, but it is the major tourism agencies of the developed world who benefit. We look at everything in terms of the percentage we get from the stages of development of the least developed countries, but we are not linked into their problems and sufferings and privations which we become aware of only from time to time. Their problems always are not represented by lack of food, except in famine conditions, and lack of water in drought conditions. Their main problem is their lack of dignity and opportunity, imposed by lack of proper housing and infrastructure, but above all a lack of opportunity to be effectively independent. Most of those countries got independence more peacefully than our experience. However, they are not effectively independent because they are dependent in every sense on the consequences of our decisions.
That is why we should not approach this Bill in the belief that we are discharging our obligations. Through this Bill we are moving in the right direction, but the consequences of other decisions we took are damaging and would not be compensated for by this kind of action. The Minister spoke of the Lomé Convention and the contribution of the EEC. I was privileged during the period of our last presidency of the EEC to renegotiate the Lomé Convention on behalf of the EEC just as the current Taoiseach negotiated the first Lomé Convention on behalf of the EEC. I believe it is more than likely that Ireland will again have the privilege of renegotiating the third Lomé Convention. I am not saying that just because of the coincidence of timing. I am saying it because, as I found in our time, we have a special role — we should never overstate or understate that special role — in relations between the developed and developing countries, particularly through our participation in the EEC.
It is no accident that Ireland has been involved in both of these negotiations. Most of these countries, even as they emerge from dependence, can still identify in the attitudes of the former colonial powers a kind of paternalism, a patronising attitude and also an interest in maintaining a level of preference in the markets of their countries. You are not a colonising power for 50 years or 100 years without establishing links that will still accrue to your advantage after independence. You have people on the ground, you have agencies through which you operate and many of these countries, former colónies of Britain and France, are still linked into the economic and fiscal trading arrangements of the former colonial powers.
Those people resent the dependence which was forced on them. They may have a chip on their shoulders and they may seem to be irrational in the way they present their arguments but they are really striving for the culmination of their independence struggle. That is the reason why they see in Ireland a country which has experienced something of the same thing and a country which has a special obligation to listen to both sides of the case. I believe we have a special role there, in the EEC particularly, but also at the United Nations, which has been demonstrated more than once.
This is what underlines our independent foreign policy. I want to say to those who say that our partners in Europe would like to embrace us into the overriding security group of NATO that it is not in the interest of our partners in Europe to do that. One of the things that is of advantage to Europe, because of our participation, is that we are seen to be independent and we are respected for that. This can be used as a bridge between the gap between the developing and the developed countries and particularly between the western alliance and those outside of it, including ourselves. We are seen to be independent in everything and we can create a bridge for co-operation and understanding either through the Lomé Convention or any other agency like the one we are discussing this morning. Our independent position enables us to prompt our partners in Europe about their obligations under this and at the same time act as a representative in the western world of the interests of the developing countries. We are not subject to apprehension on their part when they look at the activities we may have in their countries.
That poses opportunities and obligations for us. It poses opportunities because at every stage in our efforts for development co-operation we worked particularly through our personnel. We did not work by way of transfer of money but through our personnel on the ground. We did this for many reasons. We did this because we are not too far away from the same stages of early development pains. We may have to go through this again in many instances in the near future. We have seen in the forties, the fifties and into the sixties what it is like to build up an infrastructure to try to develop an industrial base from a rural society, which is what many of these states are faced with as well. We have seen all these problems and because we are so close in terms of experience and in timing we are probably a little better equipped to understand their problems and to advise in relation to a way out of them. That means we should really have a corps of personnel available to us to maximise the opportunity in the interests of these countries where we are welcome and also in the interests of our young people, fully qualified and educated, who want to make a meaningful contribution at home and if they were given a second choice I believe most of them would probably choose these countries in which to do so.
We should not always confine our thinking to what is happening at home in terms of opportunity for our young people. Our state agencies, whether they be AnCO or the IDA, should start a major promotion of equipping, educating, training and preparing our young people through structures in relation to work they can undertake on the various consultancy and development projects in developing countries. They are crying out for advice and assistance from countries like ours. I have only to think of the number of times I met Ministers from all of those countries who have said: "Can you send us over somebody who will talk to us about, this, that or the other?" But sending over somebody is not the answer to it. We must have a constant structural link with them through which we can have an Irish volunteer corps, our own latter day fianna, who will be fully equipped and trained. If we have this we will uplift our young people at a time when they need to be uplifted. I am just confining myself to this theme and I will not get involved in the internal economic issue at the moment as there will be many other times when I will have something to say on that. I do not want this to be taken as telling our young people to move out. It is far from that because I believe there is enormous scope at home. I am not sure if our agencies are sufficiently equipped to be as effective, productive and cost efficient as they might be. There is scope here and I believe some of them are looking at this possibility. If they are it is important that they co-ordinate their efforts, be it the IDA, AnCO or CTT, so that we will not dissipate our efforts or minimise our capacity to provide a well equipped, well trained young population of graduates to help in these development efforts. There is great potential for them and us there. If we confine ourselves to the thinking of yesterday in trying to solve the problems of tomorrow I do not think we will do much for people much less do anything for those people in developing countries. This side of the House will be pursuing further the role our agencies will have in the development of the co-operative effort of these countries.
We have been fortunate to emerge since 1973 as a part I contributor. We have come a long way from the problems that we experienced ourselves. Our problems are ones of adjusting to the wealth that was generated in this country in a period of unprecedented growth — from the late fifties to the early seventies. Our problem is one of discipline as a nation but there is also the problem of priorities set by Government. We wait for details of how we are to develop our resources. We have potential in terms of people and terms of our resources, whether those resources be fisheries, forestry or any other area of activity.
However, some other countries that were classified in 1973 as developing countries must now meet their responsibilities. I am not satisfied that they are doing that. In some instances they are selective in their choice as to the areas to which they give support. So far their support does not reflect sufficiently the economic power they have won. I am referring to the oil-producing states in the Gulf. I cannot find any reference to that aspect in the Minister's speech. However, while the Gulf States have increased their efforts they have been the main beneficiaries of the dramatic change in the balance of economic order in the world in the past 15 years. The poor have become poorer but some of the richer countries have also become somewhat poorer. Those who have changed their classification are the oil-producing countries and they have a special obligation to become more involved in promoting and funding development projects. My last direct contact with this area led me to believe that their contributions are not nearly sufficiently in line with their capacity to contribute to those who are least developed. Within the past 15 years those oil-producing states were described as developing countries but they could not be so described now by any stretch of the imagination.
Another group to which Deputy Mitchell was referring are the totalitarian countries of Eastern Europe. Most African countries would acknowledge that they know in which direction to look when they reach the stage of what is called the liberation struggle. They look east to the Soviet Union and west to her agents in Cuba. I am not saying that the liberation struggle is not legitimate but in the matter of building on the consequence of that liberation—the long slow haul to bring these people out of their state of dependence on the rest of us—one would look a long way before finding any sign of either a Russian or a Cuban presence except in the event of there being a special political reason for such a presence. It emerges clearly in the awareness of any of these countries, and I speak from discussions I had with them during a period of a number of years, that they have different friends at different stages. The friends who help them to achieve their liberation by way of arms supplies and so on are not there to help them in the period that follows other than in certain conditions. That is why it must be acknowledged that the Communist countries, to use a general tag, have shown little or no awareness of their obligations to help support in an objective and detached way the economic development efforts which underpin the political independence. As we would have discovered here at home, political independence without the economic capacity to maintain it is of very little consequence. It is through efforts such as our contribution to the International Development Association that we can point out to our partners in the Communist world, particularly the major powers and the Soviet Union especially, that they, too, have obligations in this area and that those obligations do not end with the supply of arms and the competition for spheres of influence.
I am not saying that everything that happens on the other side, particularly in Latin-America, happens always for the right reasons. I am not saying that there is not injustice, right-wing oppression and tyranny in many of these countries or that they should not be undermined, but I am saying that we all have equal obligations when liberation has been achieved in a country. I have had fairly considerable experience in the international arena and from that experience it is clear to me that the Soviet influence does not extend to helping people to help themselves, independent of the authority of either East or West.
It is appropriate that we have the opportunity of making those comments today just before the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention. Europe has an obligation in that regard which I hope will be discharged, particularly when an Irishman is President of the EEC.
As we talk about emerging from the international recession we must look at the causes of that recession and at the decisions taken by the major economies, decisions which can cause recession, and, especially, we must consider the impact such a situation can have on countries such as those we are talking of. While actions such as the one we are sanctioning today can be of assistance, they can never resolve fully the real problem. Clearly, we have a special role and obligation; but we have also an opportunity either for our young people to involve themselves in these countries, as they would involve themselves at home, or by way of our diplomacy and our efforts, to bridge the gap between the developed and the less-developed countries of the world.
It is gratifying that this Bill has received such general and generous support from this House. A clear message of support is evident from the speeches that have been made in supporting this special contribution which is needed to keep the International Development Association operating on a satisfactory basis.
Some Deputies expressed the concern that ad hoc measures of this nature should be needed and they stressed the desirability of the association being financially on a sound footing. The Government share these concerns and are hoping that the normal three-year financing basis can be achieved quickly.
Understandably, debate on the Bill has not focussed narrowly on the activities of the association. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and other speakers considered the association's work in the wider context of the massive problems being experienced by the poorest of the developing countries and on the question of the absolute poverty affecting hundreds of millions of people in those countries. Obviously major efforts on many fronts will be needed to alleviate the position of these countries. The International Development Association can continue to play a useful part in that area.
Deputy Lenihan referred quite appropriately to the Brandt Report in the context of this Bill. That report stressed the interdependence between the developed and developing countries. The association's activity in aiding the poorest of the developing countries is a very concrete expression of their interdependence in action. I appreciate the emphasis laid by the Deputy on this aspect and support fully his views. While the proposals of the Brandt Report may have received little attention over the past few years, when the emphasis naturally was on the immediate problems arising from the recession, its analyses and insights are invaluable and no doubt will be influential in the future.
Deputy Prendergast referred to the International Monetary Fund loans. Of course, these are completely different from those given by the International Development Association. The International Monetary Fund provide balance of payments assistance to countries undertaking adjustment programmes. In many cases those countries would have no alternative but to make economic adjustments even if they did not borrow from the IMF. This is simply because they would not otherwise be able to obtain the foreign currency they require to pay for their imports. There are often differences of view expressed as to the appropriateness of the conditions which the IMF attach to their loans. We have always advocated flexibility on the part of the IMF. In general it would appear that the IMF do endeavour to take account of circumstances prevailing in the countries which borrow from them. The remit of the International Development Association, on the other hand, is to help to finance specific investment projects.
I agree fully with Deputy Owen that the association must keep under review the effectiveness of the loans they make to individual countries. The association already have standard procedures for reviewing their lending. That is not to say that these cannot be improved in order to ensure that full value is obtained for the funds expended.
Deputy G. Mitchell asked the difference between Part I and Part II members of the association. Part I members comprise the developed countries, including Ireland. Part II members are the developing countries. Part I members are expected to contribute to the association's funds on a continuing basis. Some of the more advanced Part II members also contribute on a voluntary basis. These Part I and Part II members make up the association's food donor groups comprising some 33 countries. Countries to which the International Development Association lend are drawn from the Part II members, the poorest countries in that category receiving the loans.
In regard to Deputy O'Kennedy's contribution, I should say that the OPEC countries, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, do take part in a special contribution. We agree that OPEC countries generally may be able to play a larger part in this respect.
I thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate and compliment them on the quality of their contributions which underline the concern of the House for an effective International Development Association and for wider efforts to help developing countries.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment and passed.
This Bill is certified a Money Bill in accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution.