We fully support the Bill introduced by the Minister in so far as it relates to our discharging our obligations to the developing countries through the IDA. Having said that, I have to stress that we are very unhappy and dissatisfied with the nature and extent of the replenishment, its inadequacy and the attitude of the wealthy developed world to the developing nations.
As the Minister has pointed out, the seventh replenishment is in nominal terms 25 per cent less than the replenishment which I, as Minister for Finance, proposed to the House in 1980 as part of the contribution of $12 billion. Five years later, having witnessed the most horrific scenes of human suffering and tragedy which have given us a sense of both guilt and obligation, we are proposing a replenishment of 25 per cent less in money terms — in real terms perhaps as much as 50 per cent less — to the International Development Association.
I do not think any parliament, particularly the Parliament of this nation, could allow the occasion to pass without expressing not only criticism but shame at the fact that the wealthy nations respond in such a niggardly way to the needs of the developing countries in what was meant to be a new international economic order of balance and justice. While there may be total unanimity as to the way the Government of the day are discharging the role and obligation of the Irish people, I hope there will be equal unanimity in expressing absolute rejection of the attitudes reflected in many other countries.
The United States, which is by any standard the wealthiest country in the world, has to a very considerable extent been a barrier against an adequate replenishment in line with the sixth replenishment in 1980. I do not recall the terms in which I introduced the Bill in 1980 nor the reaction of the House, but I would be surprised if I as Minister or those who addressed the House on the issue would have suggested that we regarded the replenishment as being adequate to meet the needs of 1980. We are now being asked by the allegedly concerned wealthy nations to accept that a contribution which is 25 per cent less today than it was five years ago in nominal terms — and probably nearer to 50 per cent less in real terms — is in any way a discharge of international obligations in developing countries.
Having singled out the wealthiest country — the United States — I should also make the point that, while we can make those criticisms in respect of democratic countries involved in this programme, it is equally important that we should also point out the scandal of the totalitarian states of eastern Europe, expecially the Soviet Union, who made no contribution whatever to this programme. When we talk about the attitude of the major powers to needy and developing countries let it be noted that the countries who claim to represent the underprivileged and the rights of all on an equal basis make no contribution to the everyday needs of international development of the starving nations. We cannot have peace and justice as long as we remain silent in the face of such a scandal. We hear of liberation movements throughout the world and of support for countries which are sometimes presented to us as being in the neutral, non-aligned groups, countries such as Cuba who are very close to the Soviet Union in their attitude to world affairs. People may say that supporting liberation movements is done in the cause of justice, but we find that the very countries which present themselves as champions of the poor and oppressed in Latin America, Africa or anywhere else are only interested in upsetting the established order — perhaps sometimes for a good reason — and have no real commitment to developing the potential of poorer countries to supply their everyday needs in food, clothing, education and health. Scandalous though the attitude of the democratic countries may be, it is only a pale reflection of the scandal of the other countries of the totalitarian states who represent themselves as being concerned for justice and peace.
The Minister made some points which should be borne in mind. He said:
The projects financed by the association must be financially and economically viable and must meet the same standards as those required by the World Bank itself. Thus while the terms of the loans themselves are "soft", the criteria for assessing the projects being funded by the loans are strictly commercial.
The Minister indicated the soft terms of the loan in the interest free provision over a period of 50 years. The terms of the loan are undoubtedly soft, but the commercial criteria applied to the projects to be helped in the loan are the same as those which would be applied to any projects in regard to normal economic developments in any of the member states. The Minister advisedly used the term "strictly commercial" because it accurately reflects the conditions, the strictly commercial criteria, attached to the projects.
Allowing that the terms of the loan are exceedingly soft, nonetheless we are still making unreasonable judgments of the conditions which exist in these countries for projects of this nature. Let us take the commercial criteria to be applied in foreign development programmes in a country with which I am familiar, Lesotho, or Tanzania or others for whom we have special bilateral aid programmes. You can start a programme for farm improvement in these countries and then you become aware of the hazards of nature and the problems of soil. There is ravaging erosion of a kind which we could not imagine. Some Members, including Deputy Owen, who recently visited Lesotho will have seen for themselves the problems of soil erosion, which can sweep away the work of ten years. Other programmes can be washed away in the course of two years. Yet we still apply the same strictly commercial criteria to the projects to which we have given soft loans. This seems to be done on the basis that they are poor countries with fewer resources and greater infrastructural problems than richer nations and that is why we give them the concession of terms on the interest repayable. However, it is not just a question of lack of money: it concerns education, the demography of the country, soil structure and climate. In the face of these realities which have been brought dramatically to our attention in the last year or two, especially in Ethiopia, can we really justify applying strictly commercial criteria to the projects, even allowing for the very real concessionary interest terms from the World Bank?
We all suffered from the dramatic changes in the world economic order since the mid-seventies, particularly as a consequence of the oil crisis of 1974-75 and later in 1979-80. We saw the effect this had on the cost of energy, which was a major problem, and we still live with its effects even in a Part I donor country, which Ireland has been for over ten years. We have seen the effect on our interest payments as a result of the increased value of the dollar and the cost of our energy. It had a dramatic effect on every aspect of the economy, including our borrowing and our balance of payments and that was translated in a real way into problems for every citizen.
However, the problems we experienced as a consequence of that dramatic shift in the world order pale in comparison with the effect on the economy of developing countries. They were particularly dependent on imported energy to an extent greater than any of us. While we may have an 85 per cent dependency rate on imported energy, their rate is well over 95 per cent and they were the victims of that dramatic shift to a very great degree. They were the victims of the increase in the value of the dollar and the appreciation of strong currencies such as the yen, the Deutsche Mark and other currencies and they still are the victims. In addition, many of the countries concerned had to cope with some horrific natural disasters.
Yet, we do not take account of that when we consider matters such as the International Development Association replenishment. We still apply strictly commercial criteria. Can those poor countries genuinely be expected to meet such criteria when we know in our own case that sometimes it proves difficult or impossible to meet them? I must make it clear that I am not making any criticism of our own Government: I am talking about the International Development Association. Having regard to our own difficulties in meeting strictly commercial criteria, can we support the notion that poor countries should be bound to adhere to them?
There are 800 million people in dire poverty and many people here have made considerable efforts to highlight this fact. It is appropriate now to acknowledge the magnificent response to the Live Aid programme promoted by Bob Geldof. At a time when we seem to point out many of the bad things happening at home, it is gratifying to note what was done by this young man who might have appeared to many of us to be involved only in the world of entertainment. He stimulated people's consciences and his achievement and that of many young people can scarcely be measured. It is proper that we should acknowledge with pride what he did and the response of many of our young people. It showed that the people of Ireland still adhere to traditional values.
What has been the response of the world to this dire poverty that exists? The response in this instance is an annual replenishment figure of $2.5 billion annually committed by way of loans. That is what the developed world is committing. Let us consider what the developed world is spending on armaments, particularly the wealthy nations. One of them has been reluctant to make its appropriate contribution to the seventh replenishment and the other, the Soviet Union, makes no contribution. How does that $2.5 billion compare with the $660 billion per annum spent on armaments by the wealthiest nations? We see distressful scenes of poverty and starvation on television and they hurt and make us feel guilty but then those pictures fade from the screen. I know that many people, particularly in Ireland, spend a considerable amount of their time reminding us of what is happening in those poor countries and long may they continue to do so.
The total annual income of the poorest countries in the world is roughly £2 billion. Yet, the wealthy nations, including some of our partners in the EC, spend much more on armaments to maintain contracts in their armaments programmes and employment in their armaments industry than they do in helping to alleviate some of the problems of the poor countries.
I accept that there are bilateral aid programmes in existence. I was pleased to be the second Irish Minister to negotiate the Lomé Convention and I am more pleased that a third Irish Minister has been involved in this work. Many of the bilateral programmes of the wealthy countries have strings attached to them. A former President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, appeared to have a new awareness of the obligations of his wealthy country as regards human rights, aid programmes and so on. However, the attitude of the current President of the United States has been, "We had better get it right. From now on we help our friends". There was the change in the criteria laid down as though the starving millions, many of them suffering under military dictatorships or in inadequate democracies, had any choice as to who are the friends of the United States. Those rich countries spend $660 billion per annum on armaments while making a contribution of $2.5 billion to replenish this fund. If we put that against the total annual income of $2.5 billion it makes the whole thing shameful.
We want to help those people to help themselves. It has been said that if you give a man a fish you will feed him for one day, but if you teach that person how to fish and provide him with the equipment he will be able to feed himself. The first duty of all of us in the family of nations is to equip those people, to train them to help themselves so that in the dim distant future the need will not be there. But what is the reality?
There are 870 million illiterate adults in those countries. What are we doing to help them out of their illiteracy? We talk in cliches of the need to promote industrial and economic training for them. We hear about Japan and their third level graduates. Is it not time that the family of developed nations should realise there is no help for those people, no means by which they can be rescued from their poverty while 870 million of them are illiterate. What scope have they for being trained, equipped, educated to contribute to their wellbeing and that of their families and countries? Let us talk about the younger generation. More than 130 million of the young people in those countries are without even primary education, basic fundamental training. Are we not sowing the seeds of further problems in the future? Do we expect them to continue to live in the total poverty and depression from which generations before them suffered? When will we acknowledge that our response is shamefully and scandalously inadequate?
We seem to be satisfied to talk about a balanced world order while we should be talking about our inability even to recognise these problems, without thinking of solving them? The figures I have given are well documented and the International Commission on Justice can confirm them.
In those countries there are 42 million people who are blind or almost blind because of climate or prevailing wind or inherited chronic diseases. What are we doing about that? If they are blind and illiterate, how can they possibly begin to provide for themselves or ensure that they will not always be seen as the poor with their begging bowls.
We cannot even make a contribution to the development of justice in our own country. If we in the developed world are constantly talking, whether among the heads of Government in the EC or at summit meetings between, for example, Australia, Canada, the US and Japan, trying to cope with the problems we have, talking about how we will readjust by new instruments of technology to the problems that are our own making, it is about the price of us. While we in the developed world are talking about consumer capacity and the hope for expansion in our economies, the problems of the others are very remote. The real object of the economically developed world should be to promote the welfare and the consumer capacity of those poor people. It is only when we help them that they can begin to help themselves to get out of the problems we are always reacting to, continuing economic recession. Let us look at what we take for granted as the most basic necessity, water, and think that two billion people in the world have not access to fresh pure water. Can we not see that we are not helping them to solve their problems?
One could give figures to underline the enormity of the problems and the total inadequacy of the global response. It has been brought to my attention that 12 million babies in those countries die before they reach 12 months of age. We are so used to watching our own problems that we do not realise that to a starving mother a baby is still special. We still have to see that that is part of the problems in Africa and the South American sub-continent.
We have statistics about death, blindness, lack of education, lack of infrastructure, but we still talk of economic commercial criteria in the applications of this fund. I will return to comparisons and maybe some of them will underline dramatically the scandals I have been talking about. For instance, if we contributed the expenditure for four days on armaments we could more than provide for the food needs of the developing countries for a year. That is the scale of military expenditure in the developed world. If we contributed even a half day's military expenditure we could end the most chronic problem in the developing countries, malaria. The cost of one modern military tank, built to destroy, would provide 1,000 classrooms to accommodate 30,000 children; and the cost of one jet aircraft would provide 40 major pharmacies for health care.
We can look at figures relating to the developed countries we are associated with in the EC, the Council of Europe and other bodies to see what we are allowing to happen. Should we not scream shame on every occasion possible? There may be others who will ask who these Irish think they are, what kind of hypocrites they are, pretending they can be the conscience of the world. Perhaps even to make the type of case I am making is to suggest that we have a virtue that other people do not have. I am not suggesting that for a moment but, for as long as we do not condemn this scandal constantly, we too, are to blame.
On the matter of the amount of money being spent in the interest of third world countries, we find that the most scandalous aspect is that spending on armaments in what is categorised as the Third World is now $80 billion, or more than double the figure of ten years ago. Some of this spending has been focused in countries that have been in conflict with their neighbours or which have been engaged in regional conflicts such as Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and India but, despite that, we are now witnessing the extension to the developing countries of the same scandalous trends that have been a characteristic of the developed world for some time, that is, the trend of expenditure being diverted to armaments instead of to real human needs.
Is it any surprise then that, for instance, there are military dictatorships in 50 to 55 third world countries, military dictatorships that are propped up and supported by one side or the other? Countries such as the United States might say they would not become involved to the same extent in the Sub-Saharan replenishment programme because they do not like the character of the dictatorship in Ethiopia or someone else may not like the character of the military regime in Nigeria. So much of what is being applied by way of programmed co-operation from the developed to the developing countries is being applied to prop up the most repressive dictatorships ever, even in terms of the developing countries. That is another scandal about which the democratic world must be ashamed.
I might mention in passing that it is time the classifications were changed. Much has happened since we emerged as a Part I member in 1973, a change that we welcomed in the House at the time. Much has changed in such countries as Iran and Iraq too, and also in Saudi Arabia since then but, by and large, they are still categorised as part of the developing world though I expect that the terms of the IDA replenishment will not be extended to them in the same terms as it will be applied elsewhere. It is time we considered the inclusion of many of these countries and in this context I might include also such countries as Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines and so on who have made great progress in recent years. It is time for reclassification so far as these countries are concerned and to recognise that, even within these countries, there would be such regional conflicts as the conflict that has been in progress between Iran and Iraq for the past five years.
Does anyone really believe that that conflict could continue at such an horrendous rate, with almost one million casualties in that five year span, without the support and intervention of outside powers? Are we not ashamed that, even within the EC, there are countries who are supporting one side or the other in these conflicts by way of armaments contracts with Iran or Iraq and which at the same time are in political co-operation. If we are to have any view by way of political co-operation I suggest to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that we should draw attention to the scandal whereby at the table at which he sits there will be Ministers whose Governments are supporting different sides and providing arms to the different sides in the Iran-Iraq conflict. What kind of response is that from the developed world to those who are suffering? What kind of contribution is it to a better climate for peace and justice?
In October we began international peace year and peace, by definition, involves justice, but on the evidence available to us there are no signs of justice and no prospect of peace. We scarcely deserve such prospects. I can only express the hope that the response of the Irish people will continue as it has been continuing in recent times in particular. We might as well acknowledge that even our own ODA is not anywhere near the level of the commitment we intended originally. I do not wish to be seen to be in any way partisan in saying that. I appreciate the problems of a Minister for Finance in difficult times.
I am not criticising our level of ODA but this is one area in which I would wish for a consensus and a bipartisan approach in the House so that no Opposition spokesman would criticise the Minister for Finance of the day for providing, for instance, an extra £20 million on his current spending because of a commitment to our bilateral ODA programme in terms of percentage of GNP and that, conversely, no Government would consider themselves limited or constrained in their efforts to meet that commitment. What we do will not change the world but at least it will mean that whenever we speak we can speak not only with conviction but with the proof that at least our actions are as loud as our words.
My final point is that if one once engages in the business of armaments contracts it becomes a very easy road to travel in terms of the development of that industry, a road on which one will find lots of customers, poor customers in the countries we are talking of who will buy the equipment from the armaments industry.
I wish to suggest, as forcibly as possible, that our independence and our neutrality are important, not only from the point of view of our inherited position but more in terms of our role, present and future, in the matters of justice and peace throughout the world. Peace and justice were fought dearly for here. We must never allow ourselves to be compromised other than by way of decision of the sovereign Government and Parliament in events that might or might not emerge at a later time in world conflict but which hopefully will never emerge. In particular we should ensure that we avoid embarking in any way on armaments contracts and procurements. Once we get into investment in arms for export, we will find it a rather attractive outlet in terms of opportunities and potential, and to our cost, we will find that we too have contributed to the scandal I have been trying to underline this afternoon.
I support what the Minister and the Government propose to do in terms of our contribution to this fund, and I support the miserably inadequate response of the developed world having regard to our totally inconsistent behaviour in every other area to which I have referred.
