Vol. 574 No. 3
6 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the provisions in place to ensure that Irish financial assistance to Uganda is not being used to destabilise north eastern Congo; the level of that financial assistance to Uganda; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26777/03]
16 Mr. Coveney asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the level of aid allocated by the Government to Uganda for 2002; and the projected level for 2003. [26811/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 16 together.
The Irish development assistance programme in Uganda has a budget this year of €32 million and is likely to have a budget of approximately the same scale next year. I assume the Deputy who tabled Question No. 16 means to refer to the current 2003 budget and the projected one for 2004. There are two sets of safeguards, which ensure that funding from the Irish Government is used solely for the purposes agreed and cannot be diverted elsewhere.
Our strategy in Uganda, as well as that of other donors, is informed by a broad-based, pro-poor economic plan, the poverty eradication action plan. We and other donors, along with the World Bank, review all expenditure each year and agree the budgetary allocations for the coming year. We determine in advance, therefore, the level of Ugandan and donor funding to be allocated to key social sectors like health and education. In addition to this transparent budget process, there are specific commitments and agreements which keep Ugandan military expenditure within tight limits. Under these arrangements, it is not possible for the funding we provide to be availed of to support military activity, whether in Uganda or in neighbouring countries.
We have significant oversight and accountability processes which enable us to track how funding is used and to ensure that it reaches its intended targets. A range of measures ensures that our aid programme in Uganda is subject to internal and external evaluation and audit and that all our expenditure is subject to rigorous accounting. I have decided to redirect funding out of direct budget support and into a specifically ring-fenced poverty action fund, which covers key sectors of Government expenditure such as health and education.
President Museveni came here recently on what was described as a charm offensive. I wonder if the Minister of State was charmed by him and if he raised human rights issues with the Ugandan head of state. There have been a number of reports about human rights violations within Uganda and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I am referring in particular to the Human Rights Watch report and the number of atrocities and massacres Uganda was involved in. Did the Minister specifically raise those massacres with him and the violations of human rights?
Did the Minister of State raise the issue of how Uganda holds sway in the Ituri province in the Congo? It has been estimated that 50,000 people have been killed in this conflict. Child soldiers have been recruited which is something about which we are all concerned.
Under freedom of information legislation, it was revealed in The Sunday Business Post that Mr. John O'Shea expressed great concern about this area. In many ways, the Minister of State has acted to comply with his wishes. He was quoted as expressing concern that John O'Shea's campaign to stop aid to Uganda was undermining his efforts. Is that still the view of the Minister of State, or does he believe that Mr. O'Shea's view has been of assistance to his Department?
There are a number of issues. This is the second occasion on which I met Mr. Museveni. I met him recently in Tokyo at an important EU-Africa meeting at which we discussed all the issues to which the Deputy referred. As a result of that discussion he suggested that he come to Ireland to answer many of the valid questions the Deputy raised.
Uganda is a country in which we are doing extremely good work. I have seen the standard and quality of our work which helps the poorest of the poor. Situations such as this are complex and it is difficult to evaluate the action we should pursue. I am satisfied that we are engaging in the right way. We have implemented stricter controls on our funding. I am also satisfied that we are engaged with the Ugandan authorities at the highest level.
The fact that the President came here means he takes seriously the concerns we have on behalf of taxpayers. I raised all the issues to which the Deputy referred in regard to the Congo. The situation in the north regarding the Lord's Resistance Army was raised, as was the situation in Ituri. Many of the responses given are in the public domain or at least are in the possession of the media. Issues of governance exist which are of concern to us. The Deputy will appreciate, however, that governance and dealing with corruption are development issues.
I met John O'Shea on a number of occasions and respect his opinions. His voice is an important one in the area of development. I agreed to differ with him on his analysis of how to proceed with this issue. We are not uncritical of what is taking place in Uganda. The way forward in the country is complex and we will monitor the situation carefully. My overriding concern is to help the poorest of the poor, which we are doing. It is of vital importance that we have accountability with regard to taxpayer's money. We are dealing with it correctly on these grounds but we will monitor the situation as we proceed.
The Minister of State is aware that a delegation is in the House from the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is a very poor country where the annual per capita income is €101. Recently documented evidence shows that Uganda is pillaging diamonds and other natural resources from the DRC.
Like the Minister of State, I met the visiting Ugandan delegation in the recent past and raised these questions with it. I accept what the Minister of State said about traceabilty and control, in so far as he can control the aid we give Uganda. Will he inform the House of the monitoring and control procedures in place to ensure that, for example, the aid we give to Uganda does not displace aid from within Uganda which is used for military purposes or pillaging its neighbour, the Congo? Is he satisfied that genuine efforts are being made to root out corruption in Uganda, that the administration is serious about protecting human rights and behaving in a civilised way and that good governance is seriously and determinedly on the agenda there?
May I ask a brief supplementary question, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle?
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, may I have a reply to my question? I listened to Deputy Gormley's question.
It is just a brief—
I asked a question and would like a reply to it.
I also tabled a question.
The Deputy asked his supplementary question.
We will allow the Minister of State to reply first and we will then take Deputy Gormley's supplementary question.
I am happy to do that.
Deputy Gay Mitchell raised some issues with which we are very much engaged and which have been raised by us with the Ugandan President.
He referred to the situation in the Congo into which a UN panel of experts inquired. Allegations have been made about certain individuals there. Mr. Museveni assured us that he is co-operating fully with this investigation and the Porter commission. We sought assurances on these issues regarding the investigations.
Our system of accountability is comprehensive. We have an embassy in Uganda and we work with the Ugandan auditor general. In fact, with other donors, we support this office. We have a chief accountant in Dublin and the Deputy will be aware of how stringent that is. We are dealing with all the corruption issues to which the Deputy referred. There are development challenges, including the reform of the judiciary, the police force and the prison service.
One can take a simplistic approach to Uganda and say that events are taking place we do not like. Ugandan troops have withdrawn from the Congo. There are imperfections in governance with which we have to deal. One could say that the situation looks gloomy for the future. I do not suggest that this country has passed all the tests, but we are there, with other donors, to engage on these issues. I am convinced that, by engaging, we make a difference not just to the position of the poorest of the poor, which is my major concern, but also to the many issues the Deputy rightly raised.
We will monitor the ongoing situation in consultation with other donors. As the Deputy is aware, we are not there alone. The Dutch, British and others are also present. Other countries have taken different approaches. We are measured in our response and will analyse carefully the type of aid we give in future. We will openly discuss in the Dáil and committees how we will do that.
Our advisory group has returned from a recent visit to Uganda and I will meet it formally to ascertain its views on what is happening there. This is an important part of our approach. Although Uganda reflects many of the problems of Africa I would be slow to walk away from a situation where we are making a difference.
The Minister of State is right in that the Ugandan situation reflects many of the problems of Africa. From his reply, he appears to suggest that there are some good points. I refer in particular to its success in combating AIDS which has dropped from an incidence of 18% to 6% of the population. This is a success story. Does the Minister of State believe that other countries can learn from this? What does he think is the key to success in this area?
The leadership of President Museveni is a crucial factor in the reduction of those infected by HIV-AIDS. In 1992, 30% of people were infected and the figure now stands at 6%.
The figure for participation in primary education has risen from 2.7 million to 7 million. Huge advances have been made on the broader issues, the areas in which we are closely involved. While we have to take account of problems we should also measure the successes in which we are involved.
I would like to see more involvement in the area of human rights. The fact that the country's president came here to engage with us shows that he takes seriously the points we are discussing today. I wish other African leaders would take a similar approach. They are quite vulnerable on that front. Uganda is now an open book. Many investigations have been carried out, some of which still have to reach a conclusion. To a certain extent the country is a sitting target for those who suggest we should withdraw. I would be careful of knee-jerk reactions on this issue. I stress the complexity of this area. I am pleased we have the opportunity to discuss the matter today.
I realise we are almost out of time on this question, but I must tell the Minister of State that nobody wants the Government to withdraw from the mass primary education programme and those programmes assisting in the reduction of HIV and AIDS. I support those programmes, but there are two stories continually circulating which must be considered.
Would it not be in everybody's interest if the Department of Foreign Affairs commented on the current status of the UN investigation of events in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? There are two stories. We who are interested in the humanitarian aspects of the matter can continually and correctly stress what I have mentioned above. There are also questions which can be answered on the Congo. Perhaps the Department of Foreign Affairs should develop the habit of admitting that conclusions cannot be drawn if that is the case. I put it to the Minister of State that while he says the Ugandans have withdrawn, they have done so having left surrogates in place. This is a matter on which the Minister of State should have an opinion.
People trot out notions about corruption, but there must be two sides to create corruption. What do we know about the people who are buying the illegal diamonds? The Minister mentioned the Porter commission. The other story is that the former Ugandan minister with responsibility for development, who should have been dismissed but was not, came here and made presentations. Ireland's relationship with Uganda is being damaged by the fact that two competing stories are in circulation. The issue can be addressed. Even if conclusions cannot be drawn, we need a statement on the Ugandan relationship with the Congo and on the alleged involvement of members of the Ugandan Government in the diamond trade. The Minister of State should tell the House what we have found out from our European partners about who is involved on the other side of diamond transactions and, therefore, keeping the corruption going.
I am aware that Deputy Michael D. Higgins followed the comments made by President Museveni during his visit here. In defence of his situation in the Congo, he mentioned the fact that Uganda felt it was quite entitled to enter the eastern part of that country on the basis that it was being attacked from there and from the Sudan. The Deputy has put me in the position of defending the President and I am paraphrasing what he said. The President felt there was an Islamic fundamentalist threat from the north.
Some 3 million people died.
Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked what our reaction is and I am giving it to him.
President Museveni also suggested that the threat from the north was combined with a similar threat from the Congo. He acknowledged and admitted that Uganda had supported in the past two militia groups in north-eastern Congo. My understanding is that Uganda has withdrawn its army, though I believe it still has a support mechanism in place in the Congo. Possibly that support does not include arms.
All of these issues are being investigated, particularly the exploitation of the DRC's mineral resources. The UN panel of experts has unfinished business in the country. As soon as we have all the facts, we will, of course, state our position very clearly. My point is that we are engaged with this Government. The President has come here and we have not been shy about putting to him the points Deputy Michael D. Higgins has raised. That is the best way forward. On issues of governance and making our case to the public, I have some ideas about the best way forward. It is important to have a public debate.
The debate on Uganda has damaged the very good development programme in that country, but, positively, it has broadened public awareness of complex development issues. We will continue to engage on these issues and we will continue to keep Deputies informed.
The Minister of State will be aware that, conveniently, the area which was invaded happened to be very rich in diamonds and raw materials. In the Congo, 3.3 million people have died because of activities of the kind which have been outlined.
The question put down asked about forecasted contributions to Uganda from the Exchequer. Can the Minister of State tell the House if the level of aid is likely to increase over the next five to six years? Is aid more likely to go to NGOs than directly to the Government?
I mentioned the sum of €30 million which is being spent this year. In my initial reply I said the sum next year would be approximately the same. It will certainly be no more next year than it was this year. The precise budget for these countries is being worked out as we speak. I am pleased to tell Deputies that we have done well in discussions on the Estimates. The House will be informed about that shortly.
