I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, his advisers and our distinguished visitors in the Visitors' Gallery. I thank the Minister for coming before the committee today in response to its invitation. The purpose of this meeting is to bring the members up to date on reform of the United Nations Security Council and on the non-proliferation treaty. Perhaps we might commence with the Minister's presentation, following which I will take questions from members.
UN Security Council Reform and the Non-Proliferation Treaty: Ministerial Presentation.
I thank the Chairman and members for inviting me to attend. I note that I am here to discuss reform of the Security Council and the non-proliferation treaty.
The Security Council structure, as the committee will be aware, has been always a matter of considerable discussion at UN level, and particularly for Ireland, given the contribution our Defence Forces continue to make in peacekeeping authorised by the Security Council.
To be clear, we are discussing United Nations reform and the issue of the Security Council.
And the non-proliferation treaty.
Yes.
The way in which we received them was the non-proliferation treaty first, and UN reform second.
My officials and I were made to believe the discussion was only on the Security Council. My speech on this issue is only about the Security Council and the non-proliferation treaty. I was going to make the point that I was somewhat disappointed that we were not going to discuss the broader issue of UN reform, given the fact — I make this as a general point and I appreciate what the Chairman has said — that in all my travels as envoy there has been considerable concentration on the issue of Security Council reform. In some countries, this has been to the exclusion of some of the issues more important to ordinary human beings on the planet.
What I can say on Security Council reform, from an envoy's point of view, is somewhat limited in that I must echo the view expressed by the UN Secretary General, which is that while his report, which follows on from that of the high level panel, postulated two models, he — and, therefore, I — cannot at this stage become embroiled in favouring one or the other. The Government will have to adopt a position, if that is required, at some stage. In any event, what I have before me is predicated on the fact that members may want to discuss other issues by way of questions. I apologise for any confusion.
I wish to clarify matters so that we will know exactly where we stand. It was my understanding that we would have a discussion on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and then a discussion on the reform of the UN Security Council. We will, of course, do whatever is convenient for the Minister but that was my understanding of the order.
As I mentioned at the outset, the non-proliferation treaty is one of the issues. The other is the issue of reform of the UN Security Council. The Minister is prepared to answer any questions that are raised on the general UN reform.
I will not delay proceedings. However, we have already had a session with the Minister's officials on the full range of UN reforms, including that of the secretariat.
Did the committee have that discussion?
Yes, at official level.
My speech deals purely with Security Council reform.
We will make the best of that too.
When I heard that it was purely on Security Council reform rather than on overall UN reform, I thought perhaps the committee was falling——
We will have a view on Security Council reform as well.
Perhaps the Minister will proceed. We can tease the other issues out by way of questions.
Could the Minister elaborate as to where he got this impression? We seem quite clear on our side as to what we were seeking. Initially, the Minister did too. Then something intervened.
It is what was communicated to the Minister from the meeting that took place here. Let us proceed.
May we get on with the debate?
I have been actively involved in the preparations for the summit as one of the envoys. As part of this, a strong push has been made to secure an expansion of the Security Council. If there were such an expansion, it would be the first change in the structure of the Security Council laid down by the UN Charter since the addition of four non-permanent members in 1963.
As I said earlier, reform of the Security Council is only one element of United Nations reform. In all my contacts as envoy, I have sought to ensure, as far as possible, that this issue does not divert attention from the critical reform and development agenda, which will have a far greater impact on the lives of the world's citizens.
The structure of the Security Council is not the only element of its reform to be considered. Significant improvements have been made in recent years in the working methods of the Council, including increased transparency, more public meetings, and consultations with the countries contributing troops. The latter are of particular importance to us.
It became possible to contemplate reform of the structure of the Security Council at the end of the Cold War. An open-ended working group was established in 1993 by the UN General Assembly to consider the matter and, if possible, to reach agreement on a reformed structure. Questions that the working group addressed included: whether the number of permanent members should be extended; if so, by how many, and which states should benefit from this status? whether the veto privilege should be extended to any new permanent members that might be created; whether the existing permanent members should be made to accept limitations on the use of the veto; the criteria for new permanent members; the size of their financial contributions to the UN and the strength of their contribution to crisis management and peacekeeping; and how large the council can become without its effectiveness being impaired. There were even more basic questions, such as whether permanent members should exist at all or whether the veto privilege should be abolished.
Ireland formed part of a group of states in the working group that advocated a regionally-balanced increase in both categories of member states, to a total of approximately 23, and limitations in the use of the veto. While the working group managed to make some progress on the council's working methods, it was unable to reach agreement, over 12 years, on a new structure, owing to widely divergent views among the member states.
Secretary General Annan's high level panel, the report of which was the source of many of the reform measures currently under discussion, could not agree on a single model of reform. Instead, it advanced two alternative models, the so-called models A and B. Both models envisaged an increase in the membership of the council from 15 to 25 but there the resemblance ended. Model A was based on the creation of additional permanent seats, while model B was based chiefly on the creation of a new category of seat to which states could be elected for a four-year term on a renewable basis. Both models also involved the grouping of all European countries in a single European electoral group, a move that would have drastically reduced the opportunity for small countries such as Ireland to serve on the council. This proposed innovation has not been carried through in subsequent proposals.
The Secretary General, in his report, In Larger Freedom, did not come down in favour of one or other of the models, stating that it was for UN members to reach agreement on this question. He urged them to take a hard look at any viable model for reform. He has made clear his view that no reform of the UN is complete without that of the council, for the sake of its legitimacy and credibility. He also said that consensus is not necessarily required. This means that a decision could be made in accordance with the UN Charter, which requires a two thirds majority.
I fully agree that the Security Council needs to become more representative for the sake of its credibility and legitimacy. In other words, there must be an expansion. Legitimacy is now ever more important, given the legal obligations that the council has imposed on all states since 2001 in the fight against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Greater legitimacy will lead to increased respect for its decisions and thereby make it more effective.
We are, however, faced with two competing visions of reform, both of which are strongly and sincerely held and both of which would, in the view of their advocates, make the council more representative. Germany, Japan, India and Brazil, the so-called group of four, have circulated a draft framework resolution in the General Assembly which provides for six new permanent seats and four new non-permanent seats. This group's project envisages, in addition to the permanent membership of the countries which comprise it, two permanent seats for the African group. The members of the group of four have made strong cases in respect of their credentials for permanent membership, based on their contributions to the UN system, the budget, peacekeeping and development aid.
The group of four's case rests on a number of carefully constructed and well argued points about the need to bring the council into line with today's realities, the unevenness created by the absence of a permanent member from the south and the need for balance in the composition of the council between permanent and elected members. After initially proposing the extension of the veto to the new permanent members, the group has now proposed to put off a decision on this pending a review that would take place after 15 years.
I wish to make it clear that should new permanent members be created, I would see the members of the group of four as excellent and well-qualified candidates. On the other hand, the uniting for consensus group, which includes countries such as Italy, Spain, Turkey, Mexico, Argentina, Indonesia and Pakistan, has made cogent counter-arguments against the creation of new permanent seats and has elaborated an alternative vision of the council, based on the addition of ten new elected seats. Under this proposal, elected members should seek re-election with the approval of their regional groups. The uniting for consensus group contends that more permanent seats would make the council less, not more, representative and give the various regional groups the greatest flexibility in terms of deciding on which of their members should represent them at the council.
I received strong and well-argued representations from both groups and am giving them the most careful consideration. Given my envoy status and as I stated earlier, I have sought to avoid public comment on the merits of the competing models.
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, NPT, is the most universal of all of the multilateral instruments in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation. The treaty came into force in 1970 and has been reviewed at five-year intervals to assess progress under its three pillars of disarmament, non-proliferation and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
The Seventh NPT Review Conference took place from 2 to 27 May 2005 at the United Nations in New York. During the general debate, I delivered a statement on behalf of Ireland, the full text of which is available on my Department's website. I was also pleased to be able to facilitate attendance at the conference by two members of this committee. In my statement, I recalled Ireland's close association with the treaty, which was negotiated following an initiative taken by the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Frank Aiken — who, coincidentally, came from Louth — in 1958. When these negotiations had been successfully concluded and the treaty was opened for signature, this initiative was duly recognised with an invitation for us to be the first to sign the text. We did so in July 1968. At that time, it was called the Irish resolution.
I made clear in New York that the Government's highest priority in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation is support for efforts to strengthen the treaty. In the course of my remarks, I also referred to the need to address serious challenges which have subjected the global non-proliferation regime to severe strain in recent years. I emphasised the particular importance attached by Ireland to fulfilment of the nuclear disarmament obligations set out in Article VI of the treaty and reaffirmed and developed at previous NPT review conferences. Under this article, the states parties, including the five nuclear weapon states — China, France, the Russian Federation, the UK and the US — undertook to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures leading to nuclear disarmament.
I also drew attention to a number of important questions which I felt the conference should address. These included, consideration of the implications of states parties deciding to withdraw from the Treaty. This is an important issue in light of the announcement in January 2003 by the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, DPRK, of its decision to withdraw from the treaty and its declarations since then that it possesses nuclear weapons.
I also called for the strengthening of the IAEA safeguards system. I suggested that the current safeguards agreements, under which the agency verifies that nuclear materials and facilities in non-nuclear weapons states are used for peaceful purposes, should be reinforced by the IAEA additional protocol, which requires states parties to provide additional information and access to the agency inspectors.
I underlined my belief that the continued retention of nuclear weapons, or the unsatisfactory rate of progress in their elimination, can never serve as a justification for their development by other states. I also stressed the need to respect the current moratorium on testing, pending the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, CTBT, which prohibits states or parties from carrying out any nuclear explosions. I called for the negotiation, without delay, of a fissile material cut-off treaty, FMCT, which would ban the further production of fissile materials for use in nuclear weapons.
One important and dangerous development to which I drew attention is the exposure of an extensive clandestine black market in nuclear materials and technology operated by the Pakistani scientist, Dr. Khan. I urged that no effort should be spared in tackling illicit trafficking and procurement networks and in addressing the issue of non-state actor involvement in proliferation of technology related to weapons of mass destruction.
Regrettably, the review conference ended on Friday, 27 May without agreement on substantive conclusions and recommendations on how to strengthen the non-proliferation regime. While delegations were able to address substance in both the general debate and discussions in the three main committees, some two and a half weeks out of the four weeks were taken up by difficulties in respect of the agenda and organisation of work.
The Government is particularly disappointed that it did not prove possible to make further progress on the implementation of the nuclear disarmament obligation as set out in Article VI of the treaty. What we regard as the central bargain of the treaty, that the non-nuclear weapon states would not develop such weapons in return for which the nuclear weapon states would reduce and eliminate their nuclear weapons, was further developed at the NPT review conferences in 1995 and 2000.
In 1995, states parties adopted a work programme on nuclear disarmament, which included the completion of negotiations of the CTBT, the immediate commencement of negotiations on the FMCT and the pursuit by nuclear weapons states of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally. Ireland, as a member of the new agenda coalition, NAC, was actively involved in the negotiation of the 2000 final document, which includes the unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapons states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals and which, we believe, provides a realistic blueprint for achieving nuclear disarmament.
We had hoped that the most recent review conference would have enabled us to build on these earlier documents by agreeing to accelerate their implementation. We believe that review conferences are important not only in enabling us to look back and review what has happened in the previous five years but also in enabling us to look ahead and to try to find new ways to move forward.
The Government is deeply disappointed at the outcome of the conference, which we feel is a missed opportunity for members of the international community to tackle, in unison, some key threats to global peace and security and to agree an effective collective response. Failure of NPT review conferences to reach a substantive result is not without precedent in the 35-year history of the treaty. However, such failures are all the more worrying today in light of the scale of the challenges which have threatened to undermine the authority and credibility of the non-proliferation regime and they risk its further erosion. The challenges remain to be tackled and we must work with our partners in the EU and other groups to find a way to make progress.
The United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, in addressing the current situation, has stressed the need for leadership and pointed to the forthcoming meeting of Heads of State and Government in New York in September as a crucial opportunity to show such leadership. He has called upon them to break the deadlock on the most pressing challenges in the field of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament and to take concrete steps to revitalise the NPT.
States parties to the NPT must respond to the Secretary General's call and seek to identify ways that the NPT regime can be further strengthened. We are firmly of the view that the NPT is now more than ever of tremendous importance to the achievement of international peace and security. As I noted in my address in New York, our success in halting the erosion of the non-proliferation regime will be an acid test of the effectiveness of the entire multilateral system. This is one of the key issues in the reform package which, given the disappointing outcome of the NPT conference, the Secretary-General asked us to exhort the leaders of the various countries we meet in our travels to address between now and September.
The Minister has covered both subjects fairly comprehensively. It is now open to members to make contributions.
If, as seems likely, the group of four seeks a debate on the resolution in early July, which is quite soon, what are likely to be the views from the Irish side on the issues concerned? It seems it will be difficult to meet the numbers requirement, which is two thirds of 191. It would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
Are there any indications of the numbers that might be supporting the A or B models or the green or blue within the B model? If, on the other hand, there is no agreement on reform of the Security Council and the workings of the General Assembly, is this likely to hold up reform in other areas such as the millennium development goals, which are so important and urgent?
The multilateral system is already under strain, with recent setbacks in European integration and the failure of the World Trade Organisation to deliver the kind of balanced development for which people had hoped. What is the Minister's view on the need to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? It is quite disappointing that there was no progress on that at the meeting in September and that there have been no concrete changes or improvements.
I will now call on members to put forward their questions and views, starting with Deputy Allen.
I thank the Minister for coming before the committee. The agenda I received stated that we would be dealing with reform of the UN Security Council. I presume it was extended to take in other issues.
We are approaching the 60th year of the founding of the United Nations and it is time for reform. Unless the nettle is grasped in the coming years, the United Nations will be relegated to the status of the League of Nations. Perhaps that is overstating the case but unless the challenges of development, security and respect for human rights are dealt with, the Assembly will become meaningless. I was present in May and I sat through four days of frustration when even an agenda could not be agreed. We left the conference but God help the officials from the Department who had to sit through approximately a month of frustration.
Regarding non-proliferation, there is a high level of anxiety at present at the direction in which Iran is going. Some would say Iran has a right to develop its nuclear industry for peaceful purposes, but there is a question mark over that. There is also a double standard in the attitude towards those who do not feel bound by the treaty, such as India, Pakistan and Israel. They do not seem to be subjected to the same focus. Why is there such a double standard?
The Chairman asked the crucial question about reforming representation on the Security Council. The Minister spoke about the resolution proposed by Germany, India, Brazil and Japan and the preference of the United States for an extension of only two permanent members to include Japan. The views of Indonesia, Italy, Pakistan, Kenya, Argentina and South Korea were also mentioned. Where do we stand regarding those different views and on how the Security Council should be reformed? What position will the Government adopt on this matter when a decision has to be made? Does the Government believe that permanent membership should be extended to other states and, if so, what is its attitude to how these states will be chosen? What is the Minister's attitude to reform? If agreement cannot be reached on reform of the Security Council, will other important issues be addressed, such as the Millennium Development Goals which were dealt with in September?
While the United Nations has had major success, its failures have also been significant. We could spend a quarter of an hour discussing the major failures, such as Somalia and Kosovo. When the General Secretary of the United Nations looked for global envoys, it was suggested that his preference was for a non-governmental representative in this part of the world. Was there a request from the United Nations for a non-governmental figure and, if so, why was it not acceded to?
If Security Council reform fails, which I hope will not happen, and it distracts from the main work of the September meeting, it will be disastrous. The report by Professor Sachs, for example, covers ten themes with 250 experts on the practical implementation of the world millennium development goals. He outlines what is possible and states that between 2005 and 2015 some 500 million people will be taken out of extreme poverty, 300 million will not suffer from hunger, 350 million fewer people will fail to have access to clean water, 650 million people will have access to some form of sanitation and two million women will be relieved of the immediate threat of mortality associated with childbirth. These are only a small example of what is at stake in terms of the achievement of the world millennium development goals. This report by Professor Sachs is the largest presented to us so far on the practical implementation of the millennium development goals by 2015. There is enough evidence to suggest there is a significant shortfall in the capacity to achieve the goals, particularly in Africa.
There are eight Millennium Development Goals, yet media concentration has tended to focus on goals one to seven which have significant responsibilities for receiving countries. As we are concentrating on the non-proliferation treaty and the Security Council, I will not develop that issue at this stage as I will have another opportunity do so.
The annex to Secretary General Kofi Annan's report, In Larger Freedom, paragraph 1.1, refers to the requirement on receiving countries to develop the private sector. Paragraph 1.2 deals with aid, trade, debt and so on. There has been insufficient concentration on Millennium Development Goal 8 which puts an obligation on developed countries and on significant trading powers. May I say, en passant, that the Government White Paper on development aid will not be a Government White Paper on development if it is a Department of Foreign Affairs White Paper on development aid; in other words, the Department of Foreign Affairs in conjunction with the Department with responsibility for trade and the Department of Finance with responsibility for debt and with representation on the international financial institutions. For example, I could make proposals that the Department of Foreign Affairs should send people from its development division to the advisory councils of the World Bank and the IMF, an issue which we may discuss further at another time. It is of huge significance that the White Paper should be a Government rather than a departmental one. A departmental White Paper for later consultation with the Department of Finance and the Department with responsibility for trade would be of far less use to us in dealing with the World Millennium Development Goals.
The eighth world millennium development goal deals with issues of aid, trade, debt, reform, civil society, governance, the international financial institutions. The international financial institutions were originally the children of the United Nations. One of the great disappointments in the Kofi Annan summary in the shorter document, and in the two previous more fundamental documents which preceded it, was the insufficient case made for the return of the international financial institutions to the accountability of the United Nations. When this debate began, people in bold statements spoke about an economic security council which would deal with all these issues and bring about genuine global reform, including justice in relation to trade.
I mentioned earlier to the Minister that I found it rather strange that there was such little reference, even in the long documents, to any of the published work by the Ford-Hammarskjold Foundation in 1991 or of the work of Brian Urquhart and, particularly, Erskine Childers. I repeat again today that Erskine Childers's and Brian Urquhart's work suggested very interesting reforms of the Office of the Secretary General. For example, the Deputy Secretary General spoke about the reorganisation of the offices of the United Nations. I will not delay too much on this except to say that some very significant figures emerged from their report. The Minister might like to reply on that point at a future date. It is a relevant issue.
The report referred, for example, to representation on the different directorates of the United Nations and the nationalities from which they came. Despite all the criticism in the United States of the United Nations, it has had an overwhelming over-representation in all the significant divisions of the United Nations. There are countries of the current 190 that have never had held a position for even a full term. I am very interested in the United Nations and in a debate on strengthening it. For 23 countries, representation was 0.7 of a post. That information was published in 1991 and the position has not improved in the interim. It would be interesting if the public was told how Ireland fills and seeks to fill positions at the United Nations.
The United Nations bureaucracy and its method of recruitment is not, in fact, very open at present. I have taken the trouble to look at the application form, for example, on how to recruit people from the different countries of the world. Frankly, it is anything but open.
It is a ready-up.
Yes. I will not go into it because we will discuss employment here. For example, the development division has not been provided with the level of staff suggested in the Cassidy report.
I wish to say a few words about nuclear proliferation. Before doing so, I must comment on the extraordinary set of developments that have taken place in regard to the filling places on the Security Council. When the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, was appointed — I congratulate him on that — Secretary General, Kofi Annan, said he wished the debate about reform of the Security Council would not distract from the general United Nations debate, which is so necessary. It is doing that very successfully at present. Instead of having model A and model B from the version to which the Secretary General did not commit himself and on which he sought a decision in September, we have another model A and model B, and the blue and green versions of that model B. They are quite extraordinary. What they seem to leave intact is the entire issue of the possession of the veto by the original five members. I detected a defeatist note in Secretary General Kofi Annan's presentation to the effect that those five would be reluctant to cede any power. There are different kinds of membership as a result, namely: model A, with its six new permanent members and three non-permanent members; and model B, with no new permanent members but eight non-permanent members.
While the issue as to whether this will create regional instability or stability is not of major import, the position of the group of four is interesting. No logic has been suggested for each individual membership but I can see some such logic. Germany, Brazil, India and Japan have a collective campaign, which has been adjusted, as the Minister stated, in terms of not seeking the power of veto. I am unclear as to the direction being taken by the uniting for consensus group. It seems that the raison d’être of this group is that its region will be destabilised by the selection of a strong member from within it. These are issues on which, I am sure, the Minister will have much more to say.
I wish to offer my views on the non-proliferation treaty. The atmosphere at the discussion on the treaty was completely tainted by the presentation of what could only be regarded as a tissue of fabrications in respect of weapons of mass destruction. There is no lower point in the history of the United Nations than Colin Powell's presentation — regardless of whether it was made in good faith — of bogus documents supplied to him, in some respect, by British intelligence. These which were fictitious in nature and had disastrous consequences that have led to an active illegality used to justify pre-emption and have caused the loss of civilian life on a daily basis. When I witnessed the re-appointment of Dr. El Baradei to the IAEA, I was obliged to question whether the non-proliferation treaty is being discussed in an atmosphere of good faith.
The Minister is very straightforward and I agree with him on matters such as article 6. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is not only about imposing discipline on Iran, dealing with North Korea or dealing with the rogue use of nuclear capacity. It is specific in requiring existing nuclear powers to reduce their nuclear stock. Matters were far more advanced when Ronald Reagan was US president that they are today. One remembers, in the context of the negotiations between the US and the Soviet Union, that there was some possibility of enumeration and of discovering exactly what was held by the US. It is unclear today exactly what has being taken out of usage, what has been destroyed or what has been stored for future use. This is an extremely contentious debate within the US itself.
Towards the end of a very welcome statement, the Minister said that he sees a distinction between, for example, the military use of nuclear power and its use for the production of energy, although he suggests the Irish Government is not considering this. I agree with him regarding the use of nuclear capacity for the production of energy. How is this to be monitored internationally in a credible fashion and through the IAEA when three major countries — India, Pakistan and Israel — are outside the discipline of the non-proliferation treaty? Equally, within the treaty, there has been massive use even with regard to the long new paragraphs on rogue states. A diplomatic career has been destroyed by a tissue of lies with regard to the alleged purchase of nuclear materials in Africa for use in Iraq. How can one accept this? Who has any credibility left after the destructive activity of countries that hold nuclear capability, have threatened to use it and have receded from the discipline of willing to be inspected?
The new agenda coalition is very interesting and noble in its way. However, I wish to ask the Minister about the slide in the European Union's common position. This common position is in the dangerous murky territory of looking at, for example, terrorist threats. It would behove the European Union to address article 6 with the same vigour with which it addresses the potential threat of nuclear capacity slipping out of the discipline of those who hold it at present. I agree that the European Union and the world community must face what is required with regard to what is described as the threat that terrorists will acquire nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. At the same time, is it the case that the treaty's sections concerning the reduction of nuclear capacity by those who already possess it have gone stone dead? If this is the case, it would explain some of the circumstances in which this particular five-year review was not simply chaotic, it was a total and very serious failure.
The scale of all this affects our previous discussion about the United Nations World Millennium Development Goals. The amount the US spent on military activity in 2004 was of the order of $450 billion, while the figure quoted by Geoffrey Sachs as being spent on development was €15 billion. I welcome this opportunity to say these words. It is true that militarisation stands as the great shadow behind the discussion on the United Nations. Military expenditure, including the construction of Africa as a market for light weapons, some of which will be carried by children, is something that stands as another shadow behind the United Nations world millennium development goals.
We must remain optimistic. It would have been helpful if we could have gone to the meeting in September having kept our promise about spending 0.7% of gross national product on overseas development aid because we would have been a source of trust and a beacon to other countries. It is tragic that we have not done so and I hope that when the Minister goes to the September meeting, he will at least say that we intend to reach the 0.7% target by 2010 rather than slide back towards the European figure, which is much lower.
I offer my best wishes to the Minister because we will probably not see him again until he has returned from the meeting. There are difficulties in the areas of abuse by large powers of their position and the dislodging of the debate as to representation on the Security Council on the basis of military strength or economic power.
With regard to the so-called A and B models, and the blue and green lobbies, I am sad that there was so little discussion by any of these countries on restoring a better relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council. There were options regarding the reform of the General Assembly to give it new functions which could have remained separate from those of the Security Council. It is a great pity that those countries did not see the possibilities of a family of nations rather than seeking to get their fingernails, so to speak, on to what they perceive to be the location of power.
I will be brief and will take at least one minute less than the previous speaker.
I was interested in what all the speakers had to say. I thank the Minister for his presentation and I welcome the tone of what he said regarding the NPT conference in New York. We all share a sense of disappointment arising not just from the conference but also from the lack of progress on the NPT issue worldwide.
I agree with Deputy Allen regarding the perceived hypocrisy of those countries with nuclear power and weapons who have promised to reduce them and who are now trying to stop other countries from developing nuclear capability in breach of the treaty. Was this issue raised at the conference? Was the fact that Israel is not party to the NPT — while Iran is party to it — raised or discussed? If so, what was the general tenor of the remarks made?
The Minister's use of the word "bargain" is appropriate. The whole structure of the NPT is a bargain between those states which have nuclear power and those which are refraining from developing it to the effect that those which possess it will reduce it. If those states which have nuclear power and which are supposed to reduce it, do not do so, then, ipso facto, they are encouraging those countries without nuclear power to acquire it.
I welcome the tenor of the Minister's remarks in that he is disappointed with the lack of progress in this regard. He is right to be disappointed. We should not let this issue slide. Some months ago the committee agreed a motion to invite the IAEA director general, Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, to address the committee. I know he responded and said that he did not have the time but we should reissue the invitation. He may have more time following the conference.
Historically, Ireland has an important and leading role in this matter and we should not lightly give that up. I was delighted when we formed part of the new agenda coalition, NAC, and I am confident that the Minister will continue in that spirit. We should be waving the flag for nuclear non-proliferation in an active way and saying to those powers that are leaning heavily, particularly on Iran, that they cannot do so unless they fulfil their part of the bargain. If they do so, they can lean on countries such as Iran and North Korea with much more credibility. In such issues of world politics, what counts is credibility. The people of this world are far too intelligent not to see through the hypocrisy of countries that want things all their own way. We must be very vocal, although even-handed, in our dealings with all countries. I thank the Minister and praise him for all the work he is doing as a UN envoy. I know he is spending a lot of his time outside the country and he has my sympathy for that.
As I have said to the Minister privately before now, I would like to approach this problem from the European perspective. Other than the times when Ireland is a member of the UN Security Council, as we were a few years ago, nobody is representing Ireland on the council. That should not be so. It was a clear provision of the draft European constitutional treaty, which the Government supported, that we would try to develop a common security and foreign policy within the EU. The only way that can happen, when it counts, is through a permanent EU seat on the UN Security Council. It is the only way Ireland could be permanently represented on the Security Council. I know that is a long way off and it is not realistic in the short term, but surely we should be pushing that agenda. One does not want too many members of the Security Council but there should be one or two representatives of regions. Europe is a region and we should be pushing for an EU seat on the Security Council.
I am glad the Minister has not made a choice between the new consensus group and the group of four. He should keep all the options open. However, I see that India is one of the countries being mentioned as part of the group of four. It is inconceivable to me that any country could put itself forward to be a permanent member of the Security Council if it has not signed up fully to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Would we ever allow, support or vote for a country to be a permanent member of that body if it was outside the family of countries prepared to engage seriously in nuclear non-proliferation?
The Minister should give an assurance that under no circumstances will Ireland ever vote for any country to be a permanent member of the Security Council unless it has fully signed up to and is complying with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to give that assurance but I hope we will be sending out observers to the conference in September. I propose to discuss that matter later. I would be against any country outside the NPT family being on the UN Security Council. If India has to comply before September, so what? That is the pressure and the trigger.
I view the UN Security Council seriously. It can decide for or against war, as we have seen recently. Accordingly, we must approach this matter with the greatest caution.
Like my colleague, Deputy Mulcahy, I think it is a matter of great pride that an Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs has been given such a strong and highly visible role in this important debate. Earlier, Deputy Michael D. Higgins referred to the percentage of those 191 UN member states that is involved in the varied bureaucratic architecture of the UN. He said it was infinitesimal in many cases and non-existent in others. It may be an old cliché, but it is also a fact, that Ireland punches above its weight internationally and especially in the United Nations Organisation. Long may it continue to do so.
In his reply the Minister may endorse the fact that, to a large extent, Irish foreign policy is shaped by much of what goes on in the United Nations, especially given our international role. I wish to touch on two or three matters in this regard. I heartily endorse the view that in the context of the September summit and the review of the millennium goals, Ireland should make some gesture. I do not expect the Minister to respond to media speculation but if what we have been reading is true, that he is fighting within the Cabinet to bring forward the increase in Ireland's ODA commitment to a more realistic year — 2008 has been mentioned — and increasing it to 0.5% of GDP, I would welcome that. We should fully support the Minister in his efforts. I do not want to re-open the battle on this issue but whenever it arises I make this point repeatedly. Earlier today, my friend, Senator Ryan, and I had a slight joust when he once again had a go at the Government about the ODA commitment.
There will be more.
The reality is that outside the four Scandinavian countries, Ireland has the fifth highest ODA commitment in the EU. Notwithstanding the fact that we are in an era of unprecedented prosperity, a small country such as ours must see the glass as half full rather than half empty. I do not believe the Government lacks the commitment or the will to move rapidly towards the target of 0.7% of GNP. However, I hope the Minister will be encouraged by the support of this committee and others in his efforts within Cabinet to bring forward the aspirational figure. None of us could possibly accept that we should have to wait until 2015 to reach 0.7% just because the rest of the EU feels that is what they want to do. We are ahead of most of the EU member states in this regard and we should continue to establish the benchmark.
I hope Ireland will play a key role in the debate on the charter for a collective security system. If there is one serious flaw in the UN charter's peacekeeping operations, it has been reflected in the events of the past decade, including Rwanda and Szrebrenica. Those events were a stain on the United Nations and those Security Council members who have played politics with human lives.
The Minister is correct in saying that Ireland fully supports the view that permanent members of the Security Council should accept a limitation of the veto and should exercise it only when the question at hand is one of vital national importance, taking into account also the interests of the UN as a whole. These are worthy sentiments and deserve strong support. Ireland bases a great deal of its foreign policy activity on what happens in the UN. This is certainly so in respect of our European defence and foreign policy obligations, which Deputy Mulcahy touched upon.
The question of not using politics in decision making was referred to, but how would one respond to the Chinese who, by playing politics in the Security Council — because Macedonia recognised Taiwan — refused to mandate the first ever EU force that went in under the Petersberg Tasks? That operation would have been tailor-made for Irish participation, yet we could not participate because of the triple-lock mechanism. We could not do so because one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council decided to play politics with people's lives. That is an issue for us to consider in the context of our future EU responsibilities. I hope the Irish position on increasing the credibility of the UN charter and the collective security charter will be both strong and assertive.
I also agree that Ireland should continue to have a voice in the UN Security Council. In that respect we should push strongly for some sort of representational voice, either within the context of an EU permanent seat on the Security Council or some other form of access to UN decision making.
UN agencies, particularly the UNHCR, play a valuable role in addressing humanitarian concerns across conflict zones. In recent years, a new and dangerous development is that UN personnel are seen as being part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Increasingly, they have come under fire. The most spectacular and tragic recent example of that phenomenon occurred in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. Ireland should continue to monitor this matter seriously.
The committee has examined the area of security where the UN and other humanitarian agencies are involved. To wear a red cross or a blue helmet is no longer accepted as denoting a non-belligerent, non-combatant or neutral, as traditionally was the case. For example, UN officials in Geneva recently informed me that personnel in Kosovo needed to ensure that the colour of their insignia was blue to distinguish them from the black insignia of the UN military personnel because they were seen as part of the occupying force. In Iraq, this is how the UN is seen as a result of ten years of sanctions. The ordinary people of Iraq believed the UN was denying them food. These are serious issues that must be addressed and I hope Ireland, as it is in other areas of UN involvement, will be at the forefront in ensuring a more protective security environment for UN workers, including many Irish citizens. I thank the Minister for addressing the committee. His job will be difficult and challenging but I do not doubt he will rise to the occasion.
I ask speakers to be as quick as possible as the Minister's time is short.
I welcome the Minister and congratulate him on his role as envoy. I have a number of questions, one of which relates to the NPT. That there was no agreement at the end of May was disappointing. If there was no rush to put together an agenda, why did the conference and the discussion on the treaty last as long as four weeks? Would it be possible to have such discussions over a shorter period and return to examining the treaty in under five years?
I support the call to have observers at the summit in September because it relates to the issue of the Millennium Development Goals. As members of the committee, we are very interested in the matter. I chair the Sub-Committee on Development Co-operation and would like to examine the issue in that respect. We must try to obtain an early decision on the target date for reaching our 0.7% GNP commitment.
I welcome the Minister and his officials. It is important that this committee's status is recognised by the Minister and others. The committee is the principal parliamentary accountability and oversight mechanism of Ireland's foreign policy. I am sure this will be the last opportunity for the Minister to address the committee, which has been consistent in its calls for the Government to hold firm in respect of the commitment made by the Taoiseach in New York in 2000 that Ireland's ODA contribution would reach 0.7% of GNP by 2007. The original commitment was dropped by accident, as it were, without consulting the committee.
The points made by all the speakers on the matter of the September summit are important. The committee must know as soon as possible when the Government will restate a date for Ireland to reach the UN target for ODA as a percentage of GNP. The September summit will be an opportunity for the world community to review progress towards the achievement of the millennium development goals. Central to this objective are the contributions made by wealthy countries to the poorest countries. The only objective assessment of this is the UN's target at present, which was set in the 1970s.
It was 35 years ago.
Yes. It is a measure of the failure of the UN and the world community that only five or six countries have reached or exceeded the UN target set for contributions to the world's poor. Ireland continues to provide leadership on this issue but the Taoiseach, the Minister and the Irish delegation will be under severe pressure in September to account to the world community for allowing our target date to be eclipsed. The Minister and the Minister of State have acknowledged that our original target of 2007 will not be reached. When will we reach it? The people and this committee are entitled to know when Ireland's credibility on this matter will be reinstated.
There have been discussions at Cabinet level and I invite the Minister to share with the committee any information he possesses concerning a decision in this respect. The committee was part of the support mechanism and structure behind that decision. Its announcement and the commitment made by the Taoiseach in 2000 had all-party Oireachtas support. The decision was made after a full Cabinet process and rows at various times and had the support of the social partners, the churches and all the NGOs. The decision not to live up to the commitment, therefore, affected many people and has serious implications for the way we do our business. I will not labour the point but I ask the Minister to share with the committee, which has a large stake in this matter, whether the Taoiseach will announce a new target date to reach the 0.7% of GNP.
In respect of UN reform and the Minister's role as a UN envoy, discussions have taken place on the establishment of a peace-building commission. Could the Minister provide the committee with a brief update on what is happening in this regard? Unfortunately, all of our recent experience has been that the UN has not been very successful in peace-building or peacemaking, although it is better at the latter than it is at conflict prevention.
I hope the Minister will have something to say about our ODA target. If so, I ask him not to use the justification of Ireland getting rich too quickly. Can he just say that the Government made a political decision not to meet the target? We met our 1% commitment to our pension fund but no one said that our economy was growing too quickly and that we could not afford the measure. If we are to slide away from commitments, let us deal with the matter reasonably and frankly. To do otherwise would be an insult to the intelligence of the Irish public.
Is the EU in a state of total chaos on the matter of UN reform? There seem to be nearly as many positions as member states. For those of us who were treated to the high flowing rhetoric of a Union that is on its way to having a common foreign security policy, the apparent silence of the EU on the issue is astonishing. I appreciate the Minister's current position but is it possible to have some form of parliamentary accountability for whatever position Ireland will eventually take? Will the Government claim that its spokesman on these matters, the Minister, will be obliged to remain silent until the Parliament — in the form of the Dáil, Seanad or this committee — has a chance to discuss the Government's agreed position? Sooner or later, the Government must take a position.
Like everybody else present, I am astonished at the selective nature of the world's view of nuclear proliferation. I feel far more threatened by some of the material I read by right-wing Roman Catholic moral theologians from the United States who believe that wiping out the planet to defend us from whatever godless ideology they are worried about at any particular time is an acceptable option. I can show people the relevant books on the matter, which can be bought in places such as Veritas. If this is the ideological position of some in the most powerful country in the world, we have good reason to be concerned about the failure of the nuclear powers to keep their side of the bargain and about their silence regarding the insidious development of nuclear weapons by Israel. At least Pakistan, India and China admit to having nuclear weapons.
One nuclear power continues to insist that it does not possess such weapons and treats appallingly the one man who told the world what was happening. If a whistleblower in Iran had been kidnapped in Rome, brought back to Iran, tried, convicted, left in jail and then told if he said anything about the matter on release he would be locked up again, the world and the United Nations would be in a state of outrage. If we are to strike moral positions — as should be the case — such positions should be consistent and should be directed as much against Israel as against, for example, Iran or Cuba. Otherwise, such moral positions are meaningless.
The Minister has heard the views of the members. Deputy Carey was required to represent the committee before the Commission. While I am glad to see that he has returned, he was only absent to carry out that very important duty.
In our discussions with the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and with Department officials the consensus of the committee was that the new target date should be 2010.
I am glad we opened up the discussion more widely because the concentration on the Security Council would have more or less echoed what I heard when I visited 36 foreign ministers on my travels in recent months. I have already travelled 65,000 miles and I plan to visit nine more capitals before we go into recess. I have attended major international conferences. I have lobbied my colleagues on EU General Affairs and External Relations Council meetings.
Senator Ryan referred to the EU being in chaos. Whatever about being in chaos on budgetary issues or the constitution, it is not in chaos on this issue and has the most united voice of any region in the world. The EU agreed at the outset that we would try to reach consensus on as much of the package as possible, which has been done. While it was not possible to reach agreement on the Security Council issue, I suggest that the Senator read the conclusions of the EU Council meeting of 16 and 17 June. While I know all the publicity was about the financial perspectives and the EU constitution——
The Minister did not mention the EU in terms of UN reform.
Perhaps the Senator was not here at the start of the meeting.
I was here.
I discussed the Security Council specifically and the NPT but not UN reform in general. I made that point at the outset. I suggest that the Senator read the conclusions of the EU Council meeting of 16 and 17 June.
The Government believes that we should not rush to a conclusion, not least because I am in the position of envoy. When we worked with the open-ended working group, we indicated that we supported a regionally balanced increase in both categories of membership. Whether we end up supporting that will depend on the moves to take place in the coming weeks. The Chairman referred to the position on the G4 nations and whether a vote will take place. As members know, the G4 nations have delayed putting forward a resolution pending a decision by the African Union, which will be crucial.
I agree with Deputy Michael D. Higgins that huge emphasis has been placed on the issue of the Security Council, not so much within Europe but outside of it. The latter is unfortunate. When I meet my European colleagues, the first item on the agenda is the Security Council. This does not apply to those smaller countries with no chance of becoming members of the Security Council which suggest that there should be greater reform of the General Assembly. I have some sympathy with those countries. Unfortunately, however, we are not starting with a clean slate and because the countries with the veto have clearly indicated that they will not relinquish it, we must work with what we have. It has been strongly suggested that the veto should be restricted in certain instances, such as, for example, in the case of genocide. I would have strong sympathy for, in effect, putting it up to countries with the veto. We will need to return to this issue between now and September.
Like Deputy Michael D. Higgins, I hope this issue will not divert us. Kofi Annan asked me to ensure that the issue of Security Council would not divert attention and prevent agreement on other issues. To be fair, the EU has shown leadership in this instance and not least in respect of ODA. As regards the latter, Kofi Annan again asked me to try to get an agreed common EU position publicly announced early in the process to put pressure on the other parts of the developed world that are not coming to the table on ODA. While it did not get any publicity because of other issues, the decision successfully reached by the EU members on 16 and 17 June will mean a net increase of €20 billion in overseas development aid by 2010. That represents a considerable increase in ODA from this part of the world. Ireland was very much to the fore in pushing the issue. In response to the EU decision to indicate its targets, Kofi Annan said that this, in effect, put new wind into the sails of the UN reform package and he was delighted with the commitment made by Europe in that respect.
A Private Members' motion on the matter, during which I will indicate the Government's position, will be debated in the Dáil this evening. While it is a major issue, it should be considered in a broader sense. It is probably an issue which is easy to understand. However, when one looks at the considerable amount of aid that is tied, which Ireland does not do, and at some of the other countries which are held up as paragons of virtue in this respect, one will see they are gaining huge benefit from arms sales to many of the countries to which they are providing aid. Those who publicly comment on the levels of ODA from the developed world should articulate the fact that some countries not only tie aid to trade, but they also have a strong presence in those countries in terms of arms sales.
When the Government came to office the level of ODA was €122 million.
Here we go.
The Senator's party's record ——
Let us have a debate on this issue. Ireland is one of the richest countries in the world. It is not emerging from a recession.
The Senator is the only one who played politics with this issue. I am as good at playing politics as he is and I will give as good as I get.
The Minister and his Government made a promise.
The Deputy's party made a promise when it was in office that it would raise it to 0.5%. However, it did not reach anywhere near that figure. The Deputy should not criticise this Government.
I am talking about the Minister's promise which was made in 2000. He should answer some of the questions which have been asked.
The Deputy should look at the record. The highest increases in ODA have been given under this Government.
The Minister reneged on his commitment.
The highest ever increases in ODA have been given during my time as Minister.
The Minister can use as many fig leafs as he wants, but he reneged on his commitment.
When I was interrupted by Senator Ryan, I was making the point that €125 million was provided in ODA in 1997. Today it is €545 million. The Government has agreed to increase it by €65 million next year and by a further €65 million the following year. The Government will consider the timeframe in due course. We are committed to reaching 0.7% within a reasonable period of time. Promises were made by previous Governments and by this Government. We are being extremely careful to ensure that if any more commitments are made they will be met within the resources available. We expect whoever is in Government after the next election to adhere to similar commitments.
We could make it 2028.
That we are being extremely careful and circumspect in making this decision does not mean we are in some way less interested in assisting sub-Saharan Africa. No one should play politics with this important issue.
Is a solemn announcement to the United Nations not playing politics?
We are all on the same side.
Deputy Allen asked about the request for a non-governmental person. I will tell the committee how I was appointed. I met Kofi Annan in Farmleigh in November and I told him bluntly that Ireland and the Government were worried about the lack of pace on UN reform. I asked him if there was anything the Government could do to assist him in the task of UN reform, given that we had finished the Presidency. We were subsequently contacted to see if we would be happy to participate in what he called "Friends of the UN", a group comprising 20 or 25 countries which would quietly lobby our colleagues around the world. I said we would be more than delighted. A couple of weeks later it was suggested that I become an envoy. I was a little worried about my other commitments, but I agreed. We indicated we would like to work in Africa, given our contacts there. However, the UN and the Secretary General said no and strongly suggested Europe. As far as I and my officials are concerned, there was no suggestion that a non-governmental person would be considered.
On recruitment to the UN, the Government does not nominate people to fill vacancies. Individuals normally apply in their own right. From time to time our mission in the UN would indicate support for an Irish candidate for a particular post. The UN is obliged under existing rules to observe a geographical balance when filling appointments. The one issue we have discussed with Kofi Annan and his people is that of ensuring that the management and staffing of the UN is done in an open and transparent way. They fully accept that needs to be done.
The Secretary General has spoken of a redundancy package for many of the people currently in the UN institutions. There seems to be a serious problem in terms of recruitment to the agencies and the organisation at several levels, not only at the most senior level. Many people in Ireland would like to serve the United Nations. It is a labyrinth. It is unaccountable. I know why I am saying that.
Senator Mooney raised the issue of the EU voice at the Security Council. When I attended the opening of the discussion at the UN General Assembly on UN reform the spokespersons for each of the blocs around the world spoke. The region which was the most specific about committing to specific issues and the easiest to understand in terms of its co-ordinated and consensus driven speech was the EU. Article 19 of the Treaty of the European Union provides that EU members on an international multinational body shall act in concert with each other. When we were on the Security Council Ireland extensively briefed our European partners.
Senator Mooney mentioned the use of force, one of the more difficult issues which is being strongly debated. Perhaps some of the countries which are more interested in bums on seats should concentrate on the responsibility to protect and the guidelines for the use of force. The charter makes it clear that force can only be used in self-defence or where sanctioned by the Security Council. That is why Ireland lays great stress on the triple lock for the deployment of our troops. Problems arose when the veto was used. There is no easy answer to genocide or the massive violation of human rights. However, Ireland is consistent in its deliberations on this issue.
Deputy Michael D. Higgins mentioned international financial institutions. Paragraph 70 of In Larger Freedom calls on international financial institutions to look at changes to their operations and to ensure that they are more representative in the developing world. It will be a Government White Paper. My Department only has responsibility for co-ordinating development policy.
There will be a strong emphasis on the achievement of the millennium development goals. Despite the concentration on the Security Council issue, there have been a number of fairly significant positive confirmations of some of the issues raised by different countries.
Deputy O'Donnell asked about the peace-building commission. If there were ever an issue on which there was almost universal acclamation, it is the issue of the peace-building commission. The latest draft document from the UN, sponsored by the president of the General Assembly, Jean Ping, and which is the bones of the ultimate document that will be approved, receives good mention. It is one of the issues that will be deliverable in September.
On the non-proliferation treaty, I suggest that members read my speech to the NPT conference. Of all those who spoke in the initial phase of the NPT, I was the one who focused on the contract. I agree with Deputy Michael D. Higgins and others who clearly stated that the issue is not just about non-proliferation, it is also about disarmament of existing weapons. Unfortunately, however, the contract has not been delivered upon. The issue is one to which I specifically referred in my address to the conference. Ireland has consistently called upon India, Pakistan and Israel to accede to the NPT. I note from a paragraph from my speech that I stated it was of serious concern that these three countries had chosen to remain outside and urged them to accede unconditionally at an early date.
Senator Kitt asked about shorter times for meeting. I proposed, in my speech, that there be shorter annual meetings of NPT parties. While the proposal received some support, it fell victim to the pressures of closing. The point was made that the type of process currently used was not great.
Ireland has been to the fore in terms of persuading the EU on its position on the NPT issue and we constantly make our position known at EU fora. However, we are dealing with some EU countries that do not share our views on nuclear weapons. Deputy Allen will confirm that I met with the Iranian Foreign Minister who made clear Iran's view that it had a legitimate right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. I made the point that Ireland had a particular position, shared by all political parties, as regards nuclear energy for peaceful or non-peaceful use and left him under no illusion that I personally was vehemently against the use of nuclear energy. Ireland is committed to the NPT, which allows the peaceful use of nuclear energy conditional on the observance of obligations being reported to IAEA. Unfortunately, recent indications are that Iran has not been as transparent in respect of its dealing with the EU and, in particular, the Troika of the EU, in this respect.
On the attendance of the head of the IAEA at the joint committee, if such a request is made, I will use my influence to ensure he comes to Ireland given Ireland is a strong supporter of the IAEA process.
I thank the Minister for his replies. There are many more wider issues to be considered in terms of general reform of the UN, reform which would be timely. While we support and work through the UN, we recognise the need for reform in various respects. An issue which arises, as mentioned by Deputy Michael D. Higgins, is the retirement package and reform among staff. Such reform is not unusual and could be used to refresh and realign the staffing and drive within the United Nations. There may be a reasonably good voluntary response to such a proposal. I understand that issue will be discussed in September. The process has been successful here. If it happens, it will result in open and well-spread placements. It is not an issue about which people here are familiar and they may not have great confidence in who is selected. More thought might be given to considering how best the process could be opened up to involve a wider number of countries. It might be worth considering the EU model in that regard.
I thank the Minister for attending. I am sure he will have more to say on this issue later this evening during the debate on overseas development aid in the Dáil. Members of the joint committee are committed to the issue. They want to see the strong position taken by Ireland maintained. Without rehearsing any of the issues that arose or why they arose, members would like to see a speedy return to the target set by the Taoiseach and agreed by the country in respect of ODA. We look forward to Government announcing a reasonably early date for reaching that target. As mentioned by some members, our difficulties are ones of plenty rather than poverty. Ireland has a great reputation within the European Union on all fronts and we wish to keep it.
For the information of the joint committee, the target on ODA is €545 million. Ireland has agreed to increase that amount by €65 million over the next two years. To reach the target of 0.7% by 2015, we will have to get to €1.9 billion. That gives members an indication of how far we have to go.
It depends on the growth rate built in.
No, it is based on agreed Department of Finance projections.
I am restraining myself.
I ask that the Senator please continue to do so. I think those percentages might be——
Senator Ryan should know to what he is committing himself if he decides to make a commitment.
I do not expect to be Minister for Foreign Affairs. I know exactly to what I would be committing, I am very good at mathematics.
Deputy Michael D. Higgins would have done his sums on this.
I have. We will not reach the target until 2028.
The Department of Finance view is the opening pitch. In my view the figure will be considerably less than that projected by the Department of Finance.
The figures given are supplied by my Department, based on the finance projection of growth for the next couple of years. They are not Department of Finance figures.
If the projected 7% or 8% growth is realised, we will have money to burn.
We will not have to go into recession to keep our promise. We know where the Minister's heart is on the subject and we know where the Minister of State's heart is on the subject. We wish the Minister good luck in the negotiations. I thank him for attending the meeting today and spending so much time with us on this important issue. Obviously the committee will discuss the matter further.
The joint committee went into private session at 4.21 p.m. and adjourned at 4.35 p.m. until Tuesday, 12 July 2005.