I thank the Chairman and committee members for allowing me to say a few words. I also thank the Chairman for his kind words about GOAL, which are much appreciated.
Neither GOAL nor John O'Shea has anything to gain from the stance it has taken in the past 20 years. We have taken that stance because we care. We are aware of what is happening on the ground, we have worked in approximately 60 countries in total, and we know how bad it is for the poorest of the poor. We believe the Government should be using its money in a far more meaningful and effective way than it is currently.
Overall, the aid programme to the poor of the Third World has been an abysmal failure and all of us stand indicted. There are more people suffering today than at any time in history and all efforts have been unsuccessful. In case people think we have the answer, we do not. The aid community cannot provide such an answer and none of what has been done has been successful. There are countless examples of such failure. Some types of aid are much better than others. Although we have not found the best way of doing the job yet or found a person with the qualities of Nelson Mandela to guide us, we know which methods are better than others.
GOAL's opinion is that government to government funding is the worst method, particularly when a government is corrupt or guilty of human rights abuses. It is morally indefensible to have anything to do with a government that is brutalising its own people or is very corrupt. We have an obligation to victims and families, and for such people to see us going to bed with a government that may have just mowed down a brother, father or a sister is unthinkable. It is wrong for a country such as Ireland to do this because its people really care. Sadly, that is not reflected by the Government. Although the Government seems to think writing cheques is the answer, it is not.
We also believe the approach taken on value for money is wrong. When governments and particularly institutions of state are endemically corrupt, it is then unreasonable to believe they will give value for money. It is like knowing the docker who does not drink a pint, or how to get through the minefield. Why should we be so arrogant to believe we can work through the institutions of state in a Third World government and feel our money is reaching the poor?
I am a journalist by profession and ask many questions, but in 30 years of wandering through Africa, India and Bangladesh I have not met a single person — I have met people in pubs and many other places — who believes routing money through an institution of state in the Third World gives value for money. They believe such institutions are corrupt to the core and if the Irish people were today asked the question of whether they believe giving money through a corrupt Third World government is right, 98% or 99% would say "No". Nevertheless, we continue to do so and I will outline the reasons for this in a moment.
Thankfully, major institutions and important people in the aid world have in recent months come out strongly against corruption. The word "corruption" was never used in the World Bank for 52 years until James Wolfensohn used it two years ago and caused a sensation. The current president has decided on a zero-tolerance policy towards corruption and is going down the path of taking on corrupt governments. Bono and Bob Geldof have both admitted that the millennium goals mean nothing without somebody tackling the core issue of corruption. Until now it has been a philosophy of giving money and hoping some of it sticks.
Deputy Noonan recently spoke about this at the Committee of Public Accounts when he stated that he did not think we should accept the audit of a government of sub-Saharan Africa at face value. In his latest report, the Comptroller and Auditor General states that the staffing levels in Government are not sufficient to deal with the aid budget, yet we are about to take another €130 million or €140 million.
I have supplied information on Ethiopia and Uganda to the committee and I wish to highlight one or two points I believe to be important. A distinguished Ethiopian High Court judge who defected to Britain claims that thousands of people were being massacred in Ethiopia away from the cameras but the Irish Government is choosing to say or do nothing about it. Would it do so if it was happening anywhere else? The report on the massacre of 193 innocent people by the Ethiopian Government was suppressed, which should tell us something about the type of people with whom we are dealing.
Uganda has been ordered by the International Court of Justice to repay €10 billion to the Congo for the action of invading, plundering, raping and stealing there. I sat in this room and was abused by a number of people when I brought the matter to the attention of this committee some years ago. I was told Uganda had not invaded the Congo and a person had information from President Museveni. We do not expect an apology now the truth is out but I would like to have had some recognition that we realise what the Ugandans have done in the Congo. Nevertheless, we are giving a government that can write a cheque for €10 billion aid to the tune of €35 million. I do not know if the Irish people would understand it.
President Museveni recently conceded that corruption was rampant in his party, yet we still indicate that it does not matter. The confusion and conflicting comments coming from the Irish Government, particularly from the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, take the biscuit. It must be very difficult for the caring rank and file in Ireland to understand what our aid budget is supposed to do and what we are actually doing.
The Committee of Public Accounts was recently told by the Department of Foreign Affairs that it did not provide direct budgetary support to Ethiopia and Uganda because it did not trust those countries. Countries may do what they wish with direct budgetary support and guns, for example, can be purchased with it. The Irish Government has quite rightly indicated it will not provide such support to those countries. Yet the latest audited accounts for Uganda show we gave €9.3 million in direct budgetary support. This is again confusing and difficult to understand.
We give more money to Ethiopia and Uganda than any of our other bilateral countries, but the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has decided not to send an ambassador. Ambassadors were sent to 42 other countries. We do not trust these countries with an ambassador but we trust them with all our money. The rank and file in Ireland, including myself, find that very difficult to understand.
As a result of my direct appeal to the Taoiseach, we have taken €13 million away from the Ugandan Government. How was this amount set? It is like being a little bit pregnant, as a government is either corrupt or not. We decided that President Museveni was only a little corrupt.
The Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, stated that Irish Aid is seriously opposed to corruption but after Uganda was suspended from the Global Fund, and a report described "a pile of filth" with evidence of serious mismanagement, the Minister said and did nothing. We just walked away from the evidence. A White Paper recently spoke about the values of our people, but our people do not want to see money routed to corrupt despots. I would be as close to the Irish people as the Minister of State.
The Minister of State went on to indicate, incredibly, that Irish aid must be run through government structures, no matter how weak. This suggests it does not matter what these people do, as we do not have the brain power or entrepreneurial skill to go down any other route.
In the aftermath of the massacre in Ethiopia, when 193 unarmed protestors — three times the official government number — were massacred by security forces, the Minister of State indicated that "we will not cut and run when difficulties occur". Two days earlier he stated, "but I am a hard tough politician. I will be robust and I will pull the plug if necessary." Some 193 people were mowed down on the street, but the Minister of State indicates that we will not cut and run. If a deputation from Dáil Éireann or Irish Aid had been on a fact-finding mission and had been part of the 193 people, would we still be dealing with Meles Zenawi and his gang of thugs? I doubt it very much.
The most astonishing event took place last week when the Committee of Public Accounts heard from the Department of Foreign Affairs that it was "not ideal" to be dealing with corrupt countries such as Ethiopia and Uganda. In 30 years of campaigning with politicians here I have never heard anyone use that phrase. I am delighted that it is now acknowledged that such regimes are corrupt but am saddened that the view has been taken that no other way of proceeding exists.
The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, said we would take unpalatable decisions but such decisions have not been made. He wonders if the massacre of 193 people is a temporary blip in an otherwise positive trend or the beginning of a downward spiral. How many must die and how corrupt must a regime be before we say enough is enough? In Ireland we correctly hold tribunals when we suspect corruption, but we close our eyes to it in the Third World because it is deemed to be developing and it is felt we should do as Neville Chamberlain did by engaging with them. This sounds very good but it does not help the poor person on the ground when those at the top do not care about them.
Astonishingly, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, recently said:
John O'Shea, in particular, has indicated we should be pulling out of places like Ethiopia and Uganda where there are difficulties of one kind or another. But I mean if you were to do that one would not operate in any landscape in Africa, one would not operate in any country because they all have their difficulties and problems and precisely difficulties of corruption, difficulties of human rights, a record of poor respect towards women. I mean, if you applied all of these knowns we take for granted to these countries you would not send a single penny out there because, clearly, this is part of the problem and this is why they are not coming out of poverty.
The Minister of State is correct in saying this, yet he proceeds to sign cheques for hundreds of millions of euro. He has identified the problems that exist but does not possess the entrepreneurial ability to address them. It is good that finally, after years of denying these people are the wrong people to do business with, we can admit we should not be doing business with them. Our excuse now is that we do not know any other way and GOAL regards this as a pretty pathetic response.
The public is very confused about this matter and I am in touch with it constantly. The public does not understand what Irish Aid is about despite the Government pulling rabbits out of hats in its promotional efforts. However, the people understand the word corruption, something the Government, through the tribunals, can take credit for and they do not wish to see their money channelled through corrupt institutions.
If the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, are so convinced that government to government is the best way to distribute aid, why do they not send all the money that way? Why do GOAL, the missionaries and everyone in the audience get money? When Bill Clinton came to town he was handed €70 million and he received €50 million only a few months earlier when his budget was €40 million. Did he jump through the same hoops as GOAL? When we seek money we must prepare a document twice the length of the Book of Kells. I doubt this applies to Mr. Clinton, but he has discovered the answer to the AIDS problem, so we will allow him the money. The people will not continue to accept the fact that we route money through corrupt governments. The Minister of State states the public does not expect the Government to fund autocrats, dictators and those who abuse human rights, but that is what it is doing.
Can we encourage the Government to take another route? I have consistently said to the Minister of State that neither the aid community nor ineffective UN agencies can handle this amount of money. Some UN agencies are effective along with one or two EU organisations that also do a fantastic job, so alternatives exist. I have called for more than 20 years for Ireland to become a champion of poor nations. This does not involve spending money but rather arguing the case of the likes of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma and others experiencing victimisation and abject poverty. This should be followed up with a meaningful, substantial programme applied by the Government in the Third World which would involve an entrepreneurial approach to one or two countries as opposed to the current scattergun approach. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, is seeking another country to throw money at as we speak because the Department of Foreign Affairs cannot spend the aid budget it receives from the Department of Finance. It is coming to the Department too quickly. If GOAL were offered €150 million today, and we are pretty good at spending money, I would not be able to accept it because we would not be able to use it correctly.
I would like the Government to commit itself to one or two countries, use project managers, and build clinics, schools, dams and wells using Irish expertise and hiring local labour. This would involve keeping our cheque book firmly in our chest pocket and if we are accused of neo-colonialism as a result of such a policy, so be it. I am only interested in the poorest of the poor and have no interest in Third World governments because history has shown if one removes Nelson Mandela from the equation, not one is worth crossing the road for. Martin Meredith, who knows a great deal more about African leaders than I and perhaps the committee members, said in his most recent book that after all his years studying Africa, and he has been in every country many times, he is certain the reason the people of Africa are poor and downtrodden does not relate to fair trade, although it is important. He felt the overriding issue was corrupt governments with no interest in people's lives. Until we accept this we will continue with the nonsense of rigorous auditing. Tell that to Enron and John Rusnak. Corrupt people will find ways to circumvent audits and ensure their pockets are lined. The evidence exists for this.
I am uneasy at the direction of the Irish Aid programme. GOAL benefits in no way from the stance I have outlined and it could be argued it will lose out to a large degree. I feel like the boy who exposed the emperor's new clothes or the canoe paddling out to the Titanic. Aid agencies will carry out their work ad infinitum and perhaps the problem is without a solution. However, I know that government to government aid with a corrupt and brutal regime is an utter waste of taxpayers’ money and is morally indefensible.
I have spoken only on Ethiopia and I meant to mention Darfur.
