I remind the House that notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, time limits for the debate will be 15 minutes for the Minister's speech, 12 minutes for the proposer of the motion and eight minutes for each other Senator. The proposer will have five minutes to reply.
United Nations: Motion.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I suspect there will not be a large number of contributors and the Chair might be a little flexible in the time allowances.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
As the Senator knows, the Chair is always flexible.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann, in light of the upcoming 50th anniversary of the foundation of the United Nations, calls upon the Irish Government, after consultation with both Houses of the Oireachtas, to redefine and restate Ireland's view of the future role of the United Nations and of Ireland's participation in UN activities.
I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy T. Kitt, to the House. He is always welcome and we always appreciate the courtesy with which he deals with matters. The collapse of the Berlin Wall and, with it, the end of the Cold War created for a short time an illusion that all was well with the world and that an era of peace and stability lay ahead. We could not have been more wrong. The past couple of years have seen a record number of unresolved and, in some cases, apparently unresolvable conflicts. We have never at one time seen so many seemingly intractable problems and without doubt further such problems are likely to surface around the world.
Never before have there been so many calls on the services of the UN; never before has it found itself at the centre of so many major conflicts, and never before has there been so much confusion as to what it is possible for the UN to do, what it is legal for the UN to do and what it is that the UN should be doing. The upcoming 50th anniversary of the foundation of the UN gives us an opportunity, world wide and in this country, to try to redefine what the role of the UN should be in the 21st century and what Ireland's contribution to the working of the UN should be.
I am glad the Minister of State is here this evening as it is important at this stage that we get an indication of the Government's thinking on this matter, which may well be the most important matter we debate in this House this year. It may seem pretentious for a small country such as this to talk of global security and to talk in terms of reshaping the world order. It may be pretentious but for us to abdicate or not face up to this responsibility could lead to consequences that might be even worse.
Most of us here have seen the tailend of one world war and have lived through 40 years of the Cold War. This century we have seen two major attempts to establish organisations aiming at global security. The League of Nations, which in effect was strangled at birth and eventually petered out in ineffectualness, nevertheless represented decent and generous aspirations. The UN, founded in 1945, has up to now not made the contributions which its founders would have hoped. It has survived for 50 years. That very fact and that it is so central to so many of the world's problems gives us hope that the aspirations of its founders may in the next 50 years have a better chance of being realised.
It is worth asking ourselves what went wrong with the UN. In the first place, almost before the ink was dry on the charter, the Cold War broke out. The 40 years which followed the foundation of the UN was to a great extent dominated and distorted by the Cold War. It was the Cold War which made it so difficult for the UN to realise what was central to its charter. Furthermore, over the past 40 years we have seen the effects of decolonisation as countries escaped from the bondage of their colonial masters but were in many cases singularly badly prepared for the responsibilities of nationhood or statehood. Some countries quickly degenerated into some form of chaos or spent decades trying to shake off the burden of the past and reshape themselves.
We have also seen the gap between the rich and the poor countries grow ever greater. Another reason is that the central core of the UN was not made strong enough at the beginning. It did not have the resources, the moral authority or the support to carry out the role its founders intended. A further reason was the rapid growth of technology, particularly that of the weapons of destruction, on a scale which even in 1945 could not have been envisaged. Many countries and guerrilla and other groups possess weapons which could not have been foreseen in 1945 and this has also made the task all the more difficult.
Any debate must start from the assumption that we are all convinced that the UN is not just a worthwhile but a central organisation as far as the future of the world is concerned. We must also start from the assumption that up to now it has been prevented from achieving the fullness of its role by the failure of so many of its individual members to live up to the responsibilities they assumed when they signed the charter and became members.
All of us will want to see a strong United Nations, and if we want that we must accept that the UN does not have a particularly good image worldwide at present. It is associated with too many failures and compromises. It is defied by too many of its own members when it suits them. We see long overdue bills owed by countries which can often well afford to pay the debts they have incurred. There is a picture of ineffectiveness and a bad image which belies the fact that the UN is the only body which can carry out certain key functions on the necessary scale.
Nobody is competing with the UN at present for the role of global policeman. In the past the two great superpowers, the US and the Soviet Union, did compete for good or bad reasons, but invariably for reasons more to do with their own interests than global peace. At present the only country capable of having a world policing role is the US but it manifestly does not want that role. There is no competition, which means that whether it wants it or not the UN is the only body capable of operating on behalf of all of us in a global way.
To solve these problems needs an unprecedented degree of international co-operation. If there is to be such cooperation, it must have firm political foundations. This can only be done if the main actors, the nation states or the regional groupings such as the EU, are willing to get involved. The UN is the only universal body where the voice of all nations can be expressed in a fair way and to which they all give assent. Unless there is universal acceptance by all the countries in the UN that it is the only body which can carry out certain key functions, we will unfortunately see a repetition of the ineffectiveness that has characterised it up until now. We would then be restarting on shaky foundations.
The UN can only be strengthened if we are clear as to why we want it strengthened. What should it be strengthened to do? The UN Charter is committed to the task of "the maintenance of international peace and security". Does this mean peacekeeping, peace monitoring, peace building or peace enforcement? All these phrases are used routinely. There is currently great confusion as to the appropriate response in particular circumstances. What is appropriate, what is feasible and where should the emphasis be?
The current situation in Rwanda highlights many of the current difficulties facing the UN. We all feel total revulsion at the genocide taking place within a political system that has clearly failed. Everybody is calling for UN intervention. Whether they like it or not, they are calling for peace enforcement. What does this mean? It means the willingness of UN member states to commit troops to a virtual certainty of large scale losses of life. There is no willingness at present on the part of UN members to do this. They judge that the chances of success with this measure would not be great; the costs would be enormous and the chances of a clear outcome are uncertain. The African states are either unwilling or unable to get involved in peace enforcement. If we want peace enforcement in Rwanda, for example, which may be the worst case to take, in all probability it will not be possible.
What other measures are open to the UN in a situation like Rwanda? It is giving humanitarian assistance, helping refugees, trying to bring about negotiations aimed to bringing the opposing sides together and trying to identify a long term solution. All of that does not answer the immediate response that people expect from a body like the UN in a situation as horrific as Rwanda, which is being mirrored in Bosnia and other conflicts.
This raises further questions — we are not here to solve immediate problems but to raise questions about the future long term role of the UN — about whether the UN should be involved at an earlier stage when there is potential for conflict. Could the UN have an anticipatory role? Could the UN have an anticipated what has happened in Rwanda and have taken action earlier? Is it possible to build peace and act to deal in advance with underlying sources of conflict and to bed down peace in post-conflict situations? How can the UN do this? How can it get hold of the huge expenditures that will be required to anticipate and prevent problems before they take a huge amount of lives and money.
Action to prevent emerging disputes from becoming conflicts was rarely, if ever, taken during the past 40 years. Herein may be found one of the great failures of the UN. It simply was not possible. It was not on the agenda of the major powers during the Cold War. Indeed, the main response then given to emerging conflicts was for the superpowers to select and back a side to the dispute and to use the veto to prevent the UN from taking disinterested objective action. This is the diametric opposite to what the UN, in terms of co-operative security, should be doing. It is not what should be happening today. Today, above all else, the UN needs preventative action. It is possible where it was not so in the past and is justified by cost alone. I have only touched on one issue. I want to see how the UN over the next number of years can carry out its peace mandate. The 50th anniversary of the UN will at least sharpen that debate.
Ireland is uniquely well placed to make a contribution to that debate. Our role in the UN over the past number of years has been an honourable one. There is a wealth of experience in this country of UN operations, whether in the Department of Foreign Affairs, the armed services, with those people who have retired or are in academia. More than most, we have seen how and where it has gone wrong and how it can be put right. In our Constitution and in the political values of our people, our country has a civilised contribution to make to any debate on the further role of the UN. The time for that debate has come. The reason we, in Fine Gael, have put down this motion is because we want to start such a debate within the Houses of the Oireachtas as a beginning, to raise questions and to get some idea of the Government's thinking. We hope this will culminate in Ireland, at least, having clear ideas, a definite point of view and a real contribution to make towards the strengthening of the UN, which is coming up to its 50th anniversary.
I second the motion.
Nearly all Members of this House have been exceptionally lucky. We have been born into a period when no world war has taken place. Many of our parents and relations have lived through a period covering two world wars. Let us hope we succeed in avoiding such a war.
The United Nations has to some extent been of benefit in helping to avoid a third world war. However, it also has much to do with the greater level of democracy worldwide. Ordinary people are now involved in politics in most countries to a far greater degree. There are some sad exceptions, such as East Timor, Rwanda and parts of central Europe. Many countries that were sworn enemies and were involved in war with each other are now friends. The growth of democracy and the power of the press and television have also helped to avoid international conflicts on past scales. However, we must be vigilant. We must not become complacent and think all is well. The United Nations has done a splendid job. Because of our unique position, Ireland has in its own way put forward an independent viewpoint that has been listened to with great respect by the UN at all times.
I am concerned about some of the events in other countries, for example, in Rwanda, where the people are facing major problems, such as starvation and continuous indebtedness. John Pilger's report on East Timor, including the way 200,000 people died under Indonesian occupation, illustrates the inadequacies and failure of the UN to take action in time. It is something about which the House must be concerned. Failures of that magnitude, involving the death of 200,000 people, also illustrates the weakness of the UN in endeavouring to take a positive stand regarding matters of this kind.
Ireland must examine its role in the UN. Hitherto we have, to some extent, adopted a neutral stance. However, our future sense of direction must be considered and policy decisions may have to be taken regarding the role of neutrality.
On the issue of peacekeeping, monitoring and enforcement, Irish troops have been sent overseas on a continuous basis. We are aware of their peacekeeping efforts and the duties they have undertaken. In this respect, the Army, the Garda Síochána and successive Governments have contributed an enormous amount to the UN which has been greatly respected, and the organisation has acknowledged the debt owed to the Irish people regarding the work undertaken by our security forces.
The financing of the UN must be given serious consideration because so many nations are not contributing and are continually failing to contribute. Unless this problem is tackled and proper financial contributions are made by these reneging countries, the future of the UN will be a cause for concern. A much greater level of participation and finance must be provided by many of the member states, especially some of the larger member states who have not been contributing as they should.
It is essential that the UN and the Security Council be seen to be independent at all times. The UN acts in the role of a policeman who has to be seen to be fair and who is fair. If a situation is allowed to develop where only the viewpoint of a nation or group of nations is listened to or acted upon, then the UN will no longer be seen to be independent and to be acting independently. In this respect, it is essential that Ireland, as a small country with a strong and independent voice, continues to express its views on a regular basis.
The UN is the one institution which can prevent international turmoil and anarchy. It is essential, therefore, that we continue to support the UN and ensure that it is properly financed because it is with the UN that the future safety of the world lies.
The UN has a role to play in many areas. For example, the refugee problem is ever increasing, and when people are imprisoned behind barbed wire, fenced in and treated in a manner which is far worse than the way we treat animals; we must see what can be done to help. The way in which refugees are treated at present is a scandal and it is a problem which must be addressed.
This motion is of importance because the work and future role of the UN is vital to the future of all.
I thank those who proposed the motion and I welcome this debate and the opportunity to outline the Government's position on this important matter.
Next year marks not only the fiftieth anniversary of the UN but also the fortieth anniversary of Ireland's membership of the organisation. As a committed member, we have a proud record of contributing to the core UN objective of maintaining international peace and security. From the first deployment of Irish military observers in 1958 we have maintained an unbroken tradition of involvement in UN peacekeeping and today 820 members of the Permanent Defence Forces and 59 members of the Garda Síochána are serving in ten UN operations worldwide. We have twice served as a non permanent member of the Security Council. The early years of our membership saw Ireland active in encouraging the decolonisation process which has today led to a UN of 184 member states. One of the key multilateral disarmament instruments, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, originated in an Irish initiative at the UN. Ireland has also traditionally had a high profile on human rights question in UN fora and has been active in promoting dialogue on these questions among the different regions of the world.
Our scope for having an impact on international events may be limited but I believe that over the years we have made a constructive contribution to the purposes and principle of the UN, beyond our size and resources. As we approach these two important anniversaries, we will not forget those members of the Permanent Defence Forces who made the ultimate sacrifice in the cause of peace on UN service, from the former Belgian Congo to the Lebanon.
It is clear that the UN will continue to play a central role in the maintenance of international peace and security and the promotion of economic and social cooperation among the nations of the world. I have recalled the important areas of Ireland's involvement in the UN because they provide a sound basis on which a small member state can participate in the current debate on the future of the organisation.
On a point of order may I inquire if copies of the Minister's speech are to be provided to Members?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is not a matter for the Chair; perhaps the Minister would comment?
I would be pleased to make arrangements for a copy of my speech to be distributed as soon as possible; I hope this is something which would normally be provided.
Our involvement in UN peacekeeping has given us solid credentials for an active participation in this debate. For much of the period since the UN Charter was adopted in 1945 the vision of its framers was frustrated. It is only in the past few years that the ending of the intense rivalry between two super power blocs has opened up the potential of the UN organisation to establish enduring international peace and security. The Security Council has now begun to function effectively for the first time without the abiding threat that the veto power will be exercised. The UN has had a number of notable successes, for example, in Namibia and Cambodia where Ireland too has made its contributions.
Yet the tragedy of Bosnia and the uncertain handling of the UN operations in Somalia and Rwanda have provoked penetrating questions that go to the heart of peacekeeping and the international community's moral and political obligations when faced with a multiplicity of ethnic and regional conflicts. The removal, too, of the relative certainties engendered by a world divided into two superpower arenas of influence has caused many of the new UN members states, and the emerging economic powers of the Third World, to challenge the continuing relevance of institutional arrangements which were created by the victors of World War II.
It is a time of great change in the United Nations. Of that there can be no doubt. Ireland is well placed to offer its ideas on the future structure of the UN and on the organisation and doctrines of UN peacekeeping. In doing so, however, we need to be aware that the traditional influence in the United Nations of smaller member states such as Ireland is changing as other regions and countries justly claim their share of influence in the organisation. I draw attention to this reality to emphasise the point that we will need to be creative in seeking ways to continue to bring our concerns in such fields as human rights, disarmament, peacekeeping and social and humanitarian affairs to the fore on UN agendas.
The Irish delegation to the UN in New York is actively engaged in all the strands of the current reform debate, and I will say something about this in a moment. We are engaged because we are committed to the future wellbeing of the organisation. But just as we must do when we look to the future of the European Union, we will remain alert to the interests of smaller member states in the United Nations, finding ways to express our particular concerns and bringing our European partners with us wherever possible. By actively contributing to the development of European Union positions at the United Nations we can ensure that the issues which Ireland has long championed are kept firmly on its agenda.
When the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, launched his report An Agenda for Peace in 1992, he initiated a major debate on the role of the UN in conflict resolution. We were active in formulating the European Union response to the Secretary-General's proposals and the Permanent Representative of Ireland chaired consultations which led to a consensus resolution of the General Assembly on follow-up to these proposals last autumn.
The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dick Spring, addressed the General Assembly on 1 October 1993 and spoke of the need to draw lessons from the large scale peacekeeping operations of recent years. He called for special attention to be given to issues of command and control. Ireland subsequently co-sponsored a General Assembly resolution on this subject. I spoke earlier of the sacrifice already made by Irish soldiers in the cause of UN peacekeeping. Ireland has strongly supported an initiative by New Zealand, another country with an admirable record in this area, to elaborate an international convention on the safety of UN personnel. We are active in the ad hoc committee of the General Assembly established to draft such a document. We have supported efforts to strengthen the department of peacekeeping operations in the UN Secretariat and an Irish military officer is currently serving on secondment there.
The Irish delegation will continue to participate in the ongoing debate on peacekeeping and the Government will carefully monitor any developments which might affect the nature of our traditional commitment to peacekeeping. We will not, however, be influenced by what are perhaps over-hasty reactions to the latest difficulties being faced in the field. I recall that last year some doubts were being expressed about Ireland's role in the operation in Somalia. Irish troops have, in fact, served in that country with distinction and honour since they were deployed last September and have accomplished key humanitarian and logistical tasks. Lately we have heard demands for vigorous intervention in the tragic situation in Rwanda, and I myself can certainly sympathise with those who make these demands, having visited that troubled part of Africa only a few weeks ago. The Government will take a carefully considered approach to Ireland's role in peacekeeping and the debate on its future evolution. In the case of Rwanda, Ireland will continue to press for the earliest possible deployment of the expanded UNAMIR force authorised by Security Council Resolution 925 of 8 June 1994. Ultimately, it is Dáil Éireann which will continue to decide whether armed Irish contingents will serve abroad in any specific UN peacekeeping operation in response to requests from the UN Secretary-General.
On a point of order, it is Dáil and Seanad Éireann.
Dáil and Seanad Éireann. Thank you very much, Senator. I accept your point of order. I believe Senators will share my conviction that the Irish tradition in peacekeeping has particular strengths which can continue to serve the cause of international peace and security as the UN enters its second half-century.
Under Article 24 of the Charter, the member states of the United Nations confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and agree that in carrying out its duties in this area it acts on their behalf. This is one of the reasons that the current debate on the future size and role of the Council is of such critical importance, not least to troop contributing nations such as Ireland. The last expansion of the Security Council, to the current figures of five permanent and ten non-permanent members, took place almost 30 years ago. It is hardly surprising, given the major changes in political and economic power in the world since then, that the general membership of the United Nations, now standing at 184 member states, has seen fit to look again at these arrangements.
Ireland has been active in this debate. The Tánaiste, in his address to the General Assembly on 1 October 1993, stated the Government's support for an increase in the membership of the Council and our hope that decisions on this could be taken in time for the 50th anniversary. The Irish delegation is participating fully in the General Assembly working group on the question of equitable representation on and increase in membership of the Security Council, which began its work in January this year. The Irish Permanent Representative has made a number of interventions in the working group in which he further developed our support for expansion in the membership which would make it more reflective of the reality of today's world and at the same time ensure its continued effectiveness.
The Government attaches particular importance to improving the representation of the developing world while at the same time maintaining the opportunity for smaller countries, such as Ireland, to serve periodically on the Council. We have given particular consideration to an Italian proposal to develop a new and additional category of semi-permanent membership which could improve the representation of larger countries in the Third World without detracting from the contribution which smaller countries can make. On another key issue we have expressed hesitation about any extension of the veto power.
A number of trends have now begun to emerge from the debate. One area of possible convergence is that the generally preferred optimal size of the reformed Security Council could be in the low 20s, within a range of 20 to 25. Further discussion is needed on the mix of permanent and non-permanent members in any expansion.
There are a range of views on the veto power. Numberous proposals have been made in the debate. It would be premature and imprudent to commit ourselves at this point to a definitive position on these matters. However, the Irish delegation has emphasised that all proposals for enlargement and other reforms in working procedures must be put to the test of whether they improve the relationship between the general membership, including troop contributors like Ireland, and the Security Council.
It should be borne in mind that any proposal to amend the Charter to reform the Security Council will require the support of at least two thirds of the member states and all five permanent members. The prospects for reaching agreement on concrete reform in time for the 50th anniversary are uncertain, not least because of significant differences between the stated positions of some of the current permanent members and those of many of the general membership.
The Government remains of the view that a modest enlargement, along the lines of the range which seems to command widespread support, is desirable. We will work to encourage the emergence of the necessary consensus during or as soon as possible after the anniversary year. In the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, we attach importance to the provisions of the Treaty on European Union which provide that partners who are members of the Security Council will concert and keep other EU member states fully informed, and that those who are permanent members will ensure the defence of the EU positions.
In view of my particular responsibilities as Minister of State, I am pleased to say that there has been progress in some of the humanitarian areas of concern to us in recent months. In 1992, Ireland called for an Agenda for Development which would complement the Agenda for Peace which had been published that year. The Secretary-General has recently issued a draft report on an Agenda for Development and I will be participating in a high-level debate to consider action to be taken at the meeting of the United Nations Economic and Social Council in New York in the course of next week. Another important forthcoming meeting is the UN Conference on Population and Development, in Cairo this September, where the Minister for Health and myself will represent Ireland.
When he addressed the World Conference on Human Rights and the UN General Assembly last year, the Tánaiste called for the appointment of a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Irish delegation actively pursued this objective during the subsequent General Assembly debate. The High Commissioner, Mr. Ayala Lasso, was appointed on 31 March this year and has already proven that he intends to take a vigorous approach to his mandate by visiting Rwanda recently. Ireland strongly supported his call for a special session of the UN Commission on Human Rights to consider the appalling human rights violations in that country and was active in the formulation of the European intervention at the emergency meeting held on 24 and 25 May last. Many instances of violations of human rights were reported by me to Geneva on my return from Rwanda.
The Government believes that more resources should be devoted to the promotion of human rights from within the UN budget and we will continue to press for adequate resources to be made available to the High Commissioner. We have substantially increased our own national contribution to the UN voluntary funds for advisory services in the field of human rights and for torture victims this year. These now total £50,000.
I have dealt with a wide range of policy areas, but we should bear in mind that one of the major constraints on the effective operation of the United Nations is the failure of many member states to pay their assessed contributions to the regular and peacekeeping budgets in full and on time. Senator Enright referred to this. As of 15 May, some $2.9 billion was owed by these member states to the UN, $1.9 billion for peacekeeping and $1 billion for the regular budget. Regrettably, the largest amounts were owed by some permanent members of the Security Council who bear a special responsibility for international peace and security.
The Government has maintained Ireland's policy, even in times of budgetary constraint, of paying our UN assessments in full and on time. We have done this despite the fact that we are regularly owed moneys by the UN for our troop contributions because of the failure of other member states to pay. The Tánaiste and I will continue to use every opportunity to press for the payment of these amounts, which currently run to about £13.5 million. We have done this on a number of occasions. I made this point to Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali when I accompanied the President to New York on her last visit. However, we will maintain the traditional policy of fully meeting our commitments to the UN in the conviction that a strong United Nations is in our national interest. Failure to do so would be a breach of our legal obligations under the Charter and would undermine the force of our arguments on the financing of the organisation.
As we prepare nationally and in the United Nations Organisation to celebrate the anniversaries of the Charter and Ireland's membership, the Government will continue to keep the Oireachtas informed. We welcome in particular the contribution of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs since it was established. I know that its UN subcommittee is preparing its own proposals in the areas of peacekeeping and reform. These will be carefully considered by the Tánaiste and myself when available. The Tánaiste and the chairman of the joint committee, Deputy Brian Lenihan, are consulting about the appointment, with all-party agreement, of Members of the Oireachtas to the national committee which will shortly be established for the 50th anniversary.
Both the Tánaiste and I welcomed the establishment of the joint committee and I believe that the experience to date of its operation has been of considerable value to all concerned. It is a reflection also of the importance of the United Nations to Irish foreign policy that one of the earliest decisions of the joint committee was to establish a specific subgroup to deal with UN issues. The debate on the future of the UN is dynamic and it is difficult to predict whether genuine reform can be accomplished in the context of the 50th anniversary. The Government is determined that Ireland will continue to play its part in seeking to build the necessary consensus among the member states of the United Nations.
I wish to share my time with Senator Henry.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the Minister. I know his good feelings in this area because I have stood on many platforms with him in the past on Tibet, East Timor and other issues and it is good to see him in his present position. I am glad he referred to the creation of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and its special subcommittee on the United Nations. As the Minister knows, it paid a visit recently to New York. Our representative there made the members welcome and explained the situation to them.
The points I wish to make were all referred to by the Minister in his wide-ranging speech. The first relates to the Cairo conference and the question of population control. It is important that we make a balanced contribution here. I was horrified by the editorial in the Sunday Business Post which said it was a wet liberal notion that we have to embark on the question of population control. It is the single most serious and most potentially explosive situation facing the planet at the moment. It was appalling in my opinion that the Vatican and the American State Department under George Bush managed to force it off the agenda of the Rio Earth Summit. I hope that this Government and State will not allow itself, by virtue of the overwhelming Roman Catholic nature of the population, to be over-influenced by the view of the Vatican representatives on this matter. I was recently at a conference in Holland about identify within the European Union, which was attended by Ministers of the Dutch Government. One of the senior representatives from Belgium was extremely exercised in her mind about the tactics being used by Vatican representatives to promote a point of view which was detrimental to attempts to control world population and to label all who wish to do so in the long term interests of humanity as mad abortionists. I hope that the Government will take into account that this State is not a fief of the Vatican and will present a balanced and reasonable view on this matter.
The Minister has visited the tragic country of Rwanda. I heard last night that there are supposed to be two million dead, but five million are apparently missing. It is an appalling situation. We had a remarkable contribution to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs by a De La Salle brother, Tom O'Donoghue, to whom it was an honour to listen. He has made a very courageous decision to go back to that shattered country, even though most of his pupils would by now have been hacked to death. One of the things suggested at that meeting was the construction of an airport runway facility for a comparatively small amount of money so that relief supplies could be delivered most efficiently into Rwanda. This is something that Ireland could do independently. The amount of money this would involve is not disproportionate and I very much hope that the Minister will look at this situation.
I am particularly glad that he raised the shameful situation with regard to the payment of the bills of the United Nations but he was too delicate and sensitive. He covered the shame of those countries. I want to name them. They are the US, Germany, Britain, the former Soviet Union and France. We need a standing army which can be employed directly. We need proper payment for the UN, as the Minister suggested. We need to look at the establishment of a war crimes tribunal. We need these things to oppose mulitnational interests and forces. We need particularly to look at land mines.
I thank Senator Norris for sharing his time with me. I welcome the Minister. We have talked about military matters. I am equally proud of all our forces and gardaí who have served abroad. Sometimes it is difficult to get information on our attitude to various conflicts — for example, our attitude to the French offer of help in solving the situation in Rwanda. Perhaps the Minister could tell us about this later. Not all the activities of the United Nations are military. I am glad the Minister mentioned the UN conference on population in Cairo. There has been very odd criticism regarding this and of the President's speech in Harvard. It has been argued that a western philosophy is taking over the United Nations. I have seen it stated that feminists want to transform societies such as Saudi Arabia and India. I possibly do so also from the point of view of women. A change of attitude would be no harm.
There is the situation regarding food and girls. One of the most poignant photographs I ever saw was of an Indian woman who had twins — a boy and a girl. The longed for boy was at her breast and was a fine, big child. On her knee sat a child half the size, skin and bone, with a bottle stuck in its mouth with some sort of formula which was probably polluted. The totally different values put on the respective lives of the boy and girl was incredible. To this day we know that in developing countries female children are less well fed than males.
The situation is even worse from the point of view of pre-natal diagnosis of the sex of the child, where one may be sure that it is the girls who are aborted. This will have terrible demographic effects in a very short time. We must address these sorts of activities. Infanticide is also far more common in some countries among girls. I have not heard of it anywhere among boys, unless they were physically or mentally disabled.
Regarding this conference on population control, every time the word abortion is mentioned I think of the 500,000 women who die in pregnancy and childbirth every year; 200,000 of them die from illegal septic abortions, every one of them for economic reasons, in developing countries. I do not hear anyone talking about those 200,000 cases where there is not just the loss of the child but also of the mother. When discussing abortion in Cairo, we should remember legal abortion was never introduced anywhere, except where the situation regarding illegal abortion was so appalling that it was felt something must be done to reduce the death rate among women.
When we talk about family planning here we are not talking about it because children are starving. However, a large number of women in the developing world try to seek adequate family planning because they do not have food to feed their children. The economic issues are entwined in this conference and must not be forgotten.
As regards AIDS, some people object to the distribution of condoms in these countries. However, I saw statistics from Uganda the other day which said that 27 per cent of the urban population and 8 per cent of the rural population are HIV positive and I can assure the Minister that all of these are due to heterosexual spread of the AIDS virus.
I am glad this debate is taking place on a day when, as Senator Henry mentioned, there is conflict in Rwanda and the surrounding area regarding French involvement in the United Nations force to go in to create an atmosphere in which peace can evolve.
The question of the United Nations has been addressed in the Committee on Foreign Affairs over the past number of months. We cannot say the United Nations has been a force for good in one area and a force for bad in another. The fact is that the United Nations as it has evolved has been good and bad and the evolution of the United Nations is a matter of concern.
I heard people talking about World Wars I and II this evening. World War I was confined to Europe but World War II did not encompass the world. However, in today's terms one could not talk about those conflicts as world wars. There are more wars going on in the world at present than ever; there are wars in small countries throughout Africa, the Middle East and central Europe. These wars will not go away and there is no point in anybody suggesting that because the Cold War between the East and the West is over there is going to be a change.
We are looking at the structures of the United Nations this evening but it is very hard to delve deeply into these matters in such a short time. However, it has to be said that the permanent members of the Security Council were the cause of most of the problems. They have not been the biggest contributors, as they are supposed to be, but they have been the inhibitors of the growth of the power of the United Nations. When the question of the veto came up and the United Kingdom, the USA and France were on one side, occasionally Russia or China would exercise the veto.
The question of peacekeeping must be addressed. We will not be able to fully address it this evening but up to 1987 there were only 13 peacekeeping situations worldwide. Since then, that figure has increased dramatically. I would like anybody inside or outside this House to show me where a peacekeeping force was able to leave after a short time having completed its mandate. That never happened. The longest established peacekeeping force — UNIFIL — is still in South Lebanon and I cannot see it leaving because a member state, Israel, would not abide by the resolutions of the United Nations.
Senator Henry talks about population control as being one of the problems. It is a problem worldwide but the major problem at present is not essentially caused by population but by the high ratio of military expenditure to peacekeeping. If states did not spend so much on military matters the world would be able to feed its hungry and address its problems. For example, Russia's ratio of military expenditure to peacekeeping is 3,714:1; in Turkey the ratio is 15,911:1; in Iraq it is 108,622:1 and in Burma it is 162,118:1. This also applies to countries where people are hungry, for example, in Ethiopia the ratio is 182,485:1.
The United Nations must ensure there is a fair balance for all member states. That does not mean there will be 184 permanent members of the Security Council. We must make certain that there is a balance to ensure fair play for all.
With regard to reform of the secretariat, it is a monolithic institution. There are probably 50 times too many people working in the United Nations. Often, its very size ensures that it cannot do the job. There has to be a change in the expenditure pattern of the United Nations.
There must also be a realisation that we will only get somewhere if members pay their contributions; they must pay their assessed dues on time and in full. Ireland is owed money because of our UNIFIL involvement. It is a small amount in relative terms but if we had it we could spend the money building up our Army or tackling social deprivation. Those who do not pay are the permanent members, those who should be giving the lead in these matters.
We, as a small nation, have played an honourable role in the United Nations over the years. We have to thank our representatives at the United Nations — who are often forgotten — from the secretariat to the ambassador. Equally, we should thank the officials from Department of Foreign Affairs who are so au fait with what is happening.
I thank the Minister of State for coming in here this evening. His speech encompassed many of the issues that will set the agenda for the debate, because that is all we are doing here this evening. We are not really debating the role of the United Nations, its evolution and our role in the United Nations; we are trying to set an agenda. The Minister has gone through much of what we need. I thank Senator Manning for bringing the matter before the Seanad.
This is an important motion. It is vital that we as a State take a firm position in the current international debate on the future role of the United Nations. Last year Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali published a document called An Agenda for Peace in which he set out and sought debate on the role of the United Nations, particularly the expanded role at all levels of the United Nations. Very fine contributions were made this evening on that role. It is important that Ireland clearly states its position in the international debate on the role of the United Nations.
The United Nations will be 50 years old next year. There would appear to be an urgency on the part of the United Nations to have each future role clearly defined when it sets about celebrating that 50th anniversary. We must realise that the political climate in which it was founded in 1945 was post Second World War. There was a very definite political world order, particularly because of the two super powers. There was always a reluctance and consideration when the United Nations made a decision. The consideration took the implications for the Cold War and its effects into account. There was a certain constraint on the United Nations. For several years since the fall of one of those powers there has been a change in the United Nations and in the attitude of the world towards it. It is important to recognise that suddenly people, nations and states realise that the United Nations is there for a very particular purpose.
Unfortunately, decisions are now being made which do not take account of the Cold War implications. The result is that greater demands are being made on the United Nations, which is neither prepared nor equipped to undertake this great change. It is important that we, as a member of the United Nations, recognise that fact in any contribution we make.
The reality is that increased sophistication in the electronic media means that televisions throughout the world can now bring situations right into the sitting rooms of every household. People are aware of the world order and, more particularly, world disorder. They expect the United Nations to respond.
The United Nations has recently come in for much criticism for the lack of response or slow response to situations that have arisen in Europe, Africa and elsewhere. That is unfortunate because it is up to the member states, the General Assembly and the Security Council to change and amend the Charter to take account of changing times and the changing world order. That has not occurred. Until the Charter which founded the United Nations is changed to adapt to the current world order, one cannot criticise the United Nations.
Great efforts have been made, particularly within the Secretariat and the General Assembly. Business now goes through the General Assembly more efficiently than it did hitherto because of the Cold War situation, which is now a thing of the past. Resolutions now go through and business is done more efficiently. The Secretariat have also improved and adapted their situation and now provide a much better service. Previously there was no service in the United Nations at weekends. Now there is a service and a contact point at United Nations headquarters at weekends.
The Security Council comes in for much criticism because of its limited membership. In addressing the issue of the membership of the Security Council there is one yardstick we should use and one definite line we should consider which is what increasing the membership of the Security Council would mean. If we are to reduce the conflict in the various parts of the world, the membership of the Security Council should only be increased if doing so will increase the effectiveness of the United Nations in getting to areas of crisis throughout the world. Any decisions that will be taken to increase that membership should use that as a fundamental yardstick on which to base the decision.
There is a danger if the membership is significantly increased, there could be a delay in coming to decisions on action. At present there are delays in relation to taking action on particular issues. Rwanda is a case in point. There are 5,500 African soldiers ready to go into Rwanda. The Security Council has passed a resolution, but has said that it will not take effect for at least three months. That is most unsatisfactory. At the same time the French are saying that they are also ready to provide assistance.
We must ask why the international community is standing by and allowing the situation in Rwanda to continue without intervening. This is a serious question which we, as part of the developed world, must address. Is it the case that within the membership of the United Nations an African life is not considered as sacred as a European life or a life in the rest of the developed world? That is a fundamental question. One can only assume from the lack of action that this is the reality.
There is a difficulty in relation to logistics, and the answer from official level will be that these African troops are not sufficiently equipped or trained to go in to Rwanda. If they are not why is the international community not providing the expertise in relation to the logistics, command and control which would get the people in there to try to resolve the situation? Unfortunately that is not happening.
I suggest to the Minister that he put these questions forcibly at United Nations level. It is a matter of simple logistics and getting people who have the expertise and specialise in that area to accompany the African troops. That has not occurred and a delay of three months is totally unacceptable when one considers the inhuman atrocities and massive loss of life occurring in Rwanda.
The Charter firmly respects the sovereignty of states, but since the breakdown of the world order that has changed considerably. There is less respect for sovereignty. Questions relating to that have to be addressed. When the United Nations decides to go into an area, what are the criteria on which that decision is based? This is a particularly sensitive question when there are terrible human tragedies occurring and lives being lost. These criteria need to be specifically laid out so that the United Nations can feel free and able under its Charter to go in. There are many issues in the Charter which need to be addressed and amended to take account of the changing political circumstances in the world order.
I congratulate the Fine Gael Senators for raising this motion on the UN. We have all seen the results of Ireland's contribution to the UN over the years. It is evident from the deaths of soldiers through the years. We have lost quite a few people from this country who went out to trouble spots throughout the world to try to solve problems for others.
In the early 1960s a young man I grew up with died in the Congo. His remains were never found and his people still wonder what happened him. In 1982 another friend of mine was killed in the Lebanon. He was brought home and buried along with many others who have died from my own county and others. Their people still ask why. We have made a tremendous sacrifice for many of the trouble spots in the world and have reason to be proud of our contribution to the United Nations.
I welcome the recent announcement by the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, of the percentage of GNP we will give to undeveloped countries. That is one way we can help avoid the occurrence of war and famine. If we support these countries and if other much wealthier countries give more money, we could do a great deal to solve such problems. We have served the United Nations and the world well and we have reason to be proud.
In March this year Deputy Séan Barrett and I visited our troops in Somalia and Lebanon to see the conditions in which they were living. Major doubts were expressed about our troops going to Somalia. People wondered whether they should go there but the Irish forces have made a major contribution to peace in that country. The conditions there were deplorable. There was famine there and thousands of people died. The soldiers brought stability to their area of operations. The Irish nature appears to foster peace in such areas. Irish troops get on well with local people. Even in Somalia where they had to be on guard at all times outside their camp they still had a way with the local people who respected that quality in them.
Lebanon was different. Our troops have been there for many years and have suffered many deaths. There is a monument to the people who have given their lives for peace in that country; a number of Irish names are on that monument. It annoyed me that the allowances for the Irish forces were about one quarter the allowances given to the French soldiers who were carrying out the same role. It is a disgrace that our soldiers should be treated differently from others. They have played a major role in every trouble spot to which they have been sent in the last 40 years, and that should be taken into consideration.
The Minister said that this country is owed £13.5 million. That is a disgrace especially when that money should be paid by countries such as the USA and Russia. I accept that the CIS States have problems at present but the debt was allowed to build up. We paid our way while they did not. Anybody who has visited the UN in New York will discover that its administration is an absolute disgrace. It is over-manned and a senior official told us that each sheet of paper printed by the UN in New York costs $714. That is ridiculous.
In welcoming the motion, we should continue to raise this issue at the UN. We have an excellent team in New York doing a first rate job.
I welcome this debate. I draw the attention of the House to three statistics. Military spending is running at $767 billion per year, roughly three times the GDP of all of Africa south of the Sahara; in poorer countries the chance of dying from malnutrition and preventable diseases is 33 times greater than dying as a result of war with neighbours and poor countries have 20 soldiers for every doctor.
Of the 82 armed conflicts that occurred in the world between 1989 and 1992 — the latest figures available — only three were between states; the others were internal conflicts. We must bear that crucial point in mind when considering the work of the United Nations. Armies are not being used to defend a country against other countries. In general they are used inside the country. Costa Rica has no army. It made the decision many years ago and it has not had any more problems than other countries. That is an interesting policy.
One development in the United Nations which we should view with caution and possibly concern is the trend for the UN to become increasingly involved in peace making rather than the more restricted duty of peacekeeping. We must think long and hard about that development. We must consider whether it is a good idea for the organisation to move in that direction at all and whether we want to supply troops for peace making operations. The problem with peace making is that the term is highly misleading. Peace making means, in effect, waging war. It may mean waging war for a very good reason against an enemy that deserves to be resisted. However, it is waging war and we must ask if a world organisation such as the United Nations should get involved in that task and whether it is possible to do so successfully.
We need only look at Somalia to see the difficulties involved. Yet many people are calling on the United Nations to become actively involved in a war in Bosnia instead of simply protecting the humanitarian effort. I have doubts about whether the United Nations should make war in the pursuit of peace in the first place and whether it can do so successfully. The moral authority of the United Nations, which is fragile anyway, is unlikely to survive a war making role even if it is in the pursuit of peace. Wars are bloody and terrible regardless of the motives of the participants. I do not envisage many countries being prepared to offer the lives of their citizens as mercenaries in a world police force and we should be slow to do so.
The United Nations can, with a large measure of success, carry out the very limited role of peacekeeping. It has been doing so since Lester Pearson created the concept after the 1956 crisis. In many situations throughout the world the United Nations has gone between the combatants and successfully remained there as a buffer and Irish troops have played a major part in that role. That, of course, is no solution to the problems that cause the conflicts. Next month it will be 20 years since the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. The United Nations is still there with Irish troops and police included in the force. The force is holding the line between two communities which appear to be permanently frozen in aggression against each other. Although the United Nations has not solved the problem that does not mean peacekeeping is not valuable.
It is time we redefined our approach to the United Nations. We have undergone a number of changes since we joined that organisation. Our involvement in the European Union has almost distracted our attention from the UN. We should look on the United Nations and the world stage as an important opportunity to contribute rather than to gain. I am not sure that we have had that approach in the past. We should seek a role that would involve us making a specific and constructive contribution, based on our values and experiences, in solving world problems.
Last year I visited Norway and that country has achieved such a role. We cannot fail to be impressed at the attitude of the Norwegians which led those few brave people to play a key role in the Arab-Israeli peace process. Such people consider themselves to be world citizens. We should do so as well. We should not be inhibited simply because we have problems on this island which we have not yet solved. Our experience of the problems in the North should make us all the more determined to get involved in the many similar situations throughout the world where two different communities have great difficulty living together in the same territory. That appears to be the classic problem of the 20th century; it is repeated all over the world. If we were involved in more of those problems we might not only help other countries but also learn lessons which might be of benefit to us.
I refuse to believe the problems of two communities living together are incapable of solution except by the non-solution of one community dominating the other. Last year I had the opportunity to visit Bali, a Hindu island in the middle of a Muslim state, Indonesia. I never encountered such peace and tranquility as there. Some people are able to solve difficulties and we should see if we can learn from them as well as contribute to the peace process.
I am happy to support this timely and constructive motion. All organisations go through what has been termed an organisational life cycle. Most begin in a small way, then rapidly develop and eventually reach a stage of maturity which is sometimes referred to as a "fat and happy" stage. At this point, in order to avoid entropy, an organisation must renew and revitalise itself or else die. The necessity for renewal does not imply there are flaws or faults in the organisation but it does imply that in order to continue to be vital and meaningful the organisation must continually look at itself, examine its ways of doing things, re-assess its goals and objectives and heed the signs of the times while reaffirming its primary purpose.
The UN should welcome an examination of its roles, goals and structures and emerge from any such examination a stronger, healthier, more vibrant and more meaningful organisation. The UN Secretary-General, Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, has begun this process with the publication of his report, The Agenda for Peace. In it he writes:
Since the creation of the UN in 1945, over 100 major conflicts around the world have left some 20 million people dead. The United Nations was rendered powerless to deal with some of these crises because of the vetoes — 279 of them — cast in the Security Council, which were a vivid expression of the divisions of that period. At the end of the cold war there have been no such vetoes since 31 May 1990 and demands on the United Nations have surged. Its security arm, once disabled by circumstances it was not created or equipped to control, has emerged as a central instrument for the prevention and resolution of conflicts and for the preservation of peace ... Our aims must be to seek to identify at the earliest possible stage situations which could produce conflict and to try through diplomacy to remove the sources of danger before violence results.
The Secretary-General mentions a number of other aims but I will discuss this one in particular. The UN has been developing a network of early warning systems concerning threats to the environment, the threat of famine and the spread of disease and the threat of nuclear accident such as occurred at Chernobyl and is waiting to occur at Windscale, now called Sellafield and at the THORP reprocessing plant. We must formalise arrangements for providing data from various sources on possible threats.
The Secretary-General further states in his report:
There is a need however to strengthen arrangements in such a manner that information from these sources can be synthesised with political indicators to assess whether a threat to peace exists and to analyse what action might be taken by the United Nations to alleviate it. This is a process which will continue to require the close co-operation of the various specialised agencies and functional offices of the United Nations. These analyses and recommendations for preventative action that emerge will be made available by me as appropriate to the Security Council and other United Nations organs. I recommend in addition that the Security Council invite a re-invigorated and re-structured Economic and Social Council to provide reports in accordance with Article 65 of the Charter on those economic and social developments that may unless mitigated threaten international peace and security.
In January of this year in The Hague in the Netherlands, Parliamentarians for Global Action met at an international parliamentarian conference on strengthening collective security based on an agenda for peace. At the conference there was a call to set up a committee of parliamentarians on early warning. Parliamentarians for Global Action is an organisation of democratically elected parliamentarians from all over the world and this country is unique in having four Ministers as members: the Minister for Defence and for the Marine, Deputy Andrews; the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Higgins; the Minister for Health, Deputy Howlin; and the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn. The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, who is present at this debate, is also a long term member of that organisation. Mr. M.J. Nolan is a member of its international executive.
In his address to that conference the Secretary-General said: "The proposal of an early warning system run by parliamentarians is an excellent idea." That system was set up and I am proud to be a member of it. The membership is drawn from various countries and continents. An early warning system must be thought through. How will 75 parliaments work to give a thorough and distilled report to the UN? Consideration must be given to what kinds of emergency the network would want to draw to the attention of the UN. Would they be primarily domestic or would they involve threats to neighbouring countries? Intervention is a thorny issue. Sovereignty is being gradually eroded by practice, but sensitivities remain. An early warning alert system would have to remain focussed and narrow in scope.
The Secretary-General is insistent on enhancing conflict prevention and early warning is an essential aspect of any preventive effort. He has already called upon ECOSOC to act as an early warning mechanism and to alert the Secretary-General's office to an economic issue in a nation or region which might be dangerous. In addition the UN has formed a working group under the UN Department of Humanitarian Assistance for early warning. The group meets every two months to examine the need for preventive action.
The parliamentarian early alert system is another step in the plan which could be co-ordinated with ECOSOC and DHA. A parliamentarian early warning system is one small albeit important step in helping the UN in its role not merely of peace keeping and peace enforcement but in the prevention of conflict and the elimination of all threats to global human security before these threats develop to a level where they can no longer easily be controlled or eliminated. I trust the Minister will see his way to assist this development and help the UN in its renewal process, thereby making it a more effective and efficient organisation, dedicated to world peace.
Finally, I am tired of hearing Senator Norris attack the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church. If the UN puts forward the view that abortion is one way of population control——
Acting Chairman
It is not in order to refer to any Senator in his absence. I ask you to conclude, Senator.
Senator Norris referred to the Vatican in its absence. The Vatican has not only a right but a duty to object if abortion is one of the methods the UN chooses to use to perpetrate the slaughter of the innocents.
I join my colleagues in congratulating and thanking Fine Gael for putting down this motion at this appropriate time. I also thank the Minister for attending and giving us a broad and comprehensive review of the range of issues to be brought before the UN at this point.
The UN is unique, not only in being the only international organisation truly representative of all the states of the world but also because it can only exercise its functions with the consent of all the member states. I do not disagree with the Minister when he said:
It is clear the United Nations will continue to play a central role in the maintenance of international peace and security and the promotion of economic and social co-operation among the nations of the world.
While we would acknowledge that is clear, it is also shameful that the individual member states of that organisation, especially the more powerful states, are the ones which create and foment the violence for the selfish and unprincipled reasons of their armaments industry. For as long as the armaments trade of the powerful UN member states is allowed to go unchecked we will find cause to regret the suffering, oppression and horrible tragedies we will see and many of us will be frustrated by the fact that we cannot do enough to alleviate the suffering and hardship of innocent people throughout the world.
For that reason we should acknowledge it is unfortunate that despite the stated aims of the UN, the shameful and unprincipled activities of many member states cause the very problems we now decry and are shocked and horrified by on our television screens. It is only now when it is happening before our eyes that we have become awake to these shameful actions by powerful member states.
It is important to condemn the hypocrisy of those who prop up and support brutal regimes and facilitate slaughter by supplying armaments to them for their own unprincipled profit motives and who at a later stage make proposals through the United Nations and suggest United Nations intervention, while sometimes preventing that intervention. The list is a litany of shame. The Iran-Iraq conflict would not have lasted six months were it not for the fact that member states, and an individual member state of the EU, to which we belong, were supplying both sides. Uganda's oppressive regime under Idi Amin could not have been the instrument of torture and oppression it was were it not for the fact that member states of the EU were supplying arms to that brutal tyrant. I met people from Haiti in the Bahamas and I saw the fear and terror in their eyes when they were being deported back to Haiti. How long could that situation have continued had it not been for the fact that member states of the United Nations supplied arms to these brutal regimes? I am not only referring to the western world, although America has a lot to answer for, but also to the Soviet Union and many others which supplied arms to these brutal regimes.
The list is endless. Would Rwanda have had the power and the brutal forces which have been operating against the people, and imposing the type of suffering we find shameful and objectionable, were it not for the fact that others from a comfortable distance were making profit from the slaughter? The same can be said about Cambodia. When I was Minister for Foreign Affairs the killing fields of Cambodia represented one of the most shameful tragedies. The EC, as it was called at that time, supported Pol Pot as the legitimate expression of the Cambodian people because it suited it not to acknowledge that the Vietnamese had a lawful role to play. It did not matter that countless millions of people were being slaughtered. We supported this in the knowledge that at the same time it was being supplied with armaments by those who supported the regime. The same can be said about the warlords in Somalia.
Senator Quinn was correct when he said that these countries spend $767 billion annually on arms. That would not be the case were it not for the shameful actions of those with whom we are partners in many other ventures. It is time we reminded them that such shame cannot be continued. In 20 or 30 years' time someone will look at the irony of the fact that we had an international organisation with financial support, although not as great as it should have been, committed to peace, while at the same time its member states were doing everything possible to bring about slaughter and to create conditions for their own illicit, shameful profits. The United Nations should be given a new role to sanction and, if necessary, to expel those members who profit from such illicit trading.
There are safe havens with numbered accounts for the brutal tyrants of the world. I have mentioned this many times in the House. Switzerland has set an example for the world with its safe havens from which it makes a profit. Instead of condemning this through the United Nations — and that is what we should do in any reformation of the United Nations — we should not follow that example and establish safe havens. If we are to look at the future role of the United Nations, we should find ways of imposing sanctions and severe penalties on those who foment suffering and slaughter in so many parts of the world.
I am pleased to speak on this motion. I compliment Senator Manning for introducing it and I support it. I compliment the United Nations for the work it has done since its foundation almost 50 years ago. My first memory of Irish participation in the United Nations relates to the Congo. My cousin was a chaplain to the forces in the Congo. As a child, I remember the reaction of this nation to the atrocities in the Congo as a result of the Niemba ambush.
Senator Manning said that if the founders of the UN looked at the situation they would realise they had not achieved the aspirations they had for it. I agree with that viewpoint. It is a pity the members of the United Nations did not fully back the aspirations or objectives of the original founders of the United Nations. One of the reasons for this is that the Cold War dominated world politics for 40 years and the United Nations was on the sidelines. The major powers dominated such events as the erection of the Berlin Wall, the Hungarian rising and the defeat of Dubcek in Czechoslovakia, while the United Nations had to stand aside. The Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States dominated the agenda during that period.
Now that things have changed, the United Nations and its members should assert themselves in a more dominant way in peacekeeping and in developing world events. However, the members must ensure that the United Nations has the resources to do that. We have already heard that the resources of the United Nations are stretched and that the major participants in world politics are slow to pay their financial dues to the United Nations. Dáil questions have often been tabled about the level of payments due to this country for work done for the United Nations. I understand there is still a considerable sum outstanding to the Exchequer from the United Nations for the excellent work our peacekeeping forces do in various areas. I am sorry the Minister does not have an opportunity to tell us the level of moneys outstanding to the Exchequer. As a small nation we have done our share for world peacekeeping, perhaps more so than many other countries. It is unfortunate there is an Exchequer deficit, while bigger nations, which have the resources to contribute to the finances of the United Nations, limit the payment of moneys to us.
One is concerned about the failure of the United Nations to achieve the aspirations of its founders. The United Nations and its members do not have the moral authority to ensure that its central role is carried out. Often individual strong nations, for their own political objectives, limit, restrict and even eliminate the role the UN should play in conflict areas throughout the world.
The House debated East Timor at length some time ago and I was happy to participate because I have an interest in that area. The UN has been silent in this area. Nations have not asserted or stated their position. Strong members of the UN encourage the Indonesians in their role and approach to East Timor. With the exception of Portugal and some other countries, no steps have been taken by the UN to intervene in the horrific slaughter and genocide of the East Timorese.
The failure of UN participation in former Yugoslavia is a reflection of its success and its role. Former Yugoslavia is part of Europe, it is part of our continent, yet we, as Europeans, have not brought this issue strongly enough to the UN, which has failed us. Rwanda was discussed at length by other speakers. The genocide in that country is sickening. Television pictures are so revolting that one might ask what is the world political scene doing about this. Why is the UN not more successful in intervening or controlling these areas?
I want to refer to the peace institute in Limerick. I compliment it on the role it has taken in areas relating to the UN and in promoting a multinational research project on UN peacekeeping. A team of researchers from Denmark, Germany and Austria are participating in that and I compliment them.
This motion is timely and I could use the time available to me to list the various activities of the UN. This matter will need further discussion and debate when the structure of the UN is looked at. I compliment Senator Manning for tabling this motion.
This motion is timely because the UN Charter was signed in San Francisco on 26 June 1945. Its objectives were to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among states based on the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples; to achieve international co-operation in solving problems of an economic social, cultural and humanitarian character; and to harmonise the actions of states in the attainment of these common ends.
To a large extent, tonight's debate has been overshadowed by references to recent tragic events in Somalia, Rwanda and other trouble spots. However, there is a huge dimension to the operation of the UN in many of the specialised agencies for which it is responsible and with which it deals. I single out UNICEF, the children's organisation, for the tremendous work it has done. We must remember 40,000 children die each day from malnutrition and disease. Previous speakers mentioned horrific facts in other areas, but 150 million children suffer from disease and malnutrition. These areas require urgent attention. In any reorganisation of the UN in the coming years, it will be important to specify the various agencies, the contribution they make and where they may be expanded and further developed.
It is equally important to hive off some activities dealt with by agencies but which could perhaps be dealt with on a national or state by state basis. I wonder what influence the International Civil Aviation Authority has? The International Labour Organisation could be dealt with at national level by Government; other than the small framework arrangement which would need to be put in place, I am sure most of these matters could be dealt with at national level. The International Maritime Organisation and educational, scientific and research areas which have been dealt with by the UN could be hived off to some of the economic blocs which are developing at a rapid pace.
Some of the other objectives of the UN are not being dealt with and are causing hardship and deprivation and, to a large extent, are the cause of unrest, conflict, economic despair, social injustice and political oppression. These matters require urgent attention by the UN. Crushing debt burdens, barriers to trade in the international arena, the gap between the rich and the poor, which is growing daily — I saw evidence of this on my recent visit to South Africa — poverty, disease, famine and the spread of drugs abuse are fundamentally damaging prospects for peace and stability in many countries.
One only has to look at figures in relation to events which have happened over the past number of years to see the tragedy on our door step. There are 17 million refugees and 20 million displaced people in the world today. There is also a constant threat to our environment. Many of these issues, including humanitarian ones relating to children, the spread of disease and organisations like the World Health Organisations, must be supported.
The UN Secretary-General pointed out in the document, Agenda for Peace, that the financial foundations of the organisation are getting weaker daily. World leaders — we can have an input here because I know the Minister is concerned about developments in the UN — must respond. At the end of the day, world leaders will make the decisions in this regard. We can play our part; I am sure our debate will be useful to the Minister in his deliberations at the UN.
Irish people throughout the world have played an outstanding role in peacekeeping, peace making, the development of humanitarian assistance and helping people in the developing world to help themselves. It is important that we note the work which has been done by nongovernmental and governmental personnel who have put their lives at risk and have given their lives when endeavouring to find solutions to problems which are always beyond comprehension. This evening's debate was worthwhile and I would like the opportunity to discuss this issue further at a later stage.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Before Senator Manning replies, I understand the Minister wishes to reply to a couple of remarks. I hope the House will allow the Minister to reply. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank the House for the opportunity to reply. In such a debate, it is important to reply to points raised. The Cairo conference was referred to and I agree with Members who suggested that we maintain a balance in this debate.
I have said before, at the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and at other meetings, that this whole question of population is central to the debate which began during the Rio conference on the environment. The message from that conference was very clear: that the issues of development, environment, population, equality and justice are linked. The population is exploding, in particular in the developing world. There is a link between population and sustainable development. We support the human right to family planning and the right of parents to choose the number and spacing of their children. We have been endeavouring to co-ordinate our position closely with our EU partners. If Members look carefully at the EU position they will see that the principles of non-coercion and respect for traditions are clearly part of the EU position. In consultation with our partners we are preparing for this very important conference. We will not accept the promotion of abortion as a means of population control. I have to spell out that position very clearly.
The other issue raised was Rwanda. Many Senators have referred to the French position. I wish to clarify what is happening. As Members know, the French intend to send a force of 2,000 troops to Rwanda immediately to help stop the massacre. The purpose of the force will be to contribute to the security of displaced people, refugees and civilians in danger. The force would be empowered under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and would thus be able to use all the necessary means to attain its objectives. A precedent for this exists in the case of Somalia and UNITAF. The force will be there for two months, until the increased UNAMIR force can become operative.
It is a military mission with a humanitarian purpose. That is the factual situation. During my visit to Rwanda I spoke with the Prime Minister of Tanzania, Mr. Malacela. He made it very clear that his country could provide 3,000 troops if the logistics were made available. As a result of that, I spoke to the Tánaiste and to the Taoiseach on my return and our Government approached the United States with regard to this type of logistical support. There has been some progress on that front. The Organisation of African Unity has a crucial role and I welcome the involvement of President Mandela in that area.
I agree with all those who have expressed concern. Having been there, I share your deep concern about the appalling situation there. The time for action is now. I could talk at some length but I do not have time. The Government has ensured that this is on the agenda for the Council summit in Corfu over the weekend. I am not in a position to comment on the French position because the Security Council is dealing with it right now and it would not be prudent or appropriate to deal with it. However, Members can be assured that the Government is giving this matter its full attention.
Senators Quinn and O'Kennedy talked about armament expenditure. It is a deplorable situation and obliges us to redouble our efforts in the area of multilateral disarmament. The total spent on UN peacekeeping is less than 1 per cent of military expenditure worldwide. That is a startling figure.
Senator O'Kennedy referred to Cambodia. I was the first representative of the Irish Government to go there, and as a result of our increase in expenditure on development, try to help with the reconstruction of Cambodia. One of the major issues that we are helping as a Government to deal with is that of demining. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator O'Kennedy. It is time to call a stop to that. In regard to the arms trade, we are very involved. As the House knows, we have an honourable record on disarmament. In my speech I talked about the non-proliferation treaty; we have also been active in promoting more effective control and transfers of conventional weapons and we will continue to play an active part in attempts to curb the arms trade and to advance the objective of a world free of nuclear weapons.
I was asked the amount of arrears owing to Ireland from the UN. The figure is £13.5 million, largely due to the UNIFIL account.
With regard to the point of order, I have had it checked and a resolution of the Dáil is required. A resolution of the Seanad is not required in regard to the deployment of the Army in these situations. When we want to send an armed contingent abroad as part of UN service a resolution of the Dáil is required. In the normal course of legislation the Dáil and the Seanad are involved. In this case I have had it checked with my officials to clear the record. No doubt a debate would be required in the Seanad.
I was afraid the Minister would check that up, because as soon as I said it I felt that his civil servants would not make that sort of mistake, especially the two he has behind him there. I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate. It has been a very useful debate and all Members here agree with that.
A number of the contributions touched upon some of the fundamental issues. Senator O'Kennedy and Senator Quinn in particular raised issues which are fundamental to any reform. Senator O'Kennedy spoke about the double standards inherent in the behaviour of so many of the member states and Senator Quinn spoke about the contradiction implied in an organisation adopting warlike methods to bring about peace. All in all, the debate has been extremely worthwhile. It is a debate which allows us to survey the issue from an honourable role. The question is probably one of the most important facing the world today. From the experience we have gathered over 40 years in the UN and from the position of being one of the relatively few stable and very civic democracies in the world, we are in a position to make a new contribution, one which will not just reinforce the status quo but which, I hope, will plough new ground in the debate on the future of the UN.
The Minister said that this was the fortieth anniversary of Ireland's membership, and I pay tribute in that regard to our Minister for External Affairs at that time, Liam Cosgrave, who was the first Irish Minister in the UN. He has grown in stature with the passing years. I also pay tribute to Frank Aiken. Of all the Irish Ministers who have participated in the UN, Frank Aiken is the one who left the most lasting imprint. He did so because he was prepared to break out of conventions. He was often reviled for that at the time. He had one of the better traditions of Fianna Fáil in that he was prepared to risk the belt of a crozier if he thought that what he was saying was right. It is important that we put the contribution of Frank Aiken and of other Minsters, such as Garret FitzGerald, into the context of the UN.
Senators Henry, Daly, Taylor-Quinn and others highlighted the fact that the activities of the UN go much further than peacekeeping, peacemaking or peace-enforcing. The UN carries out a wide range of activities and it has been entrusted with an enormous range of responsibilities arising out of the Rio summit. It is probably the only forum where many of these issues can properly be addressed.
It is always a pleasure to have the Minister in the House. His speech was interesting; it was a very accurate account of what Ireland has done and is doing. I give the Minister one piece of advice here this evening. If we are to make the contribution all of us want to make to the ongoing debate, I urge him to go the Aiken way, to break out of the mould of conventional thinking on this. I am sure that the civil servants in his Department would like him to go that way. I cannot speak for them but I think that they do not want to be bound by being too careful.
The public is now very well informed. Whether among those who served in voluntary agencies, in the universities or in Limerick in the Peace Institute, among the Army or members of the Garda who have served in the UN, there is a much wider consciousness; and with the end of the Cold War and the new central role for the UN, now is the time to start a real debate on how the UN should progress and what Ireland's contribution should be. In this we will be in line with Australia, Canada and many of the other countries who have been the stalwarts of the UN over the years, all of whom have been dedicated to peace, justice and democracy and to a stable world order. We have many allies.
Let this debate start a wider debate. Our contribution will be the main beneficiary. If the Minister starts the process of listening in this House and elsewhere, he will be surprised at the positiveness of the response. I thank all those who contributed to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.