Mr. Barry Andrews:

I will not be very long. Mr. Elliott has answered all the questions but I want to add some comments.

On the hopelessness question asked by many members, there is a type of desensitisation after so many conflicts and crises and the question of how we keep ourselves motivated arises. In GOAL we do not have any sense of hopelessness. We live by the maxim that it is not an excuse to do nothing because we cannot do everything. We will do everything that is in our power to try to relieve the distress for as many people as possible.

We should remember that when we became Independent, a civil war occurred straight away. Thankfully, it was a short war, but South Sudan is experiencing something similar. It is not a time for hopelessness. It is a time for us to apply our knowledge and experience, and not to pull the ladder up behind us.

Many countries in western Europe experienced convulsions of violence after independence as power struggles went on, and Mr. Elliott has described the political situation in the region. It is complex. It is about political power struggles and taking advantage of ethnic divisions rather than their being the cause. For long periods such divisions were not a source of conflict while at other times they were, and they were sometimes influenced by battles over resources and political power. There is no sense of hopelessness.

If we look at the role Ethiopia is playing in terms of providing support to refugees, 30 years ago Ethiopia was the recipient of dramatic international aid. It is now a provider of refuge to hundreds of thousands of people. That is why we should not be hopeless. The aid community is not taking the credit for that. Far from it. We have played our role but this is where South Sudan will go, so there is no excuse for hopelessness.

Having said that, we live in a much murkier world. Someone said that during the Cold War, if one understood one thing one understood everything. It is much more complex now. All the conflicts around the world are wars by proxy. We have non-state actors. There is very difficult humanitarian access in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and Syria. In past conflicts we would have been welcomed anywhere as an agency, but now it is much more difficult to gain access.

There are these complexities and it is much more difficult to unpick, unravel and understand these things. Deputy Crowe touched on the question as to whether people are less interested in man-made conflict than in natural disasters and they definitely are. They perceive these things as political and therefore not deserving of our sympathy and compassion but yet, Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan and the Chairman saw the victims of man-made conflict in Turkey last week. We have talked a little bit about them in respect of South Sudan. Very often, the distinctions between natural disasters and man-made conflicts are false. Arguably, Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines was a man-made disaster because of climate change; not a natural disaster as some would classify it. In my view, that question is getting a little less clear.

In a couple of quick points, Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked about the costs involved and the Association of European Parliamentarians with Africa, AWEPA, which is the parliamentary group here in the Oireachtas, has produced a very good report on the cost of war in South Sudan. The information we have is that for the most part, armaments for the Government of South Sudan are being provided by the Government of China. In addition, for the most part, the oil revenues of the Government of South Sudan also are being provided by China. Clearly, it is having an influence and is providing the support for the Government to maintain the conflict. Valerie Amos has called for an arms embargo on the Government of South Sudan, therefore identifying the supply of arms as one key driver of conflict. Clearly, this is an outstanding issue and the report that has been produced is incredibly insightful in that regard.

The question everyone is asking is what can the joint committee do. GOAL is a humanitarian organisation and as Mr. Conor Elliott noted, we would be slow to drift into ordaining political solutions. However, it must be indigenous. There must be a local solution and it must not merely involve the elites but must be broadly based. We have seen this on the island of Ireland and as Mr. Conor Elliott indicated, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, IGAD, is the most likely forum in which a peace can be arrived at. However, it must be deeper than a simple agreement. It has been said that peace is not the mere absence of war and it will require reconciliation, which in turn requires the collection of evidence to achieve justice. Consequently, while the report into human rights abuses by the African Union is not produced, we have turned our face against justice, evidence and reconciliation and those elements of peace which make it sustainable. The joint committee and the Oireachtas in general can use their roles, as Mr. Elliott has stated, within the United Nations and the European Union. They also can use Ireland's membership of the Human Rights Council, which it holds for the rest of this calendar year. In addition, I mentioned the World Humanitarian Summit, which will be held in Istanbul in 2016. In two months' time, Ireland will conduct its own investigation into how it can put its stamp on that summit and I encourage the joint committee to call in those people who are putting together that report and are developing the Irish voice in respect of the aforementioned summit because we must address these issues. These are huge issues that will dominate the news for the next 20 or 30 years, be they man-made disasters, natural disasters or a relationship between the two. Consequently, I encourage members to engage in that process. As the meeting in Ireland will be held in Dublin on 28 May, there is plenty of opportunity for us to put our stamp on it.