Mr. John Ging:

I thank members for their comments, questions and feedback.

On the whole issue of not giving up and looking to a better future while looking back on what has been achieved, notwithstanding what Deputy Barrett said about Somalia, the wrong narrative would be that what we have been doing over the past has not made a difference. It has made a difference. It has saved a significant number of lives and reduced suffering. However, it has not solved the problem of conflict. There is no humanitarian solution to a conflict. The humanitarian response in a conflict has a single objective, namely to save lives and reduce humanitarian suffering. It will not solve the conflict, however. It will go on as long as the conflict creates the suffering and the need. That is why we say we have to have political resolution to conflict. We also have to have investment in development to ensure we are actually helping people out of a dependency on aid in order that they can work towards a better life and livelihood. This is why the sustainable development goals, signed up to by global leadership for a 2030 target, are important.

In the meantime, we cannot take our foot off the accelerator in mobilising the life-saving. If somebody needs medicine, clean drinking water or food to survive, then we have to do that and the other stuff. First, one has to save the life. Then one can actually help to rebuild their livelihoods and life in more general through conflict resolution and sustainable development.

My fear is that as we see the failure to resolve conflicts, which are raging on and intensifying, their consequences are immediately felt by civilian populations who either have to flee with their families as a life-saving measure in the first instance, not to be killed by the bullets and bombs, or, as their whole livelihood infrastructure collapses because the economy collapses, they are left with nothing, as Deputy Barrett witnessed in Somalia, trying to scratch out an existence with some support from international assistance, praying for the day when the conflict will end in order that they can start rebuilding their lives, put their children back in school and so forth.

What must we do? We must not distract ourselves from our responsibility to help people in such circumstances. No matter how many of those circumstances there are, we cannot ignore any of them. We cannot say to the people of north-east Nigeria that we are focused on Somalia and whatever happens to them does not concern us because we are going to do a good job in Somalia. We have to extend ourselves on the basis of where are those who are suffering most and in most peril of death. With the limited resources we have, we have to be accountable to those we are not helping. We have to say to them that because we are only 26% funded, we are not giving a little bit everywhere but actually giving absolutely what we have to give where it is most urgently needed. That will translate into giving a little in a lot of places and not just because we are handing it out to be present.

In many places, many people are dying unnecessarily. For example, in North Korea, 400,000 children are suffering severe acute malnutrition. We have the funding to help 125,000 of them. What happens to the other 300,000 or so kids? Over time, if they survive, they will be stunted - that is why 30% of the North Korean population is stunted - or they will die. Thousands of them die just from malnourishment. It is not a matter of access but of funding. We have the access, we know where they are, we can get to help them but we do not have the money to do so. It is up to us globally to answer to those kids.

That comes back to Deputy Crowe's point about whether politicians should visit conflict areas. Yes. I am now in UN headquarters for my sins but I spent most of my career out there. When I was out in the countries myself, there was nothing like a visit from decision-makers to see for themselves. One will be confounded by the simplicity of the situation and the complexity of the briefings one will receive before one goes. No matter how complex the situation that might be represented, at a human to human level, one can do lot more. That is why it is important that visits by political figures engage directly with the people. There is also the accountability issue in showing how money is used. Committee members are the decision-makers. They have to be convinced that the way the funding is being decided and utilised is the right choice on behalf of, in this instance, the Irish people. I encourage members to do that. I myself have a long experience of Irish politicians going out there on to the front line, taking the risks physically to engage with the people who are being helped. I know those politicians who did so have also heard back from the people who are being helped how much they appreciate the assistance coming from Ireland and the other countries.

Ireland has a high reputation because Irish Aid is delivered with integrity. We should continue to strive to ensure to keep that standard. Ireland assuming the chairmanship of the donor support group is significant. Ireland will bring its values to this position. It will bring the integrity on its side in terms of how it conducts its aid effort, including aligning its words and commitments with its actions. The Deputy was correct on pledging. If we get a pledge from Ireland, we can actually start the actions because we know that money is real. With other pledges we receive, we have to figure out if that is old money that was pledged previously or money going through different mechanisms which are not the multilateral or NGO mechanisms. One really has to get into dismantling what that pledge actually means when we have asked for new money for the humanitarian appeal we have presented and not for international action in the given country.

We have a humanitarian response that we want to provide. It is correct to say there is frustration about these pledging events and that we must all work to simplify matters. We must also ensure that when we communicate that we have received "X" amount for "X" country, the money will translate into activity in that country in a specified timeframe. Ireland can be very influential in that regard. The major benefit is that it leads by example. As I said in my opening remarks, there is a G20 of rich countries and a G20 of generous countries. There has to be greater alignment of the two because unless those who have the financial capacity actually live up to their responsibilities, the gap will not be filled by those who do not have the financial capacity or means to do so. Ireland provides leadership aligned with its means that encourages others with greater means to step up to the plate. We are leading by example.

I encourage the committee to drive on towards meeting the global commitment to provide 0.7%. Five countries have met that target and have done so not with an altruistic agenda but with a rational agenda. They have recognised that this is the way to have a better world for everybody. The consequences of not meeting the target will be felt in the countries that do not live up their responsibilities, as well as in the countries where people are dependent on aid. We did not step up and help Lebanon and Jordan to cope with a massive influx of people in the early days of the Syrian crisis. Lebanon has a population around the same size as that of Ireland, but it became home to 1 million refugees. Imagine the impact that had. The impact of 1 million refugees was keenly felt in Europe, which has a population of 350 million. Lebanon which has a population of 4 million people received 1 million refugees, but we stood back. We did not step up to the mark and help the Lebanese to develop the infrastructure necessary, including health clinics, schools and so forth, to cope with such a massive influx of people. Then we wondered why people got on boats and risked their lives to cross the Mediterranean, so desperate were they to get out of that hopeless situation. We needed to do better and need to do better in so many other places.

There were many questions about the drivers of conflict, including the arms industry, politics and so forth. I have my opinions, but I have come here to talk about the humanitarian crisis. If I stray into offering my opinions on politics, I will be doing a disservice to my humanitarian message. It is not that I am hiding behind my humanitarian message, but that is my job. I have to convince people to mobilise on the humanitarian front. However, I will answer the questions posed in the following way.

There are many entities that have to work a lot harder at their jobs. I will work on my mine, which is saving lives and reducing humanitarian suffering. In doing so, however, I will communicate that it is not a solution. It is, of course, a life-saving response that is urgently and desperately needed, but it is not a solution for the people. We help by providing food, medicine, clean drinking water, sanitation and the very basics of life like blankets and shelter. That is what we do. We do not educate the children who are displaced. We should do so, but we do not even have the money to feed them. That is the travesty for them. They do not get a second chance. If one takes the seven years of war in Syria as an example, half of the kids are not being educated. What future do they have? How do we recover from those seven years? As it is not possible, we need to speed up the mobilisation of much more than humanitarian action. My plea is to those entities that have responsibility for mobilising political solutions at the global level to move much faster and much more effectively because what we are seeing on the ground is a direct consequence of their failure to do so. We absolutely need to align our responsibilities with global peace and development and the actions that will contribute to them and stop the actions that are undermining them and promoting, supporting or sponsoring conflict. Too many conflicts are about not just the people who are fighting in the country concerned but also about the external assistance they are receiving in resources and other supports. There must be a step change in the way we address conflicts for which there is no humanitarian solution. However, the fact that there is no humanitarian solution does not mean that we are forgiven for not mobilising a humanitarian response. We absolutely must do so. The first thing we have to do is mobilise a humanitarian life-saving response, but we should, in parallel, be mobilising much more effective political engagement in resolving the issues that are driving the conflict. We must look honestly at how conflicts are being supported externally by the provision of resources, weapons and so forth. I am fully in agreement with what was behind the questions posed about conflict.

Questions were also asked about the Irish role. I grew up in this country at a time when a lot of the rhetoric held that the conflict on this island was unsolvabl. There was a lot of evidence to support that argument, yet I have had the privilege of seeing that conflict addressed successfully and the transition away from violence to a political process and so forth. There are lots of lessons that can be translated and utilised elsewhere. One of the key lessons is that if one is coming from afar, one is not going to bring the solution. The solution is home-grown. The question is how do we support the people who have it in their hands to deliver the solution from within. That was experience of those who delivered peace on this island - it was not imposed externally, although it was supported externally. The solution was home-grown. Ireland has a lot of experiences to share in conflict resolution. Its complexity is also lost in the simplicity of global politics today. Oversimplification, a black and white and right and wrong view of conflict, takes no account of the complexities involved. An awareness must be brought to bear by practitioners and people with experience who can see how one can navigate through the complexity to a place where there is common ground and start to build out from there. That is a very important point that should be promoted.

Of course, the more Irish politicians who go out and see situations first hand and engage, the more they will be able to bring back. Throughout human history the first casualty of conflict has been the truth. People create a narrative to support their side of the conflict. Dismantling these narratives is the first step towards the correct narrative to start driving actions. As long as there is the wrong narrative, we will have the basis for the wrong actions. As we all know, however, it is easier said that done.

The more people who have influence, credibility and impartiality who can start promoting the more honest narrative around what are the drivers and issues, the more likely we are to have more effective actions because they will be based on honesty and a reality with which we can then connect. I hope this gives at least some of the answers sought.

A question was asked as to how anything can be done in the DPRK. What is very interesting is we have a situation on the ground in the DPRK where the humanitarian organisations have free access to 95% of the country whereas several years ago we had access to approximately one quarter. On a mantra of no access no aid, the government has had to adjust and now we have access. Our problem today is we do not have the resourcing to deliver the aid to the people we can actually access. In terms of the integrity of aid delivery, there is no country in the world where our aid is more scrutinised, and that is fine. We have very sophisticated aid monitoring with the full-time deployment of international monitors who spend all of their time out in the countryside monitoring on a daily basis what is going on. They do this with a very sophisticated computerised system, which reports outside of the country and not within the country, because, again, we want no doubt there is any issue with what is being done, where it is being done, who is getting it and how it is being monitored. It would be a very convenient soundbite to state nothing can be done in North Korea because everything is controlled by the government. Our aid effort in North Korea is not controlled by the government. It is controlled by us and we are happy to demonstrate this to anybody and everybody, because it is extremely important that everybody knows it and we can prove it. The other thing I would say about the aid effort I witnessed in North Korea recently is it is having a significant positive impact. Simple activities are having a significant positive impact. We can also speak to this, which is extremely important, that if money is put in this is what we get for it.

Deputy Barrett spoke about Somalia. What a travesty and a tragedy 25 years on. There has been no political solution since he was first there. It has rolled on and on. The absence of a political solution, which could put the country back on its feet and get out of the conflict it has been trapped in for so long, leaves us today, 25 years on, speaking about the same issues. The country should not be in peril of famine but, unfortunately, because we did not have the political will to stay the course over the past 25 years and do the things with the Somalis to help them get to where they needed to be, this is the situation they are in today.

I would also say in answer to all of the questions, if the aid effort were not in the four famine affected countries they would all be in famine. They are one step away from famine because the aid effort has kept them in that situation. If they did not have the aid effort they would all actually be in famine. Committee members know it is not just about the loss of life and the human suffering when it comes to famine. The financial cost of recovery from famine is eight times higher than preventing it. Feeding the children before they becomes severely malnourished is eight times cheaper than feeding the therapeutic feeding required to help them recover from severe acute malnutrition. We still have to continue to feed them after this except, of course, they will have lost cognitive ability because there is no recovery from some of the devastation caused to the body, including to the brain, when people fall into severe acute malnutrition. It makes sense from all aspects no matter how it is calculated. I would argue in the first place from a human perspective, but I can also argue the finances on this.