Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)

Through the second half of the 20th century a new global organisation grew in stature and respect throughout the world. This organisation is the United Nations, established on 24 October 1945 by 51 countries. Today, United Nations membership totals 191 countries throughout the world.

The use of the term Untied Nations predates the actual establishment of the UN. In fact, the term was used during the Second World War in 1942, when 26 nations made a "Declaration by United Nations" that they would continue to fight against the axis powers.

The global political situation of the time was clearly reflected in the foundation of the United Nations in 1945. China, France, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union were all accorded positions of permanent membership of the Security Council, with a further ten countries to be elected for two-year terms by the UN General Assembly. However, it is apparent to us all that the world has changed enormously since the UN was first established. The debate on reform of the UN, ongoing in the international community, recognises this fact. We have a responsibility to take account of these changes to ensure that the UN can meet the challenges of the present day and of the future. This is what must be achieved and it falls to nations friendly to the UN, such as Ireland, to work on its behalf and to make this happen.

The current reform agenda for the United Nations has its roots in the recent report, In Larger Freedom, published by the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan. This was published with an eye to the upcoming September summit to be convened to take account of progress made since the millennium declaration. If we are true supporters of the UN, it falls to us to consider each of the aspects of this report and not just those parts with which we are comfortable. While the Government may be happy to speak in general terms about the need to reform the United Nations, the Annan report should also cause it to reassess its commitment to meeting international obligations, such as the UN target for overseas development aid.

The report, In Larger Freedom, reminds us of the major challenges facing the world today. Preventing terrorism, progressing moves towards nuclear, chemical and biological disarmament and reducing the prevalence of war are tasks that the international community must undertake. As 3 million people die from HIV and AIDS every year, with countless more lost to disease, poverty and starvation, we have an obligation to see that the millennium development goals are achieved.

This brings us to the question of commitment to overseas development aid. Kofi Annan has stated clearly that the millennium development goals can only be achieved by 2015 if all involved dramatically accelerate action regarding ODA. However, in stark contrast to the wishes of the UN Secretary General, our Government has chosen to decelerate action on overseas development aid dramatically. By abandoning a commitment made before the UN almost five years ago, the Government has walked away from a principled decision made on behalf of all Irish people and before the international community.

This promise was not made lightly and this was confirmed recently by the then Minister of State with responsibility for overseas aid, Deputy O'Donnell, but it has been shrugged off without excuse by the Government. While it is right to discuss UN reform, we also need to get our own house in order. Where is our renewed commitment to aid? By what date will Ireland achieve the UN target for ODA? This is something that the Minister should address in his response. Will the target be achieved by 2010, 2012, 2015 or at a later date? These are questions that the Government must answer through a definitive statement on overseas development aid. I would prefer that it be made in this House rather than through press releases in early September.

The report, In Larger Freedom, also outlines a reform agenda to strengthen the role of the United Nations. This includes streamlining the deliberative process of the General Assembly, reforming the Security Council so that its composition is broadly representative of the realities of power in today's world, reforming the Economic and Social Council and replacing the Commission on Human Rights with a Human Rights Council.

Moves to speed up the deliberative process of the UN General Assembly and to reform the membership of the UN Security Council are welcome and overdue. It is vital that the UN has both the capacity to focus on important issues and the ability to react quickly to changing situations. Broadening the membership of the UN Security Council should reflect the realities of global governance today because a model that was relevant in 1945 cannot be relied upon to be truly representative more than 60 years later.

I have first-hand experience of the need for reform of the way in which the UN operates. I recently attended the UN General Assembly discussions on nuclear non-proliferation but during the first four days of the assembly meeting, the agenda for matters to be discussed still had not been agreed. Obviously, dealing with a large number of people and countries and achieving the greatest degree of consensus and commonality can take time. However, even with this concession, no one could argue that decision making at the UN is anything other than tortured and tortuous. We are also growing in our realisation that the United Nations needs greater input and assistance from the European Union. The concept of the EU forming small military groupings, referred to as "battle groups", is one which has the strong support of the UN. Those groupings will be designed to be in a position to deploy rapidly to global conflict zones in the protection of human life and the prevention of war crimes such as genocide. The world needs this capability, the UN recognises and supports this development, and Ireland should play its part. We need the Government to make clear and focused decisions on this matter, rather than the delay and confusion that has characterised its response to date. At times when people are under the gravest threat to their lives should sympathetic words be all we offer them?

Reform of the UN Security Council is a contentious issue, with countries adopting quite fixed positions regarding future membership and the permanence, or otherwise, of new members. One of the proposed models envisages an increase in both the permanent and renewable members of the Security Council, while the other rejects the addition of further permanent members. A resolution proposed by Germany, India, Japan and Brazil, a group of countries known as the G4, supporting the principle of extra permanent members has been circulated. However, this proposal is opposed by the United States which is opposed to the extension of the permanent seats to these four countries, indicating that perhaps only two additional permanent seats should be assigned. The United States has also indicated that it favours Japan being assigned a permanent seat. Pakistan, Italy, Indonesia, Kenya, Argentina and South Korea are prominent members of an alternative group opposing the extension of permanent membership. What position will the Government adopt on this matter? Does it believe that permanent membership should be extended to further countries and, if so, how would those countries be selected or appointed? When we touched on this matter at a committee meeting during the week, the Minister inferred that because of his position as special envoy he did not want to spell our Ireland's position. In other words, his position as special envoy almost compromised him acting as our Minister for Foreign Affairs on this matter. That should not be the position. We are entitled to know in a debate on UN reform in this House what Ireland's position is on the alternative proposals put forward on Security Council reform.

In the next number of days many hundreds of thousands of people will gather for Live8 concerts in cities throughout the world. These people will be united in a common cause and they will gather to demand debt cancellation for the poorest countries and increased aid and trade with the developing world. Those concerts, and the march through Dublin last evening in which many of us participated, take place with the upcoming G8 summit in mind.

Our focus is clearly on the eradication of world poverty and suffering from illness and disease and I hope this will be seriously addressed by the G8. In recent weeks, the G8 proposal to cancel debt for 18 countries was welcomed. We should not underestimate the importance of that proposal to write off $40 billion in debt, which would save each country approximately $1.5 billion in annual repayments. However, we must also reaffirm support for the position of 100% debt cancellation for heavily indebted poor countries proposed by Ireland some time ago.

As a vital part of this agenda, we must empower people through democracy and political participation. There has never been a famine in a democracy, and where democracy flourishes there also will grow stability, peace and longer-term development.

With this in mind, the unfolding events in Ethiopia are of concern. Earlier this week, I met Dr. Berhanu Nega, an opposition leader from Ethiopia, who chronicled the situation in that country since the election there on 15 May. Opposition parties are deeply concerned at reports of electoral fraud, the imprisonment of political party members and the restrictions regarding reporting of these events by the press. The situation in Ethiopia, by any standards, is serious. Up to 36 people have lost their lives in violence which was linked to public disquiet regarding the manner in which these elections were conducted. The government there has recently charged four newspaper editors for slurring the good name of the security forces after they criticised the police for shooting these people. This has been called an "unwelcome development" by the Ethiopian Free Press Journalists Association — to say it is "unwelcome" is a gross understatement.

It falls to all of us to monitor the potential for human rights abuses in other states and to do our utmost to use our influence to ensure that administrations do not abuse their position of authority. Ireland is a large donor of overseas development aid to Ethiopia, and we should join with other donor countries such as the United States, Britain and other European Union countries in appealing for the fullest co-operation from the Ethiopian Government with the investigation into the recent election.

Investigators are preparing to begin their inquiries into voting irregularities in 135 constituencies. Ethiopia, as a recipient of up to $2 billion in aid per annum, must be clear that cases of human rights abuses and electoral fraud are not acceptable to the international community. While some donor countries have accused that government of illegal killings, arbitrary arrests and torture, I would like to know what action Ireland, as a donor of aid to Ethiopia, is taking to bring pressure to bear on that government.

We, like all countries, have a number of obligations to countries like Ethiopia and there are a number of ways in which they can be discharged. As well as meeting targets on overseas aid, we have an obligation to use our influence to build and support democracy through which a greater dividend will flow for those in the developing world.

At the end of last year, the EU was presented with a case of electoral fraud on its borders in the Ukraine. We highlighted electoral irregularities and many EU leaders raised their deep concern regarding electoral fraud in that state. At that time, the European Commission President stated that it was the duty of the EU to state clearly our dissatisfaction at the manner in which the elections were held there. Undoubtedly, the public concern and condemnation that accompanied the electoral irregularities in Ukraine were of assistance in ensuring that the elections were held again, and that the true voice of the people was heard.

The situation in Ethiopia should not be any different, and we must raise our voices in support of committed democrats in Ethiopia. This matter should be addressed by the G8 Summit, and I hope the summit countries will make a clear statement directed to the Ethiopian Government — I understand its President will be at the margins of that summit. The views of the world leaders should be expressed in a forthright and clear manner at the way in which democratic principles are being swept aside in that country.

See this speech in context