Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I congratulate the Minister of State on the comprehensive outline he gave Members. I thank him for the composed manner in which he has dealt with this issue in the media and his avoidance of grandstanding, so to speak. This is not surprising because in my dealings with the Minister of State on behalf of another continent, I have always found him to be aware well-informed and committed to his brief. The details of Haitian history have been well rehearsed by a number of speakers, including Senator Norris, Senator Hanafin and others.

However, an issue has arisen in the context of the discussion about the roles of the UN and the United States and the criticism of the United Nations. We should call a spade a spade in this discussion. I agree the United States is doing excellent work in Haiti. I ask the Minister of State to say how much is owed to the United Nations by the United States. Before we criticise the United Nations, it should be borne in mind that the biggest problem for the United Nations is that it is not a democratic body. The UN Security Council is not democratically elected and its members are there by right in the case of certain countries. If every state in the world had an independent vote in the United Nations, even a weighted vote relating to population as is the case in Europe or a need for a qualified majority vote, then all the issues which Senator McFadden referred to would have been dealt with. The UN is not able to do the things it wants to do because it does not have the full support of all the nations of the world, in particular the United States. I do not wish to be critical but I am using the United States as an example. In the International Criminal Court, China and the United States are the two biggest abstainers. It was interesting to hear on last night's "Newsnight" a commentator make the point that these days, the former British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, must be keenly aware of where his plane might land because he might be arrested for crimes against humanity by a country which would bring him before the International Criminal Court. I am not for one moment saying that will happen but this is the difference and these are the issues.

It is very easy for John O'Shea, much as I admire him, to be critical of various aspects of aid but it is just not that simple. Many of us could take a simplistic line and ask why there are so many competing aid agencies in Ireland, all of whom are superb, and question whether there is replication of administration and fund-raising and competition between them. These are issues we need to examine closely.

There should be a soft debate on the relationship of the United States with the UN in an effort to bring the United States fully in support of, fully committed and subservient to the UN but without threatening the national identity of that country. I have listened to many speakers speak about the great surge of support throughout Ireland for Haiti. We all know there is latent racism in Ireland and I wonder where it goes to at these times. Do we all need to learn from each other and together? Is it a common worry about a part of the world that makes us look at people as human beings rather than considering the colour of their skin or the fact that they might be a threat to us? This is relevant today on the anniversary of Auschwitz.

The Canadian Prime Minister has taken a very positive role in this issue. He is putting together a group in North America and asking people around the world to commit funds and support that will be delivered. I remember the last time in Gleneagles when so much money was grandstanded, so to speak, and they all met Bono and they were going to save the world but it was slow in coming and much of it has never been delivered. In this situation, at least, if people give commitments, they should only be acknowledged when we have the cheque in our hands. That is the way forward.

The debate has been stimulating and important. It is good that we can take different angles on it. I commend the work of the Minister of State and urge him to continue it. The elephant in the room is the importance of overseas development aid, ODA, and our commitment to reach the famous figure of 0.7%. I accept our level of ODA has improved in recent times. I do not go along with those who mindlessly criticise the Government. I know there are other demands on us and can understand why things have slowed down, but it is important that we confirm that reaching the figure of 0.7% is our aim, although the rate of reaching it has slowed down.