Taking the fight to Rome
Against the globalization of poverty

by Andrés Alsina

Some fifty people meeting in Rome at the end of November decided that the most scandalous part of scandal is to be resigned to it, and so, they decided, they will carry on with their efforts. The scandal was recognized by a summit conference of 117 governments, the largest in history, meeting in Copenhagen in March 1995. It is possible to eradicate poverty, they agreed, and each one of them agreed to set up a program for political, economic and social action to do it.

It was the first time the international community swore to eradicate poverty and to promote social integration and productive employment, but this would all have remained in well-meaning and, by now, dust-laden documents if it had not been for people like these, now meeting in an austere and low priced convent in Rome passionately and intelligently discussing ways and means of finding the best direction to follow and how to organize better. Because what is scandalous about the scandal is that poverty has not been eradicated, even though it was possible to do so, that countries with fewer possibilities did more to achieve that goal than the rich countries, and that the obstacle is not a lack of resources, but of political will.

What is more, United Nations figures show a decrease in relative poverty, but a growth in the absolute number of poor people, according to the report that started the Rome assembly. Inequality in the world increased in terms of income, employment, access to social services and participation in public organizations. Not only did the developed countries fail in their commitment to assist development with 0.7% of their wealth, but they also cut down on their contribution to help social development through the UN. “Inequality within and among the states continues to grow,” according to an assessment of fulfillment of the Copenhagen agreement made in Geneva by the UN five years later in June 2000,.

The people who met in Rome six months after that do their work by prodding governments into fulfilling what each one of them said was possible and desirable. They say that they see themselves as bees, because they also produce honey. One after another of these representatives of a concerned world described as bitter globalization and its effects, the loss of sovereignty by governments facing the decisions of international organizations such as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and the injustice which affects millions of farmers and manufacturers.

They believe that globalization is not inevitable. A UN forecast was mentioned: within a quarter of a century, the World Trade Organization will have disappeared. By then it will have caused 500 million deaths in poor countries. The challenge is, by mobilization, to reduce this period and reduce this cost by 80%. Some strong voices demanded that Social Watch should not only monitor the Copenhagen agreements but also the progress of globalization. Other voices expressed sincere doubt: “I do not know how to change all this. International laws will have to be changed.” What is possible is a product of what is necessary. “The rule of law does not justify Hitler, who acted within his own legal system.”

These people who take on such an overwhelming responsibility simply because it is just belong to civil society organizations that met for the first time in 1996, under the name of Social Watch, to monitor compliance with the Copenhagen agreements. This network, so far the only global network of its kind based in the South, in Uruguay, represented Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in 13 countries. The following year the number almost doubled, to 25, and in the year 2000 it again almost doubled to 45 countries. This is good news: civil society is increasingly committed to the issue; grassroots organizations find in the network they have organized a way to reach the forefront of international affairs, making shared demands based on common sense, a way to have serious dialogues with their respective governments and a way to establish a direct relationship between demands voiced by people at the most specific local levels and general policies in response to these demands.

Common sense is what those 117 governments committed themselves to. For example, to guarantee basic education, drinking water and sanitation for all, to reduce infant mortality to one third of the 1990 figure and to reduce military spending by a non-specified amount. The simple task of keeping their word has not only not been fulfilled, but is a long way off. Therefore, many of the NGOs in Social Watch held their first meeting which, after all this time recognized that the simple is not necessarily simple to achieve. For this reason, the 200 organizations from 70 member countries strengthened their institutional commitment to Social Watch. It was done with cautious and thoughtful optimism, because in spite of the fact that the general situation tends to worsen, the forces opposing are becoming stronger, according to the assessment made by the Social Watch secretariat, endorsed by the meeting. A platform for action was achieved, which would unite civil societies from the North and South, seek greater discipline on the part of NGOs, create the capacity to link local, national and international efforts and build a strong voice in international affairs. Much of its strength lies in the fact that the idea is very simple: that the governments abide by what they said was possible and what they wanted to do. People are surprised that this demand has not been made before, since it seems so evident. What is hard to explain to those who are at fault is that this is not being fulfilled. But it is for this reason that those people were there, joining efforts, insisting tenaciously that in the end, all roads lead to Rome.