2005
Recommendations
From 14-16
September 2005 the implementation of the Millennium Declaration will be assessed
in the light of developments that have taken place since its adoption in 2000.
At the time of the Declaration’s adoption it was seen to contain the agenda for
eradicating poverty within the lifetime of one generation.
The Millennium
Declaration built on commitments adopted by the international community in the
preceding decade at a series of conferences and summits - including those
addressing the environment; human rights; gender equality and equity; social
development; the rights of children; population;
sexual and reproductive rights; the right to shelter.
Since the 2000
Millennium Summit, critical events have taken place - from the 2001 attacks on
the United States and subsequent military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq,
to the Asian tsunami - that have shaken the international community.
A military
concept of security is prevailing, not based on a notion of security for all -
human security in all its dimensions - but promoting security for some through a
concentration of power in the hands of a few. In addition, by avowing a doctrine
of unilateral pre-emptive military action, and going to war without the
authorization of the global community based on a decision of the UN Security
Council, the United States and its allies have undermined the very purpose for
which the UN was created.
A unipolar
world order is being created in which the dominant power promotes a single set
of values covering all aspects of life, whether economic, political, cultural,
religious or ethical. Differences are inevitably emphasized, re-enforcing
divisions and intolerance on which conflict is built.
Security cannot
be assured through force. Conflict cannot be resolved with a gun. It is only
when we seriously confront the inequalities that divide us, promote social
justice and assure the human rights of all that we can hope to achieve a stable
future.
The urgency of
doing so cannot be underestimated. The very real threat of destruction to human
life in its current form, and to contemporary flora and fauna, posed by global
warming has yet to be sufficiently addressed. Its impact on people is starting
to be felt, with the most marginalized communities being affected most. While
the devastating effects of the Asian tsunami may not be the result of climate
change, it certainly emphasizes the vulnerability of communities when
nature’s forces are unleashed by changes to the natural world in which we live.
Without doubt, we all share responsibility for ensuring that the threats to life
and the sustainability of our planet are overcome, not least by adopting
responsible lifestyles. However, governments, and those in positions of power,
have a particular responsibility to ensure that the practices promoted and
allowed by government are consistent with the continued sustainability of our
environment.
The colossal
destruction of the Indian Ocean earthquake and resulting tsunami, together with
the consequences that followed, not only increased awareness of international
responsibility but also highlighted the different realities of security for
people living in different contexts. This is in contrast to the consequences of
other crises, such as that in Darfur, that have an equal impact on people
directly affected. And equally to the silent, but ongoing deaths of millions of
people that could be prevented. At least the tsunami has sharpened the public
eye for the complexity and the ethical intolerability of inequality between the
very rich and the very poor.
These events
emphasize the interconnected nature of the world in which we live where the
consequences of decisions, actions, and events occurring in one part of the
world increasingly impact on people and communities globally. They also
graphically illustrate the consequences of the gross inequalities that exist
today, not only in the distribution of wealth and income, but also in access to
decision makers and power, and to the resources that sustain life itself. These
inequalities, which directly contribute to and sustain poverty, are central to
the creation and maintenance of instability.
The review of
the Millennium Declaration, and the positions taken by governments in preparing
the review, will be seen in the light of these events.
In September
2005, and during the preparations for the review in the preceding months, the
international community has a chance to address the crucial challenges of our
time and put in place the ambitious strategy that is needed to secure the future
of the world for generations to come. Recognition of all human rights must be a
guiding principle. Success requires the involvement of all stakeholders, both in
the preparations for the High Level event in September 2005 and around the event
itself.
People
throughout the world know what is at stake. Those who lived through the Asian
tsunami understand the fragility of life. Refugees in Darfur understand the
consequences of insecurity. Communities decimated by HIV/AIDS struggle to
survive. Farmers who lose the livelihood on which they and their families depend
know what it means to be absolutely destitute. For these, and the millions of
people like them, the inequalities of our world have real consequences.
It is on the
basis of this kind of experience that civil society organizations from around
the world have come together in the Global Call to Action Against Poverty around
basic policy demands: more and better aid, fair trade, debt cancellation and the
establishment of priorities and policies in the anti-poverty fight that are
accountable to the citizens. These ideas have led to the creation of a
world-wide opinion movement of community groups, Trade Unions, individuals,
Religious and Faith groups, women organizations human rights campaigners and
many others. Support to these demands is being expressed by celebrities,
politicians, diplomats and the everyday citizen by wearing a white band.
When Ambassador
Jean Ping, chair of the UN General Assembly asked civil society organizations
for more specific views and recommendations towards the new Millennium Summit,
hundreds of organizations and individuals endorsed a comprehensive list of
eleven “benchmarks” that summarizes their demands:
Benchmark 1:
From
poverty eradication towards diminishing inequality
The world has
the means to eradicate poverty. It can and must be done. Hunger, malnutrition
and being condemned to a life in poverty are an affront to humanity and a denial
of basic human rights. We therefore have an obligation to eradicate poverty and
must take all possible actions to ensure that this objective is achieved. What
is lacking is the political will to make it happen. The international community
must not only re-affirm its commitment to eradicating poverty worldwide in the
shortest time possible, but each government must also recognize its individual
and collective obligation to put in place effective strategies for eradicating
poverty.
Poverty is not
a statistic and is not defined by earning one dollar or two dollars a day. There
is no benefit in singling out the very poor from the almost very poor or the
poor among the rich in developing countries from the poor among the rich in
developed countries. All must be addressed. Poverty is based on radically
unequal distribution of income, but also in similarly unequal distribution of
assets, unequal access to opportunities for work and employment, social services
and benefits, and in the unequal distribution of political power, access to
information and political participation. This is largely the result of
deep-seated and persistent imbalances in the current workings of the global
economy which according to the World Commission on the Social Dimension of
Globalization is “ethically unacceptable and politically unsustainable”. Women
are most often among those who suffer these inequalities.
Inequality and
social injustice are major sources of national and international instability and
conflict. Those struggling to survive seek the means to live, while those who
have more than enough protect what they have and all too often seek to
accumulate more. An adequate response to poverty will only be found in
comprehensive and redistributive initiatives which address all aspects of
inequality, where particular attention is given to the gender dimension. A
concerted emphasis on social development constitutes a major contribution to the
eradication of poverty, with emphasis on the provision of basic health, basic
education, water and sanitation. Achieving the MDGs within the agreed time lines
is only the most urgent part of what is necessary to meet this requirement.
Security and
stability can only be achieved when social justice is assured, when everyone’s
rights to the means of life - water, health, food, shelter, etc - are respected,
and when everyone has access to the means to a livelihood for themselves, their
families and their communities.
Governments
should commit themselves to eradicate poverty and to achieving social justice.
This benchmark
requires:
·
a
re-affirmation of the conviction that poverty can be eradicated, as they did 10
years ago in Copenhagen;
·
a commitment to
eradicate poverty in each and every country by 2025, where poverty is defined
within each country on the basis of different national realities;
·
a commitment
that national strategies for eradicating poverty be defined within each country
by 2007, drawn up through a transparent and consultative process, in which the
poor are actively engaged;
·
the
implementation of policies dedicated to reducing inequalities, including
assuring universal affordable access to quality core public social services,
redistributive tax policies, respect for the core labour standards;
·
a halt to
policies of privatization and “liberalization” which lead to the concentration
of public resources in fewer and often non-national hands;
·
strengthening
of the reporting and review requirements of the Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights to ensure more frequent and thorough reviews of states’
fulfilment of human rights obligations to their citizens;
·
a commitment to
report regularly to the UN ECOSOC on progress in implementing these strategies.
The first such reports to be made no later than 2007.
Benchmark 2:
Better
strategies for development: the role of the International Financial Institutions
(IFIs)
A country’s
development strategies should be informed by the experiences of its people. Over
the past decades extensive macroeconomic conditions have been attached to the
provision of development aid and loans as well as for the cancellation of debt
with disastrous consequences for social development. Policies of structural
adjustment, liberalization and privatization have increased inequalities, not
diminished them, impacting most severely on communities and families with least
access to decent work and the means to a sustainable livelihood. For the
majority of the people living in poverty, of which a disproportionate number are
women and children, agriculture and fisheries provide the only viable livelihood
for themselves and their families. Economic reforms imposed on developing
countries have promoted export-oriented production, particularly of primary
products for which world prices have dramatically declined, and an increased
control over agriculture and fisheries by corporate interests. The result has
been increased impoverishment for large sections of developing country societies
for whom there are no alternative options.
The notion that
measures to increase trade will lead to the eradication of poverty has not
worked, as can be seen from various statistical analysis covering the 20 years
since the imposition of trade liberalization policies and export-led growth
models of economic development. While Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP)
of the IMF and the World Bank were supposedly introduced to address these
negative effects, they have not done so.
In theory their
aim to ensure an adequate poverty focus in a country’s development strategies
and the allocation of development aid with an increased sense of ownership on
the part of the recipient country is in line with the spirit of MDG 8 and its
“global partnership for development”. Experience shows, however, that this
remains far from reality with numerous macroeconomic conditions still being
attached to aid. World Bank loans support specific programmes of reform which
include actions (conditionalities) considered critical by the World Bank and IMF
to the success of the programme. Loan negotiations are still conducted behind
closed doors within Ministries of Finance and Central Banks. The failed
macroeconomic policies of the past continue to be promoted. Not surprisingly,
the “ownership” of national development strategies has not lived up to its
promises.
The withdrawal
of the state and the privatization of service provision - of health care, water,
education - increasingly deny access to those unable to pay for what constitutes
a basic human right. Globalization and liberalization of trade, the
corporatization of agriculture and other forms of production should not be the
guiding frameworks for agriculture. Instead, sustainable local livelihoods, food
sovereignty, environment regeneration and social concerns should be the guiding
principles.
Governments
should promote development strategies based on the needs and experience of
people.
This benchmark
requires:
·
the
strengthening of national policy making, based on nationally defined needs and
priorities identified through participatory processes. These should be defined
in a rights based framework and allow the self-defined interests and objectives
of street sellers, industrial workers, fishers, and field-workers to be clearly
reflected in national development strategies;
·
transparency in
the process for establishing national development strategies that supports the
effective participation of national stakeholders in the formulation of national
policy;
·
the
establishment of PRSPs that respect real ownership through nationally defined
decision making, with the effective participation of civil society, and
accountability to national parliaments;
·
agrarian and
aquarian reforms to be carried out to ensure farmers, fisherfolk and other rural
communities have access, control, ownership and management of productive
resources. A special focus needs to be given to women ensuring the maintenance
of their control over, and access to resources such as seeds.
Benchmark 3:
Achieving gender equality and equity
Poverty
reduction and the empowerment of women are interconnected in many ways. Women
constitute the majority of the world’s poor and often carry the social and
economic burden of looking after the most vulnerable members of the community,
such as children, the elderly and the sick. Women and girls living in poverty
are also at greater risk of becoming victims of gender based violence, are more
likely to be infected with HIV/AIDS, to die at child-birth and to be sold into
slavery. Economic reforms that dismantle social obligations of the state and
privatise public goods, impact disproportionately on women and deepen gender
inequality as women are pressed into filling the gap. At the same time women
constitute crucial active agents in any strategy to eradicate poverty. Denying
full and free access of women to the economic sector and labour market is not
only a denial of their basic human rights but is also detrimental to a country’s
economic development. Poverty cannot be tackled successfully without ensuring
equality of access to the means of livelihood between women and men, and equity
of opportunity. While gender equality and equity are fundamental objectives in
themselves, they are also an essential pre-condition for eradicating poverty.
The MDG targets
relating to women’s empowerment (MDG 3 and MDG 5) must be achieved, but are
insufficient alone. To achieve true gender equity, the concept must be
understood in a comprehensive way and cannot just be limited to the issues
included in the MDGs. Other crucial aspects such as conflict, violence, sexual
and reproductive rights as well as rights in general must also be clearly and
explicitly addressed. It is imperative that the relationship between gender
equity, poverty eradication and the promotion of social justice are
comprehensively incorporated in future strategies.
Governments
should fully recognize the centrality of gender equality and equity for any
development strategy to be successful.
This benchmark
requires:
·
increased
emphasis to be given to achieving gender equality in implementing national,
regional and international development strategies, through establishing
meaningful targets and indicators to measure its progress;
·
the
identification of explicit measures for achieving gender equality in the context
of MDG Goal 8, particularly to ensure that gender equality is promoted within
PRSPs and the new aid architecture;
·
a compact
between donors and their partners to allocate 10% of resources specifically
dedicated to promoting gender equality and in support of specific activities to
promote women’s empowerment;
·
each and every
government to implement its commitments on promoting gender equality made in the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
(1978) and the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (BPfA, 1995) as well
as the adoption of an optional protocol to CEDAW.
Benchmark 4:
Taking
urgent action in the face of climate change
The complex
ecological balance of our planet, which provides the basis for life itself, is
facing unprecedented threats, largely as a consequence of development strategies
pursued by humankind. Our very survival may depend on immediate radical action
being taken to combat the unsustainable pressures that we have created. We can
already see increasing threats to communities around the world. Those most
effected by the immediate consequences of ecological degradation and
environmental change are those already most vulnerable - particularly
marginalized communities and people living in poverty.
While many
aspects of the world’s ecological balance needs to be addressed, Global warming
and changes to the global climate represent a significant threat. Increased
temperatures have already accelerated glacial melting in the Arctic and recent
scientific studies predict it will diminish by 50% by the end of the century.
Predictions estimate that by 2050 more than a million distinct life forms will
have been lost.
While actions
are being taken these have been slow and insufficient, particularly given the
potential calamitous consequences that may occur. The reluctance of some
nations, particularly those disproportionately responsible for global warming
emission, to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol must not prevent urgent action being
taken. With the Kyoto Protocol entering into force in February 2005,
implementation of emission reduction and funding commitments must proceed
urgently. Furthermore, given recent indicators on the speed and depth of global
warming new more stringent reductions of greenhouse gases must be established
quickly.
Development
patterns pursued by humankind over the past three centuries, and in particular
during the past few decades, are the principal source of green house emissions
responsible for climate change. Wealthy nations, and the lifestyles of their
populations, have generated most of these emissions. The threat that climate
change poses to all humanity requires a common response, with radical and
immediate actions being taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to address
its consequences. The primary responsibility for doing so must be borne by those
that have benefited most from the causes.
As part of the need for urgent and
radical action to be taken, future strategies for energy generation must give
priority to renewable safe and non polluting sources.
Given the life
threatening nature of this threat, the interests of the global community must
not be held hostage by those few countries that do not join the common effort.
Governments
should take urgent and bold action to address climate change and the
environmental degradation of our planet.
This benchmark
requires:
·
explicit
recognition of the serious and immediate threat that climate change poses;
·
immediate
implementation of measures for reducing emissions included in the Kyoto
Protocol;
·
an urgent start
in negotiations for the immediate revision of existing commitments and to agree
on long-term action in an equitable global framework that will prevent the most
dangerous impacts of climate change;
·
the provision
of the necessary additional financial resources by a substantial increase of the
funding level of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the introduction of
emission related user charges for international airspace and the oceans, and the
introduction of an international aviation fuel tax aimed at doing justice to the
climate damage caused by flight traffic and, at the same time, overcoming the
indirect subsidy to the aviation industry via the previous zero tax rate on
aviation fuel;
·
measures to be
established to prepare the most vulnerable communities for those impacts that
can no longer be avoided - as well as measures to protect the world’s flora and
fauna;
·
a commitment to
the principal of common but differentiated responsibility, as agreed in the Rio
Declaration, where people and countries bear the costs of addressing climate
change in proportion to their contribution to the causing factors;
·
a commitment to
increasing use of renewable forms of energy generation.
Benchmark 5:
Stopping
militarization and the proliferation of weapons
The much hoped
for “peace dividend” from the end of the cold war has failed to materialise. New
forms of militarization have emerged as governments, opposition movements and
other groups seek to impose their will through the force of arms. Whatever the
justification given, in almost all circumstances military intervention has not
brought the stability sought. On the contrary the result is less stability, as
is seen in Iraq. In addition the provision of humanitarian aid, that should be
available on a non discriminatory basis for people directly affected by
disasters and conflict, is increasingly being associated with military
objectives through the use of military personnel in its distribution.
The associated
global trade in arms has an enormous human impact, fuelling and sustaining
conflicts, promoting insecurity and undermining development across some of the
poorest regions of the world. At least every minute a person is killed somewhere
in the world due to armed violence. In a number of countries precious natural
resources such as diamonds and copper are being exploited in exchange for
weapons used to commit terrible atrocities. Women and children are particularly
vulnerable; women and girls are raped at gun point; and an estimated 300,000
children have become soldiers in conflicts around the world. The proliferation
of the arms trade is a cruel example of the incoherence in international donor
policy.
The states that
profit most from this trade are the five permanent members of the UN Security
Council, which together make up around 80% of all reported exports of
conventional arms. Between 1998 and 2001 the United States, United Kingdom and
France earned more from the arms trade than they contributed to international
aid. Furthermore the relaxation of controls on the sales of arms following the
11 September is leading to a new proliferation of weapons. Arms continue to be
channelled to countries with poor human rights records or developing countries
which spend more on defence than on basic social services, thus diverting
resources from these areas such as health and education.
The
international community must demonstrate coherence with its own commitments to
promote peace and stability in the world.
Governments
should commit to a real and drastic reduction in military spending, and put in
place a stringent, legally binding control on the sale of arms.
This benchmark
requires:
·
a binding
commitment to at least halve military spending in each and every country by the
year 2015 and use the resulting “peace dividend” for social and environmental
purposes;
·
a binding
commitment to promote general disarmament and the ban of all nuclear arms and of
all weapons of mass destruction;
·
the adoption of
the global Arms Trade Treaty which can provide some safeguards in what is, at
present, an unregulated market. The Treaty would ensure that all governments
control arms according to the same international standards;
·
a commitment
for the removal of the millions of illegal and surplus arms which are already in
circulation;
·
a commitment to
respect the neutrality and impartiality of humanitarian aid, both towards its
distribution and the humanitarian organizations entrusted with this task.
Benchmark 6:
Financing of development
Generating the financial resources
necessary to achieve sustainable development where basic needs of all are met
and everyone has the opportunity to lead fulfilling lives is a responsibility
for all governments and people everywhere. The greatest responsibility falls on
wealthier nations, corporations and individuals. As clearly identified in the
report of the Millennium Project, current levels of finance for development are
insufficient to meet even the minimum targets set by the MDGs. In addition, many
forms of finance that are supposedly provided for development are in reality
working against the goals that they are supposed to promote. While recognising
the crucial importance of trade and investment in generating resources necessary
for ensuring sustainable forms of development, these will remain insufficient
for developing countries, particularly those with low incomes.
Generating international
development financing
For the international community to
meet its commitments and obligations to eradicate poverty there needs to be a
substantial increase in the availability of finance for development. This can
only be achieved by ensuring real increases in transfers of finance from the
rich to the poor. In particular:
Ø
Increasing aid
For many low
income countries aid is the most important source of finance for development.
For these countries it is also the only real source of investment for the basic
social infrastructure that is vital for assuring the welfare and well being of
its people and for effectively addressing poverty. Aid will only be effective
when it is sustainable and predictable, contributing to the development
strategies defined by a nation itself. It needs to be free from ties imposed by
donors, which not only distort its value but also prejudices a nation’s
commitment to development policies imposed from outside.
Governments
should ensure that levels of aid are increased substantially so that the adopted
development strategies can be implemented.
In
particular, this requires:
·
a commitment
for an immediate doubling in the provision of ODA by 2006 in order to finance
the MDGs;
·
a commitment by
every donor government to provide at least 0.7% of GNI, by 2015 at the latest;
·
each donor
government that has not yet reached the UN target to present plans to the
September summit on how they will reach the target.
Ø
Cancelling debt
While there is
clear recognition that for many developing countries their debt servicing
obligations undermines development, insufficient action has been taken to ensure
that levels of debt are sustainable.
Governments to
adopt measures that will once and for all remove unsustainable levels of debt to
all low and middle income developing countries. Debt sustainability has to be
measured, among others, against the needs of indebted countries to achieve the
MDGs.
This requires,
in particular:
·
the complete
cancellation of debts where not to do so will undermine the country’s ability to
achieve the MDGs;
·
further
substantial debt cancellation for low and middle income developing countries
beyond the HIPC initiative;
·
the immediate
setting up of a fair and transparent arbitration procedure to address
unsustainable debt burdens, which gives the right of all stakeholders to be
heard, the protection of debtors basic needs, and the institution of an
automatic stay of debt servicing. This procedure must based on a neutral
decision making body independent of the IFIs, WTO and other similar
institutions;
·
ensuring that
funding of debt cancellation is additional to donor’s targets to achieve its
commitment to provide 0.7% GNI;
·
the
cancellation of debt to be done free from economic policy conditions, such as on
privatization and liberalization.
Ø
Instituting
international taxes
The need for
new forms of international finance for development has been increasingly
recognised. Commitments now need to be made to bring these into reality. Many
proposals have been made that are both justified and feasible. In most instances
the implementation of the proposed taxes would not only provide additional
resources for development, but also play a constructive role in regulating
actions that cause instability in global economic systems or impact negatively
on the environment. These international taxes should address the use of global
environmental commons, short-term financial and foreign exchange transactions,
and on trade of items that have negative international impact - such as on
global ecological balances, the promotion of conflict, etc.
Governments
should establish mechanisms for international taxation that will not only
provide additional financial resources for development but control unsustainable
and damaging processes.
In particular
this requires:
·
a commitment to
establish international taxes based on one or more of the current proposals, in
particular a Currency Transaction Tax (CTT) and an international aviation fuel
tax;
·
a commitment to
develop systems for sharing information on trans-border financial transfers, and
increase the global coordination of taxes so as to increase tax revenues, as
well as to control corruption;
·
a commitment to
take measures that will lead to the immediate abolition of all tax havens.
Generating
domestic finance for development
All governments
have an obligation to generate financial resources from within their countries
that can help finance development strategies. They also have an obligation to
use financial resources efficiently and in the most effective way possible, and
to account for their use in a transparent and accessible way to their own
people. Mobilization of domestic finance is an important means to address
national inequalities, particularly through progressive taxation and the
taxation of corporations.
Governments
should establish equitable systems of taxation in each and every country.
In particular:
·
support for the
strengthening of domestic progressive taxation systems;
·
commitments to
establish transparency in national budgets and accounts, including the
integration of gender budgeting, so as to increase accountability of governments
to local citizens in using resources;
·
an
international convention to facilitate the recovery and repatriation of funds
illegally appropriated from national treasuries of developing countries;
·
a multilateral
agreement on an effective sharing of information on taxation between countries,
to stem tax evasion.
Benchmark 7:
Making
trade fair
It is
repeatedly emphasised that trade has substantially more potential to finance
development than aid ever can. This can only be the case when international
rules of trade make effective provision for the rights and needs of developing
countries and their producers. At present trade is the vehicle for the
indiscriminate liberalization of developing country economies and the imposition
of harmful conditions, instead of supporting sustainable development, poverty
eradication and gender equity. Trade policies need to be re-oriented to promote
fair trade and to foster sustainable development. Trade rules and policies must
ensure the right of developing countries to pursue their own development
agendas, putting their people’s interests first. This includes enabling measures
to protect public services from enforced liberalization and privatization, to
secure the right to food and affordable access to essential drugs, and to
strengthen corporate accountability. Farmers’ knowledge and indigenous
technologies should be given due recognition and research should be re-oriented
to include this.
For many
developing countries the export of one or two commodities remains the source for
most of their export earnings. The decline of commodity prices has eroded their
income by up to 50%, thus aggravating their dependence on aid and increasing the
unsustainability of their debt.
Governments
should ensure that the global trade system is fair and just.
This benchmark
requires:
·
an end to
conditions imposed by the International Financial Institutions and other donors
on aid and debt cancellation that determine trade policies of developing
countries;
·
effective and
transparent special treatment for developing countries within the global trading
system;
·
the abolition
of all forms of subsidy by rich countries that distort trade.
·
increased
accountability and transparency of governments and international organizations
to their grassroots constituencies in the formulation of international trade
rules and national trade policies, while ensuring consistency of trade policies
with respect for workers’ rights, and human rights more broadly;
·
effective and
transparent international mechanisms to support the prices of commodities, and
to compensate developing countries for price fluctuations.
Benchmark 8:
Fighting
HIV/AIDS and other pandemic diseases
Death and
incapacity resulting from disease is a continuing and often preventable human
catastrophe which dwarfs almost all others. It is also a serious constraint on
development. It strikes poor and marginal communities disproportionately,
particularly those who have inadequate access to health care. HIV/AIDS poses a
particular threat. The MDG relating to HIV/AIDS is scandalously modest and
inadequate in its recognition of the potential for life-extending access to
treatment. At the 2001 United Nations General Assembly on HIV/AIDS member states
expressed their concern that the global HIV/AIDS epidemic constituted a global
emergency. Since then the situation has deteriorated. At the International AIDS
Conference in 2004 world leaders confirmed that over 38 million people in the
world were living with AIDS and that the epidemic was spreading in every region.
HIV/AIDS
affects poorest countries disproportionately. The most affected region is
Sub-Saharan Africa where almost 40% of all deaths are from the disease. The
enormous impact on HIV/AIDS on the human capital of these states stands as a
grave threat to development. Through its effect on those directly affected as
well as on their children, relatives and communities it undermines productive
capacity both in the present and future. Other treatable pandemic diseases, such
as malaria and tuberculosis, compound the threat to the life and livelihoods of
millions of people in developing countries.
Treatment of
the infected is available and possible, but while millions need it only a few
hundred thousand have access. Providing access to treatment has been not only
been held back by social and cultural attitudes, the stigma associated with
disease, and by the reluctance of governments to take energetic leadership but
also by deference to the privileges and protections accorded to pharmaceutical
corporations. Only sustained and widespread civil society campaigning and
demonstration projects have led some governments, like that of Brazil, to
provide free access to the affected, and to a grudging recognition by the WTO of
the claims to the right to health. The vast majority of those needing treatment
still wait for the ramping up of services and funds which would stop thousands
dying each week.
At the
International Conference in Bangkok in 2004 world leaders admitted that they had
not done enough to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS or to mitigate its effects. A
renewed commitment backed by political will is therefore necessary to combat
this disease, which stands as a serious obstacle to global development, and to
reduce its impact. All interventions must be gender sensitive since
figures show that 60% of adults affected by HIV/AIDS in Africa are women -
making women’s empowerment a critical issue in the fight against HIV/AIDS. In
addition, a special emphasis should be given to policies and interventions that
address children affected by HIV/AIDS, including those orphaned through the
disease. A “Free by 5” campaign, to assure equitable access to all, free of user
fees, has been initiated in Africa and is expanding around the world.
Governments
should recognize the critical fight against the pandemics devastating countless
communities and to ensure adequate priority is given to address them.
This benchmark
requires:
·
a radical
increase in financial support for the 3 by 5 initiative[2]
of the World Health Organization, followed by the inauguration of a 6 (million)
by 7 (2007) sequel in extending treatment. In addition sustained and predictable
funding for the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria must be
assured;
·
the
inauguration of a global emergency service response and publicly administered
supply facility for the provision of accessible and freely available
anti-retroviral treatment - and vaccination should an effective vaccine be
developed;
·
a re-commitment
to the long-established vision of “Health for All” combined with substantially
increased funding for rebuilding and extending health systems in all developing
countries;
·
a moratorium on
any further extension of the terms of patent protection for pharmaceuticals and
on further TRIPS clauses in bilateral and regional trade agreements. No TRIPS
“plus”;
·
the
inauguration, using emergency security provisions, of a publicly-owned support
for a world-wide “Free by 5” initiative to ensure free, non-discriminatory
access to treatment.
Benchmark 9:
Promoting corporate accountability
Transnational
Corporations (TNCs) are the main protagonists and beneficiaries of globalization
but they are not held globally accountable. TNCs are continuously entangled in
the violation of social, environmental and human rights standards. Corporations
and governments have responded to the widely recognized negative impacts of
corporate activity through the development of hundreds of sectoral and company
codes of conduct and voluntary “partnership” initiatives. The Global Compact
initiated by UN Secretary General is the best example of a political strategy
aimed predominantly at the voluntary self-regulation of industry. With the aid
of best practice examples, the companies involved are expected to
demonstrate their sense of responsibility towards society. However, industry’s
influence and the impacts of transnational corporate activities reach way beyond
these “soft” policy fields. Behind the curtain of partnership initiatives and
dialogue processes, many corporations and business associations continue to
ruthlessly pursue their own specific interests in the “hard” areas of politics.
Their activities seriously affect the human security of people all over the
world. There is a need, therefore, for legally binding international instruments
that will ensure that the activities of TNCs are consistent with globally agreed
conventions and standards.
At the
Johannesburg Summit 2002, governments clearly committed themselves to “actively
promote corporate responsibility and accountability, based on Rio Principles,
including through the full development and effective implementation of
intergovernmental agreements and measures […].”
In 2003, the UN-Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
approved the “Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and
Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights”.
These Norms represent a landmark step providing a succinct, but comprehensive
restatement of the international legal principles applicable to business with
regard to human rights, humanitarian law, international labour law,
environmental law, consumer law and anti-corruption law.
Governments
should commit to making transnational corporations and other business
enterprises accountable to the global community and to future generations.
This benchmark
requires:
·
a commitment to
support the “Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and
Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights” and to take concrete
steps towards their full implementation;
·
an
international binding instrument to increase the transparency of financial flows
between TNCs, particularly in the extractive industry, and governments, as
proposed by the international campaign “Publish What You Pay”.
Benchmark 10:
Democratizing international governance
A system of
open, transparent and accessible governance in which human rights and the rule
of law are respected is critically necessary for ensuring equitable global
development. Ensuring that human rights are observed and the rule of law is
enforced is primarily the responsibility of national authorities within a
nationally established legal framework that is consistent with international
agreements and obligations, not least those that define internationally agreed
human rights. However, the application of national laws is not always sufficient
for justice to be carried out and there is a growing need for the international
legal framework to be strengthened so that governments, corporations and
individuals can be held accountable for acts that contravene human rights and
other international agreements.
The legitimacy
of our system of international governance is at stake. Global power carries
responsibility and accountability of those that assume it - whether they are
governments, corporations or even individuals - must extend to the international
community as a whole. However, the effective domination of our multilateral
institutions by a minority of governments who use their position to promote
their own specific interests above all others is no longer acceptable,
particularly when those very governments themselves fail to adhere to the will
of the international majority. A reform of our international system of
governance is long overdue. It needs to be re-built so as to adhere to
principles of justice and democracy. The United Nations remains the most
legitimate and representative institution for assuring an effective system of
international governance, yet the management of the global approaches to
economic, monetary and trade policies effectively lie outside the UN within the
IFIs and the WTO. This disconnection from the UN has led to structural
imbalances in the global governance system that favours economic paradigms over
human development, undermining political priorities defined in the UN framework.
This needs to change so that the UN regains global political centrality based on
new mechanisms ensuring effective democratic, transparent and accountable
decision-making. The World Bank, IMF and WTO must be brought fully within the UN
system, with their roles being redefined. Their governing structures must also
be reformed to reflect changes in the global economy.
Governments
should commit themselves to a radical reform of the multilateral system of
governance and the strengthening and democratization of the United Nations.
This benchmark
requires:
·
the
re-establishment of a reformed Economic and Social Council of the United Nations
in which membership is based on the principles of representation, accountability
and common responsibility. The new Economic and Social Council should be the
ultimate legal global authority for economic and social affairs, whose decisions
are enforceable;
·
a
transformation of the membership of the Security Council so that the same
principles of representation, accountability and common responsibility apply;
·
a reform of the
World Bank, IMF and other International Financial Institutions, together with
the WTO to adhere to these principles, but with their ultimate accountability
being to the reformed Economic and Social Council. Their roles should be
redefined such that the World Bank is a development bank within the UN system,
the IMF’s mandate focuses on safeguarding global financial stability, and the
WTO restricted to regulating international trade;
·
the
establishment of regular public parliamentary reviews of the policies and
actions of multilateral economic institutions, and the role and approach
undertaken by the national government concerned, with participation from civil
society;
·
a strengthening
of the legal institutions - International Court of Justice and International
Criminal Court - responsible for implementing the international rule of law.
Benchmark 11:
Involving civil society
The participation of stakeholders
lies at the centre of successful development strategies. The concept of
ownership that is promoted so vigorously in the Millennium Declaration, in PRSPs
and in development assistance strategies requires the involvement of actors at
all levels. National processes for participation should form the basis for
engaging civil society in the identification, formulation and implementation of
strategies that address the countries specific needs and national context.
Governments need to facilitate the engagement of civil society that is open,
transparent and inclusive. Making local government an effective democratic
institution is vital for communities in order to safeguard their material and
political interests, where key resources, such as water, can be safeguarded and
used in a sustainable way. Equally, the participation of civil society also
needs to be facilitated at regional and global levels.
The process of
the Review of the Millennium Declaration should reflect the crucial role of an
interaction of governments with civil society - and give ample space for civil
society organizations to meaningfully engage with the review process.
Ultimately, if the Millennium Declaration - and the MDGs - is to have real
political significance, the ownership and support of civil society will be a
crucial factor in its promotion. While civil society is ready to engage,
governments negotiating the review of the Millennium Declaration must listen and
take on board the concerns of its citizens. The UN should ensure space for this
interaction to be meaningful and productive in a true spirit of common goals
promoted in an open, transparent and accountable manner.
Governments
should ensure that engagement with civil society in the process of decision
making - nationally, regionally and at the international level - is effectively
facilitated.
This benchmark
requires:
·
a commitment to
ensuring that national processes of engagement are transparent, open, accessible
and consistent;
·
the
establishment and strengthening of participatory mechanisms for regional
organizations;
·
the
establishment of mechanisms at the level of the United Nations and other
international organizations that give transparency to the processes of debate
and decisions, access to agendas, papers and reports, as well as to meetings
themselves - including those of the General Assembly;
·
to provide
facilities to work and engage within the premises of the UN;
·
the
implementation of the proposal of an expanded trust fund to support civil
society participation in UN processes, whether they take place at regional level
or at the UN headquarters;
·
a meaningful
and effective engagement with civil society organizations in the preparations of
the September Summit, and at the Summit itself which recognises the legitimacy
and crucial role of civil society in assuring effective, acceptable strategies
and policies, as well as their implementation.
Conclusion: No
more broken promises, no more excuses
The time has come for bold and
decisive action. Anything less is irresponsible. Next September 2005, our
leaders will face difficult decisions. In the process of negotiations towards
the Summit, the pressure of short term political interests will have to be
balanced with the longer term needs described above. Agreements made by the
international community are full of compromise. Yet the threats and challenges
to our common heritage are more urgent than ever before. The resources and
technology exist. The world’s heads of state and governments must show a common
political will to succeed, not only in collectively committing to a bold and
radical agenda, but in pursuing its implementation. The failure of a few to meet
this challenge could condemn us all. We cannot afford to fail.
Notes:
See the whole document and the list of signatories at
www.socialwatch.org.
“Treat 3 million by 2005” (3 by 5) is the global initiative of the World Health
Organization and UNAIDS adopted in 2003 to provide antiretroviral therapy to 3
million people with HIV/AIDS in developing countries by the end of 2005.
World
Summit on Sustainable Development, Plan of Implementation, para. 49.
Johannesburg, September, 2002.
UN
Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, resolution
2003/16.
Poverty
Reduction Strategy Papers, which are policy documents required by the World Bank
and the IMF from highly indebted poor countries as a precondition to get any
relief in their external debts.
|
