UN OFFICIALS HAIL UNGASS SUCCESS, NGOS “DISAPPOINTED”

by Martin Khor

Geneva 2 July 2000 -- As the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) reviewing the progress in implementation of the Copenhagen Social Summit drew to an end, senior United Nations officials hailed the final outcome as having “significant achievements.”

In contrast, more than 60 NGOs present at the Special Session issued a final joint statement expressing “profound disappointment” at the low priority accorded by many governments to the meeting and “grave concern” at the lack of will to carry forward the Copenhagen vision of social development, as evidenced by several positions taken in the negotiations.

At a media conference on Saturday afternoon after the closing plenary, UN Under-Secretary General Nitin Desai said the main significant achievement was that there had been no re-negotiation of the Copenhagen outcome but instead an agreement to strengthen the implementation.  He listed the achievements as follows:

*        Poverty eradication has been accepted as a major theme.  “We wanted more precision and we got it,” he said.  “There was no time-bound target in Copenhagen, now it is agreed to halve poverty by 2015.  Also there is now an instruction to see how a global campaign for poverty eradication can be done.”

*        To an extent the UNGASS succeeded in connecting the forces of globalisation and the social impact.  In some specific areas, actions had been elaborated to deal with the social dimensions of globalisation.

*        There were strengthened features on the demographic side, especially HIV-AIDS. The outcome had strengthened the response to HIV more than in Copenhagen due to greater urgency of the problem. There was also an advance in how health and development are linked.

*        There were stronger commitments on human rights, especially in the more elaborate treatment of workers’ rights, and agreement to have better exchange on good practices in social policy.

*        There was an explicit agreement on a rigorous analysis of new sources of funding.

“Thus for the first time, we have a clear mandate to analyze many proposals that were discussed in academic circles,” said Desai.  “There is a great deal here on taxation which I did not expect at the start.”

He was referring to a proposal (in para 111 of the Plan of Further Actions) backed by many countries for a study on an international currency tax, which was eventually watered down to an analysis of proposals for new and innovative sources of funding.

John Langmore, director of the UN Division of Social Policy and Development, said he had identified 30 additional initiatives arising out of the UNGASS outcome, which he said made it a “significant conference”, adding:  “Of course the success depends on the follow up.  We guarantee that the UN system will follow up on these initiatives.”

Asked by the media which were the new initiatives he had identified, Langmore mentioned several paragraphs of the Plan of Further Actions, including paras 6 biz, 6 ter, 8b, four items in para 10, 13, 15, 16, 24, 34, 35, 37biz, 38, 66, 67, 72, 83, 97biz, 103ter, 109, 110, 111 (especially 111 (e)biz), 118, 126 and 128.

Asked what measures could be expected on  the prices of medicines, Desai said that paras 78 and 80 contained commitment to promote affordable prices for drugs. Member States can freely exercise the options available to them to protect and advance access to essential medicines. “It is an enabling decision, and it’s up to each country how to implement it. This is a compromise.  The proposal on the table would have gone further.” (He was referring to the G77 proposal to exclude essential medicines from patentability).

Asked whether there was commitment for another review conference on social development, Desai said para 129 left the issue open, thus leaving it to the General Assembly to decide. “Now we are focusing on the next steps, on the 30 areas where we must undertake initiatives, like a campaign on poverty eradication.”

Asked to elaborate what a poverty campaign would mean, Desai said coordinated action would be involved, such as many agencies coming together for an AIDS programme.

Langmore added there were many recommendations under the issues of poverty and employment asking for “consolidation of initiatives”. For example, there is a decision for a global employment strategy. “There has not been so much the case  in the last 25 years regarding promotion of employment, as there was more interest in controlling inflation.”

Asked whether, having outlined areas of advance, the UN officials could specify the areas of retreat, Langmore said there was “none.”

Asked about the joint UN-IMF-World Bank-OECD report “A Better World for All” (launched by the UN Secretary General and heavily criticised by NGOs) and how this related to the final UNGASS document, Desai said:

“They are not comparable. This (the UNGASS document) is the mandate given to us by governments. The other one is a progress report, not a policy report. This (the UNGASS document) is a policy document, and our targets are those made by governments. Our mandate in the UN is to pursue these areas. The two are completely different documents.”

Whilst the UN senior officials were praising the significance of UNGASS, more than 60 NGOs issued a final joint statement expressing “profound disappointment” at the low priority accorded to this conference by governments as evidenced by the presence of so few Heads of States.

“More disheartening has been the lack of will to carry forward the Copenhagen vision of social development in the negotiations,” said the NGOs. They listed down the following disheartening aspects of UNGASS:

*        The weakening of a proposal for a tax on currency transactions, which could contribute to a fund for development by helping to redistribute wealth.

*        The setting of 2015 as the timeframe to halve poverty levels, which in effect sentences hundreds of millions to continue living in abject conditions for another generation;

*        The failure to tackle the differential impact of poverty on women, men, children and young people and on indigenous people and other marginalised groups; inadequate representation of women in the political and economic spheres.

*        The failure to recognise the links between globalisation and increased insecurity and social inequalities at local, national and global levels.

*        Failure to build upon progress made in human rights, and to recognise inter-institutional cooperation on workers’ rights.

*        The disappearance from the final text in the portion on education of some of the main gains of the Dakar Framework for Action.

“In light of these inconclusive decisions,” declared the NGOs, “we wish to challenge the prevailing view promoted by OECD governments, the Bretton Woods institutions, WTO and the UN Secretary General, that globalisation is the only way to organise the world economy and that more globalisation will reduce poverty.

“The current trend of globalisation, structural adjustment programmes, WTO agreements and the activities of transnational corporations are the underlying causes of this deterioration.”

The NGOs proposed an alternative framework to reach the goals of the Copenhagen agreements.

Among the actions they proposed were: cancellation of all debts of developing countries since they have been repaid many times over; ensuring TNCs are held accountable through codes of conduct and re-establishment of the UN Centre on Transnational Corporations; creation of a poverty alleviation fund through a currency transaction tax and other forms of global taxes and fees;  ensure that political decision-making is retained in the hands of national governments and not appropriated by international financial institutions ad corporations; strengthening the democratic mandate and structures of the UN.-SUNS4700

About the writer: Martin Khor is Director of the Third World Network.

© 2000, SUNS - All rights reserved. May not be reproduced, reprinted or posted to any system or service without specific permission from SUNS. This limitation includes incorporation into a database, distribution via Usenet News, bulletin board systems, mailing lists, print media or broadcast. For information about reproduction or multi-user subscriptions please e-mail <suns@igc.org >