UN SOCIAL CONFERENCE ENDS WITH MIXED REACTIONS

A major United Nations Conference on Social Development concluded with a resolution to halve the rate of extreme poverty by 2015, as well as many other decisions to tackle economic and social problems.  Some UN officials put on a brave front in hailing the results.  However, many NGOs felt the basic causes of poverty and lack of development lay with the model of globalisation and were not adequately tackled.

By Martin Khor

A United Nations conference to review the world's social situation has concluded with an action plan packed with good intentions and a few new initiatives.

But it left many wondering whether the root causes of social and economic deterioration would be tackled, and whether the trend would actually be reversed.

The meeting, held in Geneva from 26 June to 1 July, was the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on Social Development to review what has happened five years after the eventful Social Summit that was attended by over 100 heads of state and government in Copenhagen in 1995.

Despite the lofty goals set by the Copenhagen meeting, poverty has increased in many countries, unemployment remains an entrenched problem and there is an increase in conflicts around issues of local autonomy and ethnic identity.

These were some of the findings of the Geneva conference, which then went on to negotiate new goals and action plans for the future. 

The most catchy of the targets was that the proportion of people living in extreme poverty should be reduced by half by 2015 with a view to eradicate poverty as a long term goal.

Also agreed to was the need for an international strategy on employment to increase jobs.  A world employment forum would be convened by the International Labour Organisation in 2001.

A heated debate took place on proposals by many developing countries backed by Canada to explore the feasibility of a currency transaction tax aimed at curbing financial speculation and raising funds for social development.

This was vehemently opposed by the United States and a few other developed countries.  In the end, the decision was watered down to an agreement to conduct a rigorous analysis of implications of proposals for new and innovative sources of funding for social development and poverty eradication.

While this watering down of language was condemned by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and many governments, United Nations officials later said the decision was good enough to enable them to start work on studies relating to a currency tax.

Another set of decisions came under the heading:  "Reducing negative impacts of international financial turbulence on social and economic development."

Among the agreed measures were to improve preventive measures to address excessive volatility of short-term capital flows including "consideration of a temporary debt standstill."

This was an advance as it was probably the first time that an international conference had endorsed a debt standstill, which usually describes an initiative by an indebted country to temporarily stop payment on foreign debts.

The worsening situation concerning the AIDS epidemic also occupied a lot of discussion. 

Developing countries proposed that essential medicines, including for treating AIDS, be excluded from patenting so that prices could be made more affordable for the poor.

However, this was stoutly resisted by developed countries which sought to protect their drug companies' interests.

In the end, the resolution only recognised the importance of access to essential medicines at affordable prices.  It also acknowledged the contribution of intellectual property rights to promote research but agreed that countries can freely exercise, in an unrestricted manner, options under international agreements  to protect access to life-saving essential medicines.

The developing countries had insisted on the terms "freely exercise" an "unrestricted manner" because of the negative experience of South Africa, which faced opposition from the United States when its government tried to introduce measures (such as compulsory licensing, which is allowed under the World Trade Organisation's agreement on intellectual property rights)  to lower the price of medicines for AIDS.

A major controversy at the conference was the launching of a report, "A Better World For All", by the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan.  The report was jointly published by the UN Secretariat, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD--the club of 28 rich countries).

Besides setting targets for social development, the report also promoted free-market policies as the key to resolving developing countries' problems.

Many NGOs protested that the UN should maintain its integrity and should not produce joint reports with organistions of the rich countries like the OECD, or international agencies controlled by the rich countries which, they said, were responsible in the first place for generating the conditions for poverty and lack of development.

This sentiment was also shared by many developing-country governments, as well as by leaders and staff of several UN agencies, some of whom felt betrayed by their own Secretary General. 

At a press briefing at the end of the conference, senior UN officials hailed the final outcome as having "significant achievements."

In contrast, more than 60 NGOs present at the meeting 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.

UN Under-Secretary General Nitin Desai listed the achievements as follows:

**  Poverty eradication has been accected as a major theme.  "We wanted more precision and we got it. 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," he said.

** 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 analyse many proposals that were discussed in academic circles," said Desai.

John Langmore, director of the Division of Social Policy and Development in the UN Secretariat 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."

While the UN senior officials were in praise of 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 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 and the   inadequate representation of women in the political and economic spheres.

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

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

"In light of these inconclusive decisions, we wish to challenge the previaling 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; 

ensuring that political decision-making is retained in the hands of national governments and not appropriated by international financial institutions ad corporations;  and

strengthening the democratic mandate and structures of the UN.

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