 |
|
 |
PUBLICATIONS - COMMISSIONERS IN THE NEWS |
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLICATIONS - COMMISSIONERS IN THE NEWS |
|
|
"MAKING
GLOBALIZATION WORK FOR ALL THE WORLD'S PEOPLE"
MARY
ROBINSON Ambassador
Nancy Rubin, Ladies and Gentlemen, Thinking
back, it is hard to avoid feelings of loss - of unfilled expectations
and an end to togetherness. So much has changed here in the US and
around the world over the past 3 years. I am reminded of lines from
W.B. Yeats: “Things
fall apart; the centre cannot hold; It is not anarchy that we face, of course. But we are living in a changed world. In his address to a joint meeting of Congress last week, Prime Minister Tony Blair put it this way: “Our
new world rests on order. The danger is disorder. And in today’s
world, it can now spread like contagion. The terrorists and the states
that support them don’t have large armies or precision weapons.
They don’t need them. Their weapon is chaos…” As we address with vigilance this reality of insecurity and the heightened threat level it poses, it is vital that we confront not just the symptoms but also the deeper causes which have increased the divides in our world. Given
the suddenness and extent of change, it is worth recalling that the
21st century started with a shared sense of hope. As people welcomed
in the new century in every time zone from Sydney to San Francisco,
world leaders expressed the promise of the moment at the United Nations
where they adopted in September 2000, the Millennium Declaration.
That Declaration marked a renewed international commitment to creating
a shared future, based upon our common humanity in all its diversity.
World leaders – the largest gathering in history - agreed a set
of specific targets and commitments known as the Millennium Development
Goals. The mood was of a new age dawning. But
just one year and three days later, the terrible events of September
11, 2001 shook the United States and the world. Since that day, the
commitments which ushered in the new millennium – commitments
to making globalization work for all people - have been overshadowed
by the threats of terrorism, by fears and uncertainties about the
future and by questions about the viability of open societies joined
by international norms and values. My
message tonight is that if we want real human security - in our own
lives and in the lives of our fellow men and women around the world
- we must implement, not cast aside, the commitments that were made
at the start of the century. Instead of putting up walls of fear and
resorting only to the strategies of power politics, we should seek
ways to focus even more on promoting in practice the values of freedom,
equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect and shared responsibility
which can unite rather than divide North and South, rich and poor,
left and right, religious and secular, us and them. Common
values and commitments In
beginning down that road, we should remember that 9/11 did not, in
fact, change much in the lives of most people on the planet. Human
insecurity, sadly, was a daily reality before 9/11 for the hundreds
of millions who live in absolute poverty or in zones of conflict,
and remains so. For these people, insecurity is not equated with where
a terrorist might strike next, but instead, where tomorrow’s
only meal will come from, or how a job will be found that provides
enough income to ensure shelter for a family or purchase life saving
medicines for a dying child. This
broader understanding has been articulated by an Independent Commission
on Human Security co-chaired by Amartya Sen and Sadako Ogata. The
Commission in its Report, Human Security Now, noted that whereas,
in the past, debate on issues of security focused on state security,
the international community urgently needs a new paradigm which shifts
from the security of the state to the security of the people –
to human security. The emphasis is on the extent to which human security
brings together the human elements of security, of rights and of development. Two
weeks ago I was in Dublin for the launch of the 2003 UN Human Development
Report which this year focuses on strategies for reaching the Millennium
Development Goals and targets. These eight goals, you will recall,
include halving those in extreme poverty and hunger by 2015, achieving
universal primary education for boys and girls by 2015; and specific
targets for promoting gender equality and empowerment of women; reducing
child mortality; improving maternal health, combating HIV/AIDs, malaria
and other diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability and developing
a global partnership for development. Yet,
as this year’s Report makes starkly clear, globalization is exacerbating
trends towards a two-speed world. The 1990s marked a period of sustained
growth in many Western countries, and China and India made significant
strides in bringing millions of people out of poverty. But during
the same period, 54 countries – many in sub-Saharan Africa –
grew poorer largely because location, narrowly based economies, and
other handicaps kept them in a poverty trap. In 21 countries more
people are going hungry. Infant mortality has increased in 14 countries
and life expectancy has fallen in 34. The report illustrates that
without dramatic change, the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
will not be implemented in many parts of the world by 2015, and sub-Saharan
Africa as a whole would fail to meet even a single goal by 2050. I believe the time has come to ask ourselves some simple, yet profound questions: How
secure can any of us feel in a “two speed”, “haves
and haves not” world like this? What
are we willing to do differently to tackle these challenges? As
the power to effect change continues to shift in significant ways
from the public to the private, from national governments to multinational
corporations and international organizations, how should global responsibilities
be assigned to different actors - international institutions, governments,
business and civil society? Where
do each of our responsibilities for the fate of people both close
to home and in distant lands begin and end? A
Human Rights Approach I
believe we can begin to answer these questions through dialogue about
values and the search for a new and more enduring interconnectedness.
At times like this, as Walter Isaacson the Aspen Institute’s
new President, has noted, “it is crucial to offer people the
opportunity to reflect upon, to reconnect with, and to deepen their
understanding of the values – and the balances between competing
values – that have been at the core of our humanity as civilization
has made its fitful progress through the centuries.” I
couldn’t agree more. And that dialogue requires a common language
of respect and solidarity. Equally important, that language must be
able to carry the moral and legal force of the international community.
It must be able to manage competing claims and embrace gender issues
and the diversity of human experience. The language which I believe
can meet these tests is that of the international human rights standards
– legal standards – that have been developed over the past
half century. Our
ability to be conversant in this language will require a shift in
thinking – in many ways a cultural shift - to recognize people
in need as individuals with rights, with valid claims, rather than
objects of care, benevolence and charity. It will also require a shift
in the relative importance that governments, who have committed themselves
to these standards, place on ensuring their implementation. Finally,
such a shift in thinking will require agreement on some sharing of
responsibilities for solving global problems among governments, international
bodies, the business sector and civil society. In
the Human Development Report 2003 there is explicit recognition that
the Millennium Development Goals, and the concepts of human development
and human rights share a common motivation (and I quote at some length): “Achieving
the Goals will advance human rights. Each Goal can be directly linked
to economic, social and cultural rights enumerated in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights instruments. Recognizing
that the targets expressed in the Goals are not just development aspirations
but also claimable rights has important implications. Human
rights carry counterpart obligations on the part of others –
not just to refrain from violating them, but also to protect and promote
their realization. Human rights conventions recognize the need for
an international order that ensures that these rights be secured and
that establishes the counterpart obligations of governments and other
actors to contribute to their realization. Human
rights and globalization The
new project which I am pleased to be developing in partnership with
the Aspen Institute – the Ethical Globalization Initiative (EGI)
– seeks to build on the links between human development, human
rights and human security. We start from the premise that a world
connected by technology, information, transportation and commerce
must also be connected by shared values and norms of behavior –
by “rules of the road” for globalization. It
is important to note that the world's economic system has operated
largely in isolation from human rights, both at an institutional level
and in intellectual terms. The different approaches and ‘languages’
of economics and human rights have never been reconciled. Partly
as a result, international trade and intellectual property rules have,
for example, led directly or indirectly to the exclusion of many people
from access to essential medicines, notably to drugs needed by the
developing world to inhibit the spread of HIV/AIDS, Malaria and TB.
In a similar way, in many countries, economic policies that promote
privatisation of public services have made it, in some cases, more
difficult for people to send their children to school, secure safe
drinking water, have access to health care, or travel to market. Structural
adjustment policies have reinforced the vulnerability of many people
in the same manner. This represents a major challenge. The failure
of equity undermines the legitimacy of national and global political
institutions, as well as the quality of life of millions of people.
So
how do we go about addressing these apparent conflicts between the
values of the market and the values of human rights? The first step,
I believe is to recognize that the objectives of international human
rights and international trade in fact have much in common. Both seek
to improve standards of living in larger freedom, one through recognition
of what is necessary for a life of dignity – free from fear and
want - including access to health care, education, and an adequate
standard of living - and the other through the practice of free trade
leading to growth, which can then fund vital social programs. Under
international law, all World Trade Organization (WTO) member states
are parties not only to international treaties on intellectual property,
trade and services, and agriculture, but also to at least one, and
usually more, of the six principal human rights treaties. This means
they have voluntarily undertaken to enforce trade rules and to respect
and fulfill human rights in their countries (including the rights
of women, children and vulnerable groups). They have accepted equivalent
obligations in relation to labor and environmental standards. A
values-led approach does presume, however, that market mechanisms
(which value competition, limited government regulation, respect for
contracts and rational self interest amongst other core principles)
must operate alongside other institutions that give “the power
and protection” of democratic practice, and provide human rights,
a free and open media, facilities for basic education and health care,
economic safety nets, and provisions for women’s freedom and
rights. The challenge therefore is not to stop expansion of global
markets but to develop institutions and policies that will provide
appropriate governance and protect human rights locally, nationally,
and at international level. This will in turn strengthen human development
and human security. Defining
responsibilities and good governance in a global age Of
course, effective governance must begin at national level. Human rights
cannot be realised in the absence of effective and accountable local
and national institutions. Where courts are corrupt, over-burdened
and inefficient, basic civil rights will be violated. Where social
ministries are under-resourced, disempowered or lack qualified staff,
basic rights to adequate health care, education and housing will remain
unfulfilled. But
we must also acknowledge that governance in today’s world is
about more than decisions made and laws enforced locally or nationally.
There is also a growing international dimension of governance and
the protection of human rights which we must consider as well. Some
contend that expanding responsibilities for human rights beyond national
borders could divert attention from the failings of individual governments.
The argument, however, is not over whether individual governments
should be supported regardless of their behavior. The issue is the
extent to which there is an international responsibility to help people
who have been denied their fundamental rights and dignity and the
larger consequences of not taking action. The
latest Human Development Report draws on the thinking behind the Conference
on Financing for Development in Monterey in 2002, and identifies a
‘compact’ between developed countries and almost 60 ‘priority
countries’. It recognizes that lack of progress in those countries
is not about lack of trying to put good institutions, policies and
growth in place. It is about handicaps: geographic isolation, conflict,
closed markets, exclusion of women and a deteriorating environment
undermining the economic base. As
the Report emphasizes: “The
poorest countries require significant external resources to achieve
essential levels of human development. But this is not a demand for
open-ended financing from rich countries – because the Compact
is also unapologetic on the need for poor countries to mobilize domestic
resources, strengthen policies and institutions, combat corruption
and improve governance, essential steps on the path to sustainable
development.” The
initiative announced by President Bush in the context of the Monterrey
Conference, the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) represents a welcome
commitment to fulfilling the notion of a compact, in that by 2006
U.S. overseas development assistance should have increased by about
50% to around U.S. $ 5 billion a year. It is vital, therefore, that
the selection criteria for recipient countries under the Millennium
Challenge Account re-enforce the link emphasized in the Human Development
Report between human rights and human development. Currently, however,
the selection criteria include indicators of ‘civil liberties’
and ‘political freedoms’ which have been developed in a
manner which appears to exclude any acknowledgement of economic, social
and cultural rights. In short, they reflect the American approach
to civil liberties rather than the full range of international human
rights standards now central to achieving the millennium goals. At
the very least, there should be a serious debate on the adequacy of
those criteria, and on whether the United States could support the
broader agenda of human rights internationally even if it does not
find favor domestically. The
Human Development Report also makes clear that the Compact arrived
at in Monterrey requires that rapid progress is made on trade equity
and debt relief, helping break down barriers that keep agricultural
products of developing countries out of rich markets, and allowing
them to devote more of their own scarce resources to development priorities
rather than repaying international creditors. The
contradiction between maintaining agricultural subsidies and tackling
poverty effectively through development aid was pointed out forcefully
in an editorial in the New York Times last Sunday. “By
rigging the global trade game against farmers in developing nations,
Europe, the United States and Japan are essentially kicking aside
the development ladder for some of the world’s most desperate
people. This is morally depraved. By our actions, we are harvesting
poverty around the world. Hypocrisy
compounds the outrage. The United States and Europe have mastered
the art of forcing open poor nations’ economies to imported industrial
goods and services. But they are slow to reciprocate when it comes
to farming, where poorer nations can often manage, in a fair game,
to compete. Globalization, it turns out, can be a one-way street. The
glaring credibility gap dividing the developed world’s free-trade
talk from its market-distorting actions on agriculture cannot be allowed
to continue… The developed world’s $320 billion in farm
subsidies last year dwarfed its $50 billion in development assistance.” It
is good to read such tough language in a major newspaper. As
well as addressing issues of equity in trade, and the need for a compact
to support the poorest countries, we need a much deeper engagement
in the fight against AIDs, perhaps the greatest global challenge we
face today. AIDS
is, of course, one component of what is sometimes called the dark
side of globalization. The countries where the impact of AIDS is deepest
are also the countries which have not been among the ‘winners’
of globalization. Steps to open markets have not led to faster economic
growth, structural adjustment policies have weakened health systems,
skilled health staff have migrated to the job markets of Europe and
North America, and tax cuts to create a favorable climate for overseas
investment have cut government budgets on health and education. International
rules to protect intellectual property and patent rights over new
drugs have benefited producers in the developed world, but at the
same time they have exacted a high price – in every sense - from
the developing world which cannot afford to pay the costs of the medicines
they need. At present, fewer than 50,000 of the 29.4 million in Africa
with HIV and HIV related disease receive anti retroviral therapy.
As the Dean of a US medical school put it recently, “In the next
five years, either 5 million or 30 million people will die; this will
depend on access to drugs”. We
in the developed world are only beginning to understand the devastating
impact of these levels of ill health and high mortality on family
life and human dignity, on social structures and institutions of governance
such as education, housing, and justice, and on economic productivity.
Throughout the last century, we assumed that, without war, life expectancy
would continue to rise inexorably. In this new century, some African
countries must face the fact that their citizens may expect to live
only into their 30s, and that average life expectancy is dropping
by 20 or more years. How
can human rights help us to address the extent of our shared responsibility
for this global catastrophe? First,
by understanding that rights violations contribute to the spread of
AIDS. Where women are equal citizens, who can exercise their reproductive
rights, and their right to public information and discussion on health
matters – indeed, their right to say no - they are better able
to protect themselves, and their children, against transmission of
the virus. Too often the reverse is true. In many countries with high
HIV prevalence, violations of women’s rights are widespread,
through discrimination, and high levels of sexual violence. We
know that those countries which have had most success in controlling
the spread of AIDS have been those whose governments have taken a
human rights approach through encouraging public discussion and public
education, freedom of expression and assembly, and taking steps to
protect those who come forward for testing and treatment, or who are
suspected of carrying the virus, from being stigmatized and marginalized.
In Brazil, Uganda and Thailand – to take three examples - there
are clear links between rights based public policy and lowered infection
rates. The
private sector has a critical role to play, and in particular the
international pharmaceutical companies. In the last two years there
has been some progress, by drug companies to make medicines more widely
available. But now, if you will bear with me, I would like to address
a technical issue precisely because it is not just a technical issue.
It is a life and death issue for literally millions of people. In
the Doha Declaration in November 2001, the WTO reaffirmed that the
TRIPS Agreement on intellectual property rights “can and should
be interpreted in a manner supportive of WTO members’ right to
protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines
for all.” Unfortunately, the Doha Declaration left one crucial
point unresolved. The TRIPS provision on compulsory licenses provides
that such licenses must be predominantly for the supply of the domestic
market, rather than for export. Practically, this means that the supply
of generics available for export will be significantly diminished,
and that countries without manufacturing capacity will have no source
of generic medicines. In
the Declaration, the WTO ministers instructed the TRIPS Council to
find an expeditious solution to this problem by the end of 2002. Sadly,
the deadline has been missed, and the negotiations over the “Paragraph
6 problem” (as it is colloquially known) have degenerated into
one of the bitterest implementation problems of the Doha Round. Since
December 2002, the US, under pressure from the powerful US pharmaceutical
lobby, PhRMA, has been blocking a compromise solution to the paragraph
6 problem because of concerns that it would enable generic drug producers
in India, Brazil, China and South Africa to undermine US patents and
flood the world markets with cheap medicines. These concerns are much
exaggerated, as the proposed deal would include strict safeguards
against re-entry of low-priced medicines into rich country markets.
Developing countries, WHO, the UN agencies and civil society are bitterly
disappointed. The Director-General of the WTO has also expressed his
disappointment, and it is generally agreed that a solution must be
found prior to the Cancun Ministerial Meeting in September 2003. Meanwhile,
President Bush’s decision to create an Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief is a welcome step. The Plan commits $15 billion over the next
five years to the fight against AIDS in the most afflicted nations
of Africa and the Caribbean. The President is right when he says that
in an age of miraculous medicines, no person should have to hear the
words - 'You've got AIDS. We can't help you. Go home and die'.' Conclusion I
conclude by returning to the importance of values. How
do we enhance the connectedness between peoples, the solidarity between
governments and a greater fairness in the rules of international organizations,
all of which are crucial to meeting the Millennium commitments? To
put it another way: What does it mean to champion “freedom”
in our divided world? For
the United States, I believe a national conversation on what human
security means -not only here at home but for people around the world
- would be a welcome step forward. In doing so, it would be important
to reflect again on one of the principles on which this nation was
founded. The Declaration of Independence refers to the importance
of a “decent respect for the opinions of mankind”. My friend,
Yale Law Professor Harold Koh, who served the Clinton administration
as Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, wrote recently about
the notion of “American exceptionalism” and its growing
impact on relations with the rest of the world as follows: “As this war on terror wears on, a transcendent issue in the debate over U.S. foreign policy will be what kind of world order is emerging, and what America’s role in it will be. After September 11, the United States does not have the option of isolationism. Like it or not, Americans must be internationalists, but we do have a choice. America’s
choice is not isolationism versus internationalism, but what version
of internationalism will we pursue? Will it be power-based internationalism,
in which the United States gets its way because of its willingness
to exercise power whatever the rules? Or will it be norm-based internationalism,
in which American power derives not just from hard power, but from
perceived fidelity to universal values of democracy, human rights,
and the rule of law?” It
would be both timely, and a way of bridging some current divides,
if the people of the United States were to open up a broad debate
on this idea of ‘fidelity to universal values of democracy, human
rights, and the rule of law’. I believe that debate would lead
to a new appreciation of the link I have been emphasising, between
the broader agenda of human rights – encompassing economic, social
and cultural rights – human development, and human security. Accepting
the importance of a broader approach to human security would bring
us back to the commitments made in the Millennium Declaration. We
have the shared agenda of implementing the Millennium Development
Goals by 2015. That Agenda was costed in Monterrey as requiring an
additional $50 billion dollars a year in global development spending.
This is a large sum, but not really so large if it is placed side-by-side
with global military spending and we recognise that the spending of
it will in fact achieve greater human security. We
need to rally around the concept of building a new sense of global
community with human security for all at its heart. Human security
has two overarching values: protection and empowerment. On
protection, the Commission on Human Security said: “To
protect people – the first key to human security – their
basic rights and freedoms must be upheld. To do so requires concerted
efforts to develop national and international norms, processes and
institutions, which must address insecurities in ways that are systematic
not makeshift, comprehensive not compartmentalized, preventive not
reactive.” And
the Commission described empowerment as: “People’s
ability to act on their own behalf – and on behalf of others…
People empowered can demand respect for their dignity when it is violated.
They can create new opportunities for work and address many problems
locally. And they can mobilize for the security of others.” Protection
and empowerment are core human rights principles. They are at the
heart of a values led globalization because they provide tools for
the powerless, for those who have not yet benefited from the process.
If we are willing to embrace them in our lives, and demand that our
leaders do the same, they can make all the difference. I
conclude with the words with which Václav Havel ended his wonderful
essay in 1978 on The Power of the Powerless: “For the real question is whether the brighter future is really always so distant. What if, on the contrary, it has been here for a long time already, and only our own blindness and weakness has prevented us from seeing it around us and within us, and kept us from developing it?” Mary Robinson, High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations (1997 - 2002), President of Ireland (1990-1997), and head of the Commission on Globalisation's Ethical Globalization Initiative, speaking at the Aspen Institute.
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
