Africa: Geneva Dissensus, 08/07/00

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA - AFRICAN STUDIES CENTER

Africa: Geneva Dissensus

Date distributed (ymd): 000807

Document reposted by APIC

+++++++++++++++++++++Document Profile+++++++++++++++++++++

Region: Continent-Wide

Issue Areas: +economy/development+

Summary Contents:

The debate this year on responses to the global development crisis is being reflected in various venues of the "international community." Last month APIC reposted documents concerning the controversy over the World Bank's development report (http://www.africapolicy.org/docs00/wb0007.htm). The posting below contains documents concerning the release of a joint report from the Organization for EconomicCo-operation and Development (OECD), International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the United Nations, entitled "A Better World for All."Many critics charge this report reflects a worrying 'tilt' of the UN towards the agenda of the Bretton Woods institutions, Defenders of the report claim it is part of pressure on the rich countries to adopt more development-friendly policies,

The full text of the report is available, in PDF format, at: http://www.unog.ch/ga2000/esa/socdev/geneva2000/docs/bwa_e.pdf

The report was released on the eve of World Summit on Social Development in Geneva, June 26-30, 2000. Official information on the summit can be found at: http://www.unog.ch/ga2000/socialsummit/nav/main.htm and http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/geneva2000/news

For a variety of other links related to the summit, including official, non-governmental and alternative meetings, see http://www.mandint.org/links/en/lsommdse.htm

+++++++++++++++++end profile++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

26 June 2000

Press Release SG/SM/7465

ECONOMIC GROWTH ABOUT PEOPLE -- THEIR HEALTH, EDUCATION, SECURITY, SAYS SECRETARY-GENERAL TO FORUM GENEVA 2000

Following is the address of Secretary-General Kofi Annan to the opening ceremony of the Forum Geneva 2000 in Geneva on 25 June:

[excerpts; for full text see http://www.un.org]

I remain convinced that globalization can benefit humankind as a whole. But clearly at the moment millions of people -- perhaps even the majority of the human race -- are being denied those benefits. They are poor not because they have too much globalization, but too little or none at all.

And many people are actually suffering in different ways -- I would say not from globalization itself, but from the failure to manage its adverse effects. Some have lost their jobs, others see their communities disintegrating, some feel that their very identity is at stake. Even in the richest and most democratic countries, people wonder if the leaders they elect have any real control over events.

I think these fears can be answered, but not by any one nation alone, and not by governments alone either. The State and civil society should not see each other as enemies but as allies. The strongest State is one that listens to civil society, and explains itself to civil society in a way that encourages people to work with the State, of their own free will.

When I speak about civil society, I don't mean only non-governmental organizations, though they are a very important part of it. I also mean universities, foundations, labour unions and -- yes -- private corporations.

Private corporations produce most of the wealth in the world. If only for that reason, we would be foolish to ignore them. We would be foolish not to seek to engage them in a search for something beyond short-term profit -- the search for a better, more equitable world in which everyone has the chance to participate in the global market, as both consumer and producer.

On their side, many corporations now recognize that they have something to learn from us, as well as we from them. We all have to learn from each other, and it is only through dialogue that we can bring about change.

But partnership between the United Nations and the corporate sector will not exclude others. Labour unions, and you, the non-governmental organizations, will also have an important role to play.

Similarly, the Bretton Woods institutions, and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and World Trade Organization (WTO), are there to help manage the world economy and ensure that its benefits are more widely enjoyed. If some of them have pursued mistaken policies, haven't we all at one time or other? If some have not always paid enough attention to the views and interests of developing countries, how are we going to change that, except through dialogue?

At a press conference tomorrow I shall launch a report signed jointly by the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and OECD. This means that the other three institutions accept the targets for reducing extreme poverty in the world adopted at United Nations conferences, including Copenhagen.

It means they have come together with us to review progress towards these goals, and so give us a better idea of how to move faster towards them in the years ahead. But of course we will only be able to do that if, as I have repeatedly urged them, the OECD countries do more to open their markets to products from developing ones, as well as giving more generous debt relief and official development assistance.

The report is called "A Better World for All", and that indeed is the objective we all share. All these institutions have a part to play -- as do multinational corporations and labour unions -- in seeing that the new global market is embedded in a true global society, based on shared global values.

***************************************************************

World Council of Churches Office of Communication Press Update 150 route de Ferney, P.O. Box 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland

For more information contact:

Karin Achtelstetter, Media Relations Officer tel.: (+41 22) 791 6153 (office); e-mail: ka@wcc-coe.org

28 June 2000

NGOs Call on the UN to Withdraw Endorsement of "A Better World For All"

In a joint statement released 28 June 2000, approximately 80 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and people's movements followingthe Geneva 2000 process expressed outrage at the report "A Better World for All", a joint document of the Organization for EconomicCo-operation and Development (OECD), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United Nations released earlier this week.

A summary of the joint statement follows:

"NGOs, peoples' organisations and movements, organised in Caucuses for the WSSD+5, are outraged about "A Better World for All", ajoint document of the OECD, IMF, World Bank and United Nations.

Our specific objections are as follows:

Process Derailed: The document is presented as a new consensus between the United Nations, the OECD, the IMF and theWorld Bank, thereby reinforcing Northern perspectives and disempowering the South while undermining the concept of political inclusiveness that defines the UN.

UNGASS Undermined: The timing of the release of these biased messages, by the Secretary-General to opening sessions of the General Assembly and Geneva 2000 forum, pre-empted the UNGASS negotiations and devalued its very process.

Secretary-General Surrenders to Bretton Woods: The UN Charter makes a clear distinction between the UN and itsspecialised agencies, including the Bretton Woods Institutions. We therefore take issue with the equal status accorded thesignatories.

Patronising the Poor; Ignoring Poverty in the North: The document promotes an image of poor people living only in theSouth who will be grateful for assistance, as opposed to empowering people living in poverty to demand their rights. This is aclear violation of the recognition in Copenhagen that social development can only be achieved in an enabling economic and politicalenvironment.

Contradictions: The introduction of a "pro-poor growth" concept puts the responsibility of coming out of poverty on the backsof the poor in the South.

Backward Steps: The document not only fails to recognise the role of IFI liberalisation policies in generating poverty, but instead proposes to eradicate poverty with more of the same medicine - despite the recent failure of these very same policies in East Asia.

Bretton Woods for All?

The release of this document raises the stakes of the UNGASS outcome against the setting of new initiatives, including demands that thewealthy nations put in place measures to honour their commitments in Copenhagen. We therefore call on all Member States to:

* Re-commit to the UNGASS process by analysing the root causes of poverty and gender inequality within the currentmacro-economic framework of globalisation.

* Reverse the decline in ODA and set a target of 2005 to meet the UN target of 0.7%.

* Pledge to immediate and full debt cancellation for the poorest countries so resources can be released for investment in social development.

* Introduce a Currency Transfer Tax (CTT) to counter the instability of global capital transactions and mobilise further resources forsocial development.

Unachievable Goals

The goals of Copenhagen cannot be achieved if developing countries are marginalised in the decision-making process of internationalinstitutions, nor can national efforts to eradicate poverty succeed without an international enabling environment.

NGOS Call for 2005 Summit

Monitoring the concrete results of Copenhagen is imperative. Therefore world leaders must gather again in 2005 - the mid-point betweenthe Summit and many of the targets set - to assess achievements and set new goals.

NGOs call on Member States to reject "A Better World for All" which does not reflect the spirit, opinion and positions of the United Nations as a whole, particularly that of civil society. NGOs further pledge to intensify a global campaign against the document."

The full text of the NGO joint statement is available on the WCC website (http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/jpc/ngo-state.html).

************************************************************

26 June 2000

Press Release SG/SM/7466

Transcript of Press Conference Given by Secretary-general Kofi Annan and Other Officials to Launch Joint Report "A Better World for All"

[excerpts: full text available on http://www.un.org]

Following is a transcript of the press conference given by Secretary- General Kofi Annan and other officials at the Palais des Nations on Monday, 26 June, to launch the report entitled "A Better World for All", which is a joint report by the United Nations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)....

During the 1990s, United Nations world conferences set major goals for economic and social development. All countries, developed and developing alike, signed on to this agenda, often at the highest political level. Since then, people have been asking whether the world has made good on these commitments. What has worked? What did not, and why? And what can we do better?

This report provides some answers. It is the product of an unprecedented collaboration among four major multilateral organizations. And it responds to a specific request from the G-8 countries that such a report be prepared -- to help monitor progress in the reduction of poverty worldwide and to guide them in their partnership with developing countries.

The result is a common understanding -- a score card and policy road map with which to measure progress in banishing extreme poverty from our world and in achieving the targets set by the world conferences of the past decade.

We are launching the report today -- in Geneva and in Paris -- because it addresses the very same issues being examined by the "Copenhagen Plus Five" special session that began today. We hope that the two events will reinforce each other, and serve as a springboard for action.

The report has three main messages:

First, considerable progress is being made in achieving each of the seven international development goals that the report outlines. In recent decades, most countries have seen big improvements in life expectancy, and big declines in infant and maternal mortality. We have seen more and more children, especially girls, gain access to education. But progress has been uneven. Some countries and regions are taking big steps, while others see little improvement -- and a few see none at all, or even a decline.

Secondly, the targets can be met. The goals are not utopian. They are ambitious, but achievable. To reach them, we will need to work hard. In every region of the world there are some countries which have made rapid progress, showing others what can be done. That brings me to the report's third message, which is that, if we are to succeed, developed and developing countries must work together -- in ways that, up to now, they have not been willing to do. Developed countries, especially, must do more to open their markets to products from the developing ones, as well as giving more generous debt relief and official development assistance (ODA).

Poverty is an affront to our common humanity. It also makes many other problems worse. Poor countries are far more likely to be embroiled in conflicts. It is in poor countries that the worst effects of HIV/AIDS and other diseases are concentrated. And it is poor countries -- especially the least developed, and those in sub-Saharan Africa -- that most often lack the capacity and resources to protect the environment.

In an interdependent world, that is something that should be a concern for all of us. That is why the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF and the OECD have joined forces. We believe a better world can be ours. We believe we can put the great new global market within reach of the poor. We believe globalization can be a positive force for all the world's people.

That message is also at the heart of my own Report - "We, the Peoples" -- which I have put before the Member States in preparation for the Millennium Summit in September. That report, too, deals with poverty -- but also with conflict and the environment. It is aimed at helping world leaders to arrive in New York ready to make concrete commitments -- to their peoples, and to the United Nations.

Question: Mr. Secretary-General, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have nicknamed this report. They call it not a better world for all but a Bretton Woods for all, and their critique is that the recipes are too one-sided, making demands only to the countries of the South. What is your response to this critique? And secondly, why does this report not contain the old United Nations goal of having the industrial countries paying at least 0.7 per cent of their gross national product for development aid?

The Secretary-General: Let me first start by saying that we stand by the target of 0.7 per cent. It is regrettable that very few countries have met that target and this is a point I make often in my own statements. And so we have not moved away from that target. That figure is actually there, my colleagues tell me it is there on page 23. But let me say that I think it is unfair to treat the report as a Bretton Woods institution. Bretton Woods for all. Yesterday, I had the chance of speaking to the NGO Forum and I made the point that we all need to work together. This is a point I made on the first day in office from the General Assembly podium, that as Secretary-General, I would want to work in partnership with everybody, stressing the fact that the United Nations alone can do very little or can do nothing, and that we needed to reach out and work in partnership with NGOs, with the private sector, with civil society generally, foundations and universities and link up with all the international organizations to have greater impact and expand our reach. The NGOs are a very essential part of this partnership, so are the Bretton Woods institutions and so are the private sector, and I think we ought to be careful not to necessarily sow dissent, but find ways of pooling everybody together and, by pooling our efforts, we will have a really great impact on the problems we are dealing with. I did not expect everyone to agree with everything in the report as I do not agree with everything in many reports that I read, but I think the general thrust is right. I think it is a clever slogan, but I do not think it really analyses the report effectively. Thank you very much.

Mark Malloch Brown, UNDP Administrator: Let me just, if I may, say a few additional words and then each of my colleagues is also going to say something very quickly, then we can get questions. I think the first good news about this report is now you have a story, because it is extraordinarily important that at this summit, which is about the tensions and trade-offs and fights to get better social development in the world, that these issues are posed occasionally in a way which forces the debate and allows some confrontation. Because there are differences of opinion between civil society and international organizations and between international organizations, and that is part of the valid debate to improve the commitment to social development.

Let me just say, though, that the origins of this report lie in a request from the G-8 to have a tool each year when they meet to benchmark progress towards the development goals. The goal here for us is to create a report which will annually ensure that at the G-8 summit these issues of development and the failures of development are addressed and that is no bad goal, because in many of the recent years development has rarely appeared on the agenda of the G-7. This is an effort to create an annual bench marking exercise which, at their request -- which is the good news -- will put it in front of them every year, and when you see the weak level of attendance by heads of government from the developed countries at this Conference, you know that a bench marking advocacy tool of this kind has to be a plus. So, second, as to its content, does it somehow bias the goals in favour of actions by the South? Everyone of these goals are the goals acclaimed by the United Nations conferences and in the case of one by the Secretary-General -- I mean six by the United Nations conferences and one by the Secretary-General in his Millennium report: The income poverty goal, which we expect to be adopted by the Millennium Assembly. So these are goals adopted by the South as much as the North. And they are aimed at a northern audience, the G-7, to force them to do more to support poverty reduction in the South. So I don't think it is a bad goal, and finally on the language which has caused most concern, the language about open markets.

As the Secretary-General said, we in the United Nations are internationalists, we believe in an open global society, a society where ideas, trade and everything can flow across borders -- but we believe in a managed one. The language which has caused such concern is, if you compare it to the language of the Copenhagen Declaration five years ago, almost the same. It is balanced in this report as it was at Copenhagen, with language about social protection, social investment, the inclusion of the poor. So please take the document as a whole. Thank you. ...

************************************************************ This material is being reposted for wider distribution by the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC). APIC provides accessible information and analysis in order to promote U.S. and international policies toward Africa that advance economic, political and social justice and the full spectrum of human rights.

Auto-response addresses for more information (send any e-mail message): africapolicy-info@igc.org (about the Africa Policy Electronic Distribution List); apic-info@igc.org (about APIC). Documents previously distributed, as well as a wide range of additional information, are also available on the Web at: http://www.africapolicy.org

To be added to or dropped from the distribution list write to apic@igc.org. For more information about reposted material, please contact directly the source mentioned in the posting.

Africa Policy Information Center,

110 Maryland Ave. NE, #509, Washington, DC 20002. Phone: 202-546-7961. Fax: 202-546-1545. E-mail: apic@igc.org. ************************************************************

From apic@pop.igc.org Mon Aug7 19:03:00 2000 X-UIDL: 5aa982b64f6035032ccaeaf7ea2fd7dd Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by orion.sas.upenn.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1/SAS.05) with ESMTP id e77N2x700599; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 19:03:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from user-2iveo5j.dialup.mindspring.com (user-2iveo5j.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.96.179]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA24387; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 18:56:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200008072256.SAA24387@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> From: "APIC" <apic@igc.apc.org> Organization: Africa Policy Information Center To: apic@igc.org Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 18:56:00 -0500 X-Distribution: Moderate

Subject: Africa: Geneva Dissensus

Reply-to: apic@igc.org

Priority: normal

X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v3.01d) Status: RO

Africa: Geneva Dissensus

Date distributed (ymd): 000807

Document reposted by APIC

+++++++++++++++++++DocumentProfile+++++++++++++++++++++

Region: Continent-Wide

Issue Areas: +economy/development+

Summary Contents:

The debate this year on responses to the global development crisis is being reflected in various venues of the "international community." Last month APIC reposted documents concerning the controversy over the World Bank's development report (http://www.africapolicy.org/docs00/wb0007.htm). The posting belowcontains documents concerning the release of a joint report fromthe Organization for EconomicCo-operation and Development(OECD),International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the UnitedNations, entitled "A Better World for All."Many critics chargethis report reflects a worrying 'tilt' of the UN towards theagenda of the Bretton Woods institutions, Defenders of the reportclaim it is part of pressure on the rich countries to adopt moredevelopment-friendly policies,

The full text of the report is available, in PDF format, at: http://www.unog.ch/ga2000/esa/socdev/geneva2000/docs/bwa_e .pdf

The report was released on the eve of World Summit on Social

Development in Geneva, June 26-30, 2000. Official information on

the summit can be found at:

http://www.unog.ch/ga2000/socialsummit/nav/main.htm

and

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/geneva2000/news

For a variety of other links related to the summit, including

official, non-governmental and alternative meetings, see

http://www.mandint.org/links/en/lsommdse.htm

+++++++++++++++++endprofile++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

26 June 2000

Press Release SG/SM/7465

ECONOMIC GROWTH ABOUT PEOPLE -- THEIR HEALTH, EDUCATION, SECURITY,SAYS SECRETARY-GENERAL TO FORUM GENEVA 2000

Following is the address of Secretary-General Kofi Annan to the

opening ceremony of the Forum Geneva 2000 in Geneva on 25 June:

[excerpts; for full text see http://www.un.org]

I remain convinced that globalization can benefit humankind as a

whole. But clearly at the moment millions of people -- perhaps even

the majority of the human race -- are being denied those benefits.

They are poor not because they have too much globalization, but too little ornone at all.

And many people are actually suffering in different ways -- I wouldsay not from globalization itself, but from the failure to manageits adverse effects. Some have lost their jobs, others see theircommunities disintegrating, some feel that their very identity is at stake. Even in the richest and most democratic countries, peoplewonder if the leaders they elect have any real control over events.

I think these fears can be answered, but not by any one nation

alone, and not by governments alone either. The State and civil

society should not see each other as enemies but as allies. The

strongest State is one that listens to civil society, and explains

itself to civil society in a way that encourages people to work

with the State, of their own free will.

When I speak about civil society, I don't mean only

non-governmental organizations, though they are a very important

part of it. I also mean universities, foundations, labour unions

and -- yes -- private corporations.

Private corporations produce most of the wealth in the world. If only for that reason, we would be foolish to ignore them. We wouldbe foolish not to seek to engage them in a search for somethingbeyond short-term profit -- the search for a better, more equitableworld in which everyone has the chance to participate in the globalmarket, as both consumer and producer.

On their side, many corporations now recognize that they have something to learn from us, as well as we from them. We all have tolearn from each other, and it is only through dialogue that we canbring about change.

But partnership between the United Nations and the corporate sector will not exclude others. Labour unions, and you, thenon- governmental organizations, will also have an important role to play.

At a press conference tomorrow I shall launch a report signed

jointly by the United Nations, the World Bank, the International

Monetary Fund and OECD. This means that the other three

institutions accept the targets for reducing extreme poverty in the

world adopted at United Nations conferences, including Copenhagen.

It means they have come together with us to review progress towards these goals, and so give us a better idea of how to move faster towards them in the years ahead. But of course we will onlybe able to do that if, as I have repeatedly urged them, the OECDcountries do more to open their markets to products from developing ones, as well as giving more generous debt relief and official development assistance.

The report is called "A Better World for All", and that indeed is

the objective we all share. All these institutions have a part to

play -- as do multinational corporations and labour unions -- in

seeing that the new global market is embedded in a true global

society, based on shared global values.

***************************************************************

World Council of Churches Office of Communication

Press Update

150 route de Ferney, P.O. Box 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland

For more information contact:

Karin Achtelstetter, Media Relations Officer

tel.: (+41 22) 791 6153 (office);

e-mail: ka@wcc-coe.org

28 June 2000

NGOs Call on the UN to Withdraw Endorsement of "A Better World

For All"

In a joint statement released 28 June 2000, approximately 80

non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and people's movements

followingthe Geneva 2000 process expressed outrage at the

report "A Better World for All", a joint document of the

Organization for EconomicCo-operation and Development (OECD),

International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United Nations

released earlier this week.

A summary of the joint statement follows:

"NGOs, peoples' organisations and movements, organised in Caucuses for the WSSD+5, are outraged about "A Better World for All", ajoint document of the OECD, IMF, World Bank and United Nations.

Our specific objections are as follows:

Process Derailed: The document is presented as a new consensusbetween the United Nations, the OECD, the IMF and the WorldBank, thereby reinforcing Northern perspectives and disempoweringthe South while undermining the concept of politicalinclusiveness that defines the UN.

Secretary-General Surrenders to Bretton Woods: The UN Charter

makes a clear distinction between the UN and itsspecialised

agencies, including the Bretton Woods Institutions. We therefore

take issue with the equal status accorded thesignatories.

Patronising the Poor; Ignoring Poverty in the North: The document

promotes an image of poor people living only in theSouth who

will be grateful for assistance, as opposed to empowering people

living in poverty to demand their rights. This is aclear

violation of the recognition in Copenhagen that social

development can only be achieved in an enabling economic and

politicalenvironment.

Contradictions: The introduction of a "pro-poor growth" concept

puts the responsibility of coming out of poverty on the backsof

the poor in the South.

Backward Steps: The document not only fails to recognise the role

of IFI liberalisation policies in generating poverty, but instead

proposes to eradicate poverty with more of the same medicine -

despite the recent failure of these very same policies in East

Asia.

Bretton Woods for All?

* Re-commit to the UNGASS process by analysing the rootcauses ofpoverty and gender inequality within the currentmacro- economicframework of globalisation.

* Reverse the decline in ODA and set a target of 2005 to meet the

UN target of 0.7%.

* Pledge to immediate and full debt cancellation for the poorest

countries so resources can be released for investment in social

development.

* Introduce a Currency Transfer Tax (CTT) to counter the

instability of global capital transactions and mobilise further

resources forsocial development.

Unachievable Goals

The goals of Copenhagen cannot be achieved if developing

countries are marginalised in the decision-making process of

internationalinstitutions, nor can national efforts to

eradicate poverty succeed without an international enabling

environment.

NGOS Call for 2005 Summit

Monitoring the concrete results of Copenhagen is imperative.

Therefore world leaders must gather again in 2005 - the mid-point

betweenthe Summit and many of the targets set - to assess

achievements and set new goals.

NGOs call on Member States to reject "A Better World for All"

which does not reflect the spirit, opinion and positions of the

United Nations as a whole, particularly that of civil society.

NGOs further pledge to intensify a global campaign against the

document."

The full text of the NGO joint statement is available on the WCC

website (http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/jpc/ngo-state.html).

************************************************************

26 June 2000

Press Release SG/SM/7466

Transcript of Press Conference Given by Secretary-general Kofi

Annan and Other Officials to Launch Joint Report "A Better World

for All"

[excerpts: full text available on http://www.un.org]

Following is a transcript of the press conference given by Secretary- General Kofi Annan and other officials at the Palais des Nations on Monday, 26 June, to launch the report entitled "A Better World for All", which is a joint report by the United Nations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), theWorld Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)....

During the 1990s, United Nations world conferences set major goalsfor economic and social development. All countries, developed anddeveloping alike, signed on to this agenda, often at the highestpolitical level. Since then, people have been asking whether theworld has made good on these commitments. What has worked?What didnot, and why? And what can we do better?

The result is a common understanding -- a score card and policy

road map with which to measure progress in banishing extreme

poverty from our world and in achieving the targets set by the

world conferences of the past decade.

We are launching the report today -- in Geneva and in Paris -- because it addresses the very same issues being examined by the "Copenhagen Plus Five" special session that began today. We hopethat the two events will reinforce each other, and serve as a springboard for action.

The report has three main messages:

First, considerable progress is being made in achieving each of the seven international development goals that the report outlines. In recent decades, most countries have seen big improvements in life expectancy, and big declines in infant and maternal mortality. We have seen more and more children, especially girls, gain access to education. But progress has been uneven. Some countries and regionsare taking big steps, while others see little improvement -- and afew see none at all, or even a decline.

Secondly, the targets can be met. The goals are not utopian. They are ambitious, but achievable. To reach them, we will need to work hard. In every region of the world there are some countries which have made rapid progress, showing others what can be done. Thatbrings me to the reportís third message, which is that, if we areto succeed, developed and developing countries must work together-- in ways that, up to now, they have not been willing to do. Developed countries, especially, must do more to open their marketsto products from the developing ones, as well as giving moregenerous debt relief and official development assistance (ODA).

Poverty is an affront to our common humanity. It also makes many other problems worse. Poor countries are far more likely to be embroiled in conflicts. It is in poor countries that the worsteffects of HIV/AIDS and other diseases are concentrated. And it ispoor countries -- especially the least developed, and those insub- Saharan Africa -- that most often lack the capacity andresources to protect the environment.

In an interdependent world, that is something that should be a concern for all of us. That is why the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF and the OECD have joined forces. We believe a betterworld can be ours. We believe we can put the great new globalmarket within reach of the poor. We believe globalization can be apositive force for all the world's people.

The Secretary-General: Let me first start by saying that we stand by the target of 0.7 per cent. It is regrettable that very few countries have met that target and this is a point I make often inmy own statements. And so we have not moved away from that target. That figure is actually there, my colleagues tell me it is there onpage 23. But let me say that I think it is unfair to treat thereport as a Bretton Woods institution. Bretton Woods for all. Yesterday, I had the chance of speaking to the NGO Forum and Imadethe point that we all need to work together. This is a point I madeon the first day in office from the General Assembly podium, thatas Secretary-General, I would want to work in partnership with everybody, stressing the fact that the United Nations alone can do very little or can do nothing, and that we needed to reach out and work in partnership with NGOs, with the private sector, with civil society generally, foundations and universities and link up withall the international organizations to have greater impact andexpand our reach. The NGOs are a very essential part of thispartnership, so are the Bretton Woods institutions and so are theprivate sector, and I think we ought to be careful not tonecessarily sow dissent, but find ways of pooling everybodytogether and, by pooling our efforts, we will have a really greatimpact on the problems we are dealing with. I did not expecteveryone to agree with everything in the report as I do not agreewith everything in many reports that I read, but I think thegeneral thrust is right. I think it is a clever slogan, but I donot think it really analyses the report effectively. Thank you verymuch.

Mark Malloch Brown, UNDP Administrator: Let me just, if I may,say a few additional words and then each of my colleagues is also goingto say something very quickly, then we can get questions. I thinkthe first good news about this report is now you have a story,because it is extraordinarily important that at this summit, whichis about the tensions and trade-offs and fights to get better social development in the world, that these issues are posed occasionally in a way which forces the debate and allows some confrontation. Because there are differences of opinion between civil society and international organizations and between international organizations, and that is part of the valid debateto improve the commitment to social development.

Let me just say, though, that the origins of this report lie in a request from the G-8 to have a tool each year when they meet to benchmark progress towards the development goals. The goal hereforus is to create a report which will annually ensure that at the G-8summit these issues of development and the failures of developmentare addressed and that is no bad goal, because in many of therecent years development has rarely appeared on the agenda oftheG-7. This is an effort to create an annual bench marking exercisewhich, at their request -- which is the good news -- will put it infront of them every year, and when you see the weak level ofattendance by heads of government from the developed countriesatthis Conference, you know that a bench marking advocacy tool ofthis kind has to be a plus. So, second, as to its content, does itsomehow bias the goals in favour of actions by the South?Everyoneof these goals are the goals acclaimed by the United Nationsconferences and in the case of one by the Secretary-General -- Imean six by the United Nations conferences and one by theSecretary-General in his Millennium report: The income povertygoal, which we expect to be adopted by the Millennium Assembly.Sothese are goals adopted by the South as much as the North. Andtheyare aimed at a northern audience, the G-7, to force them to domoreto support poverty reduction in the South. So I don't think it isa bad goal, and finally on the language which has caused mostconcern, the language about open markets.

As the Secretary-General said, we in the United Nations are internationalists, we believe in an open global society, a society where ideas, trade and everything can flow across borders -- but webelieve in a managed one. The language which has caused suchconcern is, if you compare it to the language of the CopenhagenDeclaration five years ago, almost the same. It is balanced in thisreport as it was at Copenhagen, with language about socialprotection, social investment, the inclusion of the poor. So pleasetake the document as a whole. Thank you. ...

************************************************************

Message-Id: <200008080042.UAA05380@granger.mail.mindspring.net> From: "APIC" <apic@igc.org> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 20:37:41 -0500 Subject: Africa: Geneva Dissensus

Editor: Ali B. Ali-Dinar

Previous Menu Home Page What's New Search Country Specific