By Sylvia Borren
NEW YORK, Feb 10 2011 (IPS)

While the international community is now talking of a triple global crisis – food, climate and economic – a weeklong session of the World Social Forum (WSF) is coming to a close in Dakar, Senegal.

Sylvia Borren Credit: Courtesy of GCAP

The Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP) is a leading civil society group in the WSF. Its co-chair Sylvia Borren discussed GCAP’s role at the forum and its evolution over the last decade, since the first gathering in Porto Alegre, Brazil in January 2001.

Q: What do you expect from the current WSF in Dakar? A: I expect that the food/water/climate crisis affecting large parts of Africa – caused by rich countries – will be high on the agenda. Our leaders are not solving this in the G8, G20 or in the U.N. ‘We the People’ will have to take leadership, and I expect new civil energy as well as new strategies to be the result of this WSF – certainly after the dramatic democratic movements using social media presently witnessed in the Arab world.

Q: What is the “other world” promoted by the WSF? A: It is clear that the vast majority of the citizens in the world are looking for a just world where distribution of education, health, jobs and wealth is much more equitable and where ‘global common goods’ are agreed and managed, such as sustainable and just climate agreements.

However, the power is at this point still in the hands of rich minorities, an elite world class which interconnects banks, corporations, governments, corporate media and sometimes criminal networks.

Planetary or global citizenship is about organising as citizens to achieve new forms of value-driven, inclusive global democratic processes – in which not the banks and corporates get bailed out in a global financial crisis, but the people who pay the real price for something they did not cause: in and with their lives.

Q: Should the WSF constitute itself as a genuine body to have more power and influence on national policies? A: WSF was set up to be a space in which social movements can meet, strategise and begin to organise their influence at the country and global level. This works very well. WSF itself would fall apart and lose its very significant role if it tried to become an institute or a movement with specific goals itself. It is the ‘global safe house’ for emerging civil action of many different sorts.

Q: Could you give me an example of an idea first promoted at the WSF, and then implemented successfully? A: GCAP itself was launched at the WSF in 2005, and strengthened its network at subsequent WSFs, which lead to many concrete results such as a growing mobilisation around international poverty day – 173 million people joined in October 2009.

Concrete results at the national level include more government spending on education, health, social security, child benefits, support for people with disabilities etc. At the WSF in 2009, GCAP and others prepared the strategy towards the U.N. Climate Conference in December that year: GCAP organised Climate and Poverty Hearings/Tribunals in 18 countries – which have fed into concrete climate work at national and global levels.

Q: What is GCAP going to promote this year? A: GCAP Senegal together with Civicus, UNMC, UNDP and others is holding panel discussions on how civil society can monitor governments in their promises to accelerate efforts to achieve and exceed the MDGs by 2015. Water and sanitation is a key subject for Africa as well as the soaring food prices.

And in the ‘World We Want statement’ GCAP has coordinated a combined global civil society vision for our fight against poverty and for justice in the world – which includes stopping violence against girls and women, mother and child mortality etc.

Q: What current challenges is GCAP facing? A: GCAP had strong presence at the MDG summit at the U.N. in September 2010, and organised its Global Assembly there ending in an ambitious strategic plan. The challenge now is to implement the many aspects of this ‘The World We Want’ plan, to organise what is being done in which country and by which constituency group, and to find sufficient alliances as well as funding for that implementation – in a time that there are dramatic financial cutbacks in funding, right-wing backlash in some countries, and diminishing public spending in many countries because money was used for the bailout of the banks and corporates.

Q: Are you hopeful the Financial Transaction Tax (FTT), supported by GCAP, could resolve poverty in the world? Could the WSF have a positive impact on its adoption? A: The proposed FTT can be an excellent tool to generate more money for poverty alleviation, education, health and job creation. By itself it will not resolve poverty. For that, many other things have to stop – unfair trade, dumping of subsidised agricultural products, violence against women, trafficking, CO2 emissions etc.

And many other things have to be distributed more justly – land, water, education, health, energy, jobs etc.; and deeper transformation is badly needed: in democratic processes in many countries – rich and poor – and in relationships between mankind and the environment and between women and men.

The WSF plays a facilitating role (in the adoption of the FTT). My expectation is that some sort of FTT will actually be adopted before the next WSF.

The post Q&A: The People Need to Take Leadership appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Joaquín Roy and Sylvia Borren
MADRID, Apr 28 2010 (IPS)

Washington seems rather uninterested or at least unconcerned with what Europe, collectively as the European Union or country by country, could do in its relations with the rest of the Americas. In reality, this attitude is a reflection of a drop in US interest in what lies to its south as a result of the urgency of action in other areas, like the Middle East and China, and terrorism in general.

Geographically, the further you move from the area under Washington’s influence (the Caribbean, Central America, and above all Mexico) the less Washington is interested. However, there are still pressing issues that demand at the very least a certain amount of attention.

As for Cuba, expectations of observers in both Spain and the US were excessive with respect to Madrid’s hypothetical mediation with Havana on formulas for an evolution of the Cuban regime that Washington might accept in exchange for ending or at least weakening the embargo. It is clear that Spain, the most appropriate member of the EU for this mission, was identified early on as useful to US policy in the apparently intractable dilemma of what to do with the regime in Havana after the failure of Washington’s strategy of isolating the regime to provoke its collapse.

The EU’s policy of “constructive involvement”, led by Spain, was seen as an alternative but was rendered impossible by President Raul Castro’s resistance to making concessions. What might be more fruitful is European collaboration on reconstruction projects in areas struck by natural disasters like the hurricanes in the Caribbean and the earthquakes that nearly destroyed Haiti and more recently Chile. The credentials of the EU and its member states in this area are impeccable: more than half of the humanitarian and development aid promised comes from Europe. Were it to disappear, numerous parts of Latin America would find themselves completely orphaned of foreign aid.

It is not presently clear what the EU could do in terms of the differences between Washington and Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, which have not improved since George W. Bush (the focus of Chavez’ attacks) left office. What is clear is that countries with the largest interests in Venezuela have suffered from Chavez’ policy of expropriations.

Programmes for cooperation between the EU and Venezuela are very modest. The same is true with regard to Bolivia, and Ecuador to a somewhat lesser extent. The special relation between Brazil and the EU (an example of the subtle abandonment of a policy based exclusively on regional blocs) might fit with Washington’s plans to identify the prominent countries in various regions of the world and build coalitions with them. But the agenda of Brazilian president Lula does not seem to have pleased the architects of US foreign policy.

Central America and Mexico are other areas of possible collaboration. Drug trafficking and uncontrolled emigration (the dangers of a Cuba in transition or gripped by internal tensions) are issues for which European counsel and collaboration could be useful. Drug trafficking is a cancer produced by both US and European consumption. Massive emigration is a major issue for both entities. Although at present the threat that Latin American might become a base for international terrorism seems only a vague possibility, the EU could become an effective ally of the US in this area.

On the economic front, European investment in Latin America is not a concern, given that this appears more beneficial to the US than the opening of Asia and particularly China to Latin America. If a few decades ago plans for regional integration in Latin America along EU lines were seen as possible competition to US-backed free trade organisations (NAFTA and FTAA), they are now seen as possible forces of stability in the region. We are about to see whether European and US attitudes coincide or clash with regard to the appearance of schemes evidently opposed to US presence (ALBA) or exclusively Latin American (UNASUR, or more recently the Organisation of Latin American and Caribbean States). (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Joaquin Roy is ”Jean Monnet” professor and Director of the European Union Centre of the University of Miami (jroy@Miami.edu).

The post WASHINGTON AND EU-LATIN AMERICAN RELATIONS appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Sylvia Borren
NEW YORK, Jul 1 2009 (IPS)

After weeks of negotiations, the conclusion of the United Nations High Level Conference on the Financial and Economic Crisis (24-26 June) was a huge disappointment. The summit was our opportunity to continue lobbying our demands after the Doha Conference on International Financing.

The power play of most of the rich countries was painfully clear over the three days. Shortly after the outcome document was unanimously accepted, the US delegates indicated that the governance structures of the Bretton Woods institutions would not be bound by it (a rejection of democratic scrutiny) and that the World Trade Organisation (WTO) would be left to practice business as usual.

The European Union praised the outcome document as “highly ambitious”, which is cynical indeed when most developing nations feel they have been railroaded into accepting a very weak compromise with only an ad-hoc UN working group to continue the process. Civil society is angry that no concrete bailout measures have been agreed on for the most affected: women and the socially marginalised.

According to the United Nations Millennium Campaign, world leaders spent ten times more money last year on bailing out the financial world than they spent in 49 years on development aid.

The world’s most powerful political leaders are maintaining their disregard for human rights by not taking responsibility for the effects of economic and climate crises that they have caused. The food crisis affects mostly women. Young people around the world with no education, jobs, or hope will turn to domestic and communal violence as their outlet. Forced migration will increase.

The causes and combined effects of the food, energy, climate, financial, economic, and gender crises are becoming clearer every day. Economic growth does not trickle down, but economic crisis certainly does. What is needed now is not the repair of old, failed systems but transformation.

The good news of this UN conference is that there are many transformative solutions being brought to the table, all pointing in the same direction, investment in people: in children through quality education; in decent jobs for decent wages for women in the care-industry; in youth employment; in quality public services, health, education, water and sanitation; in sustainable small-scale agriculture to solve the food crisis; in micro-finance as the basis of local economies and enterprise; in green infrastructure to adapt to and combat climate change, and more.

The International Labour Organisation has just adopted the Global Jobs Pact, which puts employment and social protection at the centre of economic recovery plans. The Stiglitz Commission report stresses the need for counter-cyclical policies. The International Trade Union Confederation and the many civil society actors present support these measures, as do many political leaders from developing as well as developed countries.

This is actually a time of unprecedented consensus: the outcome document of the conference acknowledges the causes and impacts of the present combined crises and adopts some of the above solutions, albeit in a very watered-down form: fiscal and economic stimulus packages, a call for increased adherence to Official Development Assistance (ODA) commitments, and the establishment of an ad hoc open-ended UN General Assembly working group. In addition, the financial and economic crises will be the main subject of debate at the 64th session of the UN General Assembly.

The bad news is the notable lack of urgency and political will to move boldly on the many solutions put forward. The citizens of the world have seen the leaders of the developed world act with unprecedented speed and courage to bail out the banks and parts of the corporate sector. An estimated USD 20 trillion has been spent or pledged for those who were most responsible for causing the situation we find ourselves in.

Yet not even a third of the USD 30 billion requested at the UN high level meeting on the food crisis a year ago has been forthcoming to date.

The Stiglitz Commission recommends that just one percent of the stimulus packages of developed countries -which would come to about 200 billion dollars- be spent on the developing world, in addition to ODA commitments. The conference did not accept this recommendation.

In my opinion, the solution is to spend on the kinds of investment in people that civil society, including the unions, is demanding: for sustainable solutions, for development, for human rights, particularly of children, youth, and women. Of the USD 20 trillion, at least half should be invested in people in developing countries.

Unfortunately, the negotiations within the UN have more to do with turf wars about future structures than actually helping people. And the decision that any commission must have at least half women has not been taken.

What must we conclude? The voices of women, the poor, and the millions of trade union members and people organising against poverty are apparently not as relevant as the banks and corporate interests.

Our leaders have provided an upside-down bailout package, most of it going to the economic elite and virtually nothing going to the 2 billion women, children, elderly, and socially excluded at the bottom of the economic pyramid, all of whom are most affected by the crises.

This is the moral leadership crisis we are facing in the world today, and this conference did nothing to improve it. The UN meeting tried, but most rich countries blocked solutions. Women and men living in poverty, the millions of citizens in trade unions and social movements, and the 116.9 million who stood with the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP) last year will now have to put pressure on the G8 leaders, who start their undemocratic meeting on July 8. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Sylvia Borren, co-chair of the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP) and Worldconnectors.

The post POOR COUNTRIES RAILROADED INTO WEAK COMPROMISE AT UN FINANCIAL SUMMIT appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Miren Gutierrez and Sylvia Borren
ROME, Dec 4 2008 (IPS)

The Doha Financing for Development Conference is over and many are now wondering how it went and what really happened. Sylvia Borren, co-chair of the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP), was there.

Sylvia Borren Credit: Sabina Zaccaro/IPS

IPS: What was civil society’s role in this process? SB: Well, the two day pre-conference of the civil society was rather good. We had enough expertise in our networks and 250 people attending to have well-researched argumentation in the room. And we put together a solid civil society paper of improvements and additions on all issues for our governmental delegations.

The official U.N. meeting opened against the horrific backdrop of the Mumbai attacks with blood and violence on our TV screens. It proved that no ‘war on terrorism’, masculine competition and a ‘winner takes all’ mentality can stop terrorist or violence.

A press conference gave us the opportunity to hand over our input to the president of the General Assembly (Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann), who gave an impassioned speech about the urgency of putting need above greed, and changing paradigms in our world. He spoke of our input in his opening speech to the General Assembly the next day where Gemma Adaba from ITUC (International Trade Union Confederation) was our strong civil society voice, high on the five-minute speakers list.

IPS: What were the governments’ contributions? SB: French President (Nicolas) Sarkozy, holding the EU presidency, made a strong plea for urgent solutions, especially for Africa. But for me he was too ‘pro’ his own G20 initiatives and rather ‘divide and rule’ towards the G77 as well as the EU, in stressing the French bond with Africa. His proud claims about 60 percent of official development aid coming from Europe and the extra 1 billion euro for the food crises made me snort cynically…

Yes, 60 percent of about 100 billion euro. And the French are still not near reaching their promised 0.7 percent of GNI (Gross National Income) for aid or supporting unfair trade practices. He didn’t mention the 260 billion euro which the EU just approved for stimulating the economies of Europe itself: encouraging consumerism in order to keep production going. Save the car industry, who cares about climate change.

The U.S. delegation was the same, they kept boasting about being the biggest bilateral aid donor, and having doubled that in the last eight years. As it was only 0.16 percent of their GNI in 2007, and they have never committed to the 0.7 percent – they too were walking on thin ice. After all twice (nearly) zero remains (nearly) zero.

Strong speeches came from the two special envoys to this conference: the development minister from Germany, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeuland, and the finance minister from South Africa, Trevor Manuel.

IPS: How did the negotiations go? SB: The six roundtables started badly, with civil society invited but given virtually no airtime. Only on the last day the roundtable on systemic issues allowed some real input and dialogue.

The side events suffered from having too many speakers, but were very good. My favourite was on Decent Work, chaired by Mary Robinson, with a great lineup of speakers: ambassadors from Norway and Bangladesh, multilateral institutions, UNCTAD and more civil society input. We also had a great dinner with UNIFEM – arguing about needing a new U.N. women’s conference in 2010… It needs to be about designing and implementing transformational gender strategies, as well as exchanging notes on stopping violence and making more inroads with quotas and gender mainstreaming.

Contact with official negotiations was mostly bad news. The paragraphs on climate change and tax evasion were tricky, some found there to be an overdose on gender… But the main fight was about where the follow-up process was to be placed. There were strong attempts from the (George W.) Bush administration on its last legs to ensure that the responsibility for redesigning the financial architecture of the world stayed with the Bretton Woods institutions, and in the hands of the G20.

IPS: But the heads of the IMF and the World Bank didn’t even show up… SB: It illustrates their lack of respect for the U.N. and the developing countries. Their standard recipe is cutting down on governmental spending and keeping education, health and wage bills low, keeping the next generation stupid and poor. The IMF now wants to sell its gold to pay its oversized staff, but would not consider that to solve the food crisis or to invest in local agriculture. Giving this responsibility to the IMF for me it is like letting a wife-beater back into the house.

Sharing power in a world clamouring for inclusive democracy at the U.N. level is obviously not easy for the rich countries. But it is exactly the power of money, rather than putting people and values at the centre, which has got the world in this mess – what I call a moral crisis.

IPS: So, what was the decision on the follow-up? SB: The G77 wants to be involved in the follow-up (of the Doha conference), for which this process must stay in the hands of the General Assembly of 192 countries. Europe first backed the G77 completely, but threatened not to hold a steady line, not to challenge the U.S. enough, and started to favour some developing countries above others.

I heard that this is the usual U.N. pattern: First, lots of agreement, just a few paragraphs to solve. Europe starts supporting the developing countries. Then, the U.S. goes for the lowest common denominator, threatens a veto and a failed conference. That forces compromises in which Europe gives in too much. And finally a rather weak result, which the global south is not very happy with.

We as civil society got so frustrated on the second day that we staged a quick action with two ballot boxes, asking delegates what they voted for: ‘democratic people centred development’ or ‘Bush & Co’. We got quite some attention – and we heard later that this had quite an impact in isolating the U.S.

IPS: What were the concrete outcomes? SB: The end result of four days was back to the original text: ‘The U.N. will hold a conference at the highest level on the world financial and economic crisis and its impact on development’. On content the outcome document is not too bad, reaffirmation of Monterrey’s agreement to eradicate poverty, no slippage on the volume of aid, better gender and decent work language, a little advance on stopping tax leakages and acting on climate change.

But many issues were referred to the next conference – with a different and hopefully more democratic U.S. player at the table.

IPS: So, was it a victory for civil society? SB: But do we have time for these kinds of power battles? It took most of the U.N. energy during the four days, which should have been spent on the real issues, the urgent crises, and on working towards solutions with the corporate sector and civil society. In this sense it was very much ‘business as usual’- although every speaker claimed it was not.

What a result – four days spent agreeing to another expensive U.N. meeting.

*Miren Gutierrez is IPS Editor-in-Chief.

The post Q&A: Crises Are Left for Another Day… appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Sylvia Borren
AMSTERDAM, Oct 13 2008 (IPS)

These days I feel like my four year old niece who used to ask me every few minutes, “What´s happening Sylvia?”. Financial crisis, rescue plans and thousands of billions are being shouted at me by the media. There is strong leadership being shown to save banks, but without apparently much knowledge about cause and effect. The top of
‘the pyramid’ needs to be saved with our hard earned tax money, we are told, otherwise we will all perish together in economic recessions, writes Sylvia Borren, Co Chair of the Global Call to action Against Poverty (GCAP) Alliance. Simultaneously, there appears to be little concern, and insufficient committed leadership shown towards the bottom of the pyramid. We need around one percent of all the money that governments are now suddenly spending on saving the banks to tackle poverty. Money that can make the difference between real life and death: an emergency food fund, seeds to plant, clean water, health and education. All poverty in the world can be solved ten or twenty times over with the amounts of money so surprisingly available now.

Simultaneously, there appears to be little concern, and insufficient committed leadership shown towards the bottom of the pyramid. We need around one percent of all the money that governments are now suddenly spending on saving the banks to tackle poverty. Money that can make the difference between real life and death: an emergency food fund, seeds to plant, clean water, health and education. All poverty in the world can be solved ten or twenty times over with the amounts of money so surprisingly available now.

At June’s FAO meeting in Rome, government leaders found only $8 billion for the food crisis, at the United Nations in September they pledged a miserable $16 billion partly repackaged funding for the millennium goals. Yet the USA alone is offering a $700 billion rescue plan, in an estimated total $3 trillion bail out. A bail out, to speak in historical terms, for those who continue to eat cake. Not for those who are dying for lack of a bit of bread.

At the opening session of the High Level Event on the Millennium Development Goals at the United Nations on September 25th, the last speaker was Ela Bhatt, a wonderful Indian social leader of a millions-strong woman’s organisation. She organises on the ground against poverty, for small-scale development with microfinance and for fundamental rights. She was the only woman speaking and the only voice from civil society. She was “we the people” and not “we the governments with our own vested interests and power games”.

I sat up high above in the UN Plenary hall and saw world leaders (95% men) loose interest the minute she started speaking. As a small person with a soft voice, she told the truth, ´We are so proud of our skyscrapers but we do not take responsibility for our slums… ´ . The world leaders talked amongst themselves. They got up and walked away. They became like a class room of schoolboys increasingly rowdy because she didn´t shout at them? Because she spoke of the reality as no other speaker had? Because she didn´t speak of dollars but of real women, men and children struggling, too often failing to survive?

It will remain as a picture in my head for life. The symbol of Heads of State not bothering to listen to us, the people. Not caring enough to pay attention even for the 6 minutes that Ela was allowed to speak. This image of political and gender arrogance towards one of the strongest social leaders of our time continues to haunt me.

Ela is one of the Elders that have gathered around Nelson Mandela to try and show a route forward for our floundering world, reminding citizens of their fundamental human rights. The poverty, food, fuel and financial crises, environmental disasters, social and political conflict are all interconnected. We need a different economic and social contract in this world. We need a new and really inclusive democracy in which women and different minorities are heard. Not only at local but also at national and global levels.

From the 17th to the 19th of October we expect more than 67 million people around the world to Stand Up and Take Action against poverty and inequality -one percent of the world’s population. It would be wise for the leaders of the world to take note. Why not build that new social contract? Start by listening to us, the people. Act against poverty seriously, not only with words, but with money and leadership. Why don’t you, political leaders, spend a dollar at the bottom of the pyramid for each dollar you are now spending at the top?

Then we can save so many lives, and reach the millennium goals within the few years left. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

The post THE POVERTY, FOOD, FUEL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND FINANCIAL CRISES ARE ALL INTERCONNECTED appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Sylvia Borren
ROME, May 22 2008 (IPS)

Sylvia Borren was executive director at Oxfam Novib from 1999 until Feb 2008. Before that she was programme director.

Sylvia Borren Credit: Sabina Zaccaro/IPS

She talks with IPS Editor-in-Chief Miren Gutierrez about her legacy and other issues such as aid and how that intermixes with gender, and her work at the Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP).

IPS: Oxfam International is a heterogeneous association… Was it difficult to keep a common goal and work together?

Sylvia Borren: Oxfam Novib is not large or influential enough on its own. The idea was to try to achieve greater impact through collective efforts. We had to jump over our shadow and link hands in order to have an impact. This became a strategic priority.

We are heterogeneous. At Oxfam we say we are an organisation of elephants (Oxfam Great Britain, Oxfam Novib), mice (Oxfam Australia, the U.S., Belgium, Hong Kong) and fleas (New Zealand, Ireland). And to my great delight Oxfam India and Oxfam Mexico are joining.

To handle this diversity we went from a representational to a competency business model, which made it possible to benefit from everyone’s strengths. For example, New Zealand is excellent in evaluation; Belgium, in mobilisation; Australia, in working with youths in parliament; Great Britain has more people on the ground… You have less paternalism this way… The win-win situation comes when you combine these qualities.

IPS: Surely it wasn’t always a harmonious relationship…

SB: We didn’t always agree, there was a lot of internal debate. For example, in Novib we went from the old paradigm of approaching the government, saying: "give us money and we will solve the problem (of poverty)", to a new strategy that saw the need to work together with others, in alliances including corporations, civil society, civil servants, individuals as consumers, as travellers. We went from the North-South approach to a global approach. That was already in our 2000-2004 plan, but it was not always understood externally or internally, and the implementation took longer. I leave a healthy organisation; it took five or six years.

IPS: The name "Oxfam" comes from the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, founded in Britain during the Second World War … Is that still relevant?

SB: Oxfam’s humanitarian work is still very important. Oxfam GB provides water and sanitation in most emergencies. Oxfam’s five aims are about livelihoods, basic social services, security, participation, and gender/diversity. Ten percent of Oxfam Novib’s resources go to humanitarian causes, contingency plans and quick reactions like the tsunami relief efforts. But capacity building is as important in order to avoid bigger catastrophes, and to do that you need to work with local, southern partners.

IPS: Relief operations are giving room to more proactive approaches. There is still a lot of debate about, for example, in preventing famines. What is your position?

SB: You don’t hear too much about famines, these slow emergencies that are so pernicious. There is a lot of power politics involved. What happens in famines is that they wait too much, and then it is too late to prevent them… Food dumping is pervasive, and can kill the more local and regional markets. Some NGOs want to stop it, and work toward local food sovereignty.

In Somalia, some years ago, we started to distribute cash relief. We were quite brave at doing it, there was a strong monitoring system in place and it was done in cooperation with local partners and U.N. organisations. Monitoring the plan in such detail made it more expensive, but it went really well. IPS: This debate is going to become crucial with rising food prices and the world’s economy shrinking. How do you think these factors influence international aid?

SB: The hikes in food prices will affect the poorest people. We have to look at the whole system. Local farmers have been told that the liberalisation of food markets was not a bad thing. But in many cases, it undercut them, created food insecurity, encouraged monopolistic interests and justified the validity of imports. And in a situation of scarcity of food, the ones most affected are the poorest of the poor: women and girls. The MDGs (Millennium Development Goals) will set back.

IPS: There is no doubt that investing in women is investing in development. There are some positive trends, but the overall situation is not good.

SB: Some countries are improving, but some are even going backwards… For me, women’s movements have not understood enough that they need to cooperate with other social movements in order to get results. And many social movements still do not see that the rights of girls and women are central issues, yes, also when you are talking about arms trade or climate change Also the two main strategies employed by the women’s movement, the "stop" strategy (calling for an end to violence and discrimination against women), or the "move over" strategy (trying to ensure a fair share of social spending and decision making power) are not enough. A third transformative strategy should be added: the "different together" strategy – which would demand a new kind of leadership from both women and men. It is based on sharing power and resources more fairly; identifying common values; and respecting diversity of identity.

IPS: You are one of the three co-chairs of GCAP.

SB: The campaign has been amazing. In 2006 we estimated that 1 million people would stand up against poverty, and the reality in one day (measured by the Guinness Book of Records) was 23 million. We were not sure whether that could happen again in 2007, and it was 43.7 million. We know there were many more events that week that were not counted. There are examples of advocacy results too, which can be directly related to the GCAP campaign.

The post Q&A: Of Elephants, Mice and Fleas appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Sylvia Borren
ROME, Oct 8 2007 (IPS)

Sylvia Borren is one of the three co-chairs of GCAP, together with Kumi Naidoo (Secretary General of Civicus) and Ana Agostino (Member of GCAP&#39s Feminist Taskforce).

Sylvia Borren Credit: Leonard Faustle, Oxfam Novib

IPS: Last year GCAP and the UN Millennium Campaign set a Guinness World Record for the largest single coordinated mobilisation in history, when 23.5 million people in more than 100 countries stood up against poverty on Oct. 17. Malawi President Bingu wa Mutharika joined the demonstrations; in Jaipur, India, 38,000 cricket fans stood up; and in the Philippines thousands of people marched against poverty, among many other events. Do you expect to break the record this year?

Sylvia Borren: The amazing record of 23.5 million people around the world standing up against poverty can still excite me – but how sad that there was virtually no publicity about it. That will be very different this year I expect. I find I can&#39t predict the numbers, but this time there are different forms chosen to demand justice. There are stand-up actions, speak out and sing out performances, and football games &#39blowing the whistle on poverty&#39.

IPS: You have written the lyrics of the Poverty Requiem, to be performed by orchestras and choirs in several countries on Oct. 17. In what ways do you think singing can make a difference?

SB: The global song against poverty is taken from the Poverty Requiem which I wrote together with composer Peter Maissan. A dance was designed for it by le Grand Cru. We expect it to be performed in 20 countries. In the Netherlands it will be performed outside parliament, and in Maastricht and Heerenveen (both in the Netherlands), with a choir of more than 700 people. Last Friday we heard that the global song will be done in 16 places in India.

The Poverty Requiem is very moving, and connects the audience at an emotional level to the daily realities of poverty. And even more important: anyone can sing it, and anyone who does can&#39t get the music and the lyrics out of their head. It is a piece written for four choirs, two soloists, and dancers, and we have found that some people come again and again to sing it in different performances around the country.

IPS: This year the slogan is "Speak Up". How do you plan to channel people&#39s views and demands?

SB: Sometimes poverty is talked and written about in terms of facts and figures: half a million women dying in childbirth every year, 80 million children not in school but working… These facts become abstract, they don&#39t connect us enough to the terrible and unnecessary suffering of each individual woman, each child whose future is stolen. We need everyone to understand the deep suffering that poverty brings, and how we can really change it through our own behaviour, and through our political demands. We hope to move people &#39in the heart&#39 so that many more will connect to our cause, will speak out, demand different aid and trade policies, become &#39just&#39 consumers etc. It is really about recognising and feeling our common humanity, and our need to act for justice.

IPS: It has been said that this year the campaign is more political. In what sense?

SB: It has become my conviction that political leaders need us, their constituents, their voters, to be extremely clear in our demands, otherwise promises like the millennium goals will be made but not realised. The European Union and Commission speak big words about poverty eradication, but the planned spending until 2013 shows a significant drop in money to go to education, to health, to HIV-Aids – and there is virtually no money at all to be spent on gender justice, on supporting girls and women.

So we need to explain to citizens all over the world how unfair the global trade rules are, working against farmers and producers in the global south but also in the north, particularly against smaller enterprises often led by women. We need to show what the arms production and trade means to our decreasing human security. We need to show how aid is still mostly tied to conditions which favour rich countries.

We have all the facts and figures to show that all these injustices are literally killing our girls and women around the world who are carrying the heaviest burdens of injustice. Any political policy at the local, national and global level can and should be tested on its effects on women – and this will be a sure indicator of whether that policy will lead us towards a just world without poverty or away from it. In this sense GCAP is and should be very political: but it is about people, not parties.

IPS: Could you mention specific ways in which last year&#39s campaign has changed things?

SB: The GCAP movement is a wide coalition of many civil organisations, community groups, faith based and social and trade union movements. It is only a few years &#39young&#39 and is making its mark – for instance in pushing the G8 to make concrete commitments to increasing aid in Africa. It is changing the perception of aid from charity to justice. It is exposing for a much, much wider audience of citizens around the world that poverty within and between countries is a question of privilege and exploitation, of cheating people out of their rights and their lives.

IPS: The campaign started in 2005. After the huge effort that this alliance of trade unions, community groups, faith groups and campaigners have made to mobilise masses of people around the world, are there already signs of tiredness?

SB: Social movements and networks take a big effort to organise, but I have been amazed at how much energy the GCAP coalitions at national levels have been able to generate. That is why I am so convinced that it is this broad global citizens movement that will move politicians and the corporate sector towards just dealing, like nothing else can.

It is within the movement that we will have to face and solve all the tensions that any unequal power relationships hold: male/female, north/south, differences in class, race, age, faith, education, special abilities, sexual orientation… there is no difference that we do not have within GCAP. The clue is to work together in practical ways, to communicate and find solutions. We find we can get beyond stereotyping and ideological posturing. That is not always easy, but my experience within GCAP is that we can do it.

What can we practically achieve? The millennium goals of course, plus gender justice, human rights, environmental care…We do not want to halve poverty: eradicate it.

The post Q&A: &#39We Do Not Want to Halve Poverty: Eradicate It&#39 appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Sylvia Borren
AMSTERDAM, Apr 1 2005 (IPS)

Today\’s world faces an existential choice between armed security and human security, writes Sylvia Borren, Executive Director Novib/Oxfam Netherlands. In this article, the author writes that armed security means the elite of the world defending its privilege with guns, gates, and walls against the great majority of the world who live in abject poverty. Three figures give us a clear indication of where we are heading: 50 billion dollars a year are spent on aid, 350 billion dollars on agricultural subsidies in rich countries, and 900 billion dollars or more spent on arms. Borren calls for building a deeper democracy and local leadership; creating a national governance system which creates an enabling environment; and providing global justice, coherence, and stability. The Millennium Development Goals can actually be met quite easily if we approach them in a rights-based and gender-based way, eliminating agricultural subsidies and dumping, freeing indebted countries from debt, increasing development to 0.7 percent of GDP, and a number of other actions.

Today’s world is a ticking time bomb, and we do not have much time to de-activate it. We face an existential choice between armed security and human security.

Armed security means the elite of the world defending its privilege with guns, gates, and walls against the great majority of the world who live in abject poverty.

Three figures give us a clear indication of where we are heading: 50 billion dollars a year are spent on aid, 350 billion dollars on agricultural subsidies in rich countries, and 900 billion dollars or more on arms.

With a mere 3 percent of these agricultural subsidies, or 1 percent of arms spending, 110 million children who have never seen the inside of a school could be educated along with the 250 million children who receive virtually no schooling because they are working.

The giant quantities of arms do not lead to a secure world but to a polarised world where desperation and hatred increase, terrorist attacks are more frequent, and in the name of the war on terrorism human rights and civil liberties are increasingly discounted, as if they could be put on hold without a price being paid, and as if weapons could solve the growing environmental, social, and political stress in the world.

The Dutch development organisation Novib is part of the Oxfam group, which works with 3000 local and national civil organisations in 100 countries. Oxfam works towards guaranteeing five interrelated and internationally-agreed rights:

-the right to a sustainable livelihood;

-the right to basic social services (education, health);

-the right to security (from conflict and natural disasters);

-the right to social and political participation;

-the right to identity, i.e., to these four rights even if you happen to be a woman or minority.

To this end, work is needed at three levels: building a deeper democracy and local leadership; creating a national governance system which creates an enabling environment; and providing global justice, coherence, and stability.

At all three levels new leadership is needed: diverse leadership, including by women and youth. Indeed, there is a strong gender element to the choice between armed security and human security, because rape has become a systematic component of warfare.

The most optimistic development today is that new social movements are emerging and coming together in the world social forum and its offshoots around the world.

Democracy means more than voting every few years. A deeper democracy encourages people to build a sustainable local community together that includes transparent power structures and checks and balances. Local initiatives generated by people cooperating to take control over their own lives provide some of the most optimistic scenarios I know of today, even in AIDS and in conflict-ravaged Africa.

These initiatives deserve far greater support. When national plans are slow and limited, local authorities should be able to access finances directly from global funds, whether for education or for the fight against AIDS.

The second level of need is of a national governance system that creates an enabling environment and which also has the courage and the right as a developing country to protect its own vulnerable agriculture and industry and provide adequate health and education for its people.

Too many national governments see civil society as a threat while they let the IMF and World Bank decide their national future. Too many have sold out to multi-national corporate interests. They guarantee no labour tensions in their industrial zones where young girls and women in particular work in abominable conditions and trade unions and journalists are barred.

There is an increasing crisis of trust of leadership in the world, corporate and political. The implementation gap has turned into a credibility gap.

At the global level, much of the thinking about how to de-activate the ticking bomb has been done. The Millennium Development Goals, agreed to by 191 nations at a UN conference in 2000, can actually be met quite easily, and even exceeded, if we approach them in a rights-based and gender-based way, through the following steps:

– eliminating agricultural subsidies and dumping;

– freeing indebted countries from debt;

– increasing development to 0.7 percent of GDP;

– making available medicines for AIDS and malaria.

– making education, which is the most important instrument against poverty and inequity, available for all;

– having the World Trade Organisation set equitable international trade rules;

– designing an international tax system to regulate the movement of capital around the world;

– holding the corporate sector socially and environmentally responsible for their behaviour; and

– controlling the arms trade.

But to do this, three major limits must be overcome:

– the defensive energy put into negotiating minimalist international agreements should be transformed into positive energy for implementation. This means that national and particularly local communities must become actors and not victims of international processes;

– global justice must be done, and be seen to be done, in the Middle East, in Iraq, in Sudan, also environmentally and in terms of labour rights in India, Indonesia, and China; and

– new global structures must be engineered.

The UN system does not solve the situation in Darfur, or the environmental bomb we are sitting on. We need new leadership at the global, national, and local level, more transformative and more inclusive and diverse leadership. And we need it now. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

The post THE WORLD MUST CHOOSE: ARMED SECURITY OR HUMAN SECURITY appeared first on Inter Press Service.