DEVELOPMENT: Helsinki Process ‘Avoids the Big Issues’

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Linus Atarah

HELSINKI, Sep 9 2005 (IPS) - Several civil society organisations have expressed dissatisfaction with the Helsinki Conference that brought in government, civil society and some business representatives this week to further development.

The Helsinki conference is a part of the Helsinki Process that aims to open a dialogue between the north and south on the issue of democracy and globalisation. The process has been likened to the spirit of a similar process during the Cold War era that led to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Helsinki Process launched by the Finnish and Tanzanian governments in 2002 does not show “any willingness to address the underlying fundamental asymmetric power relations between the north and the south, or between the U.S. and the rest of the world,” Marku Ulvila, vice-president of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (Comprehensive Democracy) in Finland told media representatives. The group seeks to promote global justice. Ulvila said that the Helsinki Process that aims to search for “novel and empowering solutions to the dilemmas of global governance” is failing to address the real issues that affect a majority of humankind.

Rebecca Muna from the Global Citizens Platform based in Tanzania acknowledged that the Helsinki Process is a way forward “because several actors have been involved”, but said it had failed to include big players such as the United States whose policies have a big impact on the world. The Global Citizens Platform is a coalition of civil society and grassroots organisations that includes civil society groups also in Brazil, India and Finland. Muna said some of the recommendations of the Helsinki Process such as calling for reforms of the decision-making process in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) are too mild. And it had been silent on reforms of the common agriculture policy of the European Union. Uma Shankar of Rashtriya Raithu, a farmers organisation in India, said 40 percent of people in the south surviving on agriculture continue to be marginalised. The Helsinki Process does not sufficiently address their needs, she said. Individuals and members of dissenting civil society organisatons gathered at a parallel meeting to the Helsinki Conference to have their say. “We think it is unusual for governments to engage closely with civil society,” Thomas Walgren, a leading civil society campaigner and member of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam told IPS. “Civil society has been given an important role; in that respect it is courageous in the process, but it is weak on issues.” About 70 individuals representing civil society organisations from various parts of the world signed an open letter containing alternative proposals to the conference. The letter highlights what the individuals see as shortcomings of the Helsinki Process. “It is our assessment that the debt crisis has not been addressed with due seriousness,” the letter says.

“One hope in the beginning was that Finland could identify a western liberal position which is an alternative to the U.S.-led mainstream,” said Walgren. “But is has ducked the issues. In a way Helsinki is a lost opportunity.” The group has presented a seven-point agenda that it says is critical for the Helsinki Process. The group calls on governments to oppose military solutions to global problems exemplified by the “war on terror”, and bring disarmament back to centre-stage in the international agenda. The civil society individuals have called for promotion of democracy in international relations and the reform of global institutions, including the World Trade Organisation, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Walgren said they are prepared to press ahead with their agenda with or without the support of governments. “If the proposals are accepted by the governments, then we are prepared to work with them but if some reason they decide to take a different path, we have stated our position and we shall go ahead with our agenda anyway,” he said. The prevailing practice within global institutions is to pretend to listen to people and then turn away and do what pleases them, he said. “We don’t want that kind of nonsense. We are no longer satisfied with being listened to. Global institutions must be seen to be fully accountable for their actions.”