DEVELOPMENT: UN’s Bold – if Vague – New Formulas Against Poverty

By Gustavo Capdevila Reprint | | Print |

Gustavo Capdevila

GENEVA, Jul 3 2000 (IPS) - The fight against poverty still presents vague aspects, despite a 2015 deadline set by the United Nations General Assembly to cut the number of the world’s poor in half and novel formulas suggested for reaching that target, such as a foreign debt moratorium for countries in crisis.

Although the resolutions it adopted are not binding, last week’s special session of the General Assembly in Geneva came up with innovative ideas, like the possibility of studying new development financing mechanisms, such as a tax on short-term capital flows.

The Copenhagen Plus Five meeting, which assessed compliance with the commitments to eradicate poverty assumed five years ago at the World Summit for Social Development in the capital of Denmark, reproduced the traditional standoff between rich and poor countries that crops up whenever development-related questions are debated at international fora.

The 133-member Group of 77 (G-77), the bloc of developing countries in the UN, called for the exclusion of pharmaceutical patents from intellectual property rights to allow the millions of people living with HIV/AIDS access to cheap medicine.

But the initiative was watered-down by opposition from industrialised countries, which were reluctant to agree to a reform of the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) accords.

In the end, the clause on TRIPS included a vague reference to the idea that countries suffering humanitarian crises could demand an exception to the rules in order to make low-priced medicine available.

But Cristian Maquieira, chairman of the Committee of the Whole and of the Preparatory Committee, said that despite its vague wording, the clause served as an important recognition of the need for an escape valve and a loosening of the rules, to offer a solution for countries hit hard by AIDS and other difficulties.

Martin Khor, with the Third World Network, described the G-77 proposal on essential medicines as positive, and said it demonstrated that there were still signs that governments of the South were continuing the struggle.

These problems, which Maquieira blamed on modern-day reality, were absent from the debates in Copenhagen because the magnitude of the phenomena causing them was still unknown at that time.

But the question of cheap medicine was pushed to the forefront by the spread of the AIDS epidemic, while the need to allow countries hit by financial crises to freeze their foreign debt payments was highlighted by the suffering triggered by the Asian, Russian and Brazilian meltdowns.

Almost exactly three years ago, Thailand lost 35 billion dollars in just 21 days, which left the country without foreign reserves, while its currency, the Bhat, crashed. The shockwaves reached as far as Japan’s banks.

If, at that time, the “standstill” principle allowing countries in crisis to default on their foreign debt payments had been in place, things would have turned out differently for Thailand, Maquieira pointed out.

On another front, Copenhagen Plus Five decided to eliminate from the final document any reference to the “global compact” — an idea presented by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, aimed at forging closer ties between transnational corporations and the United Nations.

The G-77 complained that it had not had enough time to study the initiative.

The removal of the clause, seen by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) as a snub against Annan, came on top of the criticism drawn by a report on poverty, “A Better World for All”, presented by the secretary-general on the first day of the gathering.

The poverty report was drawn up by the UN Secretariat in conjunction with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), known as the “rich nations’ club”.

Khor berated Annan for cooperating on a report drafted by institutions that, the activist charged, were guilty of fuelling poverty.

The report outlines the present outlook in terms of poverty, and sets a number of targets for reducing it over the next 15 years.

With respect to the “global compact”, Khor praised the position taken by the G-77, and said the UN secretary-general seemed to be eager to gratify transnational corporations.

Maquieira said the process highlighting the fight against poverty that began five years ago in Copenhagen “is gaining in legitimacy all the time among the international community and on the international agenda, as distinct from others, such as the Millenium Assembly, which still remains unconvinced about this.”

The Millenium Assembly, another of Annan’s initiatives, is to take place next September in New York.

Annan’s presentation of the controversial poverty report in Geneva “created some distraction,” said Maquieira.

But, he added, “it also served to show that the inter- governmental system can produce results that have legitimacy and that consequently are more likely to be applied than reports or meetings such as those which are being promoted.”

The resolutions adopted last week by the general assembly will be discussed at a new meeting of heads of state and government at a date to be set according to the results of a periodic follow-up.

The 2015 deadline for cutting poverty in half worldwide is one way to compel goverments to live up to the target, because at that time they will have to account for the results achieved, said Maquieira.

While last week’s meeting in Geneva gave rise to innovative political results, the mystique, the sensation of collective action against poverty felt in Copenhagen, was lost, he said.

What we saw in Geneva was basically a political negotiation, and what was lacking was the ability to dream together, in the understanding that there were people out there hoping that the results of the meeting would improve their lives, he added.