PRESS CONFERENCE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Press Briefing

PRESS CONFERENCE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

At a Headquarters press conference this morning, representatives of key non- governmental organizations participating in the preparatory process for the June special session in Geneva, which will review progress made in achieving the commitments made at the World Summit for Social Development (Copenhagen, 1995), apprised correspondents of their social development concerns and “wish lists” for future commitments.

The Director of the Division for Social Policy and Development, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, John Langmore, introduced the non-governmental organization representatives: Jocelyn Dow, Chairperson of Women's Environment and Development Organization; Patricia Garce, Executive Secretary of Social Watch; Julian Disney, President of International Council on Social Welfare; and Joy Kennedy, representative of the World Council of Churches Ecumenical Team. He said the non-governmental organizations had made a splendid contribution to the preparatory process, he said, which had included two inspiring presentations to the Preparatory Committee meeting at Headquarters through Friday, 14 April.

Ms. Dow, of the Women's Environment and Development Organization, said that in 1995 the Women's Caucus, through the voice of Bella Abzug, had challenged governments to agree to commitments that would signal a new international resolve to eradicate a poverty rooted in social exclusion and gender-based inequalities. The majority of the world's poor were women. Their education was defined as a key element of transformation, and gender-based inequalities were seen as the greatest obstacle to development. Maternal mortality was to have been halved by 2000. Access of women to decent jobs and the benefits of new global trade were to be a measurement of their inclusion in the macro-economy. Yet today, billions of women continued to live in poverty and many millions of girls and boys had not been educated.

The millions of people who were invited to join the new globalized economy were "in a race to the bottom" for the new global jobs that sought mostly to ensure the high profits of transnational corporations, she said. Those working poor, as described in the Secretary-General's report on social development, were mostly women. Often, their jobs provided little or no social protection and scant opportunity for development. That phenomenon was not restricted to the developing world. Poor women in the developed countries were often home-based or employed in temporary jobs that deprived them of any benefits. Also, women continued to be underrepresented in decision-making, even at the United Nations. The Secretary- General's report had failed to adequately report on the gains and losses made by women since Copenhagen.

Indeed, women had been mainstreamed to "virtual invisibility", she said. That was unacceptable and indicative of a new form of an old discrimination. Women were underrepresented in decision-making bodies and overrepresented in the lowest ranks of the paid economy and the unpaid economy. They had not yet benefited from the so-called “opportunities” of globalization. An unsustainable and profoundly disrespectful framework had further separated economic and social development. No development was possible if women were relegated to the micro- margins of economic development, nor could there be a valid assessment of the situation if data was not disaggregated by gender. The notion that the United Nations should cede its role in global economic matters, particularly poverty

Social Development Press Conference - 2 - 13 April 2000

eradication, to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was unacceptable. The fragmentation of development into human and financial components that prioritized the Bretton Woods institutions -- in the face of criticisms about their own democratic operations -- had not augured well for the development objectives.

Over nearly two decades, women of the South had produced a body of evidence that structural adjustment was bad for them and bad for the poor, she said. They proved that structural adjustment had dramatically reduced resources for health and education, and school enrolments had declined under such programmes. The poor had to live for another 20 years in growing misery to prove the destructive consequences of the globalization of corporate power. The forthcoming women's and social development reviews should connect the lack of social development with the IMF/World Bank/World Trade Organization (WTO) economic architecture that reduced a State to a mere enabler, abandoning its obligation to provide health and education, and other essential elements of an enabling environment for its citizens. The reviews must also draw the link between the growing poor and a global economy that catered to rich nations and rich people, and between women's empowerment and social development.

Ms. Kennedy, of the World Council of Churches, noted the coincidental timing of the preparatory meeting on social development, the Summit in Havana, Cuba, of leaders of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, and the meeting due to begin tomorrow in Washington, D.C., of the IMF and the World Bank. The World Council had a message for those decision makers seeking to overcome the vast inequalities and increasingly downward spirals of poverty -- "drop the debt and do it now". Those who were suffering from the crushing burden of external debt, which had undermined governments' capacity to provide even a minimum of resources for social development, could not wait. Illegitimate and odious debt had never benefited the people, and its compounded growth, by the unilateral decision to raise interest rates, had constituted one of the single biggest contributors to rampant impoverishment, particularly of the world's women and children.

Millions of people worldwide had warned that the world could not continue along its current path, she said. Statistics showed it; the economics proved it; and the political leadership was starting to admit it. Even the World Bank had acknowledged the truth -- that debt cancellation was today's imperative. At this time of global crisis and opportunity, it was unimaginable that world leaders would commit to anything less than full debt cancellation. The World Council was demanding full cancellation of the debts of African countries and of the least developed countries, without structural adjustment conditions, as well as a process for the comprehensive write-down of middle-income country debts. Deeper, faster, broader debt relief and cancellation processes must encompass an effective, equitable and development-oriented and durable debt relief and management strategy. The process should also include an international lending/borrowing mechanism that involved civil society in the process of debt relief and the prevention of future debt crises.

Ms. Garce, of Social Watch, recalled the historical commitments made at Copenhagen in 1995. In five years, there had been some progress, but achieving the goals had remained elusive. Reaching them was a modest, not a utopian, objective. Developing countries, despite the lack of support and resources, had made progress towards overcoming inequities within and among nations. For its part, Social Watch had produced five reports in the past five years, aimed at fostering implementation the development goals formulated at Copenhagen. Implementation, however, was the main responsibility of governments, primarily the richest and most powerful. The present inaction was disappointing, even outrageous, in the context of children still dying from preventable diseases and women still the poorest of the poor. Countries were overwhelmed by debt. At the dawn of the third millennium, half of the world lived in poverty. That scandalous situation should begin to be redressed now.

Mr. Disney, of the International Council on Social Welfare, drew attention to the two meetings in Washington, D.C., and Havana. The Washington meeting was principally of bodies dominated by the developed countries and primarily considered economic issues. The Havana meeting was an extremely important meeting of developing countries, exploring constructive solutions. The Havana Summit, in the longer term, might be more significant than the Washington meeting. In Havana, particular emphasis was being given to restoring the position of the United Nations. The International Council shared the frustration at the lack of commitment of many governments to the social development process. Many had not committed the necessary degree of compassion and imagination to the review process. Nonetheless, the Geneva Summit could be a valuable process that built up the pressure on other United Nations processes.

The three-fold response of the United States to its Great Depression was the same response presently required by the international community, he said. What was required was a strong, dynamic government with strong leadership; the enforcement of existing laws and the development of new ones, especially concerning the abuse of power by corporations, such as anti-trust legislation and financial market regulation; and imaginative and courageous programmes and resources. Those elements had reversed the situation in the United States, and ultimately in the world. What was needed now was a New Deal for the whole world, with less stacked cards. The three points that were successful then should be followed now. Thus, his group's three-point plan was modeled on the New Deal and emphasized strengthened governance and a strengthened United Nations, particularly the Economic and Social Council.

In many ways, he said, one could argue for a new Washington consensus: in one part of town, the United States Department of Justice was litigating against Microsoft for abusing its position and destroying competition; in another part of town, the Department of the Treasury, and the World Bank and the IMF were doing exactly the opposite. "There is a Microsoft loose in the world -- not just the one we call Microsoft -- there is another Microsoft loose in the world, and we need a consensus on how to address it", he said. The Justice Department was, perhaps, pursuing the right course of action needed in other areas.

A correspondent asked where progress had been made during the preparatory process.

Ms. Kennedy said she was looking for a good result in the paragraphs of the outcome document that addressed the debt issue. For the most part, the language was still "square bracketed", or not agreed, but everyone had agreed that addressing the debt issue was critical, particularly in Africa. New ways were being considered to separate debt from structural adjustment conditions. There was a growing consensus that a way would be found, but there was no consensus on the redistribution of power. Debtor countries had a different perspective from creditor countries. Much consensus-building had to take place by tomorrow and again in Geneva in order to arrive at an equitable and meaningful resolution to the question. A new opportunity had been provided to get serious about the issue and the power dynamics that underpinned it.

Ms. Dow said that perhaps the most worrisome feature of the meeting had been a systemic kind of attitude that had prevented negotiators on both sides from acknowledging the dichotomy of resources and gains in the past five years between rich countries and rich people, within and among nations. A semantic game was underway in which old positions were being defended while others begged for new answers. At the end, the poor and the suffering were really not defended, nor were the gains made from Rio to Rome. Thus, the whole review process was in question. The community must really think about how to bring a certain bold and bald honesty to the table that would permit progress, rather than a dilution of language and a sneaking in of new motions aimed at retracting earlier points made by the global community.

Ms. Garce said she had been looking at the Copenhagen promises: basic education for all; reduction of infant mortality rates; improved vaccination coverage; reduction of malnutrition; medical attention during pregnancy and birth for all women; health services for all; life expectancy increased to just over 60 years; clean drinking water and proper sanitation; reduction of military expenditures; elimination of the gender gap in illiteracy; and equal access of boys and girls to primary school. Those goals were not too ambitious, yet despite such historical commitments, large segments of the population were still living in poverty and that poverty had continued to grow. Turning the Geneva Summit into a real opportunity depended on the efforts made by governments.

Mr. Disney said the strengths and weaknesses of the process had been established some months ago. The Chairman's draft outcome document had pushed things as far as they could go; the goal of the past two weeks was to "hold stuff in" and strengthen some of it. Also, a lot of useful background material would enliven future debates on such issues as taxation. Regrettably, the process was not very imaginative, given the level of representation within the delegations and the length of the documents being negotiated. The focus should be on just a few issues to build up the negotiating pressure. With respect to governance, there were some useful paragraphs aimed at boosting the Economic and Social Council’s role, if it would take the chance. On standards, there were opportunities for the Economic and Social Council to move forward in the area of corporate conduct, taxation and the prevention of financial turbulence. In the area of programmes and resources, the document outlines the areas to be addressed, but it was not very specific or dynamic. The negotiating process should speed up in order to elaborate a pact that decided specific funds and got down to real business.

Were new targets being proposed and had existing ones become meaningless as a result of neglect? a correspondent asked. Also, how effective had groups of countries, such as the Group of 77, been in leveraging the achievement of some of those goals?

Mr. Langmore said that the countries that had reported to the Secretariat, at the request of the Secretary-General, had seriously addressed the targets and had attempted various policies. While the absolute number of people living in poverty since 1995 had increased, at the same time the proportion of children in primary school had increased, life expectancy had generally improved, child mortality had improved. Such significant improvements were due, in part, to respect for those targets.

Mr. Disney said the problem of not taking the targets seriously was a key consideration in the development of his group's pact. It was time to "get real" about the targets, instead of just talking about them. The seven targets developed by the donor countries and the rich countries had strengthened the political argument for apprising them of the need to be equally specific and time- bound in the commitment of resources. They could not argue against the targets; they adopted them. But, targets that were beyond the realm of achievement, such

as several of those adopted at Copenhagen, only weakened them. The seven targets were extremely ambitious, but they were not beyond success and did not suffer the acute credibility problem plaguing some of the Copenhagen commitments.

Regarding the reduction of the proportion of people living in extreme poverty, another correspondent asked if there was a historical precedent for governments' ability to reduce such trends.

Mr. Langmore said there had been significant improvement in China and in Ireland in the past five years, owing to rapid economic growth and explicit anti- poverty strategies.

The funding target of official development assistance, about which there had been the hope of an increase, had not been met, Ms. Kennedy added. In fact, there had been regression, including in her country, Canada, and in the United States. If debt cancellation was linked to other sources of funding, to pick up the slack for social development, it must not be at the expense of official development assistance.

On the gender aspect, Ms. Dow highlighted the need for different forms of measurements, since the current indicators masked many important realities. For instance, in some countries, the enrolment of girls in school had increased, but boys' enrolment had declined, in some cases, as they entered the job market. Unless the data was properly deciphered on a gender basis, problems would continue to be masked.

* *** *