Can Globalization Work for the World's Poor?

Address to the Fifth CIVICUS World Assembly
24 March 2004, Botswana

 Mary Robinson

Mary Robinson was the first woman to become President of Ireland (1990-1997), and a former U.N. high Commissioner for Human Rights( 1997-2002).  She is currently the leader of Ethical Globalization Initiative.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

It is a real pleasure to be here in Gaborone for the CIVICUS World Assembly, held for the first time in Africa.  I would like to thank Kumi Naidoo and his colleagues at CIVICUS for inviting me to participate and to address you today.  I have been impressed by the quality of the discussions, the information base, and the passionate engagement of the delegates to this assembly.  Civil society is indeed shaping into a global social movement.

I was here in Botswana less than a year ago for a meeting which the Ethical Globalization Initiative co-organized with a number of other organizations, including the Parliament of Botswana, on the role of parliamentary leadership in reducing women’s vulnerability and combating stigma in the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa.  I know that the issue of HIV/AIDS is one of the main topics on this World Assembly’s agenda and I look forward to learning more about the results of those discussions.  

The challenge of AIDS should be in our minds as we reflect on the question we are asked to consider in this session: Can Globalization Work for the World's Poor?

My answer is yes, it can.   In fact, I believe that our best hope of a more just world is through more, not less, connections between individuals, economies and cultures.  We don’t need more walls of separation between nations and peoples. We know they can’t protect us from global challenges like AIDS or terrorism or global warming.  We need instead, more connections, more bridges of understanding and shared responsibility.

But we all know that globalization doesn’t work that way today.  Some of the certainties which surrounded neo-liberal economic approaches, ‘the Washington consensus’, the efficiencies of privatization are being challenged by leading economists, and alternatives are gaining credibility.  The promise that greater openness and interdependence would benefit the poorest clearly hasn’t come to pass.  This can be seen in statistics that are known to us all but bear repeating.  According to the 2003 United Nations Human Development Report, some 54 countries - mainly in sub-Saharan Africa - are poorer now than in 1990.  In 21 countries a larger proportion of people are going hungry.  In 14 countries, more children are dying before the age of five.  In 12 countries, primary school enrolments are shrinking.  In 34, life expectancy has fallen.

Of course, these country statistics translate into harsh individual realities. Shockingly, every twenty-four hours, more than 30,000 children around the world die of preventable diseases.  Women are still the poorest of the world’s poor - eight-hundred million of them - representing two thirds of those trying to survive on less than a dollar a day. A thousand million people are still without access to clean water supplies and 2.4 billion people lack access to basic sanitation. Between 1995 and 2001 across the developing world, the number of malnourished people grew by an average of 4.5 million a year. 

And as we know, these conditions have led to the growing movement of people across borders – often into countries that treat migrants as a threat rather than a boon to their societies.  In response, a “fortress mentality” has taken hold in many prosperous countries because of perceived economic, cultural and security threats, spawning policies designed to keep migrants out or drive them underground – widening the divide further between those who have wealth and power, and those who lack it.

So clearly, what is needed today is nothing less than a major globalization rethink.  We know, in broad terms, why globalization isn’t working.  The reasons largely come down to failures of governance at all levels.  In too many countries and internationally, we still don’t have governing systems and institutions that are accountable, participatory, consensus oriented, transparent, equitable and follow the rule of law. 

What I heard again and again, as I traveled to over 80 countries during five years as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights – was people’s frustration about their lack of means through which to participate in and structure the decisions that affect their communities and nations.  These problems were in part brought about by the shifting centers of power and influence, from the public to the private, from national governments to multinational corporations and international organizations. In developing countries in particular, most people see their respective national governments as being unwilling or unable to stand up to or influence their political and economic conditions, which are increasingly shaped by the policies of developed states, powerful non-state actors, and international rules and institutions.

So we know what the problems are.  We also know, in broad terms, what better governance at local, national and international levels should look like.  We know more and more about what is needed both in terms of financial resources and expertise to alleviate poverty, to fight diseases like HIV/AIDS, to provide decent work for all.   So what is stopping us from making progress?

I believe one obstacle which is preventing the changes needed is that civil society has not yet been able to find a coherent voice and common agenda for change. As Kumi Naidoo noted in his opening address to this World Assembly:

“While civil society organizations are justified in criticizing governments for often failing to achieve coherence across line departments, the NGO community ironically reflects often the same parochialism and territorialism that make it difficult for us to achieve maximum impact in our quest for a just world.”

This World Assembly provides a unique opportunity for committed partners from around the world to address the fragmentation across issue areas and the conflicts and competition which still block faster progress. We should use this time together to begin to define an agenda for reform of globalization that we can collectively bring to our governments and to the wider public. 

We also need to think more strategically about what venues we can use to negotiate the types of changes we seek to bring about.  I am sure each of you is aware of a number of initiatives which seek to reorient or reform different globalization related challenges. Two that I am personally involved in are the Helsinki Process on Globalization and Democracy which has been launched by the Governments of Finland and Tanzania and a new Global Commission on International Migration.

Is civil society using such initiatives to the extent possible?  As was discussed yesterday in the context of the World Bank, we should be focusing more on efforts to engage directly with and influencing the policies of international organizations. Another example is the ongoing effort Kumi Naidoo and others are involved in to take stock of the UN’s experience in interacting with civil society. This panel of experts will soon recommend how the cooperation between civil society and the organization can be more effective and meaningful.  Will there be a strategy for follow up and implementation of those recommendations?

It is also right and prudent that this World Assembly is encouraging members of CIVICUS and other non-governmental bodies generally to examine their own transparency and accountability.  As we know, there is a growing hostility to NGOs in some quarters, made more complex by concerns by being linked in any way to supporting or funding terrorist activities.  In this climate of fear it is also easy to deter donors and to influence their funding priorities.  One positive factor is that it is clear that civil society groups are increasingly effective at making their voices heard, and so incur the resentment of some who do not wish to be held to accountability.  Making globalization work for the poor means taking on the powerful, and being equipped to withstand the heat! 

Finally, and most important, I strongly believe that we should think together about how human rights commitments made by governments could be more effectively used to bring about a more values-led, ethical globalization that benefits all people. 

I want to make the case that because a majority of countries around the world have ratified UN human rights instruments such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by 191 countries, the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, ratified by 175 countries, or the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ratified by 145 countries, they have accepted certain responsibilities, both at home and abroad.

Essentially, my argument is that the binding human rights framework must become part of the rules of the road of globalization. These human rights commitments, along with legal commitments made on environmental, labor and other standards, must play a bigger role in shaping the decisions of governments in every policy arena, domestic or international.

In an age where we debate the intervention of outside military forces to stop genocide and crimes against humanity, we ought not to shirk from the notion that the governments of more powerful countries should do what they can to ensure that basic rights to food, safe water, education, shelter, and health care are met in the developing world. At a minimum, our governments ought to ensure their own policies and practices do not exacerbate rights deprivation elsewhere, for example through maintaining agricultural tariffs and subsidies.

By reframing the debate in terms of rights, it means taking action is an obligation, not a form of charity.  Citizens and civil society groups can use human rights commitments to put pressure on their national governments, reminding them of their commitments and demanding full civil society participation in the design and implementation of specific reforms.

Human rights can also help to advance the drive towards greater international policy coherence.  Where choices over how to use limited resources must be made, the human rights framework can help to rule out retrogressive choices that will harm those who are poor. When poorer countries are tempted or pressured - for example in the course of structural adjustment reforms - to cut social spending and social budgets or reduce the provision of health care, education or food security for the poor, the human rights framework affirms that economic, social and cultural rights must be respected. During periods of economic reform or market adjustment, it strengthens the position of vulnerable groups in relation to their governments, and strengthens the hand of vulnerable governments in relation to their donors or the Bretton Woods Institutions.

Clearly, there is a long road ahead in reframing international debates from a rights perspective. Such efforts won’t begin to bear fruit until there is greater acceptance internationally that security and prosperity can only be achieved through actions that take account of the rights of others. 

Let me close by offering a snap shot of how globalization working for the poor could look if we are committed to making it so.

It is a world where our governments, operating independently and through the framework of international organizations, are held accountable for implementing their legal commitments under international human rights treaties.  It is a world where women are fully involved in decision making at all levels, and where minorities are protected.  It is a world where the richest nations see it as part of their responsibility to provide the assistance needed for those most in need.  Equally, it is a world where those resources are used for the betterment of societies for which they are intended, and not instead to enrich the few.

Finally, it is a world in which we recognize our fellow man and woman not simply as South African or Sudanese, Share cropper or Senator, Sikh or Sunni, but as an equal individual, entitled to a life of dignity.

Thank you.