Comment by Social Watch on Secretary-General Kofi Annan's Report: “In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All”
Related information
Social Watch
30 April 2005
The reforms proposed by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan are both pragmatic and ambitious. They urgently require public support, so that they are not ignored or trimmed down by world leaders when they meet in New York next September and, instead, take concrete actions to restore the United Nations’ credibility and act decisively against poverty.
On 21 March 2005, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan submitted to the world governments his Report for the Second Millennium Summit to be held in New York next September 14-16, 2005. The Report takes its title and inspiration from the UN Charter and describes development (“freedom from want”), peace and security (“freedom from fear”) and human rights (“freedom to live in dignity”) as essential components of a mutually reinforcing triangle to achieve a more just and peaceful world. Emphasising the interlinkages between development, security, and human rights is the Report’s greatest conceptual strength. On a practical level, the Report recognizes that the causes and the solutions for development, security, and human rights problems are inextricably connected also. Its proposals aim at re-establishing the balance between the different areas and organs of the United Nations which have been lost in recent years due to an all too dominant security agenda.
Social Watch welcomes the Report and its main findings. The big picture drawn by Kofi Annan is one of a strong and courageous defence of multilateralism. Despite his explicit pragmatism the Report is the most ambitious plan for a reform of the United Nations ever formulated by the UN Secretariat. Nevertheless, by limiting its proposals to items on which results seem to be achievable and reforms are actionable in the coming months, the report does not entirely reflect the urgency of the global problems and fails to present adequate answers beyond the few political steps that seem to be within reach.
In its "Benchmark for the 5-year review of the Millennium Declaration" (pdf), Social Watch presented a comprehensive list of recommendations to eradicate poverty, diminish inequalities and achieve democratic governance structures at national and international level. Consequently, Social Watch called on the leaders of the international community to take bold and decisive action when they meet in New York in September. The following comments are based on that document, which was the result of extensive consultation with the national coalitions around the world that form the Social Watch network.
CLUSTER I: “Freedom from want” – the development agenda
The Secretary-General places the development concerns of the South at the beginning of his Report. Here, he refers largely to the Report of the Millennium Project (frequently known as the “Sachs Report” for its main author, the American economist Jeffrey Sachs), adopting its essential ideas and proposals aimed at achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). At the same time, however, the Secretary-General clarifies that the MDGs clearly do not in themselves represent a complete development agenda but have to be regarded as part of a broader development effort by the international community and each nation. In stating this, he addresses the criticism made by Social Watch and many other NGOs of the narrow focus of the MDGs on combating only "extreme" poverty and achieving a few, purely quantitative social development goals. In his words, the MDGs do not address the particular needs of middle-income developing countries, the problem of growing inequality and the wider dimensions of human development.
We welcome this clarification, as poverty is not a statistic and is not defined by an income of less than US$1 or even US$2 a day. There is no benefit in singling out the very poor from the almost very poor or the poor among the rich in developing countries from the poor among the rich in developed countries. All must be addressed. Poverty is evidenced by extremely unequal distribution of income, but also in similarly unequal distribution of assets, unequal access to opportunities for work and employment, social services and benefits and in the unequal distribution of political power, access to information and political participation. This is largely the result of deep-seated and persistent imbalances in the current workings of the global economy which according to the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalisation is “ethically unacceptable and politically unsustainable.” Women are most often among those who suffer these inequalities more.
According to the Report, the developing countries ought to assume primary responsibility for their own development and take the necessary political steps to promote growth and maximise domestic resources. By strongly emphasizing economic growth the Report fails to challenge the dominant macroeconomic paradigm that prioritizes growth over equity, rights, and sustainable development. While economic growth is critical, economic policies that seek to meet the needs of poor people must start with a social justice, rights-based framework with specific attention to the rights of women and children.
In fact, the Report focuses mainly on development co-operation and official development assistance (ODA) in the narrower sense, with the influence of capital markets, international finance and monetary policy as well as trade policy on development either not being addressed at all or only referred to in general terms. With regard to these topics, the Secretary-General yields to the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO.
Highly problematic is the notion of a “green revolution” for Africa, which echoes one of the most controversial elements in the Sachs Report. This technocratic and somehow naïve mindset has already proven wrong in the past. It is doubtful, that 21st century biotechnology will prove sustainable after the problems encountered in the recent years or being compatible with retaining traditional culture.
We strongly support the concrete proposal of the Secretary-General to the industrialised countries to commit themselves to a timetable to raise their ODA to 0.5 by 2009 and to 0.7 percent of their gross national income by 2015 at the latest. We also support his proposal to redefine “debt sustainability” as the level of debt that allows a country to achieve the MDGs by 2015 without an increase in its debt ratio. With this proposal, he has come out in favour of a long-standing NGO demand and clearly rejects the definition of the creditors used so far which is oriented purely on macroeconomic indicators. This redefinition would result in far-reaching debt cancellations for most of the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) but also for many highly indebted non-HIPC and middle-income countries.
In contrast, the Reports statement on new financing instruments, in particular on global taxes, remains weak. With his recommendation to “consider” innovative sources of finance “in the longer term”, Kofi Annan is not venturing beyond the wordings already adopted by Governments at the Copenhagen World Summit for Social Development ten years ago. But retaining a narrow focus on ODA, even with additional short term money flows provided by the International Finance Facility (IFF, proposed by UK Finance Minister Gordon Brown), will not lead to an adequate and sustainable financing of the development efforts. Therefore, concrete steps have to be taken to establish mechanisms for international taxation, in particular a Currency Transaction Tax (CTT) and an international aviation fuel tax.
Furthermore, we call upon the UN to assist developing countries in strengthening their domestic tax systems and to prevent tax evasion. All countries should support a multilateral agreement on an effective sharing of information on taxation between countries as well as an international convention to facilitate the recovery and repatriation of funds illegally appropriated from national treasuries of developing countries.
Beyond this, we regret the omission of the Report to address the social responsibility and accountability of the business sector. The outcome document of the September Summit should contain a clear commitment to support the "Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights" and to take concrete steps towards their full implementation. In addition, Governments should support the request for an international binding instrument to increase the transparency of financial flows between transnational corporations (TNCs), particularly in the extractive industry, and governments, as proposed by the international campaign “Publish What you Pay”.
CLUSTER II: “Freedom from fear” – the security agenda
We basically welcome Kofi Annan’s proposals on nuclear disarmament. He stresses the unique responsibility of the nuclear-weapon states, calling on them, e.g., to further reduce their non-strategic arsenals of nuclear weapons. In addition, he demands the swift negotiation of a fissile material cut-off treaty. Finally, he calls on Governments to uphold the moratorium on nuclear test explosions until the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty has entered into force.
Yet, further steps are vitally important. We therefore call on all member states to make a binding commitment to at least halve military spending by 2015 and use the resulting “peace dividend” for social and environmental purposes. This should be a prelude to a binding commitment by all states to promote general disarmament and the ban of all nuclear arms and of all other weapons of mass destruction once and for all. Furthermore, we urge all states to adopt a global Arms Trade Treaty which can provide some safeguards in what is, at best, an unregulated market. The Treaty would ensure that all governments control arms according to the same international standard, thus greatly reducing the risk of letting them fall into irresponsible hands.
One of the key recommendations made by the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Changes was the setting up of a Peacebuilding Commission. This commission is intended to bridge an institutional gap in the United Nations system by supporting countries in transition from war to lasting peace as a central co-ordinating body of the UN. The Secretary-General took up this proposal in a modified form. While the High-level Panel recommended setting up the commission as a subsidiary body of the Security Council, in accordance with Article 29 of the UN Charter, the Secretary-General, in his Report, stresses the commission’s parity composition of Security Council and ECOSOC members. We support the establishment of such a commission and the modifications by the Secretary-General to the initial proposal.
Finally, the Report addresses the highly controversial issue of under what conditions states and the United Nations are authorised to resort to applying military force. In the Secretary-General’s words, Article 51 of the UN Charter covers the right of states to defend themselves in the event of imminent threats. But how an imminent threat is to be identified remains unclear. In addition, the Secretary-General stresses the Security-Council’s right to take preventive military action in the case of latent dangers to world peace and international security. But it remains unclear under what conditions this is supposed to apply, leaving the issue as controversial as before with the possibilities for arbitrary and highly selective decisions. For this reason, the Secretary-General proposes that the Security Council be called upon to adopt a resolution defining the principles for the application of force. However, leaving a decision of such importance solely to the exclusive circle of the Security Council members would be highly problematic. While concrete resolutions on each case should be taken by the SC, it should be up to the General Assembly to define the principles.
CLUSTER III: “Freedom to live in dignity” – the human rights agenda
The third part of the Report addresses the topics of human rights, the rule of law and democracy. We welcome, in general, that the Report assigns these topics the same status as those of security and development. But by addressing human rights in connection with the rule of law and democracy, the Report reflects a traditional concept of human rights focusing mainly on political and civil human rights. In contrast, the Secretary-General makes hardly any mention of economic, social and cultural rights – one of the main weaknesses of the Report.
We strongly welcome that the Secretary-General explicitly stresses the human rights responsibilities of Governments in combating terrorism and urges “Member States to create a special rapporteur who would report to the Commission on Human Rights on the compatibility of counter-terrorism measures with international human rights laws”.
The Secretary-General supports in very clear terms the approach of the states’ collective "responsibility to protect" in cases of genocide, so-called ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity. While he sees primary responsibility for protecting the population in the hands of national governments, he stresses the International Community’s duty to take action – up to the level of military force legitimised by the Security Council – if these governments are not capable of, or willing to, provide this protection. These proposals are highly controversial. One of the disputed issues is whether the United Nations also has the right and the duty to resort to military intervention in the case of a latent danger of genocide, so-called ethnic cleansing or other crimes against humanity. Similar to the above mentioned issues, the Security Council could interpret this right selectively and only in the interest of its powerful members, thus increasing the danger of geopolitically or economically motivated interventions being legitimised under the pretext of the responsibility to protect.
CLUSTER IV: “Strengthening the United Nations” – the reform agenda
The objectives the Report formulates for the areas of development, security and human rights could only be fulfilled by the international community if the United Nations itself were substantially strengthened. To this end, Kofi Annan presents a catalogue of reforms concentrating on the main organs of the United Nations. At its centre is the proposal to create a new balance of three global councils: the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the Human Rights Council, yet to be formed. Unfortunately, the Secretary-General does not make any statements on the necessary reforms of the IMF, the World Bank or the WTO, as called for by many, or on the need of integrating them more closely into the United Nations system.
The Secretary-General stresses that the General Assembly is the chief deliberative, policy-making and representative organ of the United Nations. In his Report he calls for a comprehensive package of reforms to revitalise the General Assembly. We welcome this proposal. There is an urgent need to strengthen the General Assembly, rationalise its work, and streamline its agenda.
Kofi Annan regards overcoming the “anachronistic” composition of the Security Council as a central element of UN reform. But, rather than committing himself to a concrete reform proposal, he refers to the two models presented by the High-level Panel. The Secretary-General is urging the states to agree on one of the two models or on another proposal based on these models ahead of the Summit in September 2005, arguing that it “would be very preferable for Member States to take this vital decision by consensus, but if they are unable to reach consensus this must not become an excuse for postponing action.” However, the Secretary-General’s reform proposals are falling short of the mark since they mainly focus on the enlargement of the Security Council. A real reform and a "democratisation" of the Council could only be achieved in the long run by generally abolishing the right to veto and the permanent membership of individual countries, and by creating more openness in the way the Council works as well as greater transparency in the decision-making procedures.
However, we are fully aware that such consistent reforms will be impossible to implement in the foreseeable future since they would generally be rejected by the five countries with veto power. In any case, every short-term reform should be a first step towards these long-term reform goals. Therefore, adding just a few middle-powers to the exclusive club of permanent members would be a step in the wrong direction. Instead, creating a new category of semi-permanent seats for a renewable four-year period (according to Model B) could be a first step to open up and "democratize" the Security Council.
According to the Secretary-General, the ECOSOC ought to be upgraded to the UN’s central co-ordinating body for development issues that would meet annually at ministerial level. Its primary task would be to monitor the implementation of the internationally agreed development goals, including the MDGs. Every two years, it should serve as a High-level Development Co-operation Forum analysing trends in international development cooperation and promoting greater coherence. There is no doubt that the ECOSOC in its current form is miserably weak to fulfil its mandate and has to be strengthened. The Secretary-Generals proposals are one way to do so, but are not far reaching enough, as ECOSOC's mandate would be narrowly confined to development issues. As mentioned above, omitting the necessary reform of related bodies will cripple this approach from the very beginning: The IMF, the World Bank and the WTO would continue to decide on international economic, monetary and trade policies outside the UN. Competencies regarding human rights would be transferred to the respective Council yet to be set up (see below). Thus, at best, ECOSOC would amount to something like an enlarged OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) augmented by developing countries. The balance between ECOSOC and the powerful Security Council, which the Secretary-General proclaimed himself, would then only be on paper.
What is, in Kofi Annan’s own words, his “most dramatic” proposal aims at abolishing the Human Rights Commission in its present form. It is to be replaced by a smaller standing Human Rights Council. The Council’s members would be elected by the General Assembly by a two-thirds majority. The Report does not expand on this basic plea, leaving many questions open. Some doubt has to be voiced whether politically motivated abuse and “politicisation” the present Human Rights Commission has been accused of can be prevented solely by scaling down the size of the body and by having its members elected by the General Assembly. In addition, there are fears that a council of this kind could be more vulnerable to influence from the most powerful countries. Also for symbolic reasons, it would therefore be important to base such a Human Rights Council in Geneva. Whether the Council could strengthen the UN’s human rights activities above all depends on the resources and competencies it would be entrusted with. What will also be crucial is whether the positive elements of the present system, in particular the institution of the special rapporteurs and the close involvement of human rights NGOs, are retained.
Against this background, Kofi Annan’s proposal to comprehensively and systematically integrate NGOs into the work of the General Assembly is of considerable significance. However, it represents the only proposal that Kofi Annan has taken up from the Cardoso Panel’s report on the future relations between the UN and civil society. The comprehensive proposals this report makes regarding civil society’s greater participation in all areas of the UN system are given hardly any attention in the Secretary-General’s Report.
Conclusion
With his Report, Kofi Annan has tabled a reform agenda that is both pragmatic and ambitious. The initial responses of Governments show that these reform proposals urgently require public backing if they are to succeed. There is a considerable danger that the reforms as a whole could founder on the conflicting particular interests of the Governments. Kofi Annan has explicitly demanded that his reform proposals be treated as a package rather than having individual aspects be chosen “à la carte”.
The proposals of the Secretary-General certainly do not reflect what many NGOs hold to be necessary. Instead, they show what the Secretary-General believes is achievable in the short term, given the present situation in world politics. All in all, however, the implementation of these proposals would be a clear step into the right direction. Putting Kofi Annan’s reform plans into practice would represent a demonstrative act against unilateralism and would restore the United Nations’ credibility as well as its ability to take action.
RELATED INFORMATION
Benchmark for the 5-year review of the Millennium Declaration
Source: Social Watch
Social Watch presented a comprehensive list of recommendations to eradicate poverty, diminish inequalities and achieve democratic governance structures at national and international level. Consequently, Social Watch called on the leaders of the international community to take bold and decisive action when they meet in New York in September 2005. The document was the result of extensive consultation with the national coalitions around the world that form the Social Watch network. Pdf format, 10 March 2005.
NGOs comment on the Report of the UN Secretary General "In Larger Freedom"
Source: United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service - NGLS
Further to the opportunity provided by the United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service (NGLS) to gather NGO comments and observations on the Secretary-General's Report "In Larger Freedom: towards freedom, security and human rights for all", NGLS received an important number of submissions from the members of the NGO community. They are currently reading and digesting the content of the submissions with a view to producing an overview report in time for the 23-24 June General Assembly Hearings with Civil Society.
In Larger Freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all
Source: ONU, Kofi Annan
Calling for action, not more words, to fulfil pledges already made, Secretary-General Kofi Annan on 21 March laid before the General Assembly his plan for United Nations reform, ranging from greater investment in developing countries to steps to fight catastrophic terrorism and collective action against genocide and ethnic cleansing. He did include women's reproductive health in a number of its key recommendations as well. March 2005, Pdf format.
CSO Perspectives on the Millennium Development Goals
Source: UNDP
Gender, trade, environment and indigenous peoples are the issues analized in a paper published by the CSO Division of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Four viewpoints are developed by members of Women's International Coalition for Economic Justice, Third World Network, Tebtebba Foundation and Center for Science and Environment. April 2005.
