The United Nations agency spearheading the global response to HIV/AIDS today lauded India’s efforts to provide prevention and treatment services for men who have sex with men and transgender people, while stressing the need to scale up services and eliminate homophobia.

India’s AIDS response has resulted in a drop in new HIV infections by more than 50 per cent in the last decade, according to a news release issued by the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). In addition, around 67 per cent of the more than 400,000 men who have sex with men in India are currently accessing prevention services.

“India’s rich tradition of inclusivity and social justice must include men who have sex with men and transgender people,” said Michel Sidibé, UNAIDS Executive Director, speaking on the sidelines of the National Convention of Parliamentarians and elected representatives.

“India’s successful AIDS response has been possible due to the strong participation of communities of men who have sex with men, sex workers, people who inject drugs and transgender people backed by a strong and progressive national AIDS policy,” he stated.

HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men in India is about 7.3 per cent compared to a prevalence rate of 0.31 per cent among the general adult population, according to estimates by the National AIDS Control Organization.

During the inauguration of the National Convention, which opened yesterday, the Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, reiterated his Government’s strategy to provide HIV services to groups at higher risk of infection.

UNAIDS welcomed the Prime Minister’s call to have an “HIV-sensitive” policy and programmes so that marginalized groups affected by the virus are not denied the benefits of health and development programmes.

Guidelines recently released by UNAIDS and the World Health Organization (WHO) recommend that legislators and other government authorities establish anti-discrimination and protective laws to eliminate discrimination and violence faced by men who have sex with men and transgender people.

Two years ago, in a move hailed by UNAIDS, the Delhi High Court overturned a 150-year-old law and decriminalized homosexuality.

The agency has pledged to work with the Government, civil society and community groups in realizing the vision of zero new HIV infections, zero discrimination and zero AIDS-related deaths in India.

Essay written by Giancarlo de Vera (c) 2011

Executive Summary
There has been a general argument that endogenous growth has had beneficial effects on the world’s poorest, however as this essay will argue the causal relationship between globalization and poverty has not been clearly specified or explained in the literature largely because of questionable empirical data analysis on both sides of the debate. Thus, this essay will examine the empirical methods used in analysing the data, focusing heavily on cross-country regression analyses, to highlight an epistemological impasse that has been reached in the literature. This essay will then highlight how the empirical findings are not linked effectively with policy conclusions, which has resulted in a policy mix not beneficial to the world’s poor. The paper will then examine the incipient literature that aims to clarify the relationship between the political cultural, and of course, the economic dimensions of globalization, noting the absence of, and opposition to the construction of, a theoretical bridge between micro and macroeconomic analyses of globalization. This essay will then explore how this theoretical bridge can be constructed when we begin to understand that globalization as a dialectical process, whose political responses are conditioned by local factors. Through this understanding, this paper concludes a basis for a more civilized form of globalization emerges, which its absence prior underpinned the difficulties faced in answering the complex question of whether globalization has made world poverty worse.

INTRODUCTION

In order to answer the question whether or not globalization is making world poverty worse, we must first contend with the notion that such a question belies its seeming simplicity. The question masks a whole set of complexities about not only the nature of contemporary poverty and globalization, but also how aspects of globalization interact with the world’s poorest people in the world’s poorest regions. As a result the literature’s measurement of the effects of globalization on world poverty has fueled a fierce debate about the state of progress. With the onslaught of empirical data that either supports or denounces the benefits that globalization has had on world poverty, the direct correlation between globalization, and any effect it has had on the world’s poor, has not been conclusively established in the literature. This has been largely due to the vague and slippery understanding within the literature of what poverty actually is, but more importantly how it can be alleviated. However, there has been a general argument that endogenous growth has had beneficial effects on the world’s poorest, however as this paper will argue the causal relationship between globalization and poverty has not been clearly specified or explained in the literature. This has been a result of questionable empirical data analysis on both sides of the debate, which at times has proved to be contradictory.

Thus, the first part of this esssay will focus on the empirical methods used in analysing the data, focusing heavily on criticisms of cross-country regression analyses, in order to highlight that the literature has reached an epistemological impasse whereby the discourse on globalization and poverty has, and continues to be, discussed in the absence of an unambiguous theoretical outcome leading to the need to test things empirically. However, and moving on to the second part of this essay, this epistemological impasse does not undermine the value of such empirical analysis and so the second part of this essay retreats from this impasse by addressing the more illuminating question of what degree of globalization is desirable for the world’s poorest. From this conjecture, this essay will then highlight how the empirical findings are not linked effectively with policy conclusions, which has resulted in a policy mix that has not been to the benefit of the world’s poorest. Thus, the third part of this essay will examine the incipient literature that aims to clarify the relationship between the political cultural, and of course, the economic dimensions of globalization, noting the absence of, and opposition to the construction of, a theoretical bridge between micro and macroeconomic analyses of globalization. This essay will then explore how this theoretical bridge can be constructed when we begin to understand that globalization is a dialectical process, whose political responses are conditioned by local factors. Thus, in conclusion we can begin to see how this could form the basis of a broad and more encompassing conceptual framework for civilizing globalization, but it is also the very absence of the recognition of globalization as a dialectical process that has ultimately underpinned the difficulties faced in answering the complex question of whether globalization has made world poverty worse.

PART ONE: EMPIRICAL YEARNINGS

In considering the effect of globalization on world poverty, there has been a general argument in favour of endogenous growth theory (see for example, Dollar, 2001), which suggests that the link between globalization and growth can be attributed to aspects of globalization, like trade liberalization, which in turn leads to faster integration and thus growth (Dollar, 2001: 12). It has then been further argued that the growth made possible through globalization has had a beneficial effect on world poverty, and thus accordingly evidence seems to suggest that the more liberalized an economy is, the faster the rate of progress will be. For instance, David Dollar (2005) argues that “…a growing number of countries in Latin America, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa[‘s] political and intellectual leaders began to fundamentally rethink development strategies … shift[ing] from an inward-focused strategy to a more outward-oriented one. (p149). For Dollar (2005) this shift in strategy was most visible in the huge increases in trade integration of developing countries, whereby underdeveloped countries like Mexico and the Philippines saw significant increases in the ratio of trade to national income, while others like China had more than doubled that ratio during the same time (p149-50). Further, it wasn’t simply the volume of trade that had merely increased, but more significant was the change in composition – in fact 80% of today’s merchandise exports has not only originated from developing countries but were also mostly manufactured goods (Dollar, 2001: 150). Thus, Dollar (2001) famously concluded that liberalization of economic policies had been responsible for the vast improvement in the alleviation of world poverty through growth (see also, World Bank, 2002; Berg & Krueger, 2003; amongst others).

However, the causal relationship between trade, growth and poverty, if any, has not been so clearly specified or explained (Jenkins, 2004: 2). While endogenous growth theory does have credibility, it is also quite possible to construct theoretical models in which the poor are by-passed or even increasingly marginalised (for example, Bhagwati & Srinivasan, 2002). Thus, not only is the empirical value of the data supporting the claim that globalization has alleviated world poverty questionable, it also raises concerns about the claim of causation between globalization and world poverty alleviation: Indeed the claims of causation going both ways of the globalization debate, are so confounded that both sides claim the success of the Asian tigers as a result of their own policies; and the failure of many of the African states as the result of the other side’s policies (Aisbett, 2003: 37-8). Hence, we can already begin to appreciate how complex the relationship between globalization and poverty is. To this end, the literature has attempted to reconcile such contradictory claims by using different empirical methods (Reimer, 2002)

By far, the most dominant of these empirical methods have been cross-country comparisons/regression analyses of a large number of countries (for example, Dollar, 1992; Edwards, 1992; Sachs & Warner, 1996; Frenkel & Romer; 1999; amongst many). As Dani Rodrik (2000) has noted, these cross-country regression analyses are somewhat arbitrary in their classification of countries as “globalizers” and “non-globalizers” (in the language of Dollar & Kraay, 2002). Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, cross-country regression analyses also assume the universal impact of globalization from the onset, independent of influential local conditions that could help contextualise the resulting data from these types of analyses (Jenkins, 2004: 3). Thus, at best, all we are getting from the data is a piecemeal understanding of how globalization affects world poverty because of the method’s emphasis on average relationships found in cross-country comparisons (Aisbett, 2003). As such, to base any poverty alleviation claim as an effect/result of globalization can be quite misleading. Lastly, other empirical methods such as partial equilibrium/cost of living analyses, general equilibrium studies and micro-macro syntheses also suffer from its own set of limitations but, in combination, the above types of methods have been successful in providing several points of relative consensus (see Aisbett, 2003: 39-40; Reimer, 2002) unlike cross-country regression analyses, which as previously noted above, has actually provided contradictory information.

PART TWO: THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL IMPASSE

Hence, we are met with an epistemological impasse in the literature: Cross-country regression analyses along with the other empirical methods, provides us with so much data but it is rendered less meaningful to the point that several leading economists believe it should not be used as the basis for any causal conclusions regarding the impact of globalization on the world’s poor (Bhagwati, 2000; Bhagwati & Srinivasan, 2002; Bardham, 2003; Ravillion, 2003). However, this does not mean the value of the data should be brazenly rejected, for denouncement will be neither here nor there! The problems with the literature begin with the fact that there is no unambiguous theoretical outcome and thus everything must be tested empirically (Winters, 2000; Agenor, 2002). The trouble then continues because the observable outcomes – growth, inequality, and poverty rates – are functions of a very large number of both past and present variables, and influences these variables in return (Aisbett, 2003: 42). Thus, the result of these troubles is that in turn it becomes quite difficult to ascertain what conditions, or combination of conditions, were/are responsible for the success or failure of globalization in any time or space. Within this context, the question of whether or not globalization has made world poverty worse starts to retreat from a globalize/not to globalize binary, and enters a more illuminating critical landscape of what and how much to globalize by. Indeed, to what degree of globalization is desirable for the world’s poorest?

This paradigm drastically changes the playing field, as absolutism on either side of the globalization debate gives way to a much needed reframing of the debate as a whole. As Martin Ravillion (2003; see also Kanbur, 2001) puts it:

“According to some observers “such actions are not needed…Growth is sufficient. Period.” (Bhalla, 2002: 206) The basis of this claim is the evidence that poverty reduction has generally come with economic growth. But that misses the point. Those who are saying that growth is not enough are not typically saying that growth does not reduce absolute income poverty, which (as an empirical generalization) is hard to deny. They are saying that combining growth-promoting economic reforms with the right [other] policies … will achieve more rapid poverty reduction than would be possible otherwise” (p752-3, emphasis original).

From the above, we can begin to see how empirical findings and policy conclusions are not being linked effectively. Essentially, the literature has tended to focus on economic analyses at the cost of engaging with social policies, to the extent that “…global economic forces are assigned a determinant role in social change”(Yeates, 2002: 71). This has meant that a core focus on the most optimal policy mix of social and economic reforms, that both maximizes the benefits to the poor and minimizes the negative impacts, is largely absent in the (‘strong’) globalization literature and partially why no claim of causation between globalization and poverty alleviation/aggravation has been conclusively established (Aisbett, 2003: 37-44). Indeed, we are in need of greater micro-level, country-specific additional research to clarify the economic, political and cultural dimensions of globalization and how they interact with each other (Guillen, 2001: 255). Of the incipient literature that attempts to achieve this research aim, the focus thus far been on how local conditions and factors relate to economic growth; and so the discourse is still discussed within economic terms. For instance, it has been noted in this incipient literature that the impact of economic growth and poverty depends on such local conditions like level of income and income distribution, as well as other factors like location, the severity of social exclusion, and exposure to uninsured risk (Ravillion, 2001: 1812-13). While this fledgling literature is indeed a step forward in critically engagement with an optimal mix of economic and social policies, what is missing is a theoretical bridge that brings together the vast, but confusing, macro-level analyses with the incipient literature on the micro-level effects of globalization

PART THREE: GLOBALIZATION AS A DIALECTICAL PROCESS.

However, the construction of this theoretical bridge faces some strong opposition. Buffeted by the wings of global competition, developing countries are increasingly expected to “…pursue social and economic policies which are most attractive to transnational capital and foreign investment” (Yeates, 2002: 72), and as a result governments have tended to stay clear of pro-poor social policies like programmes of redistribution, re-nationalization, or any other form of government interventions that are not considered desirable for the market (ibid). This pressure to conform effectively renders compliance for fear of economic and political measures that will act against countries that seek access to global markets (see for example, Andrews, 1994; Goodman & Pauly, 1993; Mishra, 1999; Stewart, 1994). Thus, for some observers, this “…heralds the decline of social democratic politics and projects upon which the welfare state was built” (Yeates, 2002: 72; see also Beck, 2000; Teeple, 1995). As such, this is just one structure that has been thrown up by globalization, as a way in which globalization can continue to be understood as “naturalistic” or “deterministic” and thus conceived as a top-down force (Yeates, 1999: 389).

While this structure has remained prevalent, the matter is not foreclosed, as ultimately the legitimacy of the structure is only ever maintainable if it continues to have discursive power and effect. Thus conceptually, in order to bypass the epistemological impasse in the globalization literature, “…there is a need to see globalization as a political strategy open to contestation or even failure and as uneven in scope, depth, intensity and impact” (Yeates, 2002: 86). Seeing globalization in this light highlights that the constraints on social policies, such as the need to comply with market liberalization where it serves the market best, are merely ideological and thus absolutely susceptible to political manipulation (Yeates, 1999: 389). Further, seeing globalization in this light also highlights that “the process of globalization is a dialectical one in which ‘local’ events will impact globally and will inform global political responses” (Yeates, 1999: 388, emphasis mine). Thus, the discursive nature of any given structure, in this case a neoliberal one, are highly influenced by local factors. It is at this local level that non-geographically located global forces must “touch down” and be expressed; and while they may face a range of mediating, regulatory and oppositional forces on the ground, these non-geographically located global forces will be “… instrumental in shaping the political management of globalization as the formal policies and discourses of international institutions (Yeates, 1999: 389).

CONCLUSION: GLOBALIZATION, CIVILIZED

This recognition of globalization as a dialectical process informed by local factors is important in two ways: Firstly it tempers the extreme interpretations of globalization, such as the apocalyptic accounts of the prospects for welfare states (Yeates, 1999: 389), that has for so long muddled attempts to bridge micro and macroeconomic descriptions of the globalization phenomenon; and secondly, and more importantly, it reigns into the realm of understanding that global economic forces are contested because they are mediated by states, whose political responses are conditioned by local factors informed by history, institutional arrangements, culture, religion and traditions (Yeates, 1999: 390). Thus, when these two effects frame globalization, the basis for a broad and more encompassing conceptual framework for civilising globalization emerges can be realised. Further, it is this very absence of this framework that has ultimately underpinned the difficulties faced in answering the complex question of whether globalization has made world poverty worse. And whilst there have been suggestions that nation-states will not survive globalization (see for example Wolf, 2001; Mann, 1997; and Hirst, 1995), it does not diminish the conclusion that these global economic forces need to be understood in light of their social impact vis-à-vis their ability to ensure that the poorest participate fully in the opportunities unleashed by globalization. This means, social policy needs to be aware of how it “…now develops in a pluralistic and multi-levelled institutional framework of global governance” (Yeates, 1999: 389) by implementing social reform in tandem with economic reforms. Such a political manuoever, will include the most detrimentally affected by the unbridled growth and inequality that has defined current globalization, as their needs are better represented in the policy cycle through civil society engagement (Deacon et al, 1997). Only once this occurs, can we then be better placed to attribute any effect that globalization has on world poverty, and it is this essays suspicion that the world’s poorest will be benefit immensely from this syncretism.

Reference List

Agenor, P.R. (2002) ‘Does Globalisation Hurt the Poor?’, World Bank Development Research Group Working Paper 2922, World Bank, Washington.

Aisbett, E. (2003), ‘Globalization, Poverty & Inequality: are the criticisms vague, vested, or valid?’, September 2003, National Bureau of Economic Research Pre-conference on Globalization, Poverty and Equality, Unpublished conference paper, University of California, Berkeley.

Andrews, D. (1994) ‘Capital mobility and state autonomy: Toward a structural theory of international monetary relations’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 38: 193–218.

Bardhan, Pranhab (2003) “Globalization and the Limits to Poverty Alleviation.” Unpublished Draft. University of California, Berkeley. Available online <http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/macarthur/inequality/papers/BardhanGlobLimit.pdf.> (4 April 2011)

Beck, U. (2000) What is Globalization?, Cambridge, Polity Press/Blackwell.

Berg, A. & Krueger, A. (2003), ‘Trade, growth and poverty: a selective survey’. IMF Working Paper WP/03/30, International Monetary Fund, Washington.

Bhagwati, J. (2000), ‘Globalization in your face – A new book humanizes global capitalism’, Foreign Affairs vol.79, no. 4: 134-39

Bhagwati, J. & Srinivasan, T. (2002), ‘Trade and poverty in poor countries’, American Economic Review, vol. 92: no. 9: 180-3.

Bhalla, S.S. (2002), Imagine There’s No Country: Poverty, Inequality, and Growth in the ear of Globalization, Washington D.C., Peterson Institute.

Deacon, B., Stubbs, P., Hulse, M. (1997), Global Social Policy: International Organizations and the Future of Welfare, London, Sage.

Deaton, A. (2005), ‘Measuring poverty in a growing world (or measuring growth in a poor world), The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 87, no. 1: 1-19.

Dollar, D. (1992), ‘Outward-orientated developing countries really do grow more rapidly: evidence from 95 LCDs, 1976-85’, Economic Development and Cultural Change, vol. 40, no. 3: 523-544.

Dollar, D. (2001), ‘Growth is Good for the Poor’, Policy Research Working Paper No.2587.

Dollar, D. & Kraay, A. (2001), ‘Growth is Good for the Poor’ World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2587, World Bank, Washington.

Dollar, D. (2005), ‘Globalization, poverty, and inequality since 1980’, World Bank Research Observer, vol. 20, no. 2: 145-75.

Edwards, S. (1992), ‘Openness, productivity and growth: what do we really know?’, Economic Journal, vol. 108: 383-98.

Frenkel, J. & Romer, D. (1999), ‘Does trade cause growth?’, American Economic Review, vol. 89, no. 3: 379-99.

Goodman, J. and Pauly, L. (1993) ‘The obsolescence of capital controls? Economic management in an age of global markets’, World Politics, vol. 46, no.1: 50–82.

Guillen, M.F. (2001), ‘Is globalization civilizing, destructive of feeble? A critique of five key debates in the social science literature’, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 27: 235-60.

Herath, D. (2009), ‘The discourse of development: has it reached maturity?’, Third World Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 8: 1449-1464.

Hirst, P. (1995), ‘Globalization and the future of the nation state’, Economy and Society, vol. 24, no. 3: 408-442.

Jenkins, R. (2004), ‘Globalization, production, employment and poverty: debates and evidence’, Journal of International Development, vol. 16: 1-12.

Kanbur, Ravi (2001) “Economic Policy, Distribution and Poverty: the nature of the disagreements.” World Development 29(6): 1083-94.

Kitching, G. (2001), Seeking Social Justice Through Globalization: Escpaing a Nationalist Perspective, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State University Press.

Kingley, D. (2009), Civilising Globalisation: Human Rights and the Global Economy, New York, Cambridge University Press.

Mann, M. (1997), ‘Has globalization ended the rise and rise of the nation-state?’, Review of International Political Economy, vol. 4, no. 3: 472-496.

Mishra, R. (1999) Globalization and the Welfare State, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

Ravillion, M. (2001), ‘Growth, inequality and poverty: looking beyond averages’, World Development, vol. 29, no. 11: 1803-15.

Ravallion, M. (2003), ‘The debate on globalization, poverty and inequality: why measurements matter’, International Affairs, vol. 79, no. 4: 739-53.

Reimer, J.J. (2002), Estimating the Poverty Impacts of Trade Liberalization, Global Trade Analysis Project Working Paper No. 20.

Rodrik, D. (1997), ‘Sense and nonsense in the globalization debate’, Foreign Affairs, No. 107: 19-37.

Rodrik, D. (2000), ‘Comments on Trade, Growth and Poverty, available online <www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/drodrik/…/Rodrik%20on%20Dollar-Kraay.PDF> (accessed 5 April 2011).

Sachs, J. & Warner, A. (1995), ‘Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity,vol. 1: 1-118.

Santarelli, E. & Fignini, P. (2002), ‘Does globalization reduce poverty? Some empirical evidence for the developing countries’,  in Lee, E. & Vivarelli, M (eds.), Understanding Globalization, Employment and Poverty Reduction, New York, Palgrave Macmillan: 247-303.

Stewart, M. (1994) The Age of Interdependence: Economic Policy in a Shrinking World, Cambridge. MIT Press.

Teeple, G. (1995) Globalization and the Decline of Social Reform, Toronto, Garamond.

Therien, J.P. (1999), ‘Beyond the North-South divide: The two tales of world poverty’, Third World Quarterly, vol. 20, no.4: 723-42.

Wade, R.H. (2004), ‘Is globalization reducing poverty and inequality?’, World Development, vol. 32, no.4: 567-589.

Winters, L.A. (2000) “Trade, Trade Policy and Poverty: what are the links?” Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) Research Paper No. 2382.

Wolf, M. (2001), ‘Will the nation-state survive globalization?’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 80, no. 1: 178-90.

World Bank (2002), Globalization, Growth, and Poverty: Building an Inclusive World Economy, Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press.

Yeates, N. (1999), ‘Social politics and policy in an era of globalization: critical reflections’, Social Policy and Administration, vol. 33, no. 4: 372-93.

Yeates, N. (2002), ‘Globalization and social policy: From global neoliberal hegemony to global political pluralism’, Global Social Policy, vol 2, no. 1: 69-91.

“I am particularly concerned at the plight of human rights defenders working for the rights of marginalized people, i.e. Dalits, Adavasis (tribals), religious minorities and sexual minorities, who face particular risks and ostracism because of their activities,” Margaret Sekaggya said at the end of her fact-finding mission to the country.

The visit by Ms. Sekaggya, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, began on 10 January and included discussions with State officials, a broad segment of civil society and the press, representatives of UN agencies and the diplomatic corps, as well as visits to five states.

She underscored the testimonies she received about human rights defenders and their families, who have been killed, tortured, ill-treated, disappeared, threatened, arbitrarily arrested and detained, falsely charged and under surveillance because of their legitimate work in upholding human rights and fundamental freedoms.

“I am deeply concerned about the branding and stigmatization of human rights defenders, labelled as naxalites (Maoists), terrorists, militants, insurgents or anti-nationalists,” Ms. Sekaggya said.

Defenders, including journalists, who report on violations by State and non-State actors in areas affected by insurgency are being targeted by both sides, she noted.

“I urge the authorities to clearly instruct security forces to respect the work of human rights defenders, conduct prompt and impartial investigations on violations committed against human rights defenders and prosecute perpetrators.”

Among her other recommendations, Ms. Sekaggya said the Government should enact a law on the protection of human rights defenders “in full and meaningful consultation with civil society,” and review the functioning of the National Human Rights Commission with a view to strengthening it.

Noting the “arbitrary application of security laws at the national and state levels,” she urged the Government to repeal the Public Safety Act and the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, and to review the application of other security laws which negatively impact on the situation of human rights defenders.

Ms. Sekaggya, who works in an independent and unpaid capacity, will present her report to the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council at a future session in 2012.

The Security Council, which deploys peacekeeping missions to strife-torn countries, devoted a day-long session today to the equally important task of post-conflict peacebuilding – helping nations on the long road to forging institutions that prevent them from relapsing back into bloodshed.

In a presidential statement, the 15-member body called for “a more effective and coherent” national and international response so that countries emerging from conflict can deliver core government functions such as ensuring security, managing political disputes peacefully, protecting their populations, revitalizing the economy and providing basic services.

“Institution building should start early and be sustained not only for years, but decades,” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said at the start of the session. “Unfortunately, the track record of international support to institution building is mixed. We can do better.

“Institutions can be critical in sustaining peace and reducing the risk of relapse into violence. Building legitimate and effective institutions that respect and promote human rights therefore must be a central element of the overall peacebuilding effort.”

Peacebuilding gained added momentum as part of UN reforms in 2005 when the Council and the General Assembly acted in concert to set up a 31-member Peacebuilding Commission to prevent countries emerging from conflict from falling back into chaos. Some 50 per cent of conflicts in the past two decades have recurred within five years of peace agreements.

The Commission’s first target countries were Burundi and Sierra Leone, two African countries emerging from years of civil war and ethnic violence. Guinea-Bissau, Central African Republic and Liberia are now also on the agenda of the Commission and the related UN Peacebuilding Fund is currently supporting more than 100 projects in 15 countries – the five on the agenda and 10 others certified by Mr. Ban as eligible – by delivering fast financing.

“Peacebuilding is certainly a major challenge for the whole UN system,” the Commission’s Chairman, Ambassador Peter Wittig of Germany, told today’s session, stressing that institution-building goes beyond nurturing organizational structures.

“From power-sharing and rotation, active participation of women in decision-making processes, to fair distribution of wealth and economic opportunities, societies emerging from conflict struggle to rebuild themselves on the basis of ‘new rules of the game,’” he said.

Mr. Ban cited three major lessons that need to be applied to the collective efforts. “First, we need to reinforce national ownership and leadership and build on existing institutions,” he said. “Responsive and inclusive institutions can only be built by national actors, using their knowledge of the context, the institutions that do exist, and the root causes of conflicts.” He called for more nimble and agile systems including stronger partnerships to provide the best capacity.

Secondly, he warned against “one-size-fits-all solutions,” noting that trying to impose outside models can do more harm than good.

He noted that in Guinea-Bissau weak institutions at many levels remain a main cause of political instability and lack of socio-economic development, while Mr. Wittig cited Bosnia and Herzegovina, which emerged from conflict in 1995 and holds the Council’s rotating monthly presidency, as an example where some institutions for rebuilding already existed.

Finally Mr. Ban stressed the long haul needed to achieve true peacebuilding, although in the short-term, early and tangible progress needs to be made in a few priority areas to restore confidence and increase the legitimacy of national institutions, including providing security, increasing access to the justice system, and expanding health and education services.

“International efforts have often failed to recognize that building effective institutions is a long-term effort, even in relatively stable conditions. Some progress can be made in three to five years, but expectations need to be realistic. This, of course, has implications for the Council and the missions it mandates,” he said.

“There is much that we can do to improve our efforts, reduce fragmentation and promote a coherent approach.”

In its presidential statement, the Council acknowledged “the need for continued improvement in the delivery of supporting the immediate aftermath of conflict in order to help stabilize the situation, whilst at the same time starting the longer-term process of institution building, including those institutions that promote democratic processes and foster economic and social development with a view to sustainable peace.”

Nearly 50 Member States were scheduled to speak in today’s debate.

“In a changing world there can be no organizational status quo,” Valerie Amos, who heads the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), told Member States at a meeting at UN Headquarters in New York.

“In 2011, OCHA’s structure, in the field and at headquarters, will be more adaptable to the evolving nature of crises,” she said, noting that 2010 had been an unprecedented year with more than 250 natural disasters.

“By the end of 2011, OCHA will be a more focused organization. It will be better at managing its human resources and there will be greater clarity between the field and headquarters in terms of who does what,” in line with the Office’s theme for 2011 – ¬ Responding in a Changing World.

Established by the General Assembly in 1991 as the Department of Humanitarian Affairs to ensure a more effective and coherent response to emergencies by coordinating the actions of UN agencies and national and international organizations, OCHA has seen its caseload balloon over the past 20 years, culminating in the 2010 record.

From the devastating earthquake in Haiti, which killed 220,000 people and made 1.5 million others homeless, to unprecedented flooding in Pakistan barrelling down from the northern mountains to the flatter and agricultural south to affect over 20 million people, from Cook Islands in the Pacific, battered by tropical storms, to post-flood coordination in Albania, OCHA was on hand and on the ground.

Ms. Amos, who serves as Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, stressed the need to learn the lessons of Haiti and Pakistan where delays, logistics and other issues prevented the initial operations from moving as effectively as desired, and she warned of the mounting complexities confronting humanitarian operations in the future, noting that climate change is playing its part.

“Unpredictable and unprecedented weather patterns across Africa, Central America, and South and East Asia displaced tens of millions of people,” she said. “As the frequency and intensity of natural disasters increase, mega-crises such as the flooding across Pakistan may well become the new normal, making us think again about the speed, scale and effectiveness of our response.

“Humanitarian work has also become more dangerous. The level of threats and the number of deliberate attacks on aid organizations – our people, equipment and facilities – have risen dramatically. Reaching populations in need to deliver essential services has become more difficult,” she added, noting that 63 humanitarian workers were killed in 2010.

“And if negotiating these challenges was not enough, the humanitarian community is also dealing with increasing financial pressure. We are being urged to do more with less not only because of the global economic downturn, but also because countries that give us support must account to their populations for the way they have spent their money.”

Ms. Amos listed an ambitious list of tasks for the coming year: to coordinate responses, mobilize resources through international appeals, manage quick-response funds, act as a voice for victims, negotiate access to those in need, and provide critical information and analysis as crises unfold.

And she listed, too, the global challenges where OCHA will continue to improve its understanding: climate change, food and energy price increases, population growth and urbanization.

OCHA, with over 350 aid agencies participating in joint planning exercises, is funded by 39 Member States and Ms. Amos asked for $208 million in voluntary contributions for 2011.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today unveiled a new panel on global sustainability that is tasked with finding ways to lift people out of poverty while tackling climate change and ensuring that economic development is environmentally friendly.

“I have asked the Panel to think big,” the Secretary-General told reporters in New York today. “The time for narrow agendas and narrow thinking is over.”

To be co-chaired by Finland’s President Tarja Halonen and South African President Jacob Zuma, the 21-member High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability brings together representatives from government, the private sector and civil society in countries rich and poor.

It is essential, Mr. Ban said, to promote low-carbon growth and enhance resilience to climate change’s impacts, as well as to tackle the intertwined challenges posed by poverty, hunger, water and energy security.

“In short, we need a new blueprint for a more livable, prosperous and sustainable future for all,” he stressed.

The Secretary-General said that he expects the new Panel to come up with practical solutions to address the institutional and financial arrangements necessary to put a new scheme into practice.

The new body is expected to deliver its final report by the end of next year, ahead of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development scheduled for 2012, as well as annual conferences of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The Panel also comprises Gro Harlem Brundtland, Han Seung-soo, Yukio Hatoyama, Luisa Dias Diogo and Kevin Rudd, former prime ministers of Norway, the Republic of Korea, Japan, Mozambique and Australia, respectively, as well as Barbadian Prime Minister David Thompson, United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdallah Bin Zayid Al Nahayan, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Ali Babacan, and Switzerland’s Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey.

They will be joined by Alexander Bedritsky, Aide to the Russian President on climate change; Hajiya Amina Az-Zubair, Adviser for the Nigerian President on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); Zheng Guogang, Director of the China Meteorological Administration; Lawrence Balsillie, Chair of the board of the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI); and Susan E. Rice, the United States’ Permanent Representative to the UN.

The Panel will be rounded out by current and former environment ministers – Jairam Ramesh of India, Julia Carabias of Mexico and Cristina Narbona Ruiz of Spain – as well as Connie Hedegaard, the European Union’s Commissioner for Climate Change

]]> http://dewoflittlethings.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/ban-announces-high-level-panel-to-tackle-global-sustainability-issues/feed/ 0 gdevera Ban_Ki-Moon_650 http://dewoflittlethings.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/experts-including-the-special-rapporteur-on-the-human-rights-of-migrants-condemn-arizonas-new-immigration-law/ http://dewoflittlethings.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/experts-including-the-special-rapporteur-on-the-human-rights-of-migrants-condemn-arizonas-new-immigration-law/#comments Tue, 11 May 2010 22:53:40 +0000 Giancarlo de Vera http://dewoflittlethings.wordpress.com/?p=368 Continue reading →]]>

A group of independent United Nations experts today expressed their serious concern over a new immigration law enacted in the state of Arizona, questioning whether the legislation is compatible with international human rights treaties which the United States has signed on to.

“A disturbing pattern of legislative activity hostile to ethnic minorities and immigrants has been established with the adoption of an immigration law that may allow for police action targeting individuals on the basis of their perceived ethnic origin,” the experts warned.

The new law requires that state law enforcement officers determine the immigration status of people based solely on a “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the US illegally, and arrest people without a warrant if officers have “probable cause” to believe they are illegal aliens.

“The law may lead to detaining and subjecting to interrogation persons primarily on the basis of their perceived ethnic characteristics,” the UN experts stressed, with those who appear to be of Mexican, Latin American or indigenous origin at heightened risk of being targeted.

In a press release issued in Geneva, the experts called into question the “vague standards and sweeping language” of the Arizona legislation, “which raise doubts about the law’s compatibility with relevant international human rights treaties to which the United States is a party.”

The law specifically targets day labourers, criminalizing both undocumented migrants’ efforts to solicit work and people’s attempts to hire them.

Under the law, being in the country illegally is punishable by up to six months in jail.

The UN experts today pointed out that countries must respect and ensure the human rights of all people under their jurisdiction without discrimination.

“Additionally,” they emphasized, “relevant international standards require that detention be used only as an exceptional measure, justified, narrowly tailored and proportional in each individual case, and that it be subject to judicial review.”

Around the same time the law was adopted, legislation was passed prohibiting Arizona school programmes “designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group” or that “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”

The state’s school superintendent, who promoted this legislation, has repeatedly said that the law is targeted at cutting out current ethnic studies programmes featuring the history, social dynamics and cultural patterns of Mexican-Americans.

“Such law and attitude are at odds with the State’s responsibility to respect the right of everyone to have access to his or her own cultural and linguistic heritage and to participate in cultural life,” the UN experts underlined. “Everyone has the right to seek and develop cultural knowledge and to know and understand his or her own culture and that of others through education and information.”

While recognizing that States have the prerogative to control immigration and take steps to protect their borders, “these actions must be taken in accordance with fundamental principles of non-discrimination and human treatment,” they said.

Further, the experts emphasized, “States are obligated to not only eradicate racial discrimination, but also to promote a social and political environment conducive to respect for ethnic and cultural diversity.”

The experts signing onto today’s press release are: Jorge Bustamante, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants; Githu Muigai, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; James Anaya, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people; Farida Shaheed, Independent Expert in the field of cultural rights; Vernor Muñoz, Special Rapporteur on the right to education; and Gay McDougall, Independent Expert on minority issues.

Information and communication technologies, such as high-speed internet, can help drive social and economic development and accelerate progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the head of the United Nations telecommunications agency said today.

“The truly transformational power of broadband networks can help us get the MDGs back on track,” Hamadoun Touré, Secretary-General of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), told the opening of the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) Forum.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had said that the progress on the MDGs, the set of universally accepted anti-poverty measures to be reached by 2015, has been too slow.

“Broadband is particularly important because it delivers benefits right across every sector of society. That’s why broadband needs to reach all people, in all nations,” Mr. Touré added.

The WSIS Forum – organized by ITU, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the UN Development Programme (UNDP) – brings together representatives of UN agencies, governments, civil society and the technology industry.

This year’s gathering, which will conclude on Friday, focuses on future broadband applications, social networking, cyber security and disaster management. In addition, topics are expected to touch on rural development, multilingualism, environmental sustainability, education, healthcare and innovation.

In a related development, ITU and UNESCO announced today the creation of a top-level global Broadband Commission for Digital Development focused on accelerating the rollout of broadband and accelerating progress towards the MDGs.

The new Commission is comprised of 30 technology leaders, and representatives of UN agencies and civil society. It is co-chaired by Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda, and Carlos Slim Helu, Mexican businessman and one of richest men in the world, with Mr. Touré and Irina Bokova, UNESCO Director-General, serving as vice-chairs.

Mr. Ban will receive the Commission’s findings at the MDG Summit which will be held in September in New York, coinciding with the opening of the high-level debate of the General Assembly.

]]> http://dewoflittlethings.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/broadband-internet-can-spur-anti-poverty-efforts-says-international-telecommunications-union/feed/ 0 gdevera 2269199656 http://dewoflittlethings.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/un-officials-visit-to-tanzania-focuses-on-mdgs-and-conservation/ http://dewoflittlethings.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/un-officials-visit-to-tanzania-focuses-on-mdgs-and-conservation/#comments Tue, 11 May 2010 01:02:35 +0000 Giancarlo de Vera http://dewoflittlethings.wordpress.com/?p=360 Continue reading →]]>

The head of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) today met with Tanzania’s finance minister to discuss the country’s progress towards achieving the social development and poverty alleviation targets known as Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Discussions between UNDP Administrator Helen Clark and Mustafa Mkulo focused particularly on efforts to halt the spread of HIV/AIDS, empowering women, and enrolling more children in primary school.

They also touched on the “Delivering as One” initiative – a programme under which countries work closely with UN entities to facilitate development – which they said had made a significant contribution to Tanzania’s anti-poverty strategy.

On Sunday, Miss Clark visited Tanzania’s semi-autonomous island of Zanzibar, where she had a meeting with President Amani Abeid Karume. She also visited the Jozani-Chwaka Bay Conservation Area, the single most important site for the conservation of Zanzibar’s biodiversity. UNDP supported the creation of the park and helped the Government put in place policies and legislative processes that made conservation possible.

The conservation zone consists of a protected core area of 34 square kilometres and a buffer zone of 48 square kilometres. It is a shallow open bay that supports the largest block of mangrove forest on Zanzibar and a wintering population of crab plovers, a bird species unique in making use of ground warmth to incubate its eggs.

It is also home to other unique species of birds, plants, invertebrates and mammals, including the red colobus monkey and the Ader’s Duiker antelope, as well as the Zanzibar leopard, which may have disappeared as it has not been seen for two years.

The area is a growing tourist attraction. The Jozani forest welcomes 20,000 visitors per year, more than 17 per cent of the total foreign tourists who visit Zanzibar. UNDP supported the local authorities in creating the national park, which protects the Jozani forest.

On arrival in Tanzania for the four-day visit on Saturday, Miss Clark had a meeting with Tanzania’s foreign minister Bernard Membe, during which they discussed UNDP’s support of the electoral process, including help on voter registration and civic education in the run-up to national elections in October.

On Tuesday, Miss Clark will visit the National Electoral Commission and meet recently-registered voters who will vote for the first time this year.

Miss Clark’s mission to four Africa countries has already taken her to Mali and Burkina Faso, and will also include a visit to South Africa.

]]> http://dewoflittlethings.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/un-officials-visit-to-tanzania-focuses-on-mdgs-and-conservation/feed/ 0 gdevera http://dewoflittlethings.wordpress.com/2010/05/08/no-woman-should-have-to-pay-with-their-lives-to-be-a-mother-says-ban-happy-mothers-day/ http://dewoflittlethings.wordpress.com/2010/05/08/no-woman-should-have-to-pay-with-their-lives-to-be-a-mother-says-ban-happy-mothers-day/#comments Sat, 08 May 2010 02:03:32 +0000 Giancarlo de Vera http://dewoflittlethings.wordpress.com/?p=357 Continue reading →]]>

Hundreds of thousands of women, nearly all of them in developing countries, die in childbirth every year, but this does not have to be the case, says Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, calling for global support for United Nations efforts to make motherhood safe for all.

“No woman should have to pay with her life for giving life,” he writes in an opinion piece published in the Turkish daily Today’s Zaman and several other media outlets, ahead of Mother’s Day, which will be celebrated in many countries this weekend.

Mr. Ban notes that saving mothers’ lives involves simple blood tests, a doctor’s consultation and someone qualified to help with the birth. The risk of death can almost be eliminated with the addition of some basic antibiotics, blood transfusions and a safe operating room.

While recent figures show that progress is being made in helping women around the world, there is still much more work to be done, he says. Of particular note is the fact that of the hundreds of thousands of women that die in childbirth every year, 99 per cent of them are in developing countries.

“On my travels around the world, particularly to its poorest and most troubled places, I have learned that it is mothers who keep families together – indeed, who keep entire societies intact. Mothers are society’s weavers. They make the world go round,” states Mr. Ban. “Yet too often, the world is letting mothers down.”

He points out that in the rich world, when a mother dies giving birth it is assumed that something went wrong, while in the developing world, dying in childbirth is simply a fact of life.

In some countries, one woman in eight will die giving birth, he states. Complications from pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of death among girls aged 15 to 19 worldwide.

The Secretary-General notes that in poor countries, pregnant women often must fend for themselves, with no healthcare and nowhere to turn. They give birth at home, perhaps with the help of a midwife who most likely has no medical training.

Last month, the UN launched a joint action plan with governments, businesses, foundations and civil society organizations to advance safe motherhood worldwide. Reducing maternal mortality by three quarters is among the ambitious targets world leaders have pledged to achieve by 2015, known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Mr. Ban, who himself was born not in a hospital but at home in a small village in his native Republic of Korea, urges that everything be done to make motherhood safer for all and to end this “silent scandal.”