http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/951/op11.htm
11 - 17 May 2009 Issue No. 951 Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 A real solution to the crisis The only way of helping the millions suffering the consequences of the global financial crisis is to jettison the economic model, with its engine of inequality, championed by those running the capitalist system, writes Curtis Doebbler* -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Gates and Warren Buffet think they have the solution to the global financial crisis. At least one would think so listening to these American investors talk up their investments around the world. Barack Obama, although a bit more modest, also seems to have a solution. He is sure he does, at least that is what his vice-president tells us, although it is not exactly clear what this solution is. Outside the US, the likes of Silvio Berlusconi, Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy have solutions to the global financial malaise too. All of these influential people and their entourages of economic advisors tell us they know the answer to the world's economic woes, or at least that they will find it. We must trust in them, they tell us. We must continue to follow their liberal laissez faire capitalist economic solutions or, they threaten us, we will suffer even greater economic pain. They all base their claims on the mantra of individual achievement, greed, and the belief that if each of us does what is best for ourselves, everybody will benefit. According to their creed, the large financial institutions that promote economic growth are the other answer. Paying trillions of dollars to bail out the billionaires that own and operate these institutions, and the million dollar minions who they use to maintain their institutions, is part of the answer. For all the so-called economic crisis trouble-shooters mentioned above, the free market system is the solution. A second thing in common among them is that we have been following their advice for many years and it has never worked for the majority of the people in the world. Yes, some elites have become very rich, but we have not found a way to provide every one of the estimated 6.3 billion people on earth a minimum existence. Instead we have almost half the planet living on less than two euros a day. In Europe or North America an annual salary of 730 euros or around $1,000 would be considered derogatory and insulting. Yet we expect half the world to accept it so that a few of the other half can live the "good life". All this time few have ever thought of asking the other half what the solution might be, or of seeking a solution that makes life liveable for everyone. Even as the global financial crisis continues to squeeze the last drop of blood out of the most vulnerable people in the world, the above elites, usually alone, sometimes with a few others, sometimes even in the G20, have been running around securing their interests and those of their peers and friends. It is only recently that anyone suggested including everyone, at least all sovereign states in the international community that are members of the United Nations. Early this year, the president of the UN General Assembly, the highest-ranking official of the world body, announced that the UN was holding an economic summit 24-26 June 2009 and every state was invited. In doing so he drew attention to the fact that the world economy and the welfare of all the world's people was a concern of all the world's people. Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann, showing the traits that made him one of the most well-known and well-respected reconciliation thinkers of our time, called for everyone to come together to think about how we can jointly solve the global financial crisis. The welfare of all people was too important, he said, to be left to just a few leaders, even to the G20 or the World Bank. Indeed, he could have pointed out that these are the people and institutions that got us into this problem in the first place. Instead, he extended an olive branch to those responsible and invitations to those who have been warning that this was the inevitable outcome of a market- driven economic model. D'Escoto Brockmann even enlisted the services of the Nobel Prize winning free market champion and former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz to chair the advisory committee preparing for the summit. He solicited the advice and comments of anyone who wished to provide them and had access to the Internet. And realising that this might not be enough to include many of the poorest in the world, D'Escoto Brockmann travelled around the world and asked others to do so to get the opinions of anyone who wanted to give them on what should be done about the global financial crisis. Perhaps it is not surprising that a meeting is called for world leaders at the New York headquarters of the UN to discuss solutions to the global financial crisis. What is surprising is that many leaders, especially those of the richest countries, have either declined or not yet accepted D'Escoto Brockmann's invitation. While some have excuses, like imminent elections, most are hesitating under pressure from the world's richest countries. These countries don't want an inclusive summit. They don't even want an inclusive solution. They would rather continue with business as usual, which means never questioning the relation of causation between the wealth of the rich, whom they represent and protect, and the billions of poor who labour for nothing. Not only is this immoral, it is also impractical. More than 30 years ago the world agreed in several overwhelmingly adopted UN General Assembly resolutions that another economic order is possible. These same governments went on to repeatedly reiterate the possibility by reiterating the human rights of every single person to adequate healthcare, to education, to social security, to an adequate standard of living and to work under appropriate conditions. In more recent years, mechanisms have been established to allow individuals to claim these rights against their own states. Although we still lack an effective mechanism that can enforce the duty of all states to cooperate with each other to ensure development, that duty remains enshrined in articles 55 and 56 of the Charter of the United Nations. So why are states so scared -- or unwilling -- to apply these principles to their dealing with the global financial crisis? If one is to believe what European diplomats are saying it is because the people calling for the application of such principles are not polite enough or do not follow established protocol. An example is the aggressive defence of the rights of most vulnerable inherent in the inclusive initiative launched by the UN General Assembly President Father Miguel. By calling upon states to reject what Yale philosopher Thomas Pogge calls the "popular assumption" that "955 million citizens of the affluent countries are morally entitled to their 81 per cent of the global product in the face of three times as many people mired in severe poverty," Father Miguel has set alarms ringing among UN member states and their representatives in New York. The Europeans and Americans claim that the UN General Assembly should have left issues of the global economy to world financial institutions. They claim that despite the fact that they are the same states that make up the world financial institutions, and despite the fact that the UN General Assembly's mandate clearly extends to the consideration of any issues, especially those affecting human rights, it is not "polite" for them to consider the world's economic woes. To the Europeans it is a question of process, not a problem of poverty and human rights. Hesitation to respond to the call of Father Miguel may in part be a consequence of intimidation by powerful states, but it is also a result of the failure of victimised states to stand up for themselves. Ambassadors in New York often do not sufficiently convey the gravity of situations to their capitals, preferring to act locally in a manner that keeps their American hosts happy. Consequently heads of state do not feel compelled to prioritise assisting their own people by supporting structural change to the system that allowed the financial crisis to happen. They also appear worried -- like those they place in New York -- that they might lose their privileges. In the end, the failure of anyone to speak out forcefully confines debate to the halls, lounges and backrooms of the United Nations' crumbling East Side building. The benefit of such discussion almost never trickles down to the people most in need. To his credit, the president of the General Assembly has battled on, not merely taking the lackadaisical attitude of New York diplomats as the final word on their government's intentions and commitment, but visiting heads of state in their capital cities. He still hopes that by drawing states into debate leaders will have the courage to do the right thing and demand the equitable economic order the UN agreed on decades ago. Whether the president of the General Assembly succeeds will be decided by how many heads of state have the courage of their convictions to attend the summit and stand up for their peoples' human right to live free from poverty. In Africa the focus will be particularly on the Egyptian, Algerian, Libyan, Nigerian, Senegalese and South African heads of state. While these leaders and their people have frequently lamented the discriminatory and exploitative manner in which they are treated by the rich and powerful, the economic summit is a test of their courage to bring such concerns to international forums where not only their people are listening, but also those who will have to act to reverse centuries of ingrained inequality. Whether or not they are up to the challenge of leading their people in this struggle will be tested at the UN in New York at the end of June. * The writer is an international human rights lawyer and professor of law at An-Najah National University in Nablus, Palestine
