|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:33:46 -0400, "Geno4321" <...@fuse.net
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*
Illustration by Ossama Qassim
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.
|