PHA-Exchange> Bangkok Charter 5 - Action Needed!

[claudio at hcmc.netnam.vn]

----- Forwarded message from Ronald Labonte <rlabonte at uottawa.ca> -----
  
  

I'm a little less incensed about the Bangkok Charter than others might be.
Perhaps that's because I have grown cynical of such Charters and do not
believe they accomplish much. Human rights covenants could offer much more,
and even there they require mobilization and civil society agitation to be
useful tools for social change.  So I would first question whether
word-smithing the Bangkok Charter is an important political activity.

I'm also not sanguine about actually changing the tone of the document very
much at this late time, which factors into my comments above.

However, that does not preclude the PHM from going on record with a
statement about what the Charter should actually contain.  

For me, the issue is less about whether or not globalization is good/bad or
should be made healthier/unhealthier.  Treating the concept neutrally is not
a bad strategy if one then wants to critique certain elements of it more
harshly.

So, for the critique:

Under the section, 'Health promotion in a globalizing world' I would add
something like:  'This commitment is evidenced in human rights treaties and
covenants, multilateral environmental agreements and specific health
agreements such as the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.'  I'm not
sure of how to word what would follow, but it would need to emphasize the
importance of governments to honour these commitments.  

Under the section, 'Make globalization health friendly,' I think specific
reference to the right to health (Article 12, ICESCR) would be useful, and
something that re-committed governments to this right (and to such related
rights as the right to food, to water, etc.) and the fact that such rights
are superordinate to all other multilateral agreements, including trade
agreements.  Best to draft this with a human rights expert?  We might also
want to support Paul Hunt's call for creation of a 'right to health impact
assessment methodology' for trade agreements.  This section is also where a
strong statement on the need to affirm the rights of indigenous peoples to
food security, land, traditional knowledge, etc. could be made.  (Current
language on 'cultural diversity' seems a bit weak.)

Other well-known policy options for making globalization health friendlier
include:

Reform of trade agreements to discriminate positively in favour of economic
development of low- and middle-income countries (the principle of
non-reciprocity eliminated by the WTO but not regaining some policy favour).

Removal of economic conditionalities from development assistance or
loans/grants from the international financial institutions and other
development banks.

Reform financial markets and international taxation systems to ensure
equitable cost-sharing of public programs and infrastructures amongst all
citizens and corporations.


I'm sure there are many others...

Remove from the next two sections any reference to public-private
partnerships.  If there is to be any reference, it should be to developing
legal frameworks to regulate them, not to promote them!  

Under the 'core responsibility of all governments' section, there should be
some reference to the need to support labour rights, nationally and
globally, by ensuring that ILO conventions are ratified and honoured.  It's
amazing that corporations are discussed throughout, but not labour!

Under the 'good corporate practices section,' also delete reference to
collaboration with the public health care providers.  This collaboration is
a matter of public policy, not private sector initiative!  This is a good
place, too, to reiterate the need for corporations to support reforms to
create more equitable international (as well as national) taxation systems,
and to support binding rules on multinational corporate practices to ensure
a 'level playing field' for all in the increasingly integrated global
market.

That's about all the time I have for a preliminary comment.  I'd be
interested to hear from others whether they think this is an important
intervention point.  I'd also be willing to review a statement that (perhaps
Kumanan? Or some other?) might be willing/able to prepare for a quick PHA
e-mail review, that could be sent to WHO prior to the July 14 deadline.

Ronald Labonte
Canada Research Chair, Globalization/Health Equity
Institute of Population Health


------------------------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through Netnam-HCMC ISP: http://www.hcmc.netnam.vn/