PHA-Exchange> Re: Bangkok Charter - Action Needed!

[Ronald Labonte]

Hello all.  David forwarded this exchange to me.  

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.

Cheers.


_____________
 
Ronald Labonte
Canada Research Chair, Globalization/Health Equity
Institute of Population Health
Professor, Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine,
Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa
Address:
Institute of Population Health
1 Stewart Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1N 6N5
ph:  (613) 562-5800 ext.2288
fax:  (613) 562-5659
cell: (613) 796-1668
e-mail:  rlabonte at uottawa.ca
web:  www.iph.uottawa.ca
 
-----Original Message-----
From: David Werner [mailto:healthwrights at igc.org] 
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 12:45 PM
To: pha-exchange at lists.kabissa.org; Kumanan Rasanathan
Cc: Claudio; Mira Shiva; Jason Weston; Jim Hunter; sandersdav at yahoo.com.au
Subject: RE: PHA-Exchange> Bangkok Charter - Action Needed!

from David Werner

Ref the Bangkok Charter:
http://www.who.int/healthpromotion/conferences/6gchp/hpr_050624_bangkok_char
ter_hp.pdf

Dear friends in the PHA forum,

I agree very much with the view of Nandri, Kumanan, and the New Zealand
group that this new Bangkok Charter has glaring and in some ways dangerous
weaknesses. Not only does it take a "neutral" view on globalization, but it
takes an uncritical view of private-public partnerships, many of which
advance corporate interests at the expense of people's health. Worst of all,
the new charter takes the corporate line that the interests of the powerful
corporations are basically (or at least potentially) pro-people, and that
their commitment to equity, public health, and sustainable environment
should be voluntary rather than through strong regulation and democratic
process. In essence, it lets the crook off the hook! The Bangkok charter is
typical of corporate and World Bank double-speak: all the progressive
rhetoric with faulty analysis and unworkable solutions.

Such deadly proposals need to be exposed and strongly opposed (not just
amended). I think this should be a concern for PHA2.

Best wishes,

David Werner

-----Original Message-----
From: pha-exchange-bounces at lists.kabissa.org
[mailto:pha-exchange-bounces at lists.kabissa.org]On Behalf Of Kumanan
Rasanathan
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 7:21 PM
To: pha-exchange at lists.kabissa.org
Cc: alisonb at hpforum.org.nz
Subject: PHA-Exchange> Bangkok Charter - Action Needed!


Vannakkam and Kia Ora Koutou

Please find enclosed the latest draft of the Bangkok Charter from the
WHO website. As you may be aware, the Bangkok Charter is to be launched
at the Bangkok conference on health promotion in August, as a
significant update of the Ottawa Charter. The Bangkok Charter is an
attempt to address the significant global developments that have
occurred in the last twenty years. Significant work has been undertaken
to produce a document with the aim of meaningfully influencing the
practice of health promotion to engage with these issues to improve
health. As such, the rationale behind this document should be supported
by all those who advocate "health for all".

However, many of us in New Zealand are concerned about the latest draft
of the document. In particular we are concerned about its neutral
treatment of globalisation (as shown by the proposed commitment to
ensure that "globalisation becomes more health friendly"!), its lack of
consideration of indigenous health, and its failure to clearly endorse
the MDGs and recent international human rights and environmental
treaties. We are concerned that this document will thus be cynically
used as a roll-back position, which is possible given the international
endorsement it will receive. Comparing the draft Charter to the
People's Health Charter, there are obvious problems. Furthermore, the
latest draft is more tepid than previous versions, removing references
to the need for equity and the consideration of the impact of war on
health.

We have not seen anything on the PHM list about this document. We
believe that the PHM could make a material difference to improve this
document. The consultation process for the document has been unclear up
to now, but essentially it is being driven by WHO. WHO is now seeking
comment by the 14th of July at:

http://www.who.int/healthpromotion/conferences/6gchp/bangkok_charter_comment
s/en/


We understand that the PHM is fully occupied at the moment preparing
for the PHA-2. However, the Ottawa Charter is widely used in New
Zealand and elsewhere, and we believe that a well framed Bangkok
Charter could be a valuable tool in the fight for "health for all".
Moreover, as currently framed, we are concerned it could have a
negative effect. As such, we would appreciate your suggestions on how
the PHM can advocate to improve this document. One of us (Kumanan) will
be at the IPHU and PHA-2 in Cuenca, and it would great if we could make
time there to discuss this. However, it may be important to submit
something by the deadline of July 14. We are hoping that among the PHM
ranks, some of you may have a better idea about the best way to proceed
with this.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Nandri

Kumanan Rasanathan and Alison Blaiklock