PHA-Exch> Food for a skeptic’s thought

[Claudio Schuftan]

Human Rights Reader 175

* *

*THE HUMAN RIGHTS DISCOURSE IS GLOBALIZATION-SKEPTIC AND IFIs*-SKEPTIC.*

(*: International Financial Institutions)



1. In and through the process of Globalization, 'what-people-allegedly-want'
is being manipulated by using the lure of consumerism --and that ends-up
playing against human rights principles. Period.



2. In the thrust to join the Globalization process, the threats to progress
posed by inequity and by the ongoing violation of human rights (HR) are
grossly underestimated and/or ignored. Much of the literature is
'politically sterile' on this.



3. In the human rights discourse, it is indispensable to have:

·        a genuine participatory democracy (preferably with direct democracy
at the grassroots level),

·        a sound, informed and independent judiciary,

·        full respect of all HR covenants, and

·        people's rights considered above free-market objectives and above
business or trade needs.



4. Only these will ensure a minimum level of justice, dignity and thus, in
the end, stability ...and Globalization is simply not conducive to that. In
today's "Davos World" (R. Shrimpton), the demands for liberalization made by
rich countries, and their self-centered trading practices flagrantly
contradict their public pledges to promote HR.



5. In the poor countries, add to this, HR violations brought about by:

·        the slashing of the budget for social services,

·        the growth of the shadow economy,

·        ineffective tax systems,

·        a weak financial administration,

·        international tax competition to attract foreign direct investment,


·        capital flight,

·        the dismantling of import tariffs, and

·        the repatriation of corporate profits (with an utterly ineffective
international taxation system that has a) favored corporate taxes shrinking
the world over and b) left speculative international financial transactions
untaxed*).

*: Conservative free-market proponents tend to act as if having to pay taxes
is an infringement of some-kind-of-human-right. In truth, paying taxes is a
public duty of (even global) citizens who, in turn, are entitled to rights.
In a fair world, state revenues and spending should be part of an implicit
social contract which levies proportionately more taxes on the strong in
order to provide opportunities and access to the weak.  The opposite is
rather true in poor countries.



6. Furthermore, the much-taunted image of a
'Globalization-induced-new-closeness' between nations is only virtual, not
real. In reality, people of rich countries encounter people of poor
countries only during a few precious vacation weeks. Let's face it:
Globalization leaves poor countries essentially to their fate. (Poor
countries want to participate, but the world essentially ignores them …and
freedom without the-power-to-influence and without purchasing-power is
meaningless). Consider this: Even one of the least negative effects of
Globalization --the falling costs of communications-- does not really
promote wealth distribution but, instead, favor its further polarization.



7. In any process of change, there are winners and losers; the fairness of
the system depends on how the losers are handled and on the corresponding
choices that are made. Countries are poor, above all, because their elites
have made the wrong choices …or were conned-into making such wrong choices
(lately, in the name of the 'Shangri-la' of Globalization). The losers are
'you-know-who'…



8. As for the IFIs --in  no small part responsible for the violations
depicted above-- they long-ago announced that HR were not included in their
direct mandates; these institutions thus function on the sidelines of the UN
system that has made it explicit that it has adopted the HR discourse.
(CETIM)



9. Not to be left out, the WB and the IMF are now 'making waves' about HR in
poor countries though.  Yet, for the moment, this should be seen more as a
public relations stunt. This apparent support is thus *not* a
'first-modest-victory' for the respect, protection and fulfillment of HR
worldwide. If this farce is allowed to continue, this behavior of the WB and
the IMF will only stay-on as a non-contributory smokescreen which, more than
anything, hides their responsibilities and thus retards the adoption and
implementation of the HR-based framework. (CETIM)



10. Better sooner than later, these IFIs must be denounced and made to
accept their responsibility for creating and perpetuating HR violations.

Actually, the majority of rich countries who control the IFIs have no desire
to lay-out these facts clearly. The citizens in the poor countries, on the
contrary, have every interest in greater transparency of these giant
institutions on HR (and other…) issues. To confront the IFIs on this,
solidarity among poor countries should and can be based on a clear
understanding of the truth about the IFIs' role on HR violations that occur
in countries they operate-in and support. What is needed, is for these
borrowing countries to come-up with a concerted plan of action to challenge
the WB and the IMF (not forgetting the WTO) on these grounds. (CETIM)



11. Compounding the problem, for the WB, the past two (Wolfowitz) years
(mid-2005 to mid-2007) were lost years, marked by poor management, internal
rock-bottom low morale and strategic disorientation. As for the IMF, this
IFI does not make many headlines anymore. It is facing a true legitimacy
crisis. It is in a 'reform-or-die' cross-road to save itself from impending
irrelevance. The Fund will soon have to go into debt itself. In 2006, it had
a budget shortfall of some U$110 million --that may rise to U$300 million by
2009.



12. A dispassionate analysis shows that the IMF primarily serves two types
of countries, those that do not really need to borrow from it, and those who
cannot pay the interest and/or the debt they took-on, either because
of a liquidity
problem, or due to outright financial insolvency. For this to change, the
IMF's stubborn and un-pragmatic approach has got to change. It cannot
purport to rely on achieving poverty reduction through
private-sector-led-trade-and-growth. It has got to stop acting as if its
ideological rigidity over the last 30 years had proven successful and not
actually increased poverty and disparities.



13. For all the above reasons --and much more-- the democratization of the
IFIs is essential unless they are to be replaced outright by more adequate
institutions. Although they are public, they cater to private interests;
although they deny it, they themselves internally violate the principles of
democracy and good governance that they require poor countries to abide-by;
although they so proclaim, there is no transparency in their operations;
although they pretend to act in the public interest, they fail to emphasize
the public sector and to, above all, engage in preserving and improving
public services …and with them, the prospects of greater respect of HR. In
short, for us HR activists, it is not acceptable that IFIs escape from
democratic control.



14. Is it thus surprising that the human rights discourse is
globalization-skeptic and* *IFIs-skeptic?



Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City

cschuftan at phmovement.org  NEW ADDRESS

[All Readers can be found in www.humaninfo.org/aviva under No.69]

Adapted from F+D, IMF, Vol.43, No.3, September 2006; D+C, Vol.33, Nos.8/9,
August/September, 2006;

D+C, Vol.34, No.2, February 2007, and CETIM, Geneva, assorted writings.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20071107/e4a91bed/attachment-0001.html>