PHM-Exch> Health and Human Rights J. - Issue on Participation - piece by A. Grover Special UN rapporteur on RTH (2)

[Claudio Schuftan]

Pls read this posting from the bottom up to follow the comments on the
original posting.
Claudio
Aug 29:
Your point again well taken, Alison. Let us see what our fellow
phm-exchangers think.
Claudio
 Aug 29, 2009 <katz.alison at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Yes, but everything depends on that phrase “if countries can genuinely
> not do so”. They cannot do so *because of the international architecture
> of the international community. *Unless that absurdity is pointed out, the
> HR discourse is inevitably seen as hypocritical and self serving and that is
> a pity.
>
> It is like taking (an enormous amount) with one hand and giving back crumbs
> of so called international solidarity with the other hand.
>
> As you know I promote a social and economic justice and human rights-based
> approach, but I understand why many social justice militants distrust the HR
> establishment discourse.  I think that we in PHM must be very clear that we
> distinguish ourselves from that. It is no different from the quote from the
> liberation theologian “When I help the poor they call me a saint but when I
> ask why they are poor they call me a communist” [and assassinate me (he was
> assassinated, I think)].
>
>  If the H+HR journal under new editorss does not get this right, then we
> are very far from any kind of meaningful social justice thinking.
>
>  Claudio Schuftan wrote 28 August 2009
>
> I see your point, Alison, but in HR parlance that is what is said: That the
> intl community must step-in to help uphold RTH if countries can genuinely
> not do so... It may be wrong, but not really A. Grover's fault.
> On 8/28/09, *Alison Katz* wrote:
>
> If you look at the para from A. Grover that is cited, it is STILL saying
> that if the poor countries can’t afford it, then the international community
> must step in. How is it possible to still not grasp that the eventual
> objective has to be precisely that international inequalities be tackled.
> No, we  emphatically do not want some “international community” (IFIs,
> development “assistance”) financing the right to health. How can the
> H+HR journal under new editors (less limited than the previous ones) still
> not be insisting that the right to health in incompatible with development
> “aid”? Is the Grover piece seriously offering the Global fund as a good
> example of how the right to health should be delivered?
>
> *From:* phm-exchange at phm.phmovement.org  26 August 2009 15:06
> *Table of Contents, Vol 11, No 1 (2009), Health and Human Rights J. *Website:
> http://hhrjournal.org/index.php/hhr
>
> *The power of community in advancing the right to health*
> A conversation with Anand Grover:
>
> **
>
> “…..The community is the most effective tool that we have: an organic tool,
> not a tool in the abstract or purely instrumental sense, but a living,
> organic tool which can see to it that the right to health is actually
> delivered. You just have to compare the efficiencies of the Global Fund, in
> terms of actual delivery, to the traditional systems of financing, and you
> see a vast difference. This suggests how we have to shift the paradigm
> across the sectors, not only in HIV. And HIV activists are very clear that
> health systems must respond to the needs of all people who suffer
> disadvantage in health — whether it’s because of poverty, as Paul Farmer has
> discussed, or because of other forms of discrimination and marginalization,
> for example the discrimination that affects indigenous peoples or other
> ethnic minorities. Now we must deliver, and those communities must be part
> of the process of decision-making, implementation, monitoring, and
> accountability. That’s what HIV has shown as a living reality, and that’s
> what we want to translate into other areas of health. ..”
>
> ‘…HHR: Why might the mandate of the Special Rapporteur be especially
> important right now?
>
> AG: The economic crisis shows the importance of systematic action to
> protect rights, including the right to health, especially for poor and
> marginalized groups. In the 1990s, we had economic liberalization, which
> usually meant only privatization. The poor were pushed into deeper poverty,
> while the rich became richer. In this context, it’s all the more important
> to insist that the right to health is universal. But this isn’t just a
> philosophical principle. It’s about budgeting. As I said, we can’t ignore
> budgeting anymore. And budgeting doesn’t mean that governments in low-income
> countries must pay for everything from their own resources. The right to the
> highest attainable standard of health, and the responsibility to protect the
> right, have to be seen in international terms. This means you look at
> international systems of financing. If a country’s resources aren’t
> adequate, then money has to come from abroad, also. That financing
> commitment has to be part of the international rights agenda….”
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20090829/da79fbac/attachment-0001.html>