<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><a href="http://cetim.ch/en/documents/report_11.pdf" target="_blank">THE
FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY AND HUMAN RIGHTS</a></span></strong></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><em><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#990000">CETIM, <span style> </span>n°11 - June 2012 -
PDF</span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><a href="http://cetim.ch/en/documents/report_11.pdf">http://cetim.ch/en/documents/report_11.pdf</a>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4">One must face the facts: as conceived and pursued now,
poverty reduction policies cannot succeed; this in spite of the
well-intentioned efforts of thousands of social workers and volunteers.</font></p><font size="4">
</font><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"> </font></p><font size="4">
</font><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4">How can one claim to fight poverty if, at the same time, one
is carrying out policies that create poverty? By privatizing public services
and charging those who use them, by laying off workers and reducing
unemployment compensation, by maintaining social assistance below the poverty
level, by privatizing pensions... one can only increase the number of poor. By
the same token, in the Third World, by selling huge tracts of land and chasing
small-holders from their lands, by leaving the way open to huge transnational
corporations that are not obliged to respect any social, environmental, fiscal,
human rights policies, by underpaying the workers, one can only make poverty
permanent.</font></p><font size="4">
</font><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4">But, perhaps, the purpose of these strategies is it not to
eliminate poverty? Perhaps, one might be satisfied just to avoid conflicts, to
maintain a certain social cohesion and to help the poor to better formulate
their social demands? In that case, the poor are certainly helped and will be
better able to evaluate their situation themselves and to present their demands;
as for their poverty, it will not be diminished for all that.</font></p><font size="4">
</font><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"> </font></p><font size="4">
</font><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4">The only real solution to poverty is to end the process of
impoverishment.</font></p><font size="4">
</font><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4">That means setting up an economic and social system subject
to democratic control, which will correct the inequalities and rectify the
injustices, an economic system respectful of decent work standards, of the
environment, and of human rights. That will also mean creating a system of
social protection and public services. (1)</font></p><font size="4">
</font><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"><span> </span></font></p><font size="4">
</font><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4">The “pursuit of growth” is a dead-end.</font></p><font size="4">
</font><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"> </font></p><font size="4">
</font><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4">That means above all that poverty must be viewed not as a
problem of the poor but as a problem of society overall. If one wants to fight
effectively against poverty, the crying inequalities of our society must be
fought. In 1992, the 20% richest persons in the world had 82.7% of the overall
income. Today, 1% of them controls 50% of the world's wealth. In 20 years,
there has been a concentration of wealth (and power) in the hands of a tiny
minority. It is one more proof – if any more were needed – that poverty cannot
be eliminated without an equitable sharing of wealth, without a fair tax
system,</font></p><font size="4">
</font><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4">without income redistribution. </font></p><font size="4">
</font><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"> </font></p><font size="4">
</font><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4">The fight against poverty and against inequality is not
possible through</font></p><font size="4">
</font><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4">charity. <span> </span>It will
never succeed without radical changes: it is the current system that produces
ever greater inequality. (2)</font></p><font size="4">
</font><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"> </font></p><font size="4">
</font><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"><a name="25"></a>Poverty is a denial of human rights (civil,
political, economic, social and cultural), as the United Nations human rights
bodies affirm. Treating the question of poverty from the perspective of human rights
makes it possible to take the fight against poverty out of the realm of charity
where it is presently situated. Moreover, poverty cannot disappear without the
respect of all human rights, which implies the elimination of all
discrimination, the right to an adequate standard of living allowing for health,
education, housing, etc. These last elements are listed in the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Political Rights, and governments are under
obligation to respect them, to see that they are respected by others (financial
and international trade institutions as well as transnational corporations, for
example) and to implement them, at both the national and the international
level.</font></p><font size="4">
</font><p class="MsoNormal">_________________</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">(1) Today, faced with the
failure of the various anti-poverty programs, the United Nations is beginning
to talk once again about universal social protection and even about a
transformative social protection. The ILO, for its part, adopted in June 2012 a
recommendation on “a social protection floor” related to its campaign for
universal social security coverage. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">(2)The rich love philanthropy
and spend ever more on it. The 50 biggest donors in the United States
spent some US$ 10.4 billion last year. The great foundations such as Bill and
Melinda Gates, Bono, Rockefeller and Ford, give away more than many national
governments. Philanthropy concerns only a tiny part of their income and puts
them under no obligations. They can give what – and to whomever – they want,
and there is no control over their priorities nor over their choices. On the
other hand, the powerful of the world (whether legal or physical persons) have
recourse to all sorts of maneuvers to avoid paying taxes, to avoid observing
regulations protective of safety in the work place, of the</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">environment and of human
rights.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>