Copenhagen, Geneva and Beyond The General Assembly of the United Nations held a Special Session in Geneva at the end of June to discuss implementation of the commitments made at the 1995 World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen. It concluded that very few areas had seen major progress and in some key respects the situation had deteriorated.     After lengthy negotiations during the last year, mainly at preparatory meetings at UN headquarters in New York, the General Assembly agreed in Geneva on a 30-page document comprising ‘further actions and initiatives’ to implement the commitments.     The review process helped to maintain the profile of some important commitments made at the Copenhagen Summit or other international meetings, and to increase the pressure for their implementation. Moreover, the Geneva document gives greater attention to some issues than they received in the Copenhagen agreements. However, many sections of the document are so weak or vague as to be of little practical significance. Modest progress     One area that received closer consideration in Geneva was the operation of the financial markets. The final agreement recognises the need for further action to reduce damage caused by financial turbulence, including: stronger coordination between countries at the regional level; consideration of debt standstills; and protection of basic social services such as health and education.     It also acknowledges the need for views of developing countries, and the interests of social development, to be more closely considered in international financial forums.     A vigorous civil society campaign created considerable interest in coordinated introduction of currency transaction taxes (often called Tobin taxes) at the national level. Some governments became better informed about them and, ultimately, the US and Japan were the only major opponents of a proposed UN study into their potential implications. Although the Geneva process did not culminate in specific endorsement of such a study, it will be undertaken as part of a broader study into funding for social development and the debate greatly enhanced the profile and credibility of the tax proposal.     Other aspects of taxation also received more attention than in Copenhagen. The need for closer international cooperation in tax reform was specifically recognised, especially in relation to corporate taxation, tax havens and tax evasion. The development of guidelines for equitable and progressive broadening of the tax base was supported, especially in order to generate sufficient revenue for social services, social protection and other social development programmes.     Attention in Geneva also focussed on the worsening HIV/AIDS crisis, and other major diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis, in many developing countries. The final agreement reflects to some extent the growing demand that pharmaceutical companies should not be allowed to assert patent rights in ways that deny affordable access to medicines that are essential for combating such major diseases. It emphasises especially the need to reduce HIV infection rates among young people and to improve support services for people who become infected.     The Geneva process raised the profile of several work-related issues that are of special significance to vulnerable people in both developed and developing countries. This applies especially to the emphasis on providing basic rights and adequate social protection for workers in the informal sector. There was also further discussion of the need for corporate social responsibility and for reducing public and private sector corruption. The Copenhagen Summit could not agree on target dates for reducing or eradicating extreme poverty. The Geneva agreement, however, adopted the target of halving the proportion of people in extreme poverty by 2015, which was agreed several years ago by the OECD countries. It also gave special emphasis to several key educational targets for achievement by 2015 – achieving universal primary education, removing gender gaps in enrolment and halving adult illiteracy.     It must be acknowledged, however, that in each of these areas the progress made was very modest, consisting principally of agreements on vague principles and exhortations, and on further consideration of options. Attempts to achieve specific commitments to substantial action were almost entirely unsuccessful. Major problems     The Geneva agreement does not sufficiently recognise and emphasise the gravity of current levels of poverty, inequality and other forms of hardship. It also fails to recognise sufficiently that the current pattern of economic globalisation, dominated and manipulated by the wealthiest countries and multinational corporations, is causing severe harm and unfairness, and often discourages genuine and sustainable economic development.     These failures are reflected in the lack of progress made on key issues such as strengthening international cooperation in economic policy-making, standard-setting and mobilisation of resources for social development. The United States, in particular, was able to prevent any significant acknowledgment of the central role in international economic policy-making that the UN Charter mandates for the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). The developing countries failed to formulate, let alone pursue, effective proposals for strengthening ECOSOC or otherwise increasing their influence over organisations of which they have been rightly critical such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organisation.     There was a disturbing failure to agree specific action for strengthening international standards in areas such as taxation and corporate conduct. Again, the intransigence of the United States and, in general, the European Union was aided by the lack of attention given to such crucial issues by most of the developing countries. Moreover, as in Copenhagen, regrettably few civil society organisations focused on these areas during the Geneva process. Some relevant human rights treaties – especially the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – were endorsed but without adequate acknowledgment of the need for stronger monitoring and enforcement.     Attempts to achieve specific commitments that would mobilise additional resources for social development, especially anti-poverty initiatives, were successfully resisted by the wealthier countries. No increase in official development assistance was agreed and no substantial progress made in relation to debt reduction. Vague exhortations about reductions in military expenditure were not accompanied by any constraints on military exports, and the crucial issue of land reform was ignored. The closest approximation to action on resources was the modest agreement that proposals for new and innovative sources of funding should be rigorously analysed.     The great breadth of the Copenhagen agenda enables deep underlying issues to be addressed but also makes it difficult to focus specifically on a manageable number of high-priority issues. This problem was exacerbated in the Geneva process by the excessive length of the draft agreement and by the lack of relevant expertise and seniority of many of the negotiators. Much negotiating time was devoted largely to seeking wording that was vague enough to accommodate pre-conceived positions, arguing about issues that were more appropriate for other forums, repeating already-agreed language and inexpertly adjusting grammar. Clear priorities     The Geneva agreement was not intended to replace the much more comprehensive and powerful agreement adopted in Copenhagen. It is a supplementary document, that provides additional emphasis or detail, especially in the light of subsequent developments, on some of the issues addressed in Copenhagen.     The Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action, therefore, remain the principal focus for implementation. Greater progress must be made towards implementing them at the international level, especially by developing political, economic and legal environments that are more conducive to sustainable social development. This requires improving international governance on economic and social issues, strengthening international standards on economic issues, which closely affect social development, and mobilising additional resources to reduce poverty. International governance: A very high priority should be to strengthen the composition, processes and influence of the Economic and Social Council. The Geneva agreement made no significant progress in this respect and the major economic powers clearly want ECOSOC to remain too weak to challenge the dominance of organisations such as the IMF, which they effectively control. The agreement did support another aspect of governance that should be of high priority, namely strengthening inter-governmental cooperation at the regional level. Much greater impetus in this direction is necessary, however, especially if developing countries are to attain the potential benefits, and combined threats, of economic globalisation. International standards: Social development, especially in developing countries, is often gravely damaged by lack of adequate international standards in areas such as taxation and corporate conduct, where policies tend to be dominated by the narrowly economic interests of the wealthiest countries and corporations. Inadequate international cooperation on tax policy and administration is aggravating inequity, discouraging long-term investment in productive enterprises and depriving governments of revenue to promote social development. Inadequate regulation of international business conduct is enabling grave economic and social exploitation of people, communities and countries, especially in the developing world. Formulation and enforcement of stronger and more equitable international standards in such fields should be in the forefront of efforts to implement the Copenhagen commitments. Resource mobilisation: The wealthy countries of the OECD have agreed on seven specific, measurable, anti-poverty targets for achievement around the world by the year 2015. They have not, however, made similarly specific, measurable, time-bound commitments to mobilising the resources needed to achieve these targets. A balanced package of action needs to be agreed, preferably in the form of an Anti-Poverty Pact, involving initiatives by both developed and developing countries and mobilisation of both public and private sector resources. Priorities for inclusion include specific commitments in relation to: official development assistance; debt cancellation; financial market regulation; currency transaction taxes; military expenditure; anti-corruption measures; and land reform.      ICSW has developed a Three-Point Plan which addresses each of these priorities for international action. An outline of the Plan was provided in the previous issue of this Review and fuller descriptions appear in two recent papers, entitled Priorities for Geneva and Beyond and Sustainable Social Progress, which are available on our website and from ICSW offices. We shall pursue these proposals through global forums, including ECOSOC and the UN’s new Financing for Development process, as well as through regional initiatives, including closer interaction with important groupings such as the European Union, Association of South East Asian Nations, Mercosur and the Southern African Development Community.