by Randolph Ryan

    In his keynote address to the UN Commission for Social Development on 8 February 2000, Under-Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs Nitin Desai used the phrase “social justice” several times to describe the objective of the forthcoming Special Session of the General Assembly in Geneva.

    Addressing delegates, staff of the secretariat and representatives of dozens of non-governmental organizations gathering to shape the Geneva agenda, Desai played variations on that theme: “globalization with social justice”… “growth with social justice”… “globalization with a human face.” He had sent the same concise message two weeks earlier, when he told the European Conference on Social Development meeting in Dublin: “The overarching theme of the Special Session must be to put social justice at the heart of the global political agenda.”

    Efficient phrase-making such as this may contribute as much to the outcome of the Geneva Special Session as the thousands of words of text that are being negotiated in the Commission for Social Development (CSD) and the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for the Special Session.
The institutionalization of social policy as a leading international priority depends only partly on diplomatic effort. At its core this is a matter of public education and political will. Both require close attention to use of language, and above all in public discourse to the old adage of minimalist architecture: less is more.

    Like Beijing and Rio, the World Summit for Social Development (WSSD) held in Copenhagen in 1995 was a link in the chain of precedent-setting UN conferences that are evolving an international consensus on coping with the challenges and dangers of the 21st century. When 180-plus countries signed the Copenhagen Declaration, they made a rhetorical commitment to put social issues at the top of national and international political agendas.
Not every Copenhagen signatory would admit to the implications, perhaps, but the writing on the wall was clear. The one-dimensional measures of “progress” used by free marketeers in recent years – output, stock prices, trade flow, investment, economic expansion – ignored the human and environmental dimensions on which the quality of life depends. The neo-liberal dogma was fatally flawed.

    As Desai pointed out, the Copenhagen Summit was in some ways ahead of its time. But no longer. In the five years since then, a series of economic crises have underlined the brittleness and unevenness of neo-liberal prosperity. The concepts of social policy and of development with social justice have arrived.

    At times, as the “Geneva Declaration” is being hammered out, one can lose sight of the forest in the thicket of details. At such times it is useful to think and speak of the Special Session in broad terms, and to hone a sharp, hard edge on the language.

The purpose of the Geneva Special Session is to reaffirm the goals agreed at Copenhagen (eradicate poverty, achieve full employment, create inclusive societies); assess progress (or regress); and agree on hundreds of specific initiatives that will advance the social development agenda.
The process is like building a tower, floor by floor. Whatever the vagaries of negotiation may produce in terms of specific language, follow-up sessions nail down the work done previously and create a steadier platform. Thus social development policy is ratcheted upward, one level at a time.

    In terms of news reporting, the incremental gains made at follow-up conferences are likely to seem less compelling than the first round. After all, once a tower is rising on the skyline, one tends not to notice each successive floor. A media strategy should begin by accepting that reality as a given, and move on to the core objective, which is to generate an expanding energy source of pro-poor political will.

    The work leading up to the Geneva “Social Justice” Summit proceeds at two levels, micro and macro. The task at micro level is to articulate further the international consensus on norms for social policy. This is time-consuming and complex. A lot that is going on beneath the surface is invisible to the untrained eye. Because the UN is a consensus-based organization, the collisions of interest tend to be cloaked in diplomatic formulations. The drama is there but it is obscured by the process and by the language.

    To satisfy editors and audiences, the media need to tell stories. They need action, events, movement, conflict, drama, quotable quotes. Their first obligation is to file daily updates on the hard-edged crises, scandals and events at the top of the news. Even when they are fully aware of the importance of social development issues, reporters have trouble converting the process of detailed negotiations into stories that can compete for attention on a daily basis.

    A realistic media strategy must focus on the macro objective of the special session, which is not to fine-tune specific policy but rather to generate broad-based political will based on the realization that attention to poverty, inequity, injustice and social disintegration is long overdue.
If there were a storm of controversy around the Geneva Session, as there was over the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle, there would be plenty of news coverage. But the session will not have the adversarial drawing power of the WTO because the General Assembly is not seen as an adversary.

    How then to conceive a realistic media policy? The first step is to acknowledge that although the negotiating process may not generate political excitement, the fact that the Special Session is dealing with the same issues that were so explosive at Seattle is of enormous news value. The session is taking place in the season of discontent with neo-liberal globalization, which has made some winners incomparably richer and left so many others so hopelessly behind. The media strategy must draw the connection with Seattle.

    One of the surprises and disappointments in initial sessions of the CSD in February was that few of the delegates or NGO representatives made full use of the Seattle connection. Contemporary social development policy is in large part about social justice. It addresses the dark side of globalization that the neo-liberal advocates of economic growth have ignored. The subject is hot.

     If the UN itself cannot venture too far into the fray or connect all the dots, NGOs, foundations, unions, and many individuals can surely do so. Academics, social philosophers, and foundations that are committed to social policy issues should seize the opportunity to continue the critique of neo-liberalism that burst into public consciousness at Seattle. If they do, they can ensure that it produces politically energizing news.

    Rather than becoming too deeply tangled in the details of the micro-side of the Geneva process, a media strategy would do well to put the macro-side first. Make the connection with Seattle at every opportunity. Use pithy formulations like “social justice”, as does Nitin Desai. Take the offensive against neo-liberal dogma. Create a buzz.

    For a start, although in official documents the use of language is heavily circumscribed, why not think of the June meeting in Geneva as the “Social Justice Summit”. And why not call it that at every opportunity. Isn’t that what Geneva is really about?

Randolph Ryan, a Boston journalist, is a consultant to the Division of Social Policy and Development.
Email: UNHQ-CCMTA-01/NY/UNO@intlhub.un.org