In April 2001, 34 leaders of the Western Hemisphere will gather in Quebec City, Canada for the Third Summit of the Americas. Leaders will approve a Declaration and Plan of Action that is presently being negotiated by the governments of each country of the region. The text will contain some 100 policy priorities organized under the following themes: “Strengthening Democracy”, “Creating Prosperity”, and “Realizing Human Potential”.

The creation of a hemisphere-wide free trade area will be a key issue for discussion at Quebec City; the media, non-governmental organizations, the private sector, and governments have successfully drawn attention to the pros and cons of this initiative. Leaders will be presented with a draft text of the trade agreement for their approval. The key political decisions will be the inclusion of labour and environment clauses, and the question of advancing the conclusion of negotiations of the Free Trade Area of the America to 2003.

Trade liberalization, however, is only one of a number of important issues to be addressed by the Heads of State. Canadian leadership at the Quebec City Summit could help build a clear and forceful commitment to strengthen flailing democracies in the region. Canada should also be encouraged to use the Summit process as an opportunity to foster social inclusion through poverty eradication and increasing resources for social development programs. Furthermore, as a country with a long tradition of public consultation on policy issues, hemispheric civil society organizations look to Canada as Summit host to contribute to fostering a culture of public consultation in the Americas. Whether 34 leaders will be able to agree on where these issues fit in the hierarchy of priorities for the hemisphere remains to be seen.


The Democracy Summit?

Given recent political and social crises in Latin America and the Caribbean, enshrining the principles of representative democracy in the Quebec City Summit texts will be another major issue. How forceful the resulting language and commitments will be is still unknown. Regional blocs such as Mercosur and free trade agreements such as the European Union-Mexico agreement make democratic rule a condition of accession or continued membership. Furthermore, the September 2000 South America Summit left the door open for Canada as host of the Third Summit of the Americas to facilitate consensus around what quality of democracy is desired in the region and what are the necessary tools to reach it. The Brasilia Communiqué contains a clause establishing that respect for democracy and the rule of law is a pre-condition for participation in future South American Summits.

The addition of a democracy clause to the Summit of the Americas and/or FTAA texts is not without controversy. Electoral problems in Peru at the time of the June 2000 General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) demonstrated that the commitments of hemispheric leaders to protect and promote democracy in their countries may be overshadowed by their insistence upon non-intervention in domestic affairs. Moreover, governments have yet to make a clear link between threats to democracy and the deep inequities that exist in the region. Some citizens seem willing to give up some measure of democracy and accept authoritarian-styled populist governments that they hope will lift them out of poverty. At the very least it is hoped that governments will maintain the language of the Brasilia Communiqué in the Quebec City Summit documents.


Social Development Issues

Most citizens of the hemisphere have been unable to see a direct impact of these high level discussions on their daily lives and for this reason Summit fatigue and Summit scepticism have been gaining ground. The Quebec City Summit could change this situation by relaying the urgency of poverty and income distribution in language and commitments, and by putting greater emphasis on social development issues.

The key issue at the Santiago Summit in 1998 was education. Yet the failure of governments and international financial institutions to mobilize the resources and political will necessary to deliver on education commitments has led to deep-rooted scepticism in the region about the Summit’s capability of addressing such fundamental social challenges. At Quebec City, it is hoped that education initiatives will go beyond the Santiago commitments. If the Quebec City Summit does nothing more than establish a monitoring group on hemispheric education, that in itself will be a big step forward. Social sector reform in the region is another urgent matter. This area would include: modernizing the region’s tax systems (federal, provincial, and municipal) to increase revenue for public spending on social programs; reforming pension systems; developing social safety nets for the lowest income groups that trigger automatically during economic downturns; modernizing labour standards; and developing specific measures to deal with a growing informal sector.

Quebec City Summit initiatives will clearly need funding, both at the national and the hemispheric level. Though national governments are ultimately the implementers of the initiatives (often in partnership with non-governmental organizations and the private sector), commitments from hemispheric institutions such as the OAS, the Inter-American Development Bank, the UN Economic Commission for Latin America, the Pan American Health Organization, and the World Bank are necessary in order to ensure the resources (both financial and human) are made available for implementing these mandates. A sectoral meeting of the Finance Ministers of the hemisphere will be held in Canada on April 3-4 where the Ministers should be encouraged to commit international financial institutions to funding Summit initiatives.


Civil Society Participation

In the tradition of the Miami (1994) and Santiago (1998) Summits, it is expected that Heads of State will commit to action items at Quebec City that encourage governments of the hemisphere to consult with civil society organizations on important policy issues. While suspicions and uncertainties still abound, there has been a slow opening of dialogue between governments and the civil society organizations of the region. Changes in government (and approach) in countries such as Mexico and Chile, an increase in the number of civil society groups that want to make a constructive contribution to official processes, and the important steps taken by the OAS and other regional multilateral institutions to facilitate civil society access to official processes, brings the expectation that such dialogue will improve. Nonetheless, as the Quebec City Summit approaches, it has become evident that the political will to engage civil society in consultations on policy priorities for the hemisphere is sometimes lacking. Even when opportunities have existed however, many civil society organizations have not taken advantage of the spaces for dialogue opened up by the Summit process. This may be partially explained by the fact that many civil society organizations suffer from a lack of information about Summit meetings and processes.


Setting a Precedent

As Summit host, Canada could set a precedent for the Summit of the Americas process. The Quebec City meeting could further institutionalize multilateral summitry in the hemisphere, ensure a sustainable source of funding for Summit initiatives, and it could pave the way for the kind of constructive dialogue and partnerships between governments and civil society that would result in much needed innovative ideas and thoughtful recommendations. The Quebec City meeting itself should create the kind of positive dynamic between the Heads of State needed to make headway on the serious challenges facing the hemisphere.

The Canadian Foundation for the Americas (FOCAL) is an independent, non-governmental organization that fosters informed and timely debate and dialogue on issues of importance to decision-makers and opinion leaders in Canada and throughout the Western Hemisphere. Established in 1990, FOCAL’s mission is to develop a greater understanding of important hemispheric issues and help to build a stronger community of the Americas.

Contact:
Canadian Foundation for the Americas (FOCAL)
1 Nicholas Street, Suite 720
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 7B7
Tel.: (613) 562-0005; Fax: (613) 562-2525
Email: focal@focal.ca
Website: www.focal.ca

 


Even after the declaration of two decades of fighting against racism and racial discrimination, millions of persons still suffer various forms of racial discrimination in many societies, including those, which claim to have overcome, and eliminated these practices. The Forum of African NGOs, which met in Dakar on Jan. 20-21, 2001, brought together more than 500 delegates from Africa, Asia and America. A summary of the key conclusions and calls for action which were developed during the two-day conference are included here.


Key conclusions and calls for action:

A. Causes and Victims of Racism

Discussion during the workshops led to the conclusion that there are two main types of racism. First, there are historical causes, including the slave trade and the ideology of white supremacy. Second, there are many modern causes of racism, including, xenophobia, intolerance, economic crises, ignorance, colonisation, and the influence of the media.

The NGO forum concluded that victims of racism include minorities, autochthonous peoples, women, youth, migrant workers and their families, refugees, and Africans of the Diaspora.

B. Initiatives needed for Protection, Compensation and Reparation:

1) Protection at the National Level
NGOs must take stock of all treaties and texts dealing with racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance at the national level, and resort to national courts to ensure the
effective protection of victims.

2) Protection at the Regional level
Efforts are needed to ensure countries of the OAU ratify the additional protocol to the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights which was recently adopted by the OAU. This protocol consecrates the establishment of an African Court for Human and Peoples’ Rights.

3) Protection at the International Level
It is essential to harmonize internal law with international conventions. Regarding women especially, it was pointed out that CEDAW is an essential instrument to fight discrimination against them.

4) Compensation
Africa, which suffered serious wrongs relating to slavery and colonisation, must demand apologies from the States that practised the slave trade and receive compensation for the benefit of all of its nations including the black Diaspora.

5) Reparation
An international commission should be set up to design mechanisms for the assessment of wrongs as well as reparation modalities. In this connection, some consider that Africa’s debt should be cancelled and foreign public aid boosted.

C. Globalization, Migration and Minorities

  • Globilization
    Participants noted that there is a lack of due consideration being paid by national and international actors to ecological balances, native populations and minorities who are eager to protect their natural resources and cultural values. The tendency of some multinational companies to engage in practices that damage the environment and dump toxic waste in African countries was pointed to as evidence of growing “environmental racism.” Participants called on NGOs to promote an international civil society.
  • Migration
    Throughout the African region there is an increasing number of refugees, internally displaced people and migrant workers. For refugees, language barriers are a serious obstacle; displaced people continue to lack the protection of a specific international treaty; and migrant workers are experiencing hazardous working conditions, a lack of training, poor medical assistance, police harassment, xenophobia and racism. There is a need for cooperation between trade unions and other civil society actors in order to upgrade the protection of the rights of migrant workers and their families.
  • Minorities
    Emphasis should be put on the protection and social integration of children, youths/adults, minorities and native groups suffering all kinds of discrimination.

D. Gender and Racism

Participants noted that the gender issue was marginalized during the entire Conference process. It was noted that racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia affect men and women neither in the same way nor to the same degree. The topic “Gender, Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Intolerance” should be dealt with in a more analytical way and be focused on resolutions and conventions relating to racism and racial discrimination.

E. Ethnicity and Conflicts

It was recognized that there are many ethnic groups who may be related to nations but whom may not always live within the borders of Nation-States and that this sometimes contributes to conflicts. As such, constitutional reforms should be used as opportunities by NGOs to contribute to the development of citizenship for all human beings. Further, NGOs must recognize the specific cultural identities and use democratic spaces to make them better known and respected at local, national and international levels.


Edited from the notes prepared by the General Rapporteur in Dakar on January 24, 2001
Rencontre Africaine pour la défense des droits de l’homme (RADDHO)
Email: raddho@telecomplus.sn

 

Following on the World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen, the 39th Session of the United Nations’ Commission for Social Development (February 12-23, 2001) focused on the priority theme “Enhancing social protection and reducing vulnerability in a globalizing world.” Discussions were based on a lengthy report from the Secretary-General of the same title and a well drafted, 35 paragraph non-paper containing “possible elements for agreed conclusions” prepared by the UN Secretariat. Despite extensive discussions on this key topic, ultimately, delegates were not able to agree on a final text.

Considerable work went into the development of the Secretary-General’s report. The work included two international expert meetings, (“Beyond safety nets: the challenge of social protection in a globalizing world” held in Berlin in October 2000, and “Coping in Dire Circumstances: traditional and modern schemes of social protection in the context of development” in Cape Town, November 2000), as well as an extended expert panel discussion including ministerial participation.

Despite the preparatory steps taken, when the Commission began, the Group of 77 plus China, the European Union and the United States of America had made extensive comments on the draft document. Fundamental differences in the perceptions and positions of developed countries and developing countries on the priority theme quickly became evident. While such diverging opinions are not new in the Commission, but rather the rule, there are still normally agreed conclusions at the end of the day – admittedly often after lengthy debates and negotiations. However, it seems for the first time ever, this “functional” commission was ill-equipped to agree on a tangible outcome on a priority theme on its agenda.

What went wrong this time? Why did “the cookie crumble” despite tremendous efforts by the chair who was so committed to helping to overcome the deadlock and badly wanted a result to carry home?

There are essentially five main reasons for this failure.

First, the topic had essentially been prepared in closed circles by the UN Secretariat without the necessary close involvement of member States for whom the issue of social protection systems is of such fundamental importance, and which is predominantly viewed as a national level responsibility.

Second, while a definition was offered in the Secretary-General’s report, there is yet to be a common global understanding of what “social protection” means. Indeed, one’s perception differs depending on whether it is being viewed from a developing or developed country perspective. Further, given the significance and specialization of the topic, as well as the lack of New York based diplomats specializing in this area, delegates had difficulty grappling adequately with the issue.

Third, the actual working method of the Commission for Social Development is counterproductive for content-oriented work. Currently, a new Bureau is elected just in time to take responsibility for guiding the debate and necessary negotiations during the annual meeting of the Commission, without having been involved in preparing the issues on the agenda. For the balance of the year, the Bureau is involved in preparations for the following year’s meeting, and then hands matters over to the newly elected Bureau just before the next Session of the Commission. It is worth considering adjusting the timing of the elections of the Bureau members so that they could provide consistent leadership for the Secretariat on a given theme or agenda item.

Fourth, it has been a fundamental error to schedule two important processes for the same time: the Commission for Social Development and the Preparatory Committee for the High-Level International Intergovernmental Event on Financing for Development were working during the same two weeks at the UN in New York. Few governments and even fewer non-governmental organizations, even though most were interested in and concerned by both events, could afford to be represented at a high level of responsibility in both processes. Many chose Financing for Development to the detriment of the Social Development Agenda. Complicating the issue, delegates from developing countries at times tried to transport their, concerns and demands for international aid and cooperation into the social protection discussion when they were not particularly successful with making themselves heard in the financing for development debate. Developed countries blocked these efforts to bring these concerns into the Social Commission.

Fifth, non-governmental organizations were not adequately represented this time in the Commission for Social Development, as most had concentrated their attention and focused their limited resources on the Financing for Development Preparatory Committee. Further, civil society had not been properly involved in the process for the preparation of the priority theme and thus did not present substantial position papers, oral statements or other contributions on content. Consequently, when it became clear that the debate was deadlocked, they did not speak up to criticize the inadequate preparation and management of the process, the use of time, human resources and finances, and to remind the secretariat and the government representatives of their responsibilities from the view of civil society.

The debates ended on 23 February, 2001 with the following meagre, but significant decision: “The Commission for Social Development, having considered at its 39th Session the priority theme ‘Enhancing social protection and reducing vulnerability in a globalizing world’, having considered the Report of the Secretary-General, taking into account the different views expressed thereon and during the general debate;

  1. Recognizes the need for further analyses, research and sharing of views with regard to “enhancing social protection and reducing vulnerability in a globalizing world”;
  2. Decides to consider possible ways of further examining this issue at a future session.”

The failure of this year’s Commission to effectively deal with this important subject highlights the need to strengthen its processes. Perhaps this set-back will serve as a catalyst for progress in strengthening international co-operation, and for the advancement of these crucial topics.

For the next session, we hope the Commission and the Secretariat will be more successful in facilitating better political co-operation, and that it will make substantial improvements in the working processes. One way would be to ensure the effective involvement of all stakeholders, including civil society, in the substantial preparation stages. Such steps are essential in order to adequately address the issues.

Dirk Jarré
German Association for Public and Private Welfare and
Former President of the International Council on Social Welfare
Email: DirkJarre@aol.com