Normative Narratives


1 Comment

Transparency Report: Closing the Rift Between What the UN Knows and What the UN Does

fdrquote

Quote, FDR Memorial, Washington D.C.

Original article:

He [Current General Assembly President Mogens Lykketoft] also touched on the issue of Security Council reform, saying the subject was “of central importance to a large majority of the Membership” of the UN, and that the General Assembly had decided to immediately continue the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform in its 70th session.

Mr. Jürgenson [Vice President of ECOSOC] said that the relationship between the Charter bodies of the UN should be revitalized.

“The changing nature of conflict, from inter-State wars to complex civil conflicts that are intractable and reoccurring, highlights the fundamental link between sustainable development and lasting peace,” he said.

ECOSOC and the Security Council, he said, can interact on a regular basis on issues of concern to them both, from the promotion of institution building and improved governance to the consequences of economic and financial crises on global stability and the impact of environmental degradation on weakened societies.

“On each dimension of sustainable development, economic, social or environmental and on their contribution to the overall objective of peace, the UN development system, under the oversight of ECOSOC, has a lot to contribute,” he said. “The Economic and Social Council can be the counterpart of the Security Council to embrace a truly holistic approach to peace and security, an approach that world leaders have recognized as the only one which can lead to sustainable results.”

Human rights theory recognizes the broad array of human rights (economic, social, cultural, political and civil) are mutually dependent. Furthermore, certain rights, such as civil and political rights, create the enabling environment needed for people to claim other rights / hold violators accountable.

Any society that prioritizes the human rights of all its citizens will, in time, experience a virtuous cycle of sustainable human development and “positive peace“. In contrast, a society that “tolerates” certain human rights abuses in the name of security / stability greatly risks further restrictions of other rights; one rights violation invites others, and the vicious cycle of repression, poverty, and conflict emerges.

The human rights based approach to development therefore recognizes the interdependence of ostensibly separate U.N. operations. Specifically, preventative action–natural disaster preparedness and conflict prevention–feature prominently in development efforts.

The UN Development Programme (UNDP), the UNs primary development policy body, uses the slogan “Empowered Lives, Resilient Nations”. “Empowered lives” refers to upholding human rights obligations and consultative policy-making–enabling people in the developing world to be active participants in their country’s modernization. “Resilient nations” refers to conflict prevention and natural disaster mitigation, reasonable welfare programs, and the social cohesion and institutions needed to resolve internal grievances peacefully.

Of course, prevention and preparation only work at certain points during disaster response. Conflicts in full swing must be addressed decisively or they will fester and devolve. Countries that do not amply invest in natural disaster preparedness must bare huge rebuilding costs (this is not just a poor country problem, think about the devastation caused in the U.S. by Hurricane Katrina and Super-Storm Sandy).

Addressing issues once they have reached catastrophic levels is much more expensive than investment in prevention / mitigation. The current model–ignoring warning signs followed by a too-little-too-late response–strains humanitarian aid budgets, resulting in the need to make untenable, short-sighted decisions that perpetuate future crises.

Whenever a capable, trustworthy partner exists on the ground, the international community should not be constrained by short-term financial considerations. The world’s poorest countries should not be consigned to larger futures bills, social problems and insecurity because of a failure of leadership in global governance.

The international community’s inability to adequately address today’s problems stems primarily from two sources. One is short-sighted decision making due to financial constraints. The second is the ineffective structure of the U.N.S.C.

Here are a few suggestions to make the U.N. more responsive.

1) UNSC Reform:

The inability of the U.N.S.C. to preventatively defuse conflicts, due to concerns over “national sovereignty”, condemns large groups of people to a future of conflict and economic decline. Conflict does not know national borders, leading to spillover conflicts that affect whole regions. Even once resolved, post-conflict countries are susceptible to sliding back into conflict. Taken together, these factors show why an inability to deal with one problem proactively can result in long-term instability for a whole region.

This issue gets to the root of the power struggle between the permanent members of the U.N.S.C. that champion human rights / democracy (U.S., Britain, France) and those champion national sovereignty (or more specifically, the ultimate supremacy of national sovereignty, even in instances where the Responsibility to Protect should clearly be invoked)–China and Russia.

Those opposed to “Western” values believe promoting “human rights” is just a way for America to impose its values abroad. I would contend human rights represent values that all people desire, by virtue of being human. Reforming the U.N.S.C. to give a General Assembly super-majority the power to overrule a U.N.S.C. veto would reveal which side of the argument is correct. I would bet the global majority would almost always land on the side of taking action to defend human dignity against any who would challenge it–terrorist or authoritarian ruler.

As the world’s largest military and a veto-possessing permanent member of the Security Council, America on the surface has the most to lose from such a reform. This is precisely why America must lead this push; if we champion this brave and uncertain approach, it would ultimately lead to a much more effective and timely defense of the very principles we hold dear. By loosening our grip on power, we would actually achieve our desired aims through a democratic process–what could be more American than that? 

Human rights violations lead to revolution and conflict, during which legitimate opposition is branded “terrorism”. Inaction by the international community leads to “hurting stalemates” and power vacuums that are filled by opportunistic extremist groups. Authoritarian governments then become the more tenable option, and their “fighting terrorism” narrative becomes self-fulfilling (despite the fact that often their abusive actions led to the uprisings in the first place). Failure to reform means we are OK with this status-quo–we should not be.

During the 70th session of the UN General Assembly, many countries called for U.N.S.C. reform. When such disparate countries with differing needs use their moment in the global spotlight to promote this common cause, it is a message that should be taken very seriously.

2) Development Aid Smoothing

This is admittedly a less developed plan, as I am no financial economist. But it remains clear to me that the world needs some sort of mechanism to smooth development aid for the world’s Least Developed Countries.

We see it time and time again–poor countries slowly slide into worsening conflict or are devastated by predictable natural disasters because:

a) The LDCs do not have the resources or capacity to address these issues preventatively;

b)  The international community cannot muster the funds, as they are all tied up in long-term humanitarian missions (likely because not enough resources were invested preventatively elsewhere–you can see why there is never a shortage of disasters, we ignore budding issues to address full blown ones. By the time those full-blown issues are under control, the ignored budding issues have festered into the new issue de jour).

The continued inability of the international community to address problems before they get worse is not only financially short-sighted, it is a failure of the U.N’s mandates and fuels the perception (and increasingly the reality) that international community is incapable of addressing the problems of the 21st century. 


Leave a comment

Transparency Report: Of GM, and Women In Power

Those who follow trends in development have no doubt heard of the myriad benefits associated with empowering women. In theory, women tend to be more socially conscious / accountable, long-term thinkers than men. Many conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs in developing countries give cash exclusively to women, believing they will use the money in more constructive ways.

From the UNDP website:

Equality between men and women is more than a matter of social justice – it’s a fundamental human right. But gender equality also makes good economic sense. When women have equal access to education, and go on to participate fully in business and economic decision-making, they are a key driving force against poverty. Women with equal rights are better educated, healthier, and have greater access to land, jobs and financial resources. Their increased earning power in turn raises household incomes. By enhancing women’s control over decision-making in the household, gender equality also translates into better prospects and greater well-being of children, reducing poverty of future generations.

Some fast facts about women in power (for a more “macro” picture, check out the UNDP’s Gender Inequality Index (GII), which weighs traditional Human Development Index (HDI) scores for gender equality, offering a side by side comparison):

Public Sector:

  • 20.9 per cent of national parliamentarians were female as of 1 July 2013, an increase from 11.6 per cent in 1995
  • As of June 2013, 8 women served as Head of State and 13 served as Head of Government.
  • Globally, there are 37 States in which women account for less than 10 per cent of parliamentarians in single or lower houses, as of July 2013

“More women in politics does not correlate with lower levels of corruption, as is often assumed. Rather, democratic and transparent politics is correlated with low levels of corruption, and the two create an enabling environment for more women to participate”UN Women

Private Sector:

General Motor’s new CEO Marry Barra has handled GM’s recent safety issues / vehicle recall with the remorse and accountability we should demand from all people in power:

General Motors Co announced new recalls of 1.5 million vehicles on Monday and in a virtually unprecedented public admission by a GM chief executive, Mary Barra acknowledged the company fell short in catching faulty ignition switches linked to 12 deaths.

“Something went wrong with our process in this instance, and terrible things happened,” she told employees in a video message posted online. Barra said the company is changing how it handles defect investigations and recalls.

In the last two months, GM has recalled more than 3.1 million vehicles in the United States and other markets.

Barra previously apologized for GM’s failure to catch the faulty ignition switches sooner. In Monday’s video, she said GM is “conducting an intense review of our internal processes and will have more developments to announce as we move forward.”

GM said the new recalls resulted from Barra’s push for a comprehensive internal safety review following the ignition-switch recall.

“I asked our team to redouble our efforts on our pending product reviews, bring them forward and resolve them quickly,” Barra said in a statement on Monday.

On Friday, the automaker was hit with what appeared to be the first U.S. class action related to the ignition-switch recall, as customers claimed their vehicles lost value because of the ignition switch problems. The proposed class action was filed in a Texas federal court. Other plaintiffs’ lawyers say they are preparing to file similar cases in the coming days.

To be sure, Miss Barra’s admissions of wrongdoing do not come solely out of the kindness of her heart. There has been considerable negative publicity surrounding GM in recent weeks, most notably concerning the 12 people who died due to ignition related issues (another study found that 303 people died due to airbag malfunctions in GM vehicles, which the company has yet to address). In addition to class action lawsuits, GM is facing a criminal investigation from the U.S. Department of Justice.

There can be no denying that GM was negligent in its internal processes. I think most people expected the typical corporate response: an announcement of “regret”, a recall, and silence until the legal process played out.

However, Miss Barra has gone above and beyond what we have come to expect from people in power; a presentence admission of wrongdoing and pledge to change internal processes is a breath of fresh air. Such accountability requires courage and long-term thinking, but is ultimately much more beneficial for all parties involved.

The cynic could say that GM is simply in damage control mode, or that perhaps they brought in Miss Barra because they saw this oncoming shit-storm. Somehow, despite the issues I cover, I am not a cynic; perhaps I a fool or a Pollyanna. I believe that since the future is yet unwritten, there is a chance for people power and social justice to prevail over the forces of greed. In fact, I see trends in governance and technology making this an inevitable (if not slow moving) shift.

As the UN Women quote above highlights, having women as symbolic placeholders does not itself create change. While high ranking positions are the most visible and make the decisions with the greatest social impact, gender inequality must be addressed from the ground up, starting with the world’s most vulnerable women. Breaking power imbalances is relative; for some it is holding a top position in the public or private sector, for others it is enjoying basic human rights they currently do not enjoy.

The push for greater gender equality should also catalyze self-reflection of future male leaders; if men want to hold positions of power in the future, they would be wise to embrace more long-term, socially conscious / accountable outlooks.


4 Comments

Transparency Report: Civil Society Activism, Social Accountability, and Sustainable Human Development

The UN Human Rights Chief Navi Pillay opened the high-level segment of the 25th session of the Human Rights Council with a “call to protect, support civil society activism“:

“Streets, airwaves, entire countries are buzzing with demands for economic, social and political justice,”

Setting out this agenda and acknowledging the hard work that lay ahead in ensuring that all people enjoyed equal rights, Ms. Pillay emphasized the important role of civil society in those efforts. “We need to work together to ensure that the space, voice and knowledge of civil society is nurtured in all our countries,” she stressed.

[General Assembly President John Ashe]  drawing attention to upcoming initiatives on human rights issues in the General Assembly, stressed the human rights relevance of his body’s work in setting the stage for a new international development agenda following the 2015 deadline of the Millennium Development Goals.

Overcoming the rise in inequality around the world and the increasing marginalization of people living in poverty is particularly important in that light, he said.

He too pointed to the importance of civil society in pursuing those goals, given “how much courage and fortitude is required by those who champion human rights, when it is so easy to look the other way or take a less courageous stand.”

In related news, the United Nations Development Group (UNDG) announced it will hold 50 new national level consultations as part of its efforts to build local support for the Post-2015 Development Agenda:

The consultations will take the form of public meetings and discussions where policy planners, civil society representatives, community and private sector leaders will discuss how to best deliver the next sustainable development agenda that will build on the success of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG).

“We are committed to changing the way multilateral development diplomacy works,” said Olav Kjorven, Special Advisor to the UNDP Administrator on the Post-2015 Development Agenda. “We will continue to expand the areas where people will be able to engage with the work of the United Nations.”

Sustainable human development begins and ends with people. The human rights based approach (HRBA) to development champions both the political and civil rights needed for people to be active participants in change, as well as the economic, social and cultural rights people need to live dignified lives. The HRBA recognizes that these rights are interrelated and interdependent; for example, political reform cannot be put off in the name of economic growth.

There are universal means to improving standard of living; education, food, rule of law, responsive governance, healthcare, sanitation, access to energy, employment to name a few. How these means can be best implemented is context-sensitive; thinking we know better than those at a local level is an exercise in hubris, not development.

Social Accountability (p 44-45) “is used to refer to a broad range of activities in which individuals and CSOs act directly or indirectly to mobilize demand for accountability…Social accountability has worked best when the rules and frameworks in place provide legal sanctions in the event of wrongdoing and permit civil society to monitor effectively and access essential information.”

Without avenues for redress, the transformative value of social accountability activities ultimately depends on the willingness of duty bearers to engage with them. For this reason, social accountability may be more effective when its objective is to complement and strengthen the horizontal accountability mechanisms discussed earlier. Social accountability activities might aim, for example, to reveal the inadequacies of these mechanisms, lobby for their reform or seek to improve their effectiveness through greater public participation. Such interventions can encourage the formation of new “diagonal” accountability mechanisms, such as citizen oversight committees or grievance redress mechanisms (with varying degrees of formality and legal authority).

While social accountability can be a powerful tool, it is most effective when complemented by governments committed to human rights accountability and willing to cede some control over the legal process to CSOs. Essentially, social accountability mechanisms can be made as (in)effective as a government is willing to make them. If governments are ultimately accountable to people, they should do everything in their power to empower their citizenry, enabling effective social accountability. 

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aside, the Post 2015 Development Agenda is a blueprint; a way to show governments how effective inclusive and consultative governance can be. It is not enough to remember the role of regular people in bringing about change while drafting development agendas, or during times of election or revolution. The roles of civil society activism and social accountability must be promoted and protected everyday.

Ultimately, progress is brought about by and for people; governments, institutions, declarations, and development agendas play an enabling/complementary role.


Leave a comment

Economic Outlook: An Ounce Of Crisis Prevention Is Worth A Pound Of Cure

So why do the international community and national governments under-fund crises prevention initiatives? (Especially given that there is no singular “cure” for various crises).

The rising scale of needs, a collective inability to resolve protracted crises, and the interplay of new factors such as climate change, are making it harder for Governments and aid workers to effectively respond to humanitarian challenges, the United Nations today reported, stressing that development aid must contribute to managing crisis risk.

The report, World Humanitarian Data and Trends 2013, authored by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), highlights major trends in the nature of humanitarian crises, the underlying causes and drivers, and the actors that participate in crises prevention, response and recovery.

“Climate change, population growth, rapid and unplanned urbanization, and food and water insecurity are leaving more and more people at risk of crisis,” write the report’s authors, listing some of the new factors facing the humanitarian community.

Among other trends, the report shows that today’s major humanitarian crises are protracted “with few signs of improvements over the long term.”

Of countries that had an inter-agency appeal in 2012, eight had an appeal in eight or more of the previous ten years, including in Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Somalia.

When not protracted, the crises are often recurrent, occurring as a result of shocks – climate, conflict, price – to chronically vulnerable people.

On these factors, the report concludes that humanitarian assistance is still overwhelmingly focused on response and development aid often fails to target the most vulnerable.

“Less than five per cent of humanitarian funding and less than one per cent of development funding is spent on crisis preparedness and prevention,” according to figures provided.

Just as one human rights violation enables others, one humanitarian crisis often leads to future manifestations of the same or related crises. The intractable / recurrent nature of humanitarian crises highlights the need to focus on a preventative approach to building resilience to humanitarian crises. Programs which build resilience to humanitarian crises are essentially poverty reduction / sustainable human development programs (think I am oversimplifying? The United Nations Development Programme’s motto is “empowered lives, resilient nations”).

Least developed countries (LDCs) do not have access to private sector credit (at affordable rates), particularly in times of great need (like after a major crisis). Therefore, an essential component of crisis preparedness are counter-cyclical fiscal policies. Many LDCs rely on natural resource rents for financing government programs. Counter-cyclical natural resource funds, such as the Nigeria’s Sovereign Investment Authority (which draws on excess oil rents), can be powerful tools for crisis preparedness.

Responsible use of ODA / natural resource rents relies on “good governance“. Corrupt leaders can easily embezzle ODA / public savings, and send that money offshore where it can never be recoveredFinding the right balance between prevention / preparedness and crisis response is a difficult task even for the most well intended governments / organizations.

However, it is obvious that spending only 1 % of official development assistance (ODA) on preventative / preparedness measures is a short-sighted strategy (although using a broader definition of “preventative action”, as I have, may encompass a larger portion of ODA). Further exacerbating the problem, there is a large gap in ODA commitments from the worlds wealthiest nations. Dedicating a bigger slice of a bigger pie to crisis prevention / preparedness is needed to strike a responsible balance

There are obvious reasons why the vast majority of ODA goes towards crisis response. Failure to respond to a humanitarian crisis can create breeding grounds for disease, human rights violations, violence/terrorism, and/or lost generations of economic growth. In addition, it is generally easier to mobilize resources in response to a specific incidence (which is seen as unavoidable), than it is for under-development / extreme poverty (which people often unmistakably attribute to laziness). However, it should be the job of development organizations to direct funding to the avenues which will have the greatest impact.

The democratic governance based approach to sustainable human development helps overcome common development issues. By emphasizing political rights and accountable governance, donors and citizens can be confident money is going (or in the case of preparedness, staying) where it is “supposed” to go. Farsighted “good” governments, whose capacities are fully developed with adequate resources (a combination of public savings / ODA), can achieve the simultaneous goals of economic development and resilience to crisis. By emphasizing human rights and environmental sustainability, humanitarian crises are addressed preventatively.

There is no one “road-map” for Sustainable Human Development. Every country is unique and has to build its own path–what Dr. Jeffrey Sachs refers to as “differential diagnosis“.

However, there are some common steps all LDCs should take if they wish to be on the path to sustainable human development: 

1) Draft Poverty Reduction Strategy Plans (PRSPs) that take into consideration the indispensable role of human rights and accountable governance; 

2) Legislate the human rights accountability from all relevant stakeholders (governments, civil society, NGOs, private sector, IGOs, etc.);

3) Mobilize a greater share of resources for sustainable human development programs to prevent / prepare for humanitarian crises.

Update: The UNDP-EU just released interactive maps detailing their joint projects over the last 10 years. One of these maps focuses on crisis prevention and recovery projects.


1 Comment

Transparency Watch: Who Will Hold the UN Accountable?

Haiti is one of the worlds poorest countries, both in terms of GDP per capita (adjusted for standard of living expense, 2012 PPP GDP per capita is estimated at $1,242) and HDI (0.456, 161st out of 187 countries and the lowest in the Western Hemisphere). Any other measure of well-being will turn out similarly dismal results. It is therefore unsurprising that Haiti is the target of many international and multilateral aid campaigns, aimed at increasing the standard of living for Haitians. However, even the most well intended campaigns can have unintended negative consequences, and those responsible must be held accountable.

Original article:

Advocates for Haitian victims of the deadly cholera epidemic that first afflicted their country three years ago said they were taking the extraordinary step on Wednesday of suing the United Nations, asserting that the organization’s peacekeeping force in Haiti was responsible for introducing the disease through sewage contamination from its barracks.

The lawsuit, which the advocates said they would file in Federal District Court in Manhattan on Wednesday morning, will be the strongest action they have taken in pressing the United Nations to acknowledge at least some culpability for the outbreak of cholera, a highly contagious scourge spread through human feces that had been largely absent from Haiti for 100 years.

Cholera has killed more than 8,300 Haitians and sickened more than 650,000 in the earthquake-ravaged country, the poorest in the Western Hemisphere, since it first reappeared in October 2010. While the worst of the epidemic has eased, it still kills about 1,000 Haitians a year.

United Nations officials have said they are committed to eradicating the cholera, but they have not conceded that the organization was inadvertently responsible for causing it. They also have asserted diplomatic immunity from any negligence claims, a position that has deeply angered many Haitians who consider it a betrayal of United Nations principles.

Haitian leaders, while dependent on the United Nations to help maintain stability and provide other important services, have also expressed unhappiness over the cholera issue. In an address last Thursday at the annual United Nations General Assembly opening session, Haiti’s prime minister, Laurent Lamothe, spoke of what he called the “moral responsibility” of the United Nations in the outbreak, and said the efforts to combat it had been far from sufficient.

Forensic studies, including one ordered by the United Nations, have identified the culprit bacteria as an Asian strain imported to Haiti by Nepalese members of the United Nations peacekeeping force, known as the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, which was first authorized in 2004 and maintains about 8,700 soldiers and police officers there, drawn from more than three dozen member states. The forensic studies have also linked the spread of the cholera to a flawed sanitation system at the Nepalese peacekeeper base, which contaminated a tributary that feeds Haiti’s largest river, used by Haitians for drinking and bathing.

It was far from clear that the lawsuit would be accepted by the court, which affords broad latitude to diplomatic protections for the United Nations against such litigation. These protections are partly rooted in the formal legal conventions created with the inception of the United Nations after World War II. “The majority view is that the U.N. and U.N. entities are immune from domestic lawsuits,” said Jordan J. Paust, a professor of international law at the Law Center of the University of Houston.

Eight months ago, Ban Ki-moon, the secretary general of the United Nations, informed Haitian leaders that it would not accept claims for compensation made by victims of the outbreak, citing a provision of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.

Ms. Lindstrom said the United Nations had also rebuffed her group’s attempts to address the issue. “They’ve refused to sit down for a conversation with the victims, or with us,” she said.

Navi Pillay, the top human rights official at the United Nations, suggested on Tuesday from her headquarters in Geneva that Haiti’s cholera victims were entitled to some compensation, although she did not specify who should provide it.

I am generally very supportive of the United Nations; despite widespread cynicism about the efficacy of international development efforts, I believe the United Nations has played an integral part in establishing / maintaining peace in conflict regions and empowering the worlds most impoverished marginalized since its inception. However, all these positive elements does not exonerate the UN from being held accountable for it’s transgressions.

During my time interning with the UNDP, I was given an assignment to assess survey responses  received from countries with a UNDP country office. While the responses were overwhelmingly positive, there were some caveats. On questions relating to the UNDP’s transparency / accountability / inclusiveness / respect for countries self-determination, little over half of the responses were positive. I noted that since the UNDP was advocating for precisely these aspects in domestic politics, it should lead by example and make it a point to champion these qualities in its day to day activities. Failure to do so, I argued, was hypocritical, paternalistic, and ultimately undermined the UNDPs credibility.

I have written about the Post-2015 development agenda a number of times. At its heart is a human rights based approach to development, with international human rights law spelling out “who will be accountable” for various human rights obligations / violations. In addition, the UN has gone to great lengths to make develop the Post-2015 agenda in an inclusive and consultative manner. As someone that has seen firsthand all the lessons learned from MDG’s shortcomings and hard work that has gone into the Post-2015 agenda, I am cautiously optimistic that the Post-2015 development goals will have a significant positive impact on the worlds most impoverished.

People often talk about the UN losing influence due to it’s inability to enforce its security rules; however the UN has difficulty enforcing it’s norms on these issues, as there is a layer of national sovereignty preventing full implementation of UN principles. The Haitian case is different, the only thing holding the UN back from championing it’s own principles is the UN itself.

The UN’s strength, in my opinion, comes not from influence on security decisions. Rather it is it’s function as a forum for voicing grievances and it’s technical expertise accumulated over decades of employing development experts , alongside it’s country-level presence, that makes the United Nations an integral part of the international community. 

However, failure of the UN to be held accountable for its role in spreading cholera in Haiti could undermine support for the Post-2015 development agenda. Who is the UN to demand accountability from a wide variety of actors (government, business, civil society), when they themselves are not accountable for their own human rights violations (they may ask)? Even if the UN is not legally accountable to the Haitian people, Haiti’s prime minister is right to invoke the idea of the UN’s “moral responsibility”.

OHCHR Chief Navi Pillay understands the importance of accountability and leading by example, and I commend her for coming out and saying the UN should be held accountable for it’s role in the Cholera outbreak in Haiti, especially given (her boss) Secretary General Ban’s unwillingness to even meet with victims and/or their representatives.

It would be nice if the UN realized the importance of it’s own accountability, and settled outside of court. If this does not occur, it will be up to some court to hold the UN legally accountable. 


Leave a comment

Conflict Watch: Snapshot of Middle-Eastern Turmoil

Obama Military Spending

The NYT released an article today, highlighting the rare opportunities for diplomacy between the U.S. (presumably representing the interests of the international community) and various Middle-Eastern nations. First I will recap some highlights of the article, then I will give my input on the situations in Syria, Iran, and Egypt:

Only two weeks after Washington and the nation were debating a unilateral military strike on Syria that was also intended as a forceful warning to Iran about its nuclear program, President Obama finds himself at the opening stages of two unexpected diplomatic initiatives with America’s biggest adversaries in the Middle East, each fraught with opportunity and danger.

For Mr. Obama, it is a shift of fortunes that one senior American diplomat described this week as “head spinning.”

In their more honest moments, White House officials concede they got here the messiest way possible — with a mix of luck in the case of Syria, years of sanctions on Iran and then some unpredicted chess moves executed by three players Mr. Obama deeply distrusts: President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, and Iran’s erratic mullahs. But, the officials say, these are the long-delayed fruits of the administration’s selective use of coercion in a part of the world where that is understood.

“The common thread is that you don’t achieve diplomatic progress in the Middle East without significant pressure,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, said Thursday. “In Syria, it was the serious threat of a military strike; in Iran it was a sanctions regime built up over five years.”

Skeptics — and there are plenty in the National Security Council, the Pentagon, America’s intelligence agencies and Congress — are not so optimistic. They think Mr. Obama runs the risk of being dragged into long negotiations and constant games of hide-and-seek that, ultimately, will result in little change in the status quo. They argue that the president’s hesitance to pull the trigger on Tomahawk strikes on Syria nearly two weeks ago, and the public and Congressional rebellion at the idea of even limited military strikes, were unmistakable signals to the Syrian and Iranian elites that if diplomacy fails, the chances of military action ordered by the American president are slight.

All these possibilities could evaporate quickly; just ask the State Department diplomats who in the last years of the Bush administration thought they were on the way to keeping North Korea from adding to its nuclear arsenal, or the Clinton administration officials who thought they were on the verge of a Middle East peace deal.

Iranians are desperate for relief from sanctions that have cut their oil revenue by more than half, crashed their currency and made international banking all but impossible, but they may not understand the price of relief. “I suspect they are heading for sticker shock,” one official deeply involved in developing the American negotiating strategy said recently.

I am by no means a war-hawk; as a political / development economist, I understand that no MDG has ever been sustained in a conflict region. Peace and political stability are necessary preconditions for sustainable human development, which is the ultimate goal of development practitioners / human rights advocates around the world (it is also at the core of the UNDP’s strategic plan  for 2014-2017, which is where I was introduced to the term). Sustainable development requires development not be achieved at the expense of the environment / future generations. The human-rights-based-approach to development requires that development not be achieved by exploiting the worlds most impoverished / violating their human rights. Put together, these two concepts form the concept of sustainable human development; this is the only truly sustainable form of development as it reduces the probability that conflicts–which tend to have human rights violations at their core–will undo otherwise environmentally sustainable development gains.

But I am also a realist. I understand that sometimes revolutions are needed in order to overcome structural impediments to sustainable human development, such as an autocratic regime. Such regimes are not accountable to their people, and while there may be “benevolent dictators”, there is nothing sustainable about someones rights being granted by an individuals benevolence (he may change his mind, or be succeeded by a less progressive ruler). In this vein, effective democracy is the only means to sustainable human development. It is not some “western value” that drives my passion for democratic governance, it is my belief in the power of people, self-determination, and “development as freedom” which fuels this passion.

In the real world, concepts such as human rights and effective democracy are kept at bay by vested interest who would lose power if civil societies as a whole were empowered. These vested interests rely on collective action problems (I gain a lot as-is, by changing each person only gains a little) to maintain the status-quo. When collective action problems are overcome (a process which has been aided by innovations in social media / ICTs), vested interests often turn to military power to maintain their positions. I find this to be unconscionable, and therefore give some of my time to doing what little I can to try to shape the world as I believe it should be.

Diplomacy is a powerful preventative tool. However, I am less sold on diplomacy’s “soft-power” when the gloves come off and all-out war begins. Diplomacy is always more effective in democracies (where governments are accountable to the will of the people) than in autocracies (where the survival of the regime is the governments number one priority).

Syria: As you could probably tell, I am not sold on the “solution” to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons. I think this is a stalling tactic, which will further entrench Assad’s grip on power and further marginalize the legitimate Syrian opposition. I hope I am proven wrong, but I am not optimistic.

The Syrians now face a series of deadlines. The first comes this weekend, when they must issue a declaration of their chemical stocks that “passes the laugh test,” as Gary Samore, Mr. Obama’s former top adviser on unconventional weapons, put it earlier in the week.

It is also concerning that, so soon after a deal was reached and before any part of the deal has been carried out, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is already calling for Western Nations to “force” the Syrian opposition into peace talks with Assad. Mr. Lavrov does not seem to understand that democratic governments cannot “force” people to do things; furthermore, Western powers do not have that sort of leverage as they have till this point been largely absent in aiding the Syrian opposition. It is not surprising Mr. Lavrov had this misunderstanding, in Russia the government can indeed force people to do things.

Even more concerning is President Putin’s recent assertion that the UN chemical weapons report, which did not explicitly accuse Assad but does does implicitly suggest his regime was responsible for the August 21st chemical weapons attacks, is “biased”. He later goes on to say the Assad regime has evidence suggesting the rebels are responsible. So Putin would have us believe the UN is biased, but Assad is not? Sorry, but I’m not buying that and neither should you.

The French seem to finally be willing to arm the legitimate syrian opposition, the Free Syrian Army:

“On delivering weapons we have always said that we want to control these supplies so that they do indeed go to the Free Syrian Army … because they represent the Syrian National Coalition that we recognise as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people and today they are caught between a hammer and an anvil,” Hollande said.

“The hammer is the air strikes and actions of the Syrian regime and the anvil is radical Islam,” he said.

If the U.S. also agrees to arm the FSA, and can garner international support to strike Assad in response to confirmed chemical weapons usage, the Syrian-stalemate can be overcome and the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people realized.

Egypt: With Chemical weapons use in Syria dominating news, unrest in Egypt has taken a back-seat on the international communities agenda. However, fighting between Islamic Militants and the Egyptian Army continues. It is the job of the Egyptian military to rid Egypt of these extremists and ensure stability. It is not the Egyptians army’s job to condemn all Muslim’s as terrorists (as it has in the aftermath of the Morsi ouster). The Egyptian military wishes to remain unaccountable to the Egyptian people–it is not committed to effective democratic rule–as expressed in a draft of the new Egyptian Constitutional Declaration.

(Original article):

The Islamist assembly pointedly excluded prominent feminist, activist and secularist voices. It’s unclear to whom the current committee — appointed by an interim president, backed by the army, packed with the heads of official institutions — is accountable beside the state itself. Organizations such as the Journalists’ Syndicate have already complained that their recommendations on press law and freedoms of speech have been overlooked.

And this assembly, just like the previous one, is rushing its work, and conducting it with little transparency. In fact, the Islamist assembly may have been better at sharing information about its progress: It maintained a Web site tracking the latest discussions and amendments. We learn of the workings of the current assembly only through sporadic interviews its members give to the press.

This issue could be addressed in the coming weeks. And there are many ways in which the current constitution could improve upon the last. Hoda Elsadda, a founding member of a prominent feminist research center who heads the freedoms and liberties subcommittee, says she want to include an article prohibiting discrimination and human rights violation by the security services. Several members of the assembly have voiced their opposition to military trials of civilians. The rights of religious minorities, women and children — given short shrift in the last document — will probably receive greater emphasis now.

But In a country  ruled by the military, and amid a declared war on terrorism, it seems very unlikely that the constitution’s biggest shortcomings will be addressed. The draft as it stands now subjects fundamental freedoms to vague qualifications that render them meaningless: These freedoms must be exercised “according to the law” or as long as they don’t hinder “national security.” The document places the army above oversight and accountability.

And it sets many Egyptians — not just supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood — on the sidelines of what should be a national conversation and a fresh start.

To be fair, Morsi’s constitutional drafting process was not exactly inclusive either. But Morsi’s regime was willing to work within the democratic process, while General Sisi is not. The democratic aspirations of the Egyptian people will likely come second to ensuring the military’s grip on power.

Iran: Iranian President Rouhani, a relative moderate, has been much more diplomatic towards the West than his predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Iranian economy has been crippled by 5 years of economic sanctions, and in order to have those sanctions lifted, Iranian leaders appear willing to negotiate an agreement on ending Iran’s nuclear weapons program (which it denies having):

American officials say they understand that Iran will need some kind of enrichment ability to assure its own people that it has retained its “nuclear rights,” as its negotiators say. The question is how much. Unless a good deal of the current infrastructure is dismantled, Iran will be able to maintain a threshold nuclear capability — that is, it will be just a few weeks, and a few screwdriver turns, from building a weapon. It is unclear whether Mr. Obama can live with that; the Israelis say they cannot.

The NYT article talked about “sticker shock”, the price Iran will have to pay in order to keep its nuclear rights and have sanctions against it removed. In a previous post, I laid out conditions I thought Iran should have to agree to in order to have sanctions removed:

The issue comes down to transparency, accountability, and ultimately governance. Can countries without the traditional checks and balances present in Western democracies be credible partners? Can they actually uphold their promises, or are they merely trying to buy time / have sanctions eased until it is beneficial to renege on their commitments?

The burden of proof falls on Iran and North Korea on this one. If either country wishes to be allowed to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes without dealing with crippling international sanctions, certain conditions must be met. Most notably, independent international inspectors must be given unrestricted access to known / suspected uranium enrichment facilities; if either country can fulfill this condition, then it will have earned the right to enhance uranium for peaceful purposes.

I still believe these conditions should be part of any talk to ending sanctions against Iran.

Iraq: Sectarian violence has gripped Iraq since the U.S. pulled out, and is in some ways worse than before the Sadam Hussien ouster. Iraq is a case-n-point of the limits of armed intervention in other countries.

Diplomacy is a powerful tool, but it has it’s limits. Both diplomacy and military action, as well as economic leverage and intelligence sharing, combine to form the D.I.M.E foreign policy paradigm I believe the U.S. should pursue.

5 years of sanctions were needed to bring Iran to the bargaining table, and the threat of force was needed to get Assad to admit he had chemical weapons / agree to dismantle his arsenal. Only time will tell how / if these complex issues can be resolved thought diplomacy. One thing is certain; we cannot trust dictators or take them at their word, their commitments must be verifiable. In order to hold a dictator accountable for his concessions, international investigators must be given unfettered access to any point of interest. This requires relinquishing some “national sovereignty”, something no country–democratic or otherwise–likes to do.

The U.S. failed to drive a hard enough bargain (in my mind) on chemical weapons with the Syrian regime. At least as a starting point, Western powers should make their demands clear and strong heading into negotiations with otherwise unaccountable regimes.


1 Comment

Transparency Report: Notification, You Have 5 Billion New FB Friends; The Human Right To Internet Access

At the beginning of my internship at the UNDP, I was lucky enough to get the chance to volunteer at and then attend the ECOSOC Partnerships forum. I was assigned to write a few blogs for the event, among a number of other blogs I have written about events at  the UN which for some reason I have never shared on NN. Perhaps someday I will release the rest of the “lost UNDP blogs”, but that day is not today. Here are notes from the event Policy Dialogue: “The Changing Face of Technology and Innovation” (full blog):

The second policy dialogue at the ECOSOC youth forum focused on how technological innovations in recent years have helped bridge the “digital-divide” between developed and developing countries. While the gap has not been fully closed, partnerships between the private sector, governments, non-governmental organizations and civil society groups have helped identify challenges and opportunities in the developing world. By creating differentiated products at lower costs, private companies can gain access to new markets while simultaneously empowering the people in those markets.

Internet access is considered one of the great technological advances of our time. Internet access empowers people; the possibilities are constantly evolving and literally endless. It is an essential component of “E-Governance”, which includes the dissemination of information and a more inclusive and democratic government agenda-setting process. With a greater push for accountability and inclusiveness mechanisms in the Post-2015 Development Agenda, internet access, bolstered by innovations in mobile technology, has become an increasingly important tool for achieving sustainable human development.

But not enough has been done to make internet access affordable for a large portion of the world’s population. According to Mr. Tuli, 3 billion people have mobile phones but no internet access. This is not because of a lack of electricity or communication networks (as evidenced by the fact that they do have cell phones), but because they are priced out of the market. Mr. Tuli went on to call basic internet access a “human right”, to resounding applause from the hundreds of participants in the ECOSOC chamber.

While mobile technology was originally thought of as an educational tool, it has since evolved beyond that (although mobile education is still a proposed root for overcoming education deficits in Least Developed Countries (LDCs)). E-Governance can help disseminate information and promote inclusive governance, creating an enabling environment for sustainable human development. Healthcare providers can connect to information and expert advice in ways that can save lives. E-Finance can help provide capital in a much cheaper and convenient way to previously isolated groups, unlocking the entrepreneurial spirit in the developing world (and making such endeavors potentially much more profitable). Even people who are off traditional power grids (the least developed places in the world without basic infrastructure), mobile renewable energy generators and wireless internet capabilities can help bring ICTs virtually anywhere in the world.

Mobile technology penetration can be very rapid. Competition between private sector actors can drive prices down to affordable levels, and in some cases subsidies can help. Mr. Ogutu told the story of mobile phone penetration in Kenya; 5 years ago there were 20,000 users, today there are over 30 million users. This was made possible by M-Kopa, a company that utilized E-finance to provide pay-as-you-go mobile solar powered electricity to poor people who are not on a conventional power grid. Financing—secured through PPPs—allowed the founders of M-Kopa turn their vision into reality.

The narrative on bringing internet access to the least developed areas of the world continues a few months later. Not surprisingly, behind the initiative is a large-scale public-private partnership, with publicity magnet Facebook at its core (original article):

Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive of Facebook, announced the launch of Internet.org Wednesday, a project aimed at bringing Internet access to the 5 billion people around the world who can’t afford it. The project is the latest initiative led by global-communications giants to combat market saturation in the developed world by introducing the Internet to remote and underprivileged communities.

“The goal of Internet.org is to make Internet access available to the two-thirds of the world who are not yet connected and to bring the same opportunities to everyone that the connected third of the world has today,” Zuckerberg said.

“There are huge barriers in developing countries to connecting and joining the knowledge economy,” he added. “Internet.org brings together a global partnership that will work to overcome these challenges.”

The project will develop lower-cost, higher-quality smartphones and deploy Internet access in underserved communities, while reducing the amount of data required to surf the Web. Other founding partners include Samsung, Qualcomm, Ericsson, MediaTek, Nokia and Opera.

Facebook and other tech giants, of course, have a significant financial stake in expanding in the developing world. With tech companies reaching market saturation in the United States, countries in Latin America and Africa, for example, offer a big opportunity to attract a steady stream of new users, whose data can be mined by advertisers.

Connecting more people globally has important implications for how people organize their lives, said Patrick Meier, co-founder of the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative’s program on Crisis Mapping and Early Warning. Social media has become a lifeline to people affected by earthquakes, floods and conflicts in the developing world, he added.

In places where the state is limited, Meier added, the Internet becomes a way to make up for services the government fails to provide. “When the state is not there, when you talk about limited statehood, you get a void,” he said.

In addition to acting as a substitute for the state in the context of “bad governance” / conflict / crisis environments, mobile technology should be a tool utilized by the state to promote inclusive and indiscriminate human rights based governance for sustainable human development. ICT connects people, enabling social accountability (people claiming their rights) by overcoming collective action problems. There are also myriad standard of living benefits associated with bringing ICT in the developing world–micro-financing, healthcare, education, media, etc. (OK maybe I am a little biased, I want those 5 billion readers too 😛 ).

Furthermore, by utilizing open-source technology and the collective will and creativity of 5 billion people facing similar problems, innovations in one part of the developing world can be adapted to the local needs of other developing regions. This would further expedite the global development process–open-source technology should be a core feature of the global internet connectivity push.

The possibilities are literally endless, as the utility and functions of the internet continue to evolve at ever faster rates. It should also be noted that new technological capabilities in LDCs will necessitate new policies, laws and oversight mechanisms to ensure gains are shared fairly. However, since these technologies are only new to certain regions, digital accountability mechanisms already exist for these regions to build on.   

I cannot stress enough how important bringing mobile ICTs to least developed countries is for sustainable human development, nor can I know how the technology will evolve in the future. Providing access to mobile information and communications technology empowers people, creating an enabling environment for a multitude of interrelated development objectives. These positive forces will naturally synergize, empowering people to challenge power-imbalances and hold powerful groups accountable for their human rights obligations.

ICTs are a natural fit for a large scale public-private-partnership (PPP). Companies can provide most of the start-up capital and technical know-how. Governments can create an education campaign about the benefits of ICTs and how to use them, while also guaranteeing companies market access and security of any capital / infrastructure installations (extremist groups will not like this idea as closing government service gaps will restrict their ability to buy goodwill and recruit new members). As ICTs help sustain the development process, new markets will emerge for communications companies to sell their products and services. This means more profits for companies, more tax revenue for governments, and a higher standard of living for people in LDCs. Not to suggest vested interests will not try to play spoiler (my regular readers by now know this is not the case), but overall a this is a win-win-win partnership.

Due to the indisputable importance of ICTs for sustainable human development, internet access should become an internationally recognized human right. Human rights obligations are primarily the responsibility of the state; in this case however, it seems that states have a willing and capable partner in the private sector. I will continue to keep the NN community up-to-date on this potentially-world-changing initiative.


3 Comments

Economic Outlook: The G20, Austerity v. Stimulus, Growth and the Right to Development

Original article:

“The Group of 20 nations pledged on Saturday to put growth before austerity, seeking to revive a global economy that “remains too weak” and adjusting stimulus policies with care so that recovery is not derailed by volatile financial markets.”

“Finance ministers and central bankers signed off on a communiqué that acknowledged the benefits of expansive policies in the United States and Japan but highlighted the recession in the euro zone and a slowdown in emerging markets.”

“Officials backed an action plan to boost jobs and growth, while rebalancing global demand and debt, that will be readied for a G20 leaders summit hosted by President Vladimir Putin in September.

 “Sources at the meeting said Germany was less assertive than previously over commitments to reduce borrowing to follow on from a deal struck in Toronto in 2010, with the improving U.S. economy adding weight to Washington’s call to focus on growth.

With youth unemployment rates approaching 60 percent in euro zone strugglers Greece and Spain, the growth versus austerity debate has shifted – reflected in the fact that G20 finance and labor ministers held a joint session on Friday.”

“The G20 accounts for 90 percent of the world economy and two-thirds of its population – many living in the large emerging economies at greatest risk of a reversal of capital inflows that have been one of the side effects of the Fed stimulus.

One thing we would like to emphasize is the importance of coordination,’ said Indonesian Finance Minister Chatib Basri, cautioning that scaling back policies of quantitative easing elsewhere “immediately affects” emerging markets.”

“The International Monetary Fund warned that turbulence on global markets could deepen, while growth could be lower than expected due to stagnation in the euro zone and slowdown risks in the developing world.

‘Global economic conditions remain challenging, growth is too weak, unemployment is too high and the recovery is too fragile,’ Managing Director Christine Lagarde told reporters. ‘So more work is needed to improve this situation.'”

Yesterday I discussed the coordinating role groups such as the G20 play in today’s globalized economy. That post focused specifically on coordinating efforts to curb corporate tax-evasion. Today’s article emphasizes that fiscal and monetary policies must also be coordinated in order to achieve sustainable human development on a global scale.

Fiscal stimulus efforts must be coordinated; if they are not, the benefits of an individual countries stimulus programs will not be fully realized. Consider a hypothetical jobs program in the U.S. If this program is enacted unilaterally, then depressed demand in export markets (ex E.U.) will cause increased production capacity in the U.S. to lead not to greater trade but surplus goods and lower prices–employment gains will not be sustained by the private sector and will likely be reversed once stimulus money runs out. However, if fiscal stimulus programs were coordinated, and both the U.S. and the E.U. increased productive capacity and income, then a basis for trade and self-sustaining growth could emerge, making fiscal stimulus a short-term “shot in the arm” (as it is intended to be) instead of a permanent program (which is not sustainable for governments and often leads to uncompetitive industries).

Monetary policy must also be coordinated. Quantitative Easing by the U.S. Federal Reserve and the Bank of Japan have injected cheap money into the global economy. Seeking higher returns, this cheap money is often channeled towards emerging markets (such as the “BRICS”). One fear is that once QE policies wind down, emerging markets will experience “capital flight” as higher returns become available in more stable markets. In order to temper this inevitable effect of monetary tightening, both monetary policy coordination and “forward guidance” are needed from major central banks. Bernanke recently reasserted that the Fed will continue bond-buying until U.S. unemployment drops to 6.5% or inflation rises to 2.5%. However, this forward guidance is slightly muddled by ideological differences within the Fed, and amplified by Bernanke’s presumed exit as chairman of the Fed early in 2014. Coordinated monetary policy can provide the clarity needed to assuage markets. In a surprise move a few weeks ago, ECB head Mario Draghi “promised rates will remain ‘at present or lower levels for an extended period of time.’” Indications that the ECB and BoJ are committed to providing liquidity to global markets will make the Feds (eventual and inevitable) retreat from QE less damaging to global markets.   

This G20 meeting has ushered in much welcome news, “in contrast to an ill-tempered G20 meeting in February colored by talk of currency wars.”

About a month ago, I discussed the impacts of austerity programs on states human rights obligations. This post focused a study Spanish austerity and healthcare. The G20 is more concerned with global issues (although Spain and Greece are still a poster children for youth unemployment and the social deterioration that austerity can cause during a recession, and are therefore common examples for pro-stimulus / anti-austerity proponents).

People often consider human rights as positive or negative rights; either the government has to directly provide a good / service or prevent another party from violating human rights. Another aspect of human rights is creating an enabling environment for sustainable human development. “The right to development, which embodies the human rights principles of equality, non-discrimination, participation, transparency and accountability as well as international cooperation, can guide our responses to a series of contemporary issues and challenges. The right to development is not about charity, but enablement and empowerment. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has called on governments and all concerned…to move beyond political debate and focus on practical steps to implement the Declaration. ‘States have the duty to cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development,’ according to the Declaration (full text here).”

One essential element of the right to development is the international recognized “right to work”. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.” This right is a particularly important aspect of the right to development, as work income provides a means of self-determination and the ability reduce dependence on welfare programs as people attempt to realize their personal goals and aspirations.

Sometimes people do not work because they are lazy, or suffer from physical or mental conditions which impede their ability to find or maintain work. However, when unemployment rates are above 20%, and youth unemployment is above 50%, this can hardly be attributed to laziness (unless you think the world’s lazy people are all collaborating and putting themselves through years of misery in order to remain lazy, but that argument is absurd hard to sell). Such high unemployment levels are due in large part to government inaction / inability to pass stimulus programs, and the negative effects of austerity programs in the face of inadequate private sector demand / personal consumption (this is not stipulation or a normative stance, but rather what textbook economics tells us).

Such high levels of unemployment represent a failure of states to uphold the universal human “right to work”, which undermines the internationally recognized “right to development”.  For years now, economic policy has been dominated by politics and vested interests. It is heartening to see national labor and finance ministers finally coming together to “eliminate obstacles to development”. More concrete programs will probably hopefully be hammered out when heads of state come together in Moscow in September for the G20 leaders summit.

I hope this is not “too little too late”, and that the years since the Great Recession took hold have not lead to “lost generations” of young people who are doomed to a lifetime of anti-social, unproductive, and sometimes criminal behavior (as some people have argued). While there will inevitably be some lifetime dependents resulting from the Great Recession (as there always are from traumatic experiences, be they economic downturns, natural disasters or violent conflicts), I am optimistic that as a whole young adults and the unemployed in general are eager to get back to work once the global policy coherence needed to create those jobs is established. G20 meetings this past week represent a meaningful step in that direction.


6 Comments

Transparency Report: The Global Partnership for Development, Global Commons, and Common But Differentiated Responsibilities.

A recurring topic here at NN is how globalization has shifted some of the most pressing political economy decisions away from national governments and into the global governance arena, where the rules are largely being drawn up as we go. Never has the world been as globalized as it is today, and we can be certain that tomorrow will only lead to further integration. 

A number of problems inherently arise in issues of global governance. There are innumerable public and private interests at work, none of which want to give up their legal/structural advantage for the greater global good. Politicians must balance the short-run interests of domestic actors with the long run interests of the global community (but only one of those groups is responsible for that politicians future job prospects). This may lead to a “free rider problem”, where a country may decide it will simply reap the benefits of global governance (which tend to be non-excludable), while not contributing anything (and by further complicating an already complex and differentiated international legal/policy/taxation order, undermining global governance initiatives). Differences in national regulations can lead to capital flight to low cost countries, creating another incentive to “cheat” on global commitments.

One way to overcome free-rider problems is to create forums or groups where countries can coordinate their policies and voice grievances with one another (and shine a spotlight on “cheaters” and “free riders”). The G-20 is one such organization. The 3G Global Governance Group is a similar group comprised of 30 more countries. Critics and proponents of such groups often bicker over the merits and limitations of inclusivity versus exclusivity–I am of the mind that if the stated goal is coordination, cooperation, and some element of global policy coherence, then the more the merrier. This does not mean we need a G-193; groups can determine for themselves their level of exclusivity, as long as they can interact together through global mechanisms such as the United Nations.

The concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities” in reference to the “global common”, has until this point been used almost exclusively in the environmental and natural resource arena. I would argue that both of these terms have a much wider application. Global commons should refer to any non-excludable good / service, with positive / negative externalities, whose effective management requires global coordination (to overcome cheater and free-riders). This new definition would include, among other things: environmental regulation, trade openness, financial and tax policies, issues of regional and global security and human rights concerns (and yes these are all interrelated issues, further boosting the argument for global coordination in tackling them).

By re-framing the concept of global commons, a new global partnership for development can take root through the UN Post-2015 Development Agenda, with the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities at its core. This concept itself will make countries more willing to coordinate on global commons issues. By acknowledging that countries are accountable to different degrees for the current state of global affairs, a basis for financing global initiatives that is fair yet acknowledges common goals all countries should be working towards can emerge. By “common but differentiated” I do not mean that countries should have different policies–quite the contrary. The “common” aspect refers to creating programs with global policy coherence, the “differentiated” aspect refers to how those programs will be financed in a way that allows them to fully realize their goals (as opposed to unfulfilled commitments that have dominated global agreements in the past).

Perhaps such commitments would be a more sustainable and effective way for donor countries to channel ODA, freeing up fiscal space for national governments in developing countries to finance their own domestic development programs without the distorting effects that large aid inflows can have.  

The G-20 is currently focusing on the issue of corporate tax evasion. (for a refresher, in a previous blog I explored the costs to society of corporate tax evasion)

“Government officials from the world’s largest and richest economies on Friday for the first time endorsed a blueprint to curb widely used tax avoidance strategies that allow some multinational corporations to pay only a pittance in income taxes.”

“In light of such practices – which are entirely legal, but take advantage of differing tax rules around the world – the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has proposed that all nations adopt 15 new tax principles for corporations. The plan focuses only on corporations and would, if adopted widely, shift some of the global tax burden toward large companies — the ones big and rich enough to devise complex tax-reduction strategies — and away from small businesses and individuals, which tend to spend a much bigger share of their incomes on taxes.

“Shifting profits to low-tax countries and costs to high-tax countries is less an option for small businesses and individuals, who inevitably wind up carrying more of the tax burden as a result. In the United States, for example, taxes on corporate profit contributed 40 percent of all income tax to the United States Treasury 50 years ago. Today, corporations contribute less than 20 percent, with the slack taken up by small companies and those paying individual income tax.”

“In contrast, the owners of a small coffee shop would probably not able to reduce its tax liability by claiming they had paid royalty fees to an overseas company owning the copyright to their cafe’s name.

The reform is intended to address such inequities, the finance ministers said Friday”

“‘It’s a matter of justice and fairness,’ Angel Gurría, the secretary general of the O.E.C.D., said at the presentation of the new plan with the finance ministers of France, Britain, Germany and Russia.”

The list, presented Friday at a meeting of finance ministers of the Group of 20 countries in Moscow, includes ideas to prevent corporations from “treaty shopping” to find countries with the lowest taxes and then find ways to book their profits there, even when much the money is made elsewhere.”

“The details, however, may prove daunting and will be subject to intense lobbying by corporations. In addition, countries have long used tax policies in efforts to lure businesses to locate operations there. The O.E.C.D. plan would not seek to end such competition entirely – any country would be free to charge lower rates than others did — but it would try to keep countries from essentially offering companies ways to avoid paying taxes anywhere, something critics say Ireland did in reaching agreements with Apple.”

“The O.E.C.D. does not expect to complete work on the proposals until the fall of 2015, and after that it would be up to governments and legislatures to implement them by passing new tax laws.”

Government are coming together to address the issue of corporate tax avoidance, which could not be addressed unilaterally. Reform will take a long time and run into intense opposition, but it has to start somewhere, and the G-20 is that somewhere. If the worlds biggest economies agree on rules, smaller countries will follow suit (powerful countries often use economic leverage to secure policy changes). In time, with nowhere left to run, large corporations will have no option but to pay their fare share–to the benefit of all.


Leave a comment

They Say I’m Lazy But it Takes All My Time

Logo: 20th Anniversary of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

Hello loyal readers,

I meant to write this earlier; I will be unable to write any blogs with week, as my presence is needed to help the UNDP at an event commemorating the 20th anniversary of The Vienna Declaration, the adoption of The Paris Principles, and the formation of the OHCHR and the ICC.

All these events focus around national human rights institutions (NHRI). From less than 10 NHRIs 20 years ago, more than 100 internationally accredited institutions exist today in different forms. These institutions provide citizens and civil society organizations with a means of voicing grievances, and are essential in holding governments accountable for their human rights obligations.

There are many who believe (myself included) that these institutions can go a long way in making up for some issues that prevented the MDGs from being an even more effective poverty eradication / sustainable human development program. NHRIs were virtually non-existent when the MDGs were drafted, today they are recognized as a key actor in implementing and evaluating progress on the Post-2015 Development Goals (which are being developed with human rights at their core).

I will try to write a review of the event if I get a chance, but no promises.

Best,

Ben Zupnick