por Roberto Bissio

La transnacional tabacalera Philip Morris, propietaria de la marca Marlboro que identifica a los cigarrillos más vendidos en el mundo, está en franca retirada en el país de los cowboys y caballos, pero crece aceleradamente en el resto del mundo.

En Estados Unidos más de la mitad de la población adulta fumaba habitualmente en los años cincuenta, pero ahora apenas veintiuno por ciento lo hace. En cambio, según el último informe anual de la companía, las ganancias en el resto del hemisferio occidental aumentaron veintitrés por ciento entre 2008 y 2009, y el crecimiento fue de diecisiete por ciento en los “mercaos emergentes” del Tercer Mundo, que ya superan en ganancias a la Unión Europea.

Para evitar que el resto del mundo siga el ejemplo éxitoso de Estados Unidos al lograr un cambio masivo en los hábitos de la gente, Philip Morris parece haber lanzado una campaña mundial de litigios contra los gobiernos que están innovando en la guerra contra el tabaquismo en las últimas semanas. A mediados de febrero la compañía anunció una demanda contra el gobierno uruguayo, el 9 de marzo demandó a Noruega y se anuncian medidas similares contra Australia si se aprueba la política “preventiva” que está estudiando el gobierno laborista.

Uruguay limitó a veinte por ciento el espacio que los paquetes de cigarrillos dedican a la marca, debiendo el resto contener anuncios antitabaco de interés público y prohibió, además, que tengan varias presentaciones que induzcan a creer que, por ejemplo, la identificada con azul es menos peligrosa para la salud que la roja. En Noruega, donde fumar está prohibido en bares, restaurantes y discotecas desde 2004, ahora se impide que los establecimientos autorizados a venderlos los muestren en las estanterías. Una medida aun más radical es la que se discute en Australia, donde el tabaco debería venderse en envoltorios standard, similares a los de los medicamentos, todos con las mismas advertencias médicas, colores y presentación, sólo distinguibles por la marca impresa siempre con las mismas letras y guardados como en las farmacias fuera de la vista del público.

Al igual que en el litigio contra Uruguay, la tabacalera argumenta en Australia que se estaría violando el Acuerdo sobre los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual de la Organización Mundial de Comercio. “Tonterías”, responde Simon Chapman, profesor de salud pública en la Universidad de Sydney. Estos acuerdos “protegen al propietario de las marcas contra su uso por terceros, pero no hay nada en ellos que autorice al propietario a usarlas por encima de las normas legales en vigor”.

Con relación a la supuesta “expropiación” del espacio de promoción en los paquetes, la Corte Suprema de Justicia australiana ya ha determinado que las limitaciones a lo que se puede imprimir en un envoltoriono constituyen una “expropiación” como la describe la Constitución, ya que ésta no transfiere al gobierno supuestamente expropiador un beneficio antes disfrutado por la firma sino que prohíbe determinadas prácticas en beneficio de la salud pública.

Pero mientras en Australia la justicia local será la llamada a dirimir el pleito y el conflicto con Noruega fue planteado ante un tribunal de la Asociación Europea de Libre Comercio, el gobierno uruguayo se verá obligado a defenderse ante el Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones (CIADI), un órgano del Banco Mundial con sede en Washington con una larga historia de fallos favorables a los inversores extranjeros, incluyendo su escandaloso arbitraje a favor de la empresa Bechtel, concendido tras su retiro voluntario de Cochabamba (Bolivia), o en contra de Uruguay, que fue obligado a pagar más de cien millones de dólares a cuatro bancos transnacionales cuyas filiales locales quebraron durante la crisis financiera de 2001.

Philip Morris invocó el tratado bilateral de inversiones entre Uruguay y Suiza para hacer esta demanda, alegando que si bien su sede está en Nueva York, su centro de operaciones internacionales se encuentra en Lausanne. Irónicamente, desde el 1 de enero de 2010 Suiza es uno de los países europeos que más limitan el packaging de los cigarrillos.

Desde hace muchos años, la preocupación de los consumidores por su salud viene siendo utilizada por las tabacaleras en su propio beneficio. Así, en 1983 Brown & Williamson implemento una campaña para generar miedo al tabaquismo “y estimular las marcas alternativas (light) para fumadores preocupados que no quieren dejar de fumar”. Un informe de la propia Philip Morris en Pakistán describe como una “oportunidad de marketing” los miedos y ansiedades generados por la mayor difusión de los riesgos del tabaco. La falta total de evidencia de que estos riesgos sean menores en unas marcas que en otras es lo que ha llevado a la casi universal prohibición del uso de términos como light para los cigarrillos. Ésta es la lógica detrás de la prohibición por parte del gobierno uruguayo del uso de colores y variantes de una marca, ya que años de propaganda han asociado al azul$ con la palabra engañosa light. Philip Morris sabe de esto, ya que el público en todo el mundo todavía asocia la marca Marlboro con un cierto cowboy, años después de que el actor que lo representaba muriera… ¡de cáncer de pulmón!

El inciso 1 del segundo artículo del tratado de inversiones Uruguay-Suiza que Philip Morris invoca establece sin lugar a dudas “el derecho de cada parte de no permitir actividades económicas por razones de orden y seguridad públicos, salud pública o moral”. Sin embargo, el artículo 5.1 establece el requerimiento de “compensación efectiva y adecauda” por cualquier “nacionalización, expropiación u otra medida de similar naturaleza o efecto”. Hasta el momento, jamás tabacalera alguna ha recibido compensación por restricciones basadas en la defensa de la salud en ninguna parte del mundo.

Pero si va a haber una primera vez, el CIADI sería el mecanismo ideal para ello. El tribunal del Banco Mundial ya ha sido denunciado por Bolivia y Ecuador como intrínsicamente desigual, pues obliga a los países en desarrollo a entablar la batalla jurídica en un terreno que no es el propio, ante un tribunal inapelable y no transparente. Además, el costo de presentar una defensa, que inevitablemente se debe contratar con grandes firmas legales de Estados Unidos, puede llegar a varios millones de dólares. En el caso de Philip Morris versus Uruguay, dada la pequeñez del mercado, la tabacalera no puede ignorar que el costo de presentar su posición ante el CIADI va a ser para Uruguay muy superior a las “ganancias expropiadas” de la tabacalera.

De lo que se trata es de ganar una primera batalla en la guerra global del humo.

En primer lugar, queremos expresar nuestro rechazo a la militarización del país a través de la ayuda humanitaria. Se trata de una  falsa respuesta al desastre en la que están implicados el Ejército de Estados Unidos (qué tiene planeado desplegar un total de 16.000 militares en la zona), la Unión Europea (6.000 efectivos) y otros cuerpos militares (Naciones Unidas ha anunciado que 3.500 cascos azules se sumarán a los 9.000 que ya forman parte de la Misión para la Estabilización de Haití, la MINUSTAH, que ocupa el país desde 2005), a los que además debemos añadir otros contingentes como los 2.000 soldados de Canadá o los cerca de 2.000 de Brasil.

Esta presencia militar en Haití se ha desplegado a partir de decisiones unilaterales de los diferentes países sin una misión clara, sin rendir cuentas sobre el mando bajo que operan y, lo que es más grave, sin que el pueblo o las instituciones haitianas lo hayan solicitado. Asimismo, el papel de liderazgo y control que se ha otorgado el ejército de los Estados Unidos no sólo es del todo ilegítimo, sino que está entorpeciendo gravemente las tareas de ayuda de muchas ONG, poniendo en peligro la vida de los millones de afectados/as por el terremoto.

Por otro lado, es necesario valorar el tipo de ayuda de emergencia y la forma en la que se entrega, velando por la dignidad de las personas. Así, se debe prestar especial atención a mujeres, niños y niñas, que se han visto en una situación de vulnerabilidad y discriminación en muchas de las formas de entrega escogidas por los organismos internacionales.

Nos queremos sumar a las voces que se levantan en Haití y entre la sociedad civil internacional para pedir una respuesta no militarizada, formada por cuerpos civiles, y que tenga en cuenta el enorme potencial humano y de sociedad civil organizada con que cuenta el país a pesar de su complicada situación.

Creemos que la sociedad haitiana, sus organizaciones, movimientos sociales y representantes estatales deben ser los agentes protagonistas en el reparto de la ayuda y la reconstrucción del país. Deben ser los primeros que sean escuchados y contar con la última palabra. De hecho, la cooperación sólo puede ser efectiva si cuenta con este compromiso y con la plena participación popular.

Queremos insistir en la importancia de que los recursos ofrecidos por la Comunidad Internacional estén desligados de los intereses comerciales de los países donantes. Estos recursos deben ser verdaderas donaciones, no préstamos, de forma que no generen endeudamiento de nuevo.

En este sentido, el Gobierno español debería renunciar explícitamente al uso de instrumentos como los créditos FAD, fondos reembolsables y vinculados a la compra de bienes y servicios españoles, que se utilizaron en otras emergencias como las generadas por el huracán Mitch en Centroamérica o el tsunami en el Sudeste asiático.

Además de no generar nueva deuda, gobiernos e instituciones financieras internacionales deberán cancelar de forma inmediata e incondicional la deuda externa ilegítima de Haití. El país caribeño, aunque ha recibido una parte importante de la prometida reducción de deuda en junio de 2009, tiene todavía una cuenta pendiente de 891 millones de dólares principalmente con instituciones como el FMI, el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo o el Banco Mundial, y países como Taiwán o Venezuela.

Gobiernos como el francés o el italiano ya han anunciado cancelaciones de la deuda y el Club de París (agrupación de países acreedores de la OCDE) ha instado a todos sus miembros a proceder del mismo modo. Después de recibir múltiples demandas de la sociedad civil, partidos políticos de la oposición y administraciones municipales de todo el Estado, el Gobierno español ha anunciado que está finalizando los trámites para cancelar los 28 millones de euros de deuda haitiana de la que es acreedor. Para las organizaciones firmantes dicha cancelación debe ser del 100% de la deuda y sin condiciones, y no parcial ni en el marco de un acuerdo de conversión de deuda como pretende el ejecutivo español.

Esta cancelación debería ser el primer paso para un reconocimiento y restitución de las deudas históricas, ecológicas y sociales que los países del Norte tenemos con Haití. La larga historia de colonialismo y ocupaciones que ha sufrido el país, empezando por las colonizaciones española y francesa, y siguiendo por el intervencionismo norteamericano, que han dado lugar a injustas relaciones comerciales con el país, explotando sus recursos naturales y a sus trabajadores, han generado una importante deuda histórica, ecológica y social que los países del Norte deberán reconocer y restituir al pueblo haitiano.

Es importante que se actúe de forma contundente, no sólo para atender la situación de emergencia que se vive, sino para poner los cimientos que necesita el pueblo de Haití para reconstruir su país desde el ejercicio de su legítima soberanía. Es también el momento de revisar las políticas económicas y acuerdos comerciales impuestos al país a lo largo de las últimas décadas, analizando los impactos que éstas han tenido en el empobrecimiento y la crisis alimentaria que se han sufrido.

Finalmente, para garantizar un futuro para el pueblo haitiano libre de la explotación y la dominación que ha sufrido hasta ahora, harán falta, no sólo recursos y ayuda humanitaria, sino una reversión profunda de las relaciones comerciales, financieras y políticas con el país, es decir, una ayuda e inversión política.

Organizaciones firmantes:

ACSUR-las Segovias, Cooperacció, Ecologistas en Acción, Entrepobles, IEPALA, ¿Quién debe a quién? (QDQ), Mundubat, Observatorio de la deuda en la Globalización (ODG), Ospaaal Solidaridad, Paz con Dignidad, Veterinarios sin Fronteras, Plataforma 2015 y más.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cheick Sidi Diarra, High Representative for LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

Thank you for inviting me to this meeting as the International Coordinator of LDC Watch. It is my regret that I could not be with you at the meeting in person today; however, I would like to share with you a few words, specifically on the preparatory process towards the LDC IV that is underway. I am immensely pleased to share with you that LDC Watch is leading the civil society process, having been officially mandated by the UN-OHRLLS, and we are indeed honoured to assume this historically important responsibility. As the only LDC civil society network engaged in policy advocacy and campaigns in the interest of the LDCs since 2001, we are taking this leadership role both as strength and as a challenge, on behalf of the entire LDC civil society constituency.

In this context, let me share that LDC Watch has been organizing national civil society consultations, targeting all of the 49 LDCs, focusing on review of the implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action (BPoA) including the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). These national consultations have proven to be building blocks for our regional interventions which in turn will feed into the international engagement process towards the LDC IV.

As a part of the preparatory process at the regional level, LDC Watch, in cooperation with the UNECA and UN-OHRLLS, is organizing the African LDC Civil Society Assembly on 4-5 March in Addis Ababa – just prior to the official African Regional Review of the BPoA on 8-9 March. The outcomes of the Assembly are expected to feed into the official African Regional Review of the BPoA. We strongly believe that this civil society process in Africa will also provide significant inputs for the Review of the MDGs at a High-Level Meeting in September this year. This most recent collaboration has indeed been a firm gesture of partnership with civil society and further, provides optimism for genuine cooperation in the future, which is essential as we move towards LDC IV.

Mr. Chairman, Under-Secretary General, Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,
Our challenges are common, and we face a shared responsibility to face them collectively.  I am especially underscoring the cooperation that we expect from our key partners: the member states, the relevant UN bodies, and the host government of LDC IV. The GA resolution 63/227 “recognises the importance of the contributions of civil society actors at the Conference and in its preparatory process, and in this regard stresses the need for their active participation in accordance with the rules of procedure of the General Assembly”. We have already begun communication with the Government of Turkey, in particular through Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Turkey, Mr. Ertuğrul Apakan, who has assured us of the host country’s full cooperation and support; this has been extremely encouraging for LDC Watch and for civil society engagement more widely.

I would like to reiterate today that LDC Watch believes in meaningful, substantive contributions in terms of a clear and concrete policy space in the entire review process. We believe in playing the role of both partner and pressure group, as we articulate people’s perspectives on sustainable development and poverty eradication in LDCs. In the process, we strongly hope that we will receive optimum support and cooperation from member states and the UN system in terms of space for effective advocacy and campaigns, political will and adequate resources. These have been missing in terms of implementation of the BPoA – which has been seen as a failure on the part of all stakeholders.

During the past decade, numerous global challenges have come to the fore, and are further hindering the development opportunities for LDCs. As we know, these have included the multiple crises of hunger, fuel, unsustainable debt and in particular, climate change - drastically ranging from desertification in Africa, sea-level rise in the Asia-Pacific including the catastrophic melting Himalayas. Greater still, remains the uphill task of addressing the structural causes of vulnerability, exclusion, marginalisation and exploitation that creates and perpetuates poverty, ever dampening the way to sustainable development in LDCs, It is in the context of these alarming challenges that the Programme of Action for LDCs for the decade 2011-2020 must be conceived and agreed upon in Turkey. It is against this backdrop that we must engage with the review of the BPoA.

In conclusion, it should be our utmost priority to come up with a realistic development agenda for the LDCs that is people-driven, appropriate for addressing the increasing human rights challenges faced by LDC citizens today, and that builds upon the important lessons learnt over the last decade. It is around this consensus that we should unite. On behalf of LDC civil society, I look forward to working together with you to make the LDC IV process a genuine success.

Thank you.

* Arjun Karki is member of Social Watch Coordinating Committee

We are of the view that the time has now come for civil society groups and social movements to make their views known on the process and outcomes of the Copenhagen Conference.

The attached statement articulates this outrage felt by civil society and social movements and points out the flaws of the Accord as well as what needs to be done to savlage the situation and prevent climate injustice. Negotiations are expected to resume in April this year and our urgent intervention is now needed.

We hope very much that your organisation can sign on to this satement and we also hope that you can circulate this widely to other organisations, networks and movements as need to mobilise hundreds of groups at this critical juncture.

We hope to distribute this joint sign on statement to government delegations involved in climate negotiations as well as to the media so that our demands are made known and visible. We hope that your organisation can also do the same.

We seek your kind cooperation and solidarity in this regard and hope that your organisation can sign-on to the letter.

We are also making efforts to circulate this in other languages as well.

Please state the name of your organisation and country your organisation is based in.

Thank-you

Pan African Limate Justice Alliance (PACJA)
International Forum on Globalisation
Third World Network
Africa Trade Network
ITEM, Uruguay
Tebtebba Foundation, Phlippines
Unnayan Onneshan, Bangladesh
Friends of the Earth Malaysia
Consumers Association of Penang, Malaysia

To read and join the statement please visit http://campaigns.item.org.uy/?q=en/node/1351

Dhaka, 15th February 2010. Twenty one civil society organizations (CSO), in a rally and human chain in front of national press club, called upon the developed country representatives and donors, who are participating in Bangladesh Development Forum BDF, to pay their carbon debt as compensation. Speakers from the Human Chain said that Bangladesh is facing most catastrophic caused by climate change, which is the result of high carbon emissions historically by the developed countries. They also claimed that developed countries are indebted to the people of Bangladesh and they should pay their carbon debt. The rally blamed that, developed countries are not keeping their commitment in supporting the climate change affected countries; they also criticized DfID as this organization is pushing the Government of Bangladesh to accept World Bank to manage the multi donor trust fund for climate change. remind them to keep their commitment.

From the human chain the organizers released a joint statement developed by twenty one organization which includes Arpon, AMKS, Eso, Bangladesh Krishak Federation, CSRL, EquityBD, Kishani Shova, Lead Trust, On line knowledge center, Potikrit, La via campesina, MFTD, Prantik, Purbasha, RCASV, Swadin Bangla Garments Sromik Federation, Solidarity Workshop, Sirajgonj Flood Forum, Uddipan, Voice, EquityBD and World Development Movement -UK.

Media coverage below;

*English*
NweAge Developed nations urged to pay  back their carbon debt
http://www.newagebd.com/2010/feb/16/nat.html

New Nation CSOs urge developed nations to compensate carbon debt
http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2010/02/16/news0026.htm

The Daily Star Rich countries urged to pay carbon debt
http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=126556

BDNews24 Rich nations ‘moving to bypass climate pledge’
http://www.bdnews24.com/details.php?id=153723&cid=2

Guardian UK Bangladesh rejects terms for £60m of climate aid from UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/bangladesh-world-bank-climate-finance

*Bangla*

Protom Alo
http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2010-02-16/news/42666

Destiny
http://www.dainikdestiny.com/ND.aspx?SID=16036&NID=5

Kalerkantho
http://www.dailykalerkantho.com/index.php?view=details&type=single&pub_no=79&cat_id=1&menu_id=17&news_type_id=1&index=13

Md Shamsuddoha
General Secretary
EquityBD

Pascal Lamy / Copyright by World Economic Forum swiss-image.ch/Photo by Monika Flueckiger

Geneva, 5 February 2010

Dear Mr Lamy,

We appreciated your speech of 13 January 2010 and willingness to engage in a discussion on the contested and controversial relationship between human rights and trade during the 11-13 January 2010 Colloquium on Human Rights in the Global Economy, co-organized by the International Council on Human Rights and Realizing Rights in Geneva.

We, the undersigned organizations and individuals who participated in the
Colloquium and the discussion with you, acknowledge and welcome your openness to dialogue. We also acknowledge your attempts to challenge the policy firewall that has too long been maintained between the discourses of trade and human rights and the ways in which you sought to draw out the connections between these two discourses. At the same time however, we remain concerned by persistent and obvious contradictions between the rhetoric of complementarity between human rights and trade liberalization (as it has been implemented so far), given the real outcomes of liberalization for people and communities around the world, especially in the developing countries.

Trade liberalization is a means, not an end
We concur with your statement that “trade liberalization is a means to an end, not an end in itself.” The ends should be to meet the objectives outlined in the preamble of the 1994 WTO agreement, such as sustainable development, full employment and a rising standard of living. You argued that “the opening of markets creates efficiency, stimulates growth and helps spur development, thereby contributing to the implementation of the fundamental human rights that are social and economic rights.” There was no acknowledgement on your part, however, that where and when trade liberalization undermines these human rights, then such liberalization should be halted. Nor did you recognize that—for all practical purposes—trade liberalization under the WTO has become an end in itself, regardless of any impacts on human rights and its social, economic and ecological costs.

Putting the cart before the horse?
In your speech, you underlined that “to be successful, the opening of markets requires solid social policies to redistribute wealth or provide safeguards to the men and women whose living conditions have been disrupted by evolving trade rules and trade patterns. This is what I have called the “Geneva consensus”, under which the
opening of markets is necessary to our collective well-being, but does not suffice in itself. It does not suffice unless strong safety nets help correct the imbalances between winners and losers at the national level. It does not suffice unless the countries which do not enjoy sufficient human, technical, and financial resources to build the necessary infrastructure or to put in place such safety nets domestically are assisted by the international community.”

Your assertion rightly suggests that when countries do not have adequate social protection systems in place, it would be illegitimate and irresponsible to pursue further trade liberalization, irrespective of the quid pro quo (or “mercantilistic”) logic of current WTO negotiations. From a human rights perspective, undertaking trade liberalization without these safety-nets in place for the ‘losers’ would violate the principle of “progressive realization” (and the concomitant principle of “non- retrogression”) as applied to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In such a case, a country could not uphold both its human rights obligations and its WTO obligations. But when such a conflict arises, countries must respect human rights in accordance with their obligations under the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the UN Charter and their commitments expressed in the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action to uphold the primacy of human rights as the “first responsibility of governments” (Vienna Declaration, art 1). It is clear that multilateral trade agreements cannot exclude or ignore human rights principles and objectives without losing their fundamental claim to legitimacy.

Moreover, from a human rights and development perspective, even in the highly hypothetical situation where adequate social protection systems were in place, it does not always follow that trade liberalization will be “successful,” as your “Geneva consensus” suggests. Trade liberalization has tended to lead to de-industrialization, thus it may (especially in developing countries) well destroy jobs and livelihoods without generating viable alternatives. Instead of “creating efficiency” it can destroy enterprises that are not yet in a position to compete internationally, causing not only direct job losses, but also indirect losses through inter-sectoral linkages with other domestic firms, such as among their local suppliers. Quite simply, it contravenes the objective of full employment to which your own organization is bound, and jeopardises the right to work and a range of economic, social and cultural rights.

You drew temporal parallels between the drafting of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the original efforts to establish a multilateral trading system. But in the 1948 Havana Charter, full employment, expansion of productive capacities and domestic demand were seen as necessary conditions for more economic integration. Now the thrust of WTO negotiations seem to think that the opposite is true. This is tantamount to putting the cart before the horse.

“Affirmative action” in trade law
You stated that “human rights and trade rules, including WTO rules, are based on the same values,” among which you mentioned “non-discrimination.” However, the concept of non-discrimination under international human rights law does not imply that the same rules should always apply to all players in order to create the “global level playing field, where fairness is the rule” that you say the WTO aims towards. Full reciprocity and equal trade rules among very unequal players can institutionalize discrimination and marginalization in the very name of non-discrimination! “Positive discrimination” or “affirmative action” is then required to ensure substantive equality and to protect the weakest and most vulnerable.

For the international trading system this requires a much more forceful and meaningful approach to “policy space” for developing countries to make sure trade obligations do not contravene their right to development and do not inhibit their capacity to fulfil their human rights obligations. In the WTO, the principle of ‘Special and Differential Treatment’ and particular provisions for the most vulnerable countries were intended to serve as a form of ‘affirmative action’ and to facilitate building a relatively level playing field among the WTO’s economically unequal members. Unfortunately however, these measures have become subject to the logic of quid pro quo compromises and deals, thus deepening the injustices in the global trade regime.

You argued that there is still ample policy space in current WTO rules, given wide gaps between applied and bound tariff rates. However, tariff structures vary considerably from country to country and, in any case, they cannot address non-tariff measures, such as local content requirements under TRIMs and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS) which can act as effective barriers for exports from developing countries which do not have the resources to implement the standards. Further, while you even concede yourself that conclusion of the Doha Round would significantly reduce policy space for developing countries, you continue to push WTO members to conclude the Round as quickly as possible.

A development and human rights audit of the WTO
At the last WTO ministerial meeting in late 2009, many voices were calling for a ‘development audit’ of the WTO, including a focus on items still under negotiation in the Doha Round. This is not new. There have been calls for human rights, environmental and development impact assessments of the global trading regime at least since the 1999 Seattle Ministerial Conference. In the interest of promoting the coherence between trade, development and human rights that you claimed in your speech to support, we ask that you recognize, in your position as Director General of the WTO and Chair of the WTO General Council, that it is time to agree to an independent and participatory ‘development and human rights audit’ before proceeding with any further negotiations. The “development round” was meant to correct the injustices and imbalances inherited from the Uruguay Round. However, the current round is unlikely to be successful in correcting these injustices, but may also serve to create new injustices. This is simply not compatible with ensuring the capacity of all states to realize and uphold their full human rights obligations.

We would be particularly interested to hear more from you how you think the persistent asymmetries in international trade rules (e.g. heavy protection of agriculture by developed countries), as well as the lack of implementation of rulings of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism of WTO by some industrial countries (e.g. in the case of cotton and in the case of zeroing methodologies), will be resolved.

These reflections on the discussion in which we engaged with you on 13 January 2010 are offered in the same spirit of openness that your participation signalled. Continued dialogue is certainly necessary, and we hope that through such dialogue we can move beyond rhetoric on either side towards a concrete examination of the inconsistencies and conflicts between current models of trade liberalization and fundamental human rights obligations, and to consider ways of dealing practically with these real world issues.

We look forward to receiving your response.

Signatories (organizations and individuals who participated in the 13 January
2010 discussion with Pascal Lamy):

1.  Center for Economic and Social Rights
2.  Center for Women’s Global Leadership
3.  Global Rights, Partners for Justice
4.  Lutheran World Federation
5.  Miloon Kothari, Habitat International Coalition (former UN Special
Rapporteur on the Right to adequate housing)
6. Roberto Bissio, Social Watch
7. George DeMartino, Professor, University of Denver
8. Claire Mahon, Project on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Geneva
Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights
9. Niko Lusiani, International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ESCR-Net) Secretariat
10. S. M. Shafaeddin, independent consultant

Cc: WTO External Relations office

Noam Chomsky, Anthony Arnove, Naomi Klein, and Alice Walker interviewed by Amy Goodman

Source: DN!

Guests:

Noam Chomsky, author and Institute Professor Emeritus at MIT, where he taught for over half a century. He is author of dozens of books. His most recent is Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy.

Naomi Klein, journalist and author. Her latest book is The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

Alice Walker, Pulitzer Prize-winning author, poet and activist. She was a student of Howard Zinn’s at Spelman College in the early 1960s.

Anthony Arnove, co-author, with Howard Zinn, of Voices of A People’s History of the United States and co-director, with Zinn, of Let the People Speak

AMY GOODMAN: We’re broadcasting from Park City, Utah, from the Sundance Film Festival, the home of the largest independent film festival in the country.

We spend the rest of the hour paying tribute to Howard Zinn, the late historian, writer and activist. He died suddenly Wednesday of a heart attack at the age of eighty-seven.

After serving as a bombardier in World War II, Howard Zinn went on to become a lifelong dissident and peace activist. He was active in the civil rights movement and many of the struggles for social justice over the past fifty years.

He taught at Spelman College, the historically black college for women. He was fired for insubordination for standing up for the students. While at Spelman, he served on the executive committee of SNCC, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. After being forced out of Spelman, Zinn became a professor at Boston University.

In 1967 he published Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal. It was the first book on the war to call for immediate withdrawal, no conditions. A year later, he and Father Daniel Berrigan traveled to North Vietnam to receive the first three American prisoners of wars released by the North Vietnamese.

When Daniel Ellsberg needed a place to hide the Pentagon Papers before they were leaked to the press, he went to Howard and his late wife Roz.

In 1980, Howard Zinn published his classic work, A People’s History of the United States. The book would go on to sell over a million copies and change the way we look at history in America. The book was recently made into a television special called The People Speak.

Well, in a moment, we’ll be joined by Noam Chomsky, Alice Walker, Naomi Klein, Anthony Arnove. But first, I want to turn to a 2005 interview I did with Howard Zinn, in which he talked about his time as an Air Force bombardier in World War II.

HOWARD ZINN: Well, we thought bombing missions were over. The war was about to come to an end. This was in April of 1945, and remember the war ended in early May 1945. This was a few weeks before the war was going to be over, and everybody knew it was going to be over, and our armies were past France into Germany, but there was a little pocket of German soldiers hanging around this little town of Royan on the Atlantic coast of France, and the Air Force decided to bomb them. Twelve hundred heavy bombers, and I was in one of them, flew over this little town of Royan and dropped napalm—first use of napalm in the European theater.

And we don’t know how many people were killed or how many people were terribly burned as a result of what we did. But I did it like most soldiers do, unthinkingly, mechanically, thinking we’re on the right side, they’re on the wrong side, and therefore we can do whatever we want, and it’s OK. And only afterward, only really after the war when I was reading about Hiroshima from John Hersey and reading the stories of the survivors of Hiroshima and what they went through, only then did I begin to think about the human effects of bombing. Only then did I begin to think about what it meant to human beings on the ground when bombs were dropped on them, because as a bombardier, I was flying at 30,000 feet, six miles high, couldn’t hear screams, couldn’t see blood. And this is modern warfare.

In modern warfare, soldiers fire, they drop bombs, and they have no notion, really, of what is happening to the human beings that they’re firing on. Everything is done at a distance. This enables terrible atrocities to take place. And I think, reflecting back on that bombing raid and thinking of that in Hiroshima and all the other raids on civilian cities and the killing of huge numbers of civilians in German and Japanese cities, the killing of 100,000 people in Tokyo in one night of fire-bombing, all of that made me realize war, even so-called good wars against fascism like World War II, wars don’t solve any fundamental problems, and they always poison everybody on both sides. They poison the minds and souls of everybody on both sides. We’re seeing that now in Iraq, where the minds of our soldiers are being poisoned by being an occupying army in a land where they are not wanted. And the results are terrible.

AMY GOODMAN: After returning from the war, Howard Zinn attended New York University on the GI Bill. He then received his master’s and doctoral degrees in history from Columbia University.

In the late ’50s, Howard Zinn moved to Atlanta to teach at all-black women’s school Spelman, where he became deeply involved in the civil rights movement. We’re joined now by one of his former students, the author and poet Alice Walker. She’s joining us now from her home in Mexico.

Alice, welcome to Democracy Now! So sad to talk to you on this day after we learned of the death of Howard Zinn.

ALICE WALKER: Thank you very much for inviting me to talk.

AMY GOODMAN: But talk about your former teacher.

ALICE WALKER: Well, my former teacher was one of the funniest people I have ever known, and he was likelier to say the most extraordinary things at the most amazing moments.

For instance, in Atlanta once, we get to this very staid, at that time, white college, all these very staid, upper-class white girls there and their teachers, and Howie got up—I don’t know how they managed to invite him, but anyway, there we were. And this was even before any of the changes in Atlanta. We were still battling to get into restaurants. So Howie gets up, and he goes up to the front of the room, and this large room is full of people, and he starts his talk by saying, “Well, I stand to the left of Mao Zedong.” And it was just—it was such a moment, because the people couldn’t imagine anyone in Atlanta saying something like that, when at that time the Chinese and the Chinese Revolution just meant that, you know, people were on the planet who were just going straight ahead, a folk revolution. So he was saying he was to the left of that. So, it’s just an amazing thing.

I think I felt he would live forever. And I feel such joy that I was lucky enough to know him. And he had such a wonderful impact on my life and on the lives of the students of Spelman and of millions of people. We’ve just been incredibly lucky to have him for all these years, eighty-seven. That’s such a long time. Not long enough. And I’m just so grateful.

AMY GOODMAN: Alice, Howard Zinn was thrown out of Spelman College—right?—as a professor, for insubordination, although recently they gave him an honorary degree, and he addressed the graduating class. Why was he thrown out?

ALICE WALKER: Well, he was thrown out because he loved us, and he showed that love by just being with us. He loved his students. He didn’t see why we should be second-class citizens. He didn’t see why we shouldn’t be able to eat where we wanted to and sleep where we wanted to and be with the people we wanted to be with. And so, he was with us. He didn’t stay back, you know, in his tower there at the school. And so, he was a subversive in that situation.

And, of course, the administration could expel the students for activism. And I left Spelman because I sort of lost my scholarship, but I had stayed. That was one of the ways they controlled us. And they tried to control him, but of course you couldn’t control Howie. And so, they even waited until he had left for the summer vacation to fire him, to fire him. They didn’t fire him face to face. But, yeah, he was, you know, a radical and a subversive on the campus, as far as they were concerned. And our freedom was just not that important to the administration. What they needed was for us not to rock the boat.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn to Noam Chomsky, who’s still with us on the phone from Boston. Noam, I wanted to ask you about Howard Zinn’s role in the antiwar movement in the ’60s. In 1968, Howard Zinn traveled to North Vietnam with Father Daniel Berrigan to bring home three US prisoners of war. They became two of the first Americans to visit North Vietnam during the war. This is Howard Zinn speaking in 1968 after he returned to the United States.

HOWARD ZINN: Father Berrigan and I, on our way back—this may seem presumptuous on our part, but when—on our way back in from Paris, we sent a wire, I think with our last fifteen bucks, to the White House, saying something like, “We’d like to talk to you, President Johnson. You know, would you please meet with us? We’ve just come back from Hanoi. We’ve just talked with the premier, Pham Van Dong. But we just read in the newspaper that you say the North Vietnamese are not ready to negotiate. What we learned from Pham Van Dong seems to contradict that. We’d like to talk with you about this and about the prisoner release, which we think has been mishandled.” But we have not, so far, seen an answer from LBJ.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Howard Zinn. Noam Chomsky, talk about this period. Talk about the time Howard Zinn went with Father Dan Berrigan to North Vietnam and what it meant.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, that was a breakthrough at recognizing the humanity of the official enemy. Of course, the main enemy were the people of South Vietnam, who were practically destroyed. South Vietnam had been devastated by then. And that was important.

But, at least in my view, the most—the more important was his—the book you mentioned before, The Logic of Withdrawal. And there was, by then—so I think this must have been 1967—you know, a substantial antiwar movement, but it was keeping to palliatives, you know, stop doing these terrible things, do less, and so on. Howard really broke through. He was the first person to say—loudly, publicly, very persuasively—that this simply has to stop; we should get out, period, no conditions; we have no right to be there; it’s an act of aggression; pull out.

Actually, he—that was so surprising at the time—it became more commonplace later—that he couldn’t even—there wasn’t even a review of the book. In fact, he asked me if I would review it in Ramparts just so that—which, you know, left-wing journal I was running then—just so somebody—people would see it. So I did that.

But it sank in pretty quickly, and it just changed the way people looked at the war. And in fact, that was one of his fabulous achievements all along. He simply changed people’s perspectives, both by his argument and his courage and his integrity and his willingness to be on the front line all the time and his simplicity and, as Alice Walker said, his humor. This is one case, the war. His People’s History is another case. I mean, it simply changed the conscience of a whole generation.

There had been some studies, you know, of the sort of actions from below, but he raised it to an entirely new plane. In fact, the phrase of his that always rings in my mind is his reverence for and his detailed study of what he called “the countless small actions of unknown people” that lead to those great moments that enter the historical record, a record that you simply can’t begin to understand unless you look at those countless small actions.

And he not only wrote about them eloquently, but he participated in them. And he inspired others to participate in them. And the antiwar movement was one case, civil rights movement before it, Central American wars in the 1980s. In fact, just about any—you know, office worker strikes—just about anything you can—any significant action for peace and justice, Howard was there. People saw him as a leader, but he was really a participant. His remarkable character made him a leader, even if he was just sitting on the—you know, waiting for the police to pull people away like everyone else.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam, in 1971—you may remember this; in fact, you may have been there, but Howard Zinn and Daniel Ellsberg were both beaten by police in Boston at a protest against the Vietnam War. One day before the beating, Zinn spoke at a large rally on Boston Common. This is an excerpt from the documentary You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train.

HOWARD ZINN: A lot of people are troubled by civil disobedience. As soon as you talk about committing civil disobedience, they get a little upset. That’s exactly the purpose of civil disobedience: to upset people, to trouble them, to disturb them. We who commit civil disobedience are disturbed, too, and we mean to disturb those who are in charge of the war.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: He said at the end of his speech, I remember, he said, “Now let me address the secret police in this crowd.”

HOWARD ZINN: You agents of the FBI who are circulating in the crowd, hey, don’t you see that you’re violating the spirit of democracy by what you’re doing? Don’t you see that you’re behaving like the secret police of a totalitarian state?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Well, that cost him a bit, I think, the next day when we were sitting in front of the Federal Building, I have a feeling, because, again, the police chose in the end to arrest almost no one. They didn’t want arrests. They didn’t want a trial. They didn’t want the publicity that would be associated with that. They only arrested a couple of ring leaders, and one of those was Howard.

HOWARD ZINN: And so, let the spirit of disobedience spread to the war factories, to the battlefield, to the halls of Congress, to every town and city, until the killing stops, until we can hold up our heads again before the world. And our children deserve a world without war, and we ought to try to give them that.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: And at that point, the batons were raised, and they began clubbing us very heavily. Howard was pulled up, as I say. His shirt was ripped apart. He was taken away. And I saw blood coming down his chest as he left.

AMY GOODMAN: That was an excerpt of the documentary You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train, was also the title of Howard Zinn’s autobiography.

Noam, we just have a minute left in this segment, but talk about that activism.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, that case is very similar to what Howard described about his bombing attack. I mean, the police were actually sympathetic, the individual policemen. They were coming over to demonstrators, you know, speaking supportively. And in fact, when they were given the order to move forward, they were actually telling people, Howard and others, “Look, please move, because we don’t want to do this.” But then, when the order came, they did it. I don’t know who. But it’s much like he said: when you’re in uniform, under arms, an automaton following orders, you do it.

And as Dan pointed out, they went right after Howard, probably in reaction to his comments the day before. And he was dragged away and beaten.

But he was constantly involved with civil disobedience. I was many times with him, as Dan Ellsberg was and others. And he was just—he was fearless. He was simple. He was straightforward. He said the right things, said them eloquently, and inspired others to move forward in ways they wouldn’t have done, and changed their minds. They changed their minds by their actions and by hearing him. He was a really—both in his life and in his work, he was a remarkable person, just irreplaceable.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam, you were personal friends with Howard, too. You and Carol, Howard and Roz spent summers near each other on the Cape.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, we were personal friends, close personal friends for many years, over forty years. So it’s, of course, a personal loss. But it’s beyond—even beyond his close friends and family, it’s just a tragic loss to the millions of people—who knows how many endless numbers?—whose lives he touched and changed and helped them become much better people.

The one good thing is that he understood and recognized them, sure, especially in those last remarkable, vibrant years of his life, how much his incredible contributions were welcomed, admired, how much he was loved and admired, and he could look back on a very satisfying life of real unusual achievement.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Noam Chomsky, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Noam is a linguist, a world-renowned dissident and a close friend of Howard Zinn. And Alice Walker, thanks, as well, for joining us from Mexico, former student and friend of Howard Zinn.

This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we’ll hear more of Howard in his own words, and we’ll be joined by Anthony Arnove, his co-editor and colleague. Stay with us.

AMY GOODMAN: We’ll be joined by Anthony Arnove and Naomi Klein, but on this sad day, the day after the news of Howard Zinn’s death, I want to turn to one of the last interviews we did with him. It was May 2009. He came to New York to promote his latest book.

AMY GOODMAN: You write in the introduction to A Young People’s History of the United States, “Over the years, some people have asked me: ‘Do you think that your history, which is radically different than the usual histories of the United States, is suitable for young people? Won’t it create disillusionment with our country? Is it right to be so critical of the government’s policies? Is it right to take down the traditional heroes of the nation, like Christopher Columbus, Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt?’”

HOWARD ZINN: Yeah, it’s true that people have asked that question again and again. You know, should we tell kids that Columbus, whom they have been told was a great hero, that Columbus mutilated Indians and kidnapped them and killed them in pursuit of gold? Should we tell people that Theodore Roosevelt, who is held up as one of our great presidents, was really a warmonger who loved military exploits and who congratulated an American general who committed a massacre in the Philippines? Should we tell young people that?

And I think the answer is: we should be honest with young people; we should not deceive them. We should be honest about the history of our country. And we should be not only taking down the traditional heroes like Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt, but we should be giving young people an alternate set of heroes.

Instead of Theodore Roosevelt, tell them about Mark Twain. Mark Twain—well, Mark Twain, everybody learns about as the author of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, but when we go to school, we don’t learn about Mark Twain as the vice president of the Anti-Imperialist League. We aren’t told that Mark Twain denounced Theodore Roosevelt for approving this massacre in the Philippines. No.

We want to give young people ideal figures like Helen Keller. And I remember learning about Helen Keller. Everybody learns about Helen Keller, you know, a disabled person who overcame her handicaps and became famous. But people don’t learn in school and young people don’t learn in school what we want them to learn when we do books like A Young People’s History of the United States, that Helen Keller was a socialist. She was a labor organizer. She refused to cross a picket line that was picketing a theater showing a play about her.

And so, there are these alternate heroes in American history. There’s Fannie Lou Hamer and Bob Moses. They’re the heroes of the civil rights movement. There are a lot of people who are obscure, who are not known. We have in this Young People’s History, we have a young hero who was sitting on the bus in Montgomery, Alabama, refused to leave the front of the bus. And that was before Rosa Parks. I mean, Rosa Parks is justifiably famous for refusing to leave her seat, and she got arrested, and that was the beginning of the Montgomery Bus Boycott and really the beginning of a great movement in the South. But this fifteen-year-old girl did it first. And so, we have a lot of—we are trying to bring a lot of these obscure people back into the forefront of our attention and inspire young people to say, “This is the way to live.”

AMY GOODMAN: Yes, that was Howard Zinn. We’re joined now by Anthony Arnove in New York, by Naomi Klein here at Sundance, where Howard Zinn was last year, premiering The People Speak. He was here with Anthony Arnove, who’s co-author of Voices of a People’s History of the United States with Anthony.

Anthony, we just have a few minutes, but share your reflections on the latest work of Howard Zinn. I know this is a tremendous personal loss for you, as well as for everyone.

ANTHONY ARNOVE: Well, you know, Howard never rested. He had such an energy. And over the last few years, he continued to write, continued to speak, and he brought to life this history that he spoke about in that segment that you just aired. He wanted to bring a new generation of people into contact with the voices of dissent, the voices of protest, that they don’t get in their school textbooks, that we don’t get in our establishment media, and to remind them of the power of their own voice, remind them of the power of dissent, the power of protest. And he wanted to leave a legacy of crystallizing those voices, synthesizing those voices.

And he actively worked to bring together this remarkable documentary, The People Speak, which he narrated. He worked so tirelessly to bring that about. And, you know, I just felt so privileged to have had the opportunity to work with him at all, let alone on this project, and to see that realized.

But, you know, Alice Walker talked about his humor, his sense of joy in life, and that was infectious. He really conveyed to everyone he came into contact with that there was no more meaningful action than to be involved in struggle, no more fulfilling or important way of living one’s life than in struggle fighting for justice. And so many people, myself included, but, you know, millions of people around the world, countless number of people, they changed their lives by encountering Howard Zinn—Howard changed their lives—reading A People’s History of the United States, hearing one of his lectures, meeting him, hearing him on the radio, reading an article he wrote. He really inspired people to create the kinds of movements that brought about whatever rights, whatever freedoms, whatever liberties we have in this country. And that really is the legacy that it’s incumbent upon all of us to extend and keep alive and keep vibrant.

AMY GOODMAN: Anthony, I wanted to bring Naomi Klein back into this discussion. I think it’s very touching we’re here at Sundance, where you were with Howard Zinn last year, as he premiered People Speak. But last night, after Howard died, we saw the New York Times put up the AP, the Associated Press, obit. The Times has something like 1,200 obits already prepared for people. They didn’t have one prepared for Howard Zinn. And this Associated Press obit very quickly went to a quote of Arthur Schlesinger, the historian, who once said, “I know”—he’s talking about Howard Zinn—”I know he regards me as a dangerous reactionary. And I don’t take him very seriously. He’s a polemicist, not a historian.” Naomi Klein, your response?

NAOMI KLEIN: I don’t think that would have bothered Howard Zinn at all. He never was surprised when power protected itself. And he really was a people’s historian, so he didn’t look to the elites for validation.

I’m just so happy that Anthony and the incredible team from People Speak gave Howard this incredible gift at the end of his life. I was at Lincoln Center at the premiere of People Speak and was there when just the mention of Howard’s name led thousands of people to leap to their feet and give him the standing ovation that he deserved. So I don’t think he needed the New York Times. I don’t think he needed the official historians. He was everybody’s favorite teacher, the teacher that changed your life, but he was that for millions and millions of people. And so, you know, that’s what happened. We just lost our favorite teacher.

But the thing about Howard is that the history that he taught was not just about losing the official illusions about nationalism, about the heroic figures. It was about telling people to believe in themselves and their power to change the world. So, like any wonderful teacher, he left all of these lessons behind. And I think we should all just resolve to be a little bit more like Howard today.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, let’s end with Howard Zinn in his own words, from one of his last speeches. He spoke at Boston University just two months ago in November.

HOWARD ZINN: No matter what we’re told, no matter what tyrant exists, what border has been crossed, what aggression has taken place, it’s not that we’re going to be passive in the face of tyranny or aggression, no, but we’ll find ways other than war to deal with whatever problems we have, because war is inevitably—inevitably—the indiscriminant massive killing of huge numbers of people. And children are a good part of those people. Every war is a war against children.

So it’s not just getting rid of Saddam Hussein, if we think about it. Well, we got rid of Saddam Hussein. In the course of it, we killed huge numbers of people who had been victims of Saddam Hussein. When you fight a war against a tyrant, who do you kill? You kill the victims of the tyrant. Anyway, all this—all this was simply to make us think again about war and to think, you know, we’re at war now, right? In Iraq, in Afghanistan and sort of in Pakistan, since we’re sending rockets over there and killing innocent people in Pakistan. And so, we should not accept that.

We should look for a peace movement to join. Really, look for some peace organization to join. It will look small at first, and pitiful and helpless, but that’s how movements start. That’s how the movement against the Vietnam War started. It started with handfuls of people who thought they were helpless, thought they were powerless. But remember, this power of the people on top depends on the obedience of the people below. When people stop obeying, they have no power. When workers go on strike, huge corporations lose their power. When consumers boycott, huge business establishments have to give in. When soldiers refuse to fight, as so many soldiers did in Vietnam, so many deserters, so many fraggings, acts of violence by enlisted men against officers in Vietnam, B-52 pilots refusing to fly bombing missions anymore, war can’t go on. When enough soldiers refuse, the government has to decide we can’t continue. So, yes, people have the power. If they begin to organize, if they protest, if they create a strong enough movement, they can change things. That’s all I want to say. Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Yes, that was Howard Zinn. As we wrap up today, Naomi Klein, your final words?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, we are in the midst of a Howard Zinn revival. I mean, this was happening anyway. And it’s so extraordinary for somebody at the end of their life to be having films made about them and played on television, and his books are back on the bestseller list. And it’s because the particular message that Howard relayed his whole life, devoted his whole life to, is so relevant for this moment. I mean, even thinking about it the day after the State of the Union address, Howard’s message was don’t believe in great men; believe in yourself; history comes from the bottom up.

And that—we have forgotten how change happens in this country. We think that you can just vote and that change will happen for us. And Howard was just relentlessly reminding us, no, you make the change that you want. And that message was so relevant for this moment. And I just feel so grateful to Anthony and, once again, the whole team that facilitated this revival, because we need Howard’s voice more than ever right now.

AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, that last work, The People Speak, appeared on the History Channel, oh, just in the last weeks, really a culmination of Howard Zinn’s work.

By the end of 2009, it seemed necessary to take stock of the political and economic situation and of the different processes in which civil society has been actively involved, in order to provide input for debate and coordinate efforts for the construction of a new economic and financial model. For this purpose, a seminar-workshop was carried out on December 10 and 11 2009, within the framework of the MERCOSUR Summit of Presidents held in Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 8.

Representatives of over 40 Latin American social organisations gathered in Montevideo in order to discuss and propose alternatives to the current financial system. Following the outburst of the economic and financial crisis in 2008, discussions and proposals started to proliferate in governmental and inter-governmental spaces and social organisations at international level, thus becoming necessary to bring them to this regional space, in order to build and strengthen political advocacy strategies in the face of alternatives, taking into account the current political and economic situation and the different sub-regions.

Four thematic panels addressing the characteristics of the current financial system, the implications of the crisis, the responses registered from different perspectives and the regional integration and Brazil’s role in the region took place on the first day. A groupwork dynamics to analyse the alternatives to the current financial system and the advocacy power of social organisations was developed on the second day. Upon concluding the meeting, participants presented a work summary and exchanged short-term and medium-term perspectives and proposals.

The first panel was made up of Javier Gómez of CEDLA (Bolivia), Héctor Moncayo of ILSA and the Hemispheric Social Alliance (Colombia), Jana Silverman of Social Watch (Uruguay) and Karen Lang of OWINFS (Brazil). During their interventions, panelists highlighted the need to analyse the crisis in a comprehensive way and the fact that social movements should have a critical and demanding position regarding the social, economic and financial policies of rulers, including those taking part in the so-called “new Latin American left”. Likewise, the weaknesses of the UN to give response to the crisis, governance problems at the global level and the emergence of new emerging country coalitions in the global scenario, such as BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) were discussed.

The second panel was made up of Juan González of the Confederation of Argentine Workers (Argentina), Norma Aguilar of the Andean Coordinator of Indigenous Organisations (Peru), Víctor Ricco of CEDHA (Argentina) and Alma Espino of the International Gender and Trade Network (Uruguay). Panelists presented perspectives from the workers, indigenous, environmentalists and women’s movement, underlining the need to strengthen an alternative regional integration to what has been proposed until now in spaces such as MERCOSUR. The indigenous movement presented the concept of “Living Well” as an alternative to the consumerist and unsustainable development model currently in force.

The third panel was made up of Héctor Mondragón of the Hemispheric Social Alliance (Colombia), Graciela Rodríguez of REBRIP and the Hemispheric Social Alliance (Brazil), Álvaro Padrón of FESUR (Uruguay) and Luis Sirumbal of Social Watch (Peru). Special emphasis was laid on Brazil’s role at regional and global level and on how regional integration appears as the only way possible to change the current production pattern prevailing in the region. According to Álvaro Padrón, “the policies of Southern Cone governments were strongly impacted by the demands of social movements at country level, although the same was not registered at regional level”, which is a weakness to be overcome.

The fourth panel was made up of Rómulo Torres of Latindadd (Peru), Sebastián Valdomir of Redes-Amigos de la Tierra (Uruguay), Ricardo Jacques of the Central Trade Union Coordinator of the Southern Cone (Brazil), and Pedro Páez, president of the Technical Commission of the Bank of the South (Ecuador). This panel presented the work and vindications of the debt movement as regards the current situation, made reference to the implications of Latin America’s trade relations with the European Union and analysed the activity of the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES) as economic and financial actor within and outside Brazilian borders. Upon concluding this panel, Pedro Páez shared his reflections on the crisis and alternatives to the current system with participants of the seminar. About the crisis, he stated that: “by re-regulating the system, we do not solve the crisis, by implementing Keynesian policies we do not solve crisis” (…) “at the core of the crisis there lies a power unbalance”. After his presentation, a question remained as to what is there to be done from social organisations to turn the Bank of the South into a really alternative source of finance in the short and medium-term.

At the close of the seminar, a public event was organised at the School of Social Sciences (University of the Republic) aimed at finding spaces for interaction with officials from the governments attending the summit in Montevideo, civil society and public in general. The panelists were Roberto Bissio of Social Watch (Uruguay), Raúl Zibechi, journalist (Uruguay), Fernando Gambera, member of the representative board of PIT-CNT (Uruguay), Graciela Rodríguez of REBRIP and Hemispheric Social Alliance (Brazil), and Pedro Páez, president of the Technical Commission of the Bank of the South (Ecuador).

The work and conclusions resulting from these two days of activity were of utmost importance to put an end to a year marked by the crisis and its effects, and to understand the challenges ahead of us in 2010 at international, regional and national level.

Related Information:

-> agenda of the seminar

-> Audio presentations -Spanish only- can be downloaded at:

* Roberto Bissio

* Raúl Zibechi

* Fernando Gambera

* Graciela Rodríguez

* Pedro Paez

-> See pictures of the event

by Tanya Dawkins / published by YES! Magazine

Tanya Dawkins: How are you feeling about the domestic human rights movement right now?

Ajamu Baraka: I’m feeling pretty good, even though we have some very real challenges as a movement. The election of Barack Obama provides opportunities as well as some very interesting political challenges. Under the Bush Administration, the targets of our advocacy, organizing, and education work were pretty clear. With Obama’s election and Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, we find ourselves struggling against the tendency some might have to believe that we can relax and just engage in quiet, behind-the-scenes diplomacy.

But experience has taught us that it is still important for human rights defenders to push the envelope to make sure we are advancing our demands in a very clear, powerful, and coordinated way.

Before this crisis, issues around housing, jobs, and health care were framed as issues that only the market could address. The state’s role was to primarily facilitate market forces.

Now questions that speak to the proper role of the state are being raised. What is its role in ensuring that people have dignified lives? Does it have a responsibility ensure that people have a place to lay their heads, food to eat, access to health care, a clean environment, effective educational institutions?

So for the first time in 30 years, there is a real opportunity to push back on the ideological ascendancy of the Right, which has been pretty successful in convincing people of the superior efficiency of the private market system and that anything the state touches will be screwed up.

This is where the power of the human rights framework comes in. This framework provides clear values around issues of human dignity and justice that help people to understand both the proper role of the government and the proper limitations on a private market system.

Framing these issues not just in terms of policy choices, but in terms of fundamental human rights, puts a whole other level of demand on the table.

Tanya: Is the U.S. living up to its domestic human rights obligations?

Ajamu: The main issue that is impacting us all is the economic situation, including the government’s response to the meltdown. Across the country, many organizations have embraced the human rights framework, reframing the policy discussions and struggles in the context of human rights demands.

The crisis, for example, has had disproportional impacts on minority communities. Under the terms of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the state is required to formulate policies that specifically address these unfair impacts. But because those considerations weren’t part of the discussion around the stimulus package, the stimulus has not been as effective or equitable as it could have been.

Tanya: Speaking of CERD, last year, the U.S. Human Rights Network organized a major delegation to Geneva to present a Shadow Report responding to the official government report on U.S. compliance with these treaty obligations.

Ajamu: With the signing and ratification of a treaty, a country is obligated to submit certain periodic reports to the treaty body responsible for monitoring compliance. In the case of CERD, the US is required to submit reports every four years. As a part of this process, civil society, popular forces and other non-governmental organizations can submit what is known as a shadow report, reflecting their perspective on a government’s treaty compliance.

The US Human Rights Network coordinated with more than 400 organizations in the development of the CERD Shadow Report. The final 700-page report covered a wide variety of issues that the US government did not address in its response. We then organized a delegation of more than 120 activists, including a very strong contingent of young people, in order to have a physical presence at the hearing in Geneva. It was an amazing sight to see these young people, many of whom had never left the country before, doing serious human rights work at the UN.

The CERD Committee issued 34 Concluding Observations, which document the degree to which a government is in compliance with its treaty obligations and outline any steps that must be taken. Of these, five required action and response within 12 months—including the Western Shoshone land issue, racial profiling, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for child offenders, ongoing Katrina displacement, and the government’s failure to properly inform the public of the existence of the CERD treaty, which requires that all levels of government, including state and local, bring their laws and practices into compliance.

Tanya: A good bit of the CERD report dealt with housing. Who could have predicted that the housing issue would be front and center for so many people in the United States just a year later? How is this playing out in terms of building the domestic human rights movement?

Ajamu: In this country, adequate housing is not seen as a fundamental human right.  The worst housing crisis we’ve experienced in decades was not just the result of the mortgage meltdown, but also of the systematic elimination of affordable housing that took place in this country over the last three decades.

It’s more important than ever to put very concrete demands on the government to develop programs and to earmark resources for housing.

We are developing and supporting a new initiative called “Take Back the Land” to highlight the role of various banks whose predatory lending targeted minority communities—and that have failed to provide mortgage adjustments to allow people to stay in their homes.

The campaign will also highlight the systematic elimination of public housing. The most graphic example is what took place and is still taking place in New Orleans. In the midst of a housing crisis, there were thousands of people, scattered across the country, who wanted to return to New Orleans’ perfectly sound public housing. The government, instead, decided to raze some 5,000 units of public housing—violating international human rights standards that protect people displaced as a consequence of natural disasters or human-made disasters.

This campaign also suggests that, given the public bailout of banks, the homes that these banks are re-appropriating are not private property but are, in fact, houses to which the public has a right.

In May, during a 30-day campaign, the Take Back the Land Initiative is going to be putting people across the country back in their homes through direct actions. This is one of the ways that the campaign will operationalize the demand that the government re-direct adequate resources for affordable housing to poor, working people.

Tanya: We know that bringing this movement to scale requires engaging people who may be inspired by the possibilities but insecure about their capacity to have an impact or intimidated by the enormity of the task at hand. What would you say to someone like that?

Ajamu: I would ask them, do you believe in social justice? In democracy? In the possibility of individual, community, and societal transformation? If you do, you are a human rights defender.

We say that for everyone who believes in the possibility of real change, we can be that much more than what we have been.

Tanya: You speak of possibilities that many don’t dare imagine. When has the human rights framework led to substantive improvement in the lives of everyday citizens?

Ajamu: We need only look back into the history of this country. The struggle for abolition of slavery was a human rights struggle. The struggle for women to be recognized as equal human beings and workers’ struggles for a more dignified existence, including the demands for an 8-hour workday and protections against inhumane working conditions, were human rights struggles. Lesbians, gays, bi-sexuals and transgendered people’s fight for dignity and equality are all are part of the struggle for human rights and human dignity.

It is no accident that the repression in the 1960s in the South led to the Alabama Christian Human Rights Coalition and the Human Rights Appeal, or that the themes of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference convention were around human rights.

The human rights movement has always been a part of the advancement of civil rights and democracy here in this country. We say, “from civil rights back to human rights” because it has always been about human rights.

Tanya: One of the key challenges of building the movement for human rights is helping people to connect the dots between the freedoms and rights they now enjoy, and may take for granted, and the movement for human rights. Given all of the challenges and opportunities of this moment, how does the Network do this work?

Ajamu: The coordinating office in Atlanta facilitates processes by which groups working on a range of human rights issues can come together in order to concentrate their power and advance their issues and campaigns. There are various ways we support the work, but we are guided by the principle that the people who are most impacted by human rights violations need to be at the center of the work. We believe that we can only realize human rights when there are links between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, and that the only way we’ll advance collective human rights is through building social movements.

The human rights framework is an instrument that can help us all work together, recognizing that we’re not going to be able to advance any of our individual issues or concerns without a more critical look at some of the systemic elements that are impacting all of us.

Another central campaign we are supporting is the Campaign for a New Domestic Human Rights Agenda, which includes the agenda we believe the Obama Administration needs to address. It includes the reestablishment of the Interagency Working Group, which will require that government agencies coordinate to ensure their practices are in line with the treaty obligations the U.S. has signed. We are also pushing for reinvigoration and expansion of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission—with a civil and human rights mandate, it could be the national institution that is needed to ensure that US practices at every level of government is in line with human rights values and obligations.

The Campaign is also calling on the Obama Administration to create a program of action to respond to U.S. lapses in implementing CERD, and to address issues of continued racial oppression in the United States.

There will be many challenges over the next few years as this economy continues to be transformed. This economy has already been earmarked to be a low wage economy, and the impact that will have on millions of people will be devastating.

We believe we have a real opportunity to advance demands for economic rights if we can show people that we have real opportunity for change at this point in history.

Tanya: How is today’s domestic human rights movement changing?

Ajamu: There is a popular conception of a human rights defender as a swashbuckling lawyer, steeped in international law and with privileged access to information and funding. But today’s struggle for human rights is not one that will be led by lawyers or advocates in Washington.

There has been a gradual shift to more democratic, grassroots, base-building approaches and organizations. People like Cheri Honkala of the Poor People’s Human Rights Campaign, Jaribu Hill, founder of Southern Human Rights Organizers, and grassroots community leaders across this country reflect the changing face of the domestic human rights movement.

This new human rights movement does not pretend to be impartial or apolitical. We recognize that the only way we can fully realize our human rights is as a consequence of a shift in power toward the poor and working class here in this country.

We recognize that those kinds of changes are not going to take place in the absence of struggle or in the absence of demands.

So we see this new human rights movement as a revolutionary movement that is advancing a new vision of society, one in which substantive equality is a possibility. Unequal access to power, resources, information, and leisure time are human contradictions that, though a real commitment to the dignity of humanity, we will one day see eliminated forever.

This is a struggle against oppression, but it is also a struggle for a new society and a new kind of world.

******************************************************************

Tanya Dawkins interviewed Ajamu Baraka for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Tanya is executive director of the Global-Local Links Project, YES! Magazine board member, co-author of the 2009 U.S. Social Watch Report, Opportunity in Crisis: Navigating the Perfect Storm, and member of Social Watch Coordinating Committee.

Roberto Bissio’s speech at the Development Debates Controversy Panel, activity hold by Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN). The panel also counted witht the participation of Rosalind Petchesky, on Gender Identity, Sexuality and Feminism, and Rodelyn Marte, on HIV/AIDS and Women. This activity took place on January 19th 2010 at Mauritius, Africa.

To listen Roberto Bissio’s speech.

Development Debates Controversy Panel