[afro-nets] Food for a thought falling on deaf ears

[Claudio Schuftan <claudio@hcmc.netnam.vn>]

Food for a thought falling on deaf ears
---------------------------------------

Human Rights Reader 127

YESTERDAY'S FUTURE HAS ARRIVED: THE POST-WASHINGTON CONSENSUS
ONLY HAS A PITIFUL VAGUE ORIENTATION TOWARDS THE ERADICATION OF
POVERTY AND ILL-HEALTH AS HUMAN RIGHTS PRIORITIES. (Part 1 of 2)

1. The ongoing neoliberal global restructuring is mostly driven
by a handful of political superpowers and a small and declining
number of large multi-national corporations; they directly and
indirectly hold the reins of the global financial system.

2. So, it comes as no surprise that the unyielding "we know
what's good for you" arrogance of the 'old' World Bank (WB) has,
most often, led to purely market-led strategies (i.e., global
marketization) that, in the end, (still) increase corporate
profits and do not really help poor national economies to de-
velop and to tackle burning health problems.

3. Despite the poor past record, in which international markets
have become more and more concentrated in the hands of global
wholesalers and retailers, governments around the world keep
promoting the consolidation of free markets. (For instance, the
US still has much greater faith in markets than it has in regu-
lators, especially in the health sector).

4. But the No.1 rule of the marketplace ultimately is "do-in
others before they do-you-in" in a way that gets us to a further
situation in which "get rich first and clean up the mess and the
diseases of poverty later" becomes the norm. Over and over, the
forced liberalization of markets has led to the disintegration
of social protection and welfare systems --and with it has gone
the respect for human rights (HR).

5. We all know the market has a keen eye for private wants, but
a deaf ear for public needs. (R. Heilbroner) Therefore, macro-
economic policies cannot be determined first, with social and
health policies left as a subsequent task to take care of the
negative human rights consequences of the former. But then,
again, we know that, in neoliberal economics, tangible (and
profitable) results are more important than rights.

6. Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) --a WB initiative
with the-illusion-of-country-ownership-- are a pre-condition
these days for all WB/IMF concessional lending. Real grassroots
participation in PRSPs (as in the setting of the MDGs), if it
existed at all, has shown to decrease in the subsequent phases
of program implementation and monitoring. The rural poor with a
heavy disease burden were not involved and, one more time, were
the deliberately unheard. Parliaments were also not involved.and
keeping an oversight over such important matters makes the vital
difference between an effective parliament and an assembly of
talking heads.

7. The bungled start of PRSPs stands in sharp contrast to the
importance of the issue of eradicating poverty, malnutrition and
preventable ill-health and deaths as a HR issue. Not even the
rising share of grants over loans in official development assis-
tance (ODA) has managed to reduce the incidence of poverty and.
(Moreover, grants result in tax gifts to influential groups thus
stimulating consumption rather than growth). Grants and debt re-
lief alone will simply not eradicate poverty and eminently pre-
ventable diseases.

8. To really eradicate the poverty at the root, we first need to
break the organizational and political inertia of the working
class, in good part imposed by the powers-that-be. It is elites
who control the aspirations of the people excluded from global
Capitalism. So, the political education of the working class
cannot be impartial, because they have to take sides in support
of their own class interests.

9. The outcomes we seek will, in last instance, be fair and just
'if-and-only-if' they increase the economic (and health) well-
being of the worst off group in society. Those who own more pro-
ductive assets did not come-by them in a way that confers them a
moral right to greater benefit. As poor people are the weakest
actors in accountability relations, they need to be empowered in
order to hold duty bearers to account. This will not be possible
without deliberate policies for doing so. So, ultimately, the
hammer of justice carries no force other than its moral power
which rests entirely on the political mobilization of the worst
off.

10. Bottom line: An unfaltering support of free markets and a
credible fight against poverty and HR violations (the right to
health included) cannot co-exist; justifiably so, we have lost
faith in the old recipes for how the rich might help the poor:
at the end of the day, the former always win. What one ends-up
with are poverty reduction actions that are overwhelmingly lim-
ited to providing public services in a top-down manner; and that
is what we mainly still see today.

11. There are few examples of countries becoming strong by an
economic laissez-faire and the unbridled opening of markets. The
formula of economic liberalism may be suitable for increasing
the wealth of the few, but not for escaping poverty with its
trampled rights.

--
Claudio Schuftan
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
mailto:claudio@hcmc.netnam.vn

Mostly adapted from F&D, 42:1, March 2005, F&D, 42:2. June 2005,
D+C, 32:5, May 2005, D+C 32:6, June 2005, D+C, 32:7, July 2005,
D+C 32:8/9, Aug/Sep 2005, and Review of Radical Political Eco-
nomics 37:2 , Spring 2005.