[afro-nets] Food for a futureless thought

["Claudio Schuftan" <cschuftan@phmovement.org>]

Human Rights Reader 186

*INTERNATIONAL NGOs DEMAND MORE FUNDS FROM DONORS BUT, WITH THOSE FUNDS, THEY OFTEN DO NOT ADDRESS CRUCIAL PROBLEMS SUCH AS THOSE RELATED TO DEPLORABLE LOCAL RIGHT TO HALTH SITUATIONS.*

1. Because poverty is not only about income, but also about the lack of services, a deteriorating and unhealthy environment, inadequate living conditions, human rights violations and scant opportunities, development cooperation --often implemented by international NGOs-- can no longer be confined to helping provide basic social services (in our case health).

2. Therefore, because income distribution has become so grossly unfair, these NGOs must rise to the right to health (RTH) challenges found in poor countries' development policies that are primarily geared towards economic growth.

[We know many-times-over that in countries with pronounced social divides (including rich countries…), economic (jobless, ruthless, voiceless, rootless, futureless) growth tends to boost the incomes of the better-off much more than it does those of the poor. (R. Jolly)].

3. They say it is a 'chicken and egg' problem. What should come first -- social protection or economic growth?  But the question has been long answered!  We have seen the growth; but where is the greater focus on comprehensive health protection to be seen*? If *we do not focus on the latter, GDPs will grow with large sectors of society suffering from deteriorating RTH conditions. *

*: Social security, government cash transfers, legal protection, health care, education, pensions, unemployment benefits, working conditions, labor standards, social assistance for the marginalized must be all taken into account. (The International Labor Organization (ILO) has calculated that poor countries can afford such basic social services with costs amounting to as little as about 2-3% of GDP).

4. It is no coincidence then that, together with pro-growth policies, all high income countries rely on social protection packages (understood-as-'welfare') for their populations to ensure that the lack of equity does not lead to social unrest.

5. The bottom line is that international NGOs must understand the signs of the time. The Human Rights Framework* is a tailor-made base to foster these NGOs work together with local parliaments, with trade unions and with other local civil society organizations in a *widening pro-RTH network.*

*: Importantly, the HR discourse looks-at and addresses the dismal results of the triple orthodoxy of liberalization, privatization and deregulation fostered by most of current development cooperation. Furthermore, it looks-at and addresses the political and historical drivers of aid allocation which have included postcolonial relations, rich countries commercial interests, the Cold War and, more recently, the war on terrorism. So far, international NGOs (and donors) have had only marginal interest in looking at what their inputs really achieve in terms of social protection. (F+D, 44:2, June 2007)

6. This networking and concerted action is not only the right political move for NGOs, but --because HR are the central United Nations thrust, as well as increasingly becoming subject to rules under the jurisdiction of international law-- it is also a smart, equitable and potentially powerful move.

7. Ultimately, the question thus is whether these NGOs are ready to define themselves as active 'climate-makers' and proactively lay the bases for meaningful RTH work.

[All Readers can be found in http://www.humaninfo.org/aviva  under No.69<http://www.humaninfo.org/aviva%20%20under%20No.69>]

Adapted from D+C, 34:9, September 2007. Human Rights Reader 186

Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
mailto:cschuftan@phmovement.org