priorities

Opinion

When it's a matter of

The United Nations summit on social issues will have ended in Denmark by the middle of the month. The World Social Summit - from March 6-12 in Copenhagen - was about tackling, on a global scale, social issues such as pover ty, unemployment and social integration (or disintegration).

At the time of printing, a strong dele gation from Pacific island countries was being put together to attend the sum mit. Their participation was co-ordinat ed by the Noumea-based South Pacific Commission with joint technical sup port from the South Pacific Forum Secretariat.

The joint support is part of continuing efforts to ensure issues of concern to the Pacific are given the international attention they deserve. Pacific delegates are aware they face an uphill battle in enlisting additional support from exter nal sources. Global political changes continue to work against them. And there is no indication this will change in the foreseeable future.

However, for the Pacific, the idea is too keep reminding the world that island countries also face poverty, unemploy ment and social disintegration. Arguably, these manifest in varying degrees but they are here and throughout the world - in developed and developing coun tries.

The difference is that wealthy nations have the resources to tackle, or even eradicate, these problems in their coun tries. Developing countries - including those in the Pacific - do not.

The lot of the latter is even gloomier as prospects for getting additional resources, including aid funds, are not so rosy.

However, Copenhagen provides a use

ful stage to continue the dialogue and the need for partnerships in trying to solve or alleviate some of the problems.

The biggest problem of developing countries, including those in the Pacific, is that donors now say there is no more they can give. Developing countries, they say, will just have to make do with the development assistance (or aid) they are getting.

On the other hand, developing coun tries insist that no programme of action would work if additional funding is not forthcoming. Unless additional resources are available, efforts to tackle emerging social problems, or any other problems, are destined for failure, they say.

As in all previous UN conferences, the dilemma for Pacific island countries is one of competing demands.

Perhaps the greater threat to the Pacific cause at the Social Summit was from Eastern bloc countries, otherwise known as the ‘economies in transition’.

Western countries continue to inject massive amounts of funds in the name of development assistance or aid.

The aim, Western countries say, is to help stabilise the fledgling political makeups in these former Soviet republics so the democracies survive the rigors of adjustment.

Investment in these economies in transition have a brighter prospect for returns or profits than traditional assis tance to developing countries. The end result is to help transform the centrally planned system to a market economy in those countries.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with assisting Europe. Except that aid for development assistance should not be confused with investments. As it is,

aid is increasingly taking on a new meaning. It is now the euphemism for investment. It looks good on paper but it is not genuine.

It seems Western countries are taking this approach to camouflage their fail ure to honour commitments to help developing countries.

For instance, at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, developed coun tries pledged to provide 0.7 percent of their GDP in foreign aid to developing countries. Four years on, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Dr Boutros Boutros Ghali, told delegates at the UN Population Conference in Cairo that many developed countries had defaulted. Instead of making amends, wealthy nations now insist developing countries adjust their priorities to accommodate failing support pledged by their rich cousins.

Pacific delegations have always argued that whatever the degree of sacrifice, it must be shared by both the developed and developing countries.

“It is not fair to ask developing coun tries to give up so much when the other side of the equation is not prepared to forego even an iota,” one official said.

If anything, this is where the battle line is drawn. Perhaps it would be unfair to pre-empt the outcome of the World Social Summit on the subject of addi tional funding alone.

There is no doubt the summit would have been an eye-opener on the enor mity of these social problems and the resources needed to deal with them.

Many, including Pacific delegates, would have been grateful for the staging of the Copenhagen summit.

From

Alfred Sasako

at the Forum Secretariat