【Advocacy】
|
September.13.2005
|
■□ Civil Societies’Joint Statement on Gleneagles Summit
|
The latest G-8 Summit which placed “Assistance
to Africa” at the center of important issues was epoch-making, but the Civil
Societies must keep up their fighting posture toward the next stage of advocacy,
namely “UN Millenium Mid-term Reviews Conference.”
|
* Africa Japan Forum
* TICAD Civil Society Forum
* Don’t Let
It Be: World Poverty “Hottokenai, Sekai no Mazusisa”
|
Summary: The struggle continues with September in sight
|
(1) The G-8 Summit which ended on July 8 at Gleneagles, U.K, unlike its previous
summits, was held with the major aim of solving the global-scale questions
of Africa and climate change, attracting keen attention from civil societies
increasingly appealing to overcoming the question of poverty. Despite unprecedented
subway and bus disasters that occurred in the host country, U.K, the leaders
of G-8 stuck together to grappling the poverty eradication theme, squarely
facing the issues and produced certain appreciable results. We of the Civil
Society organizations listed above are prepared to offer a high admiration
to the results.
(2) On
concrete accomplishments of the Summit, however, we must confess we are not
quite satisfied. On the debt write-off the number of countries to benefit from
it was not increased. On the increase of aid for the elimination of poverty, it
was indicated that the total volume of aid should be increased to 50 billion
dollars by the year 2010, but it falls distinctly short of the levels that the
U.N. and the "Commission for Africa" chaired by Prime Minister Tony Blair had
proposed. Furthermore, it must be pointed out that the figure 50 billion dollars
includes debt write-off and postponement of debt repayment, hence the net new
fund available for development adding up to only 15 to 20 billion
dollars.
(3) The Government of Japan, on its part, had
been manifesting policy lines to grapple African poverty problems, long before
the G-8 Summit, the fact which is welcome and laudable. However, the policy
measures actually were not sufficient to overcome the poverty target. At the
same time, we are constrained to point out with emphasis that the most effective
approach to the mobilization of aid presupposes as an indispensable element the
improvement of governance which, in our view, depends upon empowerment and
further participation of civil society in Africa. However, not much debate seems
to have revolved around the issue of extended participation of civil society in
the use and management of development aid in the course of the Summit. The civil
society of the world should, therefore, be determined to raise its voice on this
point in a more positive manner.
(4) The issues on which the Summit ended
without finding solutions will be carried over to the U.N. Millennium plus 5
Special Session in September. We civil societies of the world should renew our
involvement in, and determination to further cooperate with, the global
mainstream of campaigns setting their sight on September and New York.
|
Section 1: Introduction
The Summit was epochal in the
sense that the centerpiece of the debates was the “African
Question.”
|
The G-8 Summit of major developed countries ended after the scheduled 3-day
discussions (July 6-8) at Gleneagles, United Kingdom. The Summit of G-8
is an annual event but the G-8 Summit of this year was a remarkable diversion.
“The Millennium Declaration” and the “Millennium
Development Goals,” which were adopted by the General Assembly of the United
Nations at the U.N. Millennium Special Session in 2000， were two epoch-making
documents focusing on the eradication of poverty in the world. The year 2005 is
the year for the first mid-term review and the world civil society views the
year 2005 as a starting point for the dynamic march toward “the world without
poverty.” It had actually launched a global scale movement with the G-8 Summit
as one of its focal points.
The host country of G-8 Summit and the British
Government had paid more than an ordinary attention to the rising tide of civil
society. The host placed on the agenda of the G-8 Summit the aid to Africa,
which is faced with the severest poverty in the world as the major agenda item
and made a spirited appeal to the rest of the G-8 member countries to structure
a positive African Aid Policy.
When the Cold War ended, Africa found itself facing
a dual difficulty: on the one hand, it was left behind by the progressing
economic benefits of globalism and, on the other hand, it was exposed to the
direct frontal impact of all adverse complications attendant on globalism. The
international community － U.S. and Europe at the center － left Africa
unattended, as it were, until Africa was almost at the brink of collapse and
long stuck to its self-centered, short-sighted African policy in order to
preserve its own economic interests and political influence. As a result, aid to
Africa was not effectively utilized, corrupt dictatorial regimes were preserved,
debts kept accumulating, poverty scales kept worsening through unfair trade
practices and the voice of African civil society was silenced.
As the Gleneagles
Summit has come to a close, we wish to confirm the following points. The Summit
made an epoch in the history of economic summit meetings, in the sense that,
while it left many points of dissatisfaction on many of issues, the leaders of
G-8 countries declared that they would face squarely the African question, in
view of the irreversible swell of the campaigns of the world civil society
chorusing “No more of this! We are fed up!” with the past record of dropping the
issues of African poverty and others “unattended.” As a matter of fact,
unprecedented happenings marked the days of the G-8 Summit at Gleneagles: 4
bombings in the underground trains and bus in the capital of the host country
caused a grievous loss of as many as three scores of lives. Undaunted, the G-8
leaders, instead of dropping the agenda item of African aid, grappled the item,
debated on that squarely and came out with tangible results.
It causes us,
Japanese civil society observers, a modicum of regret to notice that some
sectors of Japanese media nonchalantly described “the African question drab as
an agenda item of the Summit” or “anti-terrorism policy measures emerging as the
central theme of the Summit after the bombing incident.” Such views simply
reflect shallow and short-sighted perception of the political context in which
the African Question had to be the central issues of the Summit. Let the facts
speak for themselves: despite the bombing incident, the major agenda items of
Climate Change and African Aid did not budge and the communiqué of the G-8
Summit gave the major space to the two agenda items. We submit that the G-8
Summit this time be remembered as a Summit which turned the tide in the
mainstream international community’s thinking in favor of all-out treatment of
the African Question.
|
Section 2:
Concrete Accomplishments of Individual Issues were not satisfactory
|
Having confirmed the points made in the preceding section, we would like
to review what the G-8 discussed and accomplished.
(1) Debt Problem: The scope of
beneficiaries not enlarged
Many countries in
Africa are suffering from heavy debt burdens. A large amount of debt accumulated
through various processes of history force the African countries to struggle to
channel funds to basic service of education, health and hygiene for their
nationals. As for bilateral debt questions some progress was attained under the
impact of “Jubilee 2000” and other international movements but the questions
still remain. As for multilateral debt owed to the World Bank, IMF and other
international funding organs, several initiatives proposed solutions, none of
which, however, removed all the problems with insufficient
settlements.
In June of this year, the meeting of finance
ministers of G-8 countries agreed to write off outstanding debts owed by 18
countries (including 14 African countries) which reached the completion point as
stipulated in the accord, “The Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative,” an
initiative introduced under the leaderships of the World Bank, IMF and major
donor countries. The civil society movement called GCAP which includes
“Hottokenai Sekai no Mazusisa” has steadfastly been advocating to G-8 countries
expansion of debt forgiveness to cover all countries requiring debt cancellation
to combat poverty, but the latest G-8 Summit ended without any mention of
expansion of the scope of beneficiaries.
Many countries now
making strenuous efforts to improve domestic reforms to overcome poverty are in
dire need of financial aid that supports such efforts and G-8 countries failed
to live up to the expectations showered on them.
(2) Fund raising to assist
developing countries including Africa: the total amount fell short of the
satisfactory level.
The United Kingdom
as Chair of G-8 Summit had set a target of aid increase of G-8 countries to the
level of 50 billion dollars by the year 2010. By the same token, the European
Union had announced that it would provide an additional aid of 40 billion
dollars by 2010, while the United States promised an increase of 0.6 billion
dollars. Prime Minister Koizumi made it clear that Japan would increase her ODA
by 10 billion dollars by 2010. Thus, the fund mobilization target aimed at by
the United Kingdom was thus reached.
What does this aid
increase really mean to the poverty elimination measures? If one appraises the
volume of this increase from the point of view of “how many of the children who
lose their lives because of poverty can be saved by the aid increase?” “One can
calculate that by the year 2010 5 million children will be saved. But,
regrettably another 5million children will continue to fight a losing battle
against poverty.”
As a matter of fact, may we point out that the
“Commission for Africa” composed of representatives of civil society, the U.N.
and political leaders and economists, with Premier Blair as chairperson, had
made a comprehensive study on policy measures to help Africa and had come up
with the following two proposals:
(a) That each
donor country should live up to the commitment made 35 years ago to provide 0.7%
of its Gross National Income for aid by year 2010, and
(b) That, as a
matter of emergency request, additional 50 billion dollars on top of the 2004
level each year should be immediately committed for the implementation beginning
2006.
However, it is
really regrettable that the latest G-8 meeting did not see any member country
making a new pledge on the so-called 0.7% GNI target as mentioned in (a) above,
the aid increment of 50 billion dollars will be realized only by the year 2010
and the year by year increase will be rather small. For comparison’s sake, 50
billion dollars is slightly more than Japan’s defense budget for one year and
tantamount to half the public works budget for one year of Japan’s National
Budget.
Furthermore, the increment will be allocated to the
debt write-off and repayment postponement of loans and the net amount to be
directly devoted to the development of poor countries is estimated to be not
more than 15 to 20 billion dollars. The question of poverty in the world,
particularly in Africa requires urgent actions and the world’s civil society is
constrained to repeat its insistence that the increment of aid agreed upon at
the G-8 is simply insufficient for the purpose.
(3) Fair Trade: contradictory
stances adopted by G-8 members
In coming December
a WTO Ministerial Meeting is scheduled to take place in Hong Kong. In
preparation for this it is felt that corrective measures should be introduced
against unfair trade practices from which developing countries are presently
suffering.
The G-8 Summit this time should have manifested its
position that it is in favor of demands from developing countries that “fair
trade” will be realized, making it the first step toward the goal of poverty
reduction. On this point the communiqué of the G-8 Summit made the following
clarification: the right to determine the speed and scale of market opening of
the developing countries resides with their governments. This formulation calls
for careful attention. However, in the official-level consultations going on in
Geneva preparing for the WTO Hong Kong Ministerial Meeting, the negotiators of
Europe and U.S. still continue to bring strong pressure to bear upon their
counterparts of the developing countries on the scale and speed of market
opening. The governments of the G-8 countries should refrain from double-tongued
diplomacy on “fair trade.”
On the other side of the coin, the communiqué of the
U.S. and Europe regrettably are bartering criticisms among themselves on the
questions of providing high subsidies on their domestic agricultural produce,
thus lowering the competitive edge of agricultural produce of the developing
countries and dare not indicate specific agendas for the repeal of export
subsidies.
(4) Healthcare issues including
infectious diseases
The communiqué
adopted at the G-8 Summit covered various issues of aid for Africa, including
peace and stability, good and responsible governance, investment in people,
their promoting of economic growth, investment for development, partnership and
mutual responsibility. Let us examine them, taking the area of health and
sanitation and of infectious diseases as an example.
The following points emerged as the major
achievements of the G-8 Summit:
(a) Firm pledge
to strengthen health and sanitation systems in Africa by long-term funding and
technology infusion at national and local levels
(b) Clear statement that the G-8 countries will aim
to approach as close as possible the target of implementing comprehensive HIV
treatment in developing countries by the year 2010. Commitment to work to ensure
that all children left orphaned or weakened by AIDS are given proper support.
(c) Determined efforts to work to meet the financing
needs for the period 2006~2007 of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and
Malaria.
(d) Promise to take adequate measures in
support of existing initiatives to fight against malaria, polio, and
tuberculosis. With particular regard to malaria and polio, concrete targets
including financing and policy formulation have now been established. Following
up on the Sea Island commitments of last year, this summit agreed on closer
collaboration among the G-8 members for the development of new medical
technology such as an AIDS vaccine and public‐private partnership.
We commend the G-8 countries for taking a leading
role in addressing the health and sanitation challenges Africa is now faced with
including that of infectious diseases. Yet G-8 countries have failed to put
forward concrete workable measures for establishment of healthcare systems as in
(a) above and better access to HIV treatment as in (b) above. In terms of (a),
the main issue is the brain drain of skilled healthcare specialists to
high-income countries of Europe and America. But there are no concrete measures
suggested for retaining such skilled professionals in public medical
institutions. Concerning (b) above, as compared with a more straightforward
wording “realization of comprehensive AIDS treatment by 2010” adopted by the G-7
ministers of Finance meeting last June, the G-8 communiqué had an insertion of
words “as close as possible,” only to give an impression of a somewhat
weak-kneed stance in the face of the grand target. On the other hand, the
communiqué contains more advanced positions on malaria and polio, in the sense
that it points to concrete funding and policy lines.
Anyway the G-8
results will be reviewed at various international forums in the light of their
new pledges, first at the third replenishment conference for the Global Fund to
fight AIDS, TB and Malaria scheduled for September in London. The world
community will keep watching how G-8 countries will respond to approaches at
many such forums on the funding scale and policy details. The major forum in
coming up from 14 to 16 September in the form of UN Millennium Reviews
Conference.
|
| Section3: Japan’s stepped-up support for Africa, An appraisal by the NGOs |
The government of Japan made a number of proposals for increasing aid to
Africa
before the G-8
summit. As mentioned above, Japan has announced a $10 billion increase in aid by
2010. Japanese civil society groups concerned about African affairs look upon
this as follows :
(1) We commend the government’s
commitment to increase ODA and the increased interest in Africa, but this is not
sufficient.
On July 8, 2005,
the government of Japan announced at the G-8 summit that it would increase ODA
by some $ 10 billion (about 1.02 trillion yen) over the next 5 years. On April
22, 2005 Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi had already announced a doubling of
aid to Africa over the next 3 years at the Ban dung Conference in Indonesia. We
highly appreciate that this government has turned its eyes to Africa and has
boldly moved forward with the first ODA increase in a very long time.
We regret, however, that the two commitments
mentioned above do not go far enough to meet the needs of the people of Africa.
The reasons follow.
Firstly, even with a doubling of the 2003 level,
this is still less than the level in 1995, when ODA hit a record high. This is
because aid to Africa in 2003 dwindled to less than 40% of the 1995 ODA figure.
Secondly, it is unlikely that the Africa’s share in Japan’s bilateral ODA will
surpass previous highs. Japan’s aid to Africa was a meager 8,8% of total 2003
volume of ODA, and considering the overall increase of ODA, the share 3 years
hence is not likely to exceed significanatly the 1989 figure of 15,3% of the
1989 figure.
Thirdly, even if Japan intends to increase its ODA
volume by $10 billion in the aggregate over the next five years, (on average of
$ 2 billion per year), the ODA/GNI ratio will reach a maximum of only 0.23%, far
below the international commitment of 0.7%.
We urge the government to put Africa in the center of its ODA policies.
Africa is the front line of the battlefield against poverty. On April 20,
the Africa‐Japan Forum and TICAD Civil Society Forum jointly made the following
proposals to be presented on the occasion of the Bandung Conference.
(a) The
government should announce its timetable for realizing the 0.7%
ODA/GNI
(b) The government should bring the share of
bilateral ODA aid to Africa up to 35% of the total ODA.
We urge the government of Japan to comply with the
two requests in the shortest possible time and also to grapple fully and
independently with the question of African aid standing on the long-term vision.
(2) Citizen involvement in aid
to Africa should be expanded and strengthened
We are discouraged to see that the G-8 Summit focused primarily on increases
in funding and paid little attention to the importance of popular participation
in aid to Africa. Poverty will not be alleviated by increasing financial
resources for that alone,
civil society groups also need to be involved and
mobilized. Popular participation is in itself one of the aims of development.
Monitoring by and participation of civil society groups is necessary in order to
deliver the aid to those in need in a form that will be most appreciated. In
other words, the participation of civil society is a key to effective assistance
and better governance in Africa. If you take participation lightly and only
increase amounts of aid, there is the fear that one will bring about problems of
absorbing aid in locations where need is and of deteriorating governance. Taking
the example of Angola in southern Africa, the government taking all interests in
its own hand has exacerbated its poverty levels, even though the country has
achieved the best record for economic development in Africa. We have a tragic
example brought on by a lack of public participation.
We therefore, make the following
two proposals in order that the fruits of increased aid truly reach the
people.
(1) Private
citizens should take the leading role in PRSP. African civil society groups
criticize the current procedure of drafting PRSP, saying that African people are
not involved in the decision-making process. In order to make PRSP a citizen-led
strategy, the G-8 countries should set up a framework for each country so that
donors, African governments and civil societies can hold consultation as
partners on an equal footing.
(2) More emphasis should be place on aid for institutional capacity
building and improvement of governance from below, in the whole structure
of public administration. In view of the fact that in African countries
there are cases where governance has problems，aid should be extended for
capacity building and reinforcement based on citizens’ participation. Institutional
capacity building and governance improvement cannot be attained without
augmenting, citizen’s voices, and assuring monitoring by citizens from
the bottom all the way to the top of the public administrative machinery.
We beg to submit the following
proposals to the Japanese government:
(a) There
should be greater increases in the disbursements of their ODA to Africa
Most
G-8 members disburse 10‐40% of their ODA through NGOs, as compared with less
than 3% for Japan.
If aid only empowers the government, while civil
society withers in comparison, better governance simply will not be possible.
Aid will become more effective if civil society groups can be brought closer to
the policy‐making process. Using the capabilities of civil society is the best
way to deal with aid absorption issues. Therefore, we call on the government to
immediately decide to disburse 10% of ODA through civil society groups.
(Ultimately, we would ask that this be brought as close as possible to
40%.)
(b) In each African country there should be established a
framework for deliberation on effective usage of Japan’s aid. When the
Japanese government increases its aid to Africa, it should establish a
forum of consultation on how best to utilize Japanese assistance including
debt reduction. This forum should be such that civil society and government
of Africa and Japan are formally participating on an equal footing. Japan’s
assistance has long been in the grip of the Japanese and African governments
and civil society used to be relegated to the status of opinion-givers.
Such a situation has to be reformed.
(c) An Africa‐Japan Solidarity Fund (AJSF) be established
in which government, civil society, and private sector participate as equal
partners. Support for Africa is not just the government’s jobs. The private
sector and NGOs are also key players in supporting Africa. Furthermore,
ODA is taxpayers’ money, so the Japanese people should have the right and
the responsibility to monitor and make recommendations concerning the government’s
aid policies on Africa. Thus, we propose the establishment of an Africa‐Japan
Solidarity Fund in which all the sectors and players can participate in
order to create popular consensus and use all the potential capabilities
inherent in civil society and private sector.
|
Section4: Civil Society continues its campaign struggle towards the Next Stage:
The September UN Millennium Mid-term Review Conference |
As mentioned in the introduction, the G-8 summit has played a major role
in placing the question of how to overcome world poverty, and particularly
poverty in Africa among key world issues. But there still remain many more
challenges including debt reduction and aid increase issues that need to
be resolved. The next focal point for the campaign of civil society will
come at the UN Millennium Mid-term Review Conference to be held in September
in New York. As this conference approaches, public attention in Japan seems
focused on just one issue: whether Japan will secure a permanent seat in
the UN Security Council. Reform of the Security Council is a critical issue,
indeed, but for the world as a whole, the major focus for this conference
is how to reduce poverty through mobilizing the world’s endeavors to attain
the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). For those aspiring to be permanent
members of the Security Council including Japan, the most important test
is whether they are willing and able to make a responsible contribution
to the task of overcoming world’s poverty. The international community
has long dismissed and even aggraveted the question of poverty in Africa
and throughout the world as globalization has gone forward. Whether the
year 2005 can turn out to be a milestone in changing this situation depends
on the strength with which civil society speaks up and acts. Keeping in
mind at the achievements and continuing issues from the G-8 Summit, we
will continue our work here in Japan to have the voice of civil society
echoed from one corner the world to the other even as the September UN
summit approaches.
|
|
|