Tal
4 december 2002
Anna Lindh

Speech by FM Anna Lindh in the Helsinki Conference - Searching for Global Partnerships, 4 December 2002.

Check against delivery - DET TALADE ORDET GÄLLER!

Ladies and gentlemen,

”There is no alternative to working together and using collective power to create a better world”. This was the point of departure for the Commission on Global Governance, led by former Swedish Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson and Mr. Shridath Ramphal from Guyana, in their report ”Our Global Neighbourhood” published in 1994.

Since then, the world has undergone tremendous changes, and the optimism we felt in the early nineties has turned into a more mixed picture and sombre mood.

This is specifically obvious when we look at three different aspects of globalisation:

- Firstly, economic globalisation has brought prosperity and development to many countries, but also financial crises to Asia, Latin America and Russia, and increasing poverty and marginalisation. During the last 30 years, fifteen developing countries (with a population of 1,6 billion people) have succeeded to reduce poverty by half. Still, more than a billion people have to survive on less than a dollar a day. The world is richer than ever, and the gaps between rich and poor are wider.

- Secondly, the world has got more democracies than ever, and human rights are high on almost every country's agenda. Still, corruption and oppression are far too common threats to the democratic society. And we have seen a dramatic increase, the last 10-15 years, of ethnical conflicts and humanitarian crises with human rights violations as important elements., but also more of corruption. Human rights are praised more than ever - and violated as much as ever.

- Thirdly, the globalisation of information makes people aware of what they have - and have not. Problems and oppression are impossible to hide, and the new and powerful tools of information provide us with more opportunities than ever to react and act. But globalisation can also make people feel small and powerless. Globalisation has made us more vulnerable. It creates a world without borders, and makes us painfully aware of the limitations of our present instruments, and of politics, to meet its challenges.

One reason is that the system today, of global governance, was created during and immediately after the World War II. Since then we have seen an unprecedented growth of production, trade and population, the liberalisation of about one hundred former colonies, and the integration of former enemies into peaceful co-operation. This is not bad, but the pace of globalisation has surpassed the capacity of the system to adjust to new realities of a more interdependent and integrated world.

The challenges we face today, such as poverty, hiv/aids, ethnic conflicts and terrorism, are all global and interlinked. They can only be met by us together, through multilateral solutions and stronger global partnerships. Global markets must be balanced by global values such as respect for human rights and international law, democracy, security and sustainable economic and environmental development.

I want to point at four cornerstones in the work ahead of us:

- We need new partnerships for peace and security. The United Nations remains our most important global actor. These days we are continuously reminded of the enormous responsibility of the Security Council to uphold international peace and stability. In a case like Iraq the UN has again shown what important role it plays as the guarantor for protecting international peace and stability in the global political structure.

The UN is our only truly global organisation, but the UN could better mirror the realities of today's international relations. We need a reform of the Security Council. It must be perceived as truly representative by all the 191 member states, to uphold the credibility and legitimacy of the UN as the main political arena. To properly reflect the changes of the world and of the UN, with its growing number of member states, we would like to see an enlargement of the SC that gives room for new members, not least developing countries.

We need the UN, to deal with the threats to our common security from nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, not only in the case of Iraq. They must be tackled by the international community together, by strengthening conventions, treaties and agreements.

There is a close link between security and development that needs to be reflected also in the organisational set-up of the UN. This is obvious not the least in the work to prevent violent conflicts, which often have deep-rooted structural causes. Today we too often suffer from the "CNN-syndrome" - taking action when something already has happened, in crises which media gives attention. We could achieve much more if diplomatic, economic and military means was better co-ordinated. The UN Secretary-General has presented an excellent report on how to improve this work, and the Swedish government hosted a conference to further develop ideas on how to prevent violent conflict, in August. This is also an area where regional organisations have an increasingly important role, in co-operation with the UN.

- We need new partnerships in fighting terrorism and building peace.. Terrorism has become internationalised and threatens our open, democratic societies. Terrorism can never be accepted. We must fight it together, with methods that do not compromise our respect for the rule of law and human rights, or are used as an excuse for others to do so. Poverty does not make people terrorists, but terrorists can exploit the frustration it creates and use it as a breeding-ground for violent ideas. Poverty must be reduced not only for reasons of moral and justice, but also of security.

The conflict in the Middle East needs to be solved for the same reasons. It is necessary to reach a two-states solution, built on international law, for sustainable peace and development, and it can only be achieved through joint efforts by the international community.

- We need new partnerships for development. Today’s financing system is a patchwork of bilateral donor countries, International Financial Institutions (IFIs), UN bodies, NGOs and private actors. It is a system where donors both set the agenda and decide what to do. And most actors are present in the same countries, doing more or less the same things. Sometimes this might lead to an absurd situation, creating problems instead of solving them. That was for instance the case in Mocambique a couple of years ago, during the flooding catastrophe. Instead of co-ordinating assistance properly, to much time and resources was spent on fighting about the same helicopters and local guides.

An increased diversification and competition among donors would probably achieve a more effective and efficient system. We must focus much more on developing countries’ own policies and priorities, and increase policy and operational coherence between national, regional and multilateral actors.

It was a crucial step when the international community agreed on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of halving poverty by 2015. The International Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg this year, have helped making it possible to reach the MDGs. Globalisation makes it clear that social responsibility is required not only of governments, but of companies and individuals. All sources must interact in order to reach the MDGs.

Financial institutions, like the World Bank, can of course play a crucial role. When I was young and chair-person of the Social Democratic Youth Organisation, I demanded that Sweden should leave the WB, because I thought it had a negative impact on development. Today I have changed my mind - but mainly because the WB has changed its way of working. The financial institutions, and other donors can do much more. Sweden is now disbursing about 0,8 percent of GDP as ODA, on the path to once again reaching 1 percent. Sweden is one of only five countries to fulfil the UN goal of 0,7 percent of GDP as ODA. we need to be many more!

One of the gaps in our international development efforts is the provision of global public goods - that is, goods or conditions we need that no individual or country can secure on their own, such as halting global warming, financial stability and peace and security.

The time has come to discuss how to share these responsibilities more widely. Sweden and France launched the International Task Force on Global Public Goods, in Johannesburg. It will concentrate on public goods for poverty reduction and sustainable development, and also recommend actors or organisations to assume responsibility for a specific initiative.

- We need new partnerships for free and fair trade. We must work to better integrate developing countries into the world trading system. The WTO has one of the most impressive records in global economic governance, by promoting trade liberalisation and economic development. Nonetheless, the developing countries must be able to reap the benefits of international trade. The Doha Development Agenda provides an opportunity to achieve a more equitable and responsible global trading system. Developed countries and advanced developing countries must open their markets for products from the developing world, and support in developing their export and import capacity.

I know, however, that this is easier said than done, which the EU Common Agricultural Policy is a good example of. We have to pay high taxes to keep the system working, it makes the products more expensive for the consumers, it prevents necessary agricultural reforms and it works against free trade!

The developing countries must be able to take a more active part in trade negotiations, through technical assistance and support from the developed countries.

We must also encourage reforms of good governance. States have the responsibility to create rules and conditions for growth and development, and to channel the benefits to all citizens by providing education and making people able to participate in the economies, and in decision-making.

Regional exchange can be a source of growth and development, and of enhancing good governance. We have very good experiences in Europe and among the Nordic countries from economic integration, peer pressure and learning. The same principles are recognised in NEPAD, an initiative by a number of African countries that deserve our strong support. NEPAD is, and let me finish my introduction there, an excellent example on the new partnerships the world need.

- It works for both growth and distribution.
- It builds on democracy and human rights.
- It combines ones own responsibility with seeking the support from others.

Common challenges need common solutions.

Thank you!