Can existing institutions address globalisation and poverty?

Ensor outlines similar "key principles" that "should guide Australian policy-makers to ensure that more people throughout the world can be able to enjoy their basic rights to shelter, education, food, water, health care, a say in their future, a safe and sustainable environment and freedom from violence."

The UN and the NGOs that Hunt and Ensor support do not provide the participatory democracy that they advocate. They do not provide human right services on any long term contractual basis. The UN and the current NGOs do not provide much protection against the precariousness of their livelihoods that the poor apparently seek, or the kinds of insurance like cover - for income protection, home, medical - that we "normal" affluent Westerners expect. They do not provide reliable security services: when the going gets tough, the UN and the NGOs, and even the US Army, sadly, go home - and who can blame them?.

Hunt laments that "a growing proportion of aid budgets is going on crises responses, rather than long-term development". The crises may in some respects be seen to arise from long term neglect of inadequate social structures. This might be expected when there is no long term commitment to particular individuals in one region while other crises arise elsewhere.

Hunt may not wish to discuss openly whether all recipients of aid are deserving, but if it is fair to expect that those receiving aid provide some commitment to return the favour, if and when they are able, then we need a formal mechanism to handle this, which the UN and current NGO models do not provide.

Despite her claim to the contrary, we need to explore whether a new institution would better address globalisation in the way that Hunt requires. The concept outlined in the "Global Obligations" web site, and summarised in the On Line Opinion Feature in August 2001, which includes my previous article, addresses all of these issues. It proposes a democratic forum, for donors and recipients, with a long term, rights based, contractual commitment.

Even if the UN and the other agencies could lift their game so that all the goals indicated by Braithwaite, Ensor and Hunt were realised, we would still advocate that there is a need for an alternative institution as a genuine countervailing force against big government and big business. The UN, IMF, World Bank and other international bodies are seen by many to be part of problem, not the solution. They are not sufficiently independent of the dominant donor nations, and in the past have ensured that their vested interests are not harmed by these organisations.

The alternative institution must be financially viable, with a reliable income stream, and it must have some economic and commercial leverage. Although it would ideally be able to influence the behaviour of corporations and governments, any well-motivated, democratic politician or quality multinational’s CEO should not fear an institution that promotes freedom, democracy and equality. Even the US President says he supports freedom and democracy!

We need to move on from the notion that geography is somehow linked to our entitlement to human rights. All approaches that are founded on the cooperation of national governments, like the approach supported by Hunt, are rooted in geography and parochial vested interests, and thereby in the long term are flawed. Human rights support should not be dependent on the benevolence of the NGOs or the UN, or upon having the luck to stand in the right queue. Perhaps it should depend on your willingness to contribute.

The globalised world has moved not just trade beyond national boundaries. Terrorism is becoming acknowledged as being beyond national borders. Human rights must now be based on direct, voluntary, committed, equity based, reciprocal relationships. It is in the interests of liberal national governments and large corporations as well as individuals to promote such relationships so that we can avoid the chaotic or protectionist alternatives.

Such relationships should be the basis of a new institution which can really deliver on our global obligations.