Michael T. Seigel
Forum on the Asian Economic Crisis and the role of the Church: IMF, Human Rights and the Church
Possible Approaches and Strategies for Church NGOS
(29 September 1999)

---

I would like to thank Anselmo Lee and Pax Romana for the opportunity to make this presentation to you. The topic I have been given is "Possible Approaches and Strategies for Church NGOs", and I have been specifically asked to focus on currently existing strategies and campaigns on a global, rather than a local or regional, level.

I will approach this in three stages. The first stage will be an overview of the ethical principles important for an evaluation, from a faith standpoint, of socio-political and socio-economic issues. Secondly, I will present in a general way the kind of orientation that I think we need in the present context.. And finally, and based on these first two stages, I will undertake the main portion of this presentation which will be a reflection on certain core campaigns that are taking place on a global level today, as much as possible, accompanied by some concrete proposals for positions that Catholic NGOs might take with regard to these.

I. Basic Principles

I will present this in very summary form. I think that the most basic principles are 1) that all human beings have a right to sufficient access to the world's resources to maintain their well-being, 2) that human dignity requires a certain autonomy, 3) that human dignity also requires solidarity, and 4) that sin and evil are realities that we must keep in mind in our social analysis and action planning.

1. Right of Access to the Earths Resources

This principle derives from the very order of creation. God created human beings dependent on the material world for their well-being. This can only mean that it is God's will that all have access to all that they need from the earth's resources to maintain their own well-being. The story of Creation in the book of Genesis affirms that God gave human beings the right to take their nourishment from the earth.(1) In Catholic social tradition, this right is described as primordial. That means that no other consideration can ever be of more importance, and no other rights or claims can override the right of access of any individuals to that portion of the world's resources necessary to maintain their well-being. NO economic structure, NO right of ownership, and NO claim by creditors for a return of their loans can have priority over the need of people to have adequate access to the world's resources. And this is universal. No one can be excluded.(2)

2. Correlation between Autonomy and Dignity

In 1931, Pope Pius XI spelled out the principle of subsidiarity.(3) He argued that when an individual belongs to a group, or a smaller group to a larger group, the role of the group in relation to the individual, or the larger group in relation to the smaller group, is to assist with those things that the smaller group or the individual cannot take care of for themselves. The larger group should never take over those things that the individual, the smaller group or the local community can manage for themselves. In other words, the autonomy of the individual and the local community should be respected as much as possible. It is implicit in this that human dignity is respected most when each person is invested with as much control over their own lives as their abilities permit, and as does not place at risk the well-being of others. The more the decisions that affect people's lives are made at a level "close to home", the more people's dignity is respected; the more decision-making is in the hands of anonymous and distant powers, the more dignity is over-ridden and ignored.

One important aspect of this principle, with regard to the right to access to the earths resources, is that it is not enough for people to have access to those resources through the largesse of the wealthy and powerful. Every human being has the right to be in control of their own access to the earth's resources without a demeaning and potentially enslaving dependence on others. This is why the Church has always argued for the right to ownership: a right which pertains to every human being, and means that no one has a right to such extensive ownership that they deprive others of self-reliant access to the world's resources. (It does not deny the possibility of communal ownership on an equitable and participatory basis; nor does it exclude the possibility of self-reliance through equitable exchange).

3. Solidarity

We human beings are all made in the image and likeness of the one God. We are all loved by that God who has commissioned us to love one another in the way that God has loved us. And we are called to a unity in love with God. It is significant that the very first thing God said about human beings after the creation was: "It is not good for the human being to be alone."(4) This means that it is in the very blueprint of the human being that we belong in union with one another. Indeed, our salvation is described by St. Paul as "the reconciliation of all things in heaven and all things on earth."(5) For us human beings, that means reconciliation between humanity and God, reconciliation among human beings, and reconciliation between humanity and nature.

For social ethics, this means that all people have a right to be included, to participate fully, and to have a voice. It goes against all forms of exclusion, marginalization, and discrimination. It also suggests that our solidarity should be extended to other species and to the whole of nature.

4. The Problem of Evil

Finally, there is the spanner in the works, the problem of evil. We do not need to be pessimistic about human beings. Each one of us is created in the image and likeness of God who is the very essence of goodness. We do not have some evil nature which we must be preoccupied with suppressing. Rather we have a good nature which we must seek to bring to fulfilment. But we must not to be naive. We must be prepared to deal with three different levels of evil (and here, by evil, I mean all that stands in contradiction to the basic principles and the ultimate goal of reconciliation that I just described).

a. Moral Evil

The first level we may call moral evil - the propensity of human beings to be motivated by greed, or the desire for power or for fame, or some other form of self-satisfaction that excludes and even damages the well-being of others and the harmony of the whole. We must be willing to recognize this in ourselves and therefore be open to dialogue and welcoming of criticism. But we must also keep in mind that there will be cases when the choice of an individual to seek profit and power will be so overriding that it will completely displace any concern for the well-being of others and for the harmony of society. Our approaches to social issues must include an awareness of this.

We must, of course, avoid classifying groups such as business men, politicians, entrepreneurs, etc., as inherently greedy or power hungry. We are likely to find that many of these have an enormous propensity for good will. Nevertheless, in a system such as the free market economy that we have today, perhaps only one person in every 10,000 would be so callous and greedy as to sell hard drugs to school children. But if one in 10,000 does it, there will be a drug trade that targets school children. The same goes for selling arms to paramilitary groups in order to stir up conflict and create an even greater market for arms: if there is money to be made, somebody will do it. Perhaps only a few people would be so heartless. But it only takes a few, with the proper resources, to create an arms trade.

An important implication of this is that if certain people are placed in a position where they will not be held accountable for their actions, where they can make others pay the price for their mistakes, and if there are companies who have the opportunity to externalize costs, or to get away with exploitation or ecological destruction, then enough will take advantage that serious detriment will come from it. It is an important "self-correcting mechanism" of human life that people pay the price for their own mistakes. It has always been a tendency of people with power or influence to try to pass off this price to others.

b. Cultural and Psycho-emotional Dimensions

This refers to the level of preconscious biases and prejudices which may come from the education and cultural upbringing we have received, or may derive from experiences that have affected us psycho-emotionally, or from addictions and other personality dysfunctions. I think that this is an often underestimated aspect of our reflections on social issues. It has impacts on ethnic prejudices, on nationalist tendencies, and on the motivations that provoke people to seek after wealth, power, etc., at the expense of others. In practice, we are probably never able to draw a clear dividing line between this and the previous dimension of moral evil - not even when we look at ourselves.

I think that it is very important that we keep this dimension in mind when we seek to understand social issues, and even more so, when we seek strategies to respond to them. If our approach is unnecessarily divisive, if we treat certain people as a kind of enemy, then we are already creating the basis for future biases and scars that will even further contribute to the residue of distrust, ill-will, and preoccupation with self-protection.

c. Structural Evil

The third level is the level of structural sin, of structures in society that exclude, deprive and demean certain people or peoples. These structures include laws, policies, practices and procedures that exclude some from access to the world's resources, that require that debts be repaid even at the expense of creating malnutrition, that require that a country export agricultural goods at the expense of feeding its own people, that allow individuals or corporations to own such extensive properties that they impede the autonomy or well-being of others, that allow certain people to avoid accountability, that exclude certain people or peoples from decision-making, that make some vulnerable to exploitation by others, or that disallow some from participating on an equitable basis, or that, by making power a means to wealth and wealth a means to power, create a situation that favours the empowerment of the greedy and the power hungry. Because of time considerations, I will not go into these structures in any more detail at this point. Many of them will be referred to in what follows.

II. What Kind of a World are We Seeking?

In many ways, the above description of values already sets the direction for our involvement with social issues. In this second stage of my presentation, I would like to focus on global society as we know it today, to reflect on what kind of orientation we ought to take in order to realize more fully a just society.

1. Access to the Earth's Resources

Firstly, it is clear that in our society today, the first and most fundamental principal of all, the right of every human being to access to the world's resources, is not respected. There is starvation and malnutrition in the world, and this is not because of a shortage of food. In fact, except for a very few cases, it is not even because of localized food shortages. It is often the food producers themselves, the farmers, who suffer from malnutrition. There are numerous examples (and I restrict my discussion here to the global and international levels) of secondary values being given a priority over this fundamental right:

1.Countries are required to service and repay loans even at the expense of the well-being of the people. The principles that we have already discussed would, contrariwise, suggest that, if a creditor makes a loan that can only be paid by causing deprivation, then that creditor, quite simply, has made a bad loan and should suffer the consequences.

All of these are factors that stand in contradiction to the right of all human beings to access to the earth's resources, and to the priority of this right over all other considerations. What, then, is needed? There needs to be some kind of international structure that protects the rights of the poor in debtor nations from creditors; their needs to be some kind of control of capital investments to see that resources necessary for the well-being of people are not diverted to other uses at the hands of unscrupulous investors; their needs to be an approach to finance and economics that orders them towards the most fundamental principle of the right of access of all people to the world's resources; and the welfare of all, and particularly of the poor, must be recognized as the primary responsibility of public institutions on a local, regional, national and international level.

2. Autonomy, Inclusion and Participation

When Pope Pius XI defined the principle of subsidiarity in 1931, the biggest and most obvious threats to this principle were totalitarian governments: Fascism in Italy, Nazism in Germany, Stalinism in Russia, military government in Japan, etc. Today, it is economic rather than political institutions that absorb individuals, local communities and whole countries, deprive them of their autonomy, and make them subservient to distant and anonymous masters. The Bretton Woods institutions and the World Trade Organization have, for example, come to have more clout than the United Nations. The way in which trade negotiation and other economic agreements (such as the Multilateral Agreement on Investments) are negotiated by governments, often in complete secrecy from those who will be most affected by the decisions, also demonstrates the way in which economic institutions and processes are absorbing power. Even within countries with strongly democratic traditions, economic decisions are prone to be exempt from the democratic process. It seems that economic matters are so sacrosanct that common people ought not have a voice, and so there is usually not even the slightest attempt at consultation. The increasing power of transnational corporations is also a clear example of economic rather than political institutions absorbing the autonomy of individuals, local communities and whole countries.

A question of supreme importance with regard to autonomy is the question of ownership. As I have already noted, for a person to maintain real autonomy, they must be in control of their own access to the earth's resources. When they own their own land, or when ownership resides in a local community where they participate communally and equitably, their autonomy and their dignity are respected. The more ownership is removed from them, the more it is concentrated in the hands of distant and anonymous owners, the more people become excluded from the decision making that most affects their lives. Not only do they lose their autonomy, but they are placed at risk of deprivation by the decisions of distant owners whose priorities do not include the welfare of people displaced or absorbed by their holdings.

Another form of control that excludes some from participation and autonomy is the control of knowledge which may come about as a result of inequalities in access to information, biases in media presentation, or from patenting of knowledge and processes that gives the possessors of those patents, and those licensed to use it, enormous power.(6)

What is needed? There needs to be transparency and accountability in all economic institutions, including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization. There also needs to be a substantial degree of transparency in the activities of TNCs. Their operations should be open to scrutiny by either governmental bodies or by the general public. There needs to be consultation with the general public and civic organizations on economic issues. There needs to be a clearer definition of what kinds of treaties governments can enter into without consulting with the people, and there needs to be more opportunity for civic society to participate in discussion and decision making with regard to what kind of technologies are to be permitted and what kinds of knowledge can be patented. There needs to be some control over the patenting and use of biotechnological processes, and some opportunity for democratic processes to be applied. Additionally, we probably need a whole new definition of ownership, one which favors local control, even if partnership style investments are encouraged, and one which can deal with the complexity of the patenting of life forms, biotechnological processes, indigenous knowledge, etc., in a manner that is, first and foremost, protective of the well-being of people and of nature.

III. Catholic NGOs and International Campaigns

Now we come to the third and final portion of my presentation, the question of what we can do. I will introduce a few campaigns with which, in my view, it would be well to collaborate. Let me say at the beginning that I think our participation should always be critical or, to use a biblical word, prophetic. In other words, we should not relate to these campaigns as if they were prepackaged items that we look at, evaluate, and either choose or reject. Rather, as much as possible, we should participate in debating the goals and methods of these campaigns as they are in the process of formulation, bringing to them the insights of our faith and our experience in society and with the poor. At the same time, we need to avoid being so purist that we only collaborate with a campaign if it is one hundred per cent in line with our own goals. Take, for example, the Jubilee 2000 Campaign, which is the first one I will talk about. This campaign is seeking a cancellation of the debt of the world's poorest countries. Some will perhaps argue that mere cancellation is not a real solution to the debt crisis. I have known some to decide not to support the campaign for that reason. I think this kind of reasoning is a mistake. Campaigns have to have a kind of focus that can generate public support. The more widespread the public support that is necessary the more clearly focused (and therefore less nuanced) the campaign must be. I do not believe that a mere cancellation of the debt will be a solution to the debt crisis, but I do think it will be a step in the right direction. I am strongly in favor of supporting the Jubilee 2000 Campaign for other reasons as well, which I will describe after I have spoken a little about the debt crisis itself.

1. Campaigns for debt relief

The debt of the Third World is an enormous burden, it is widely known to be a burden, and a large number of organizations are promoting debt relief and more just treatment of debtor countries. At the same time, some oppose debt relief because a) they think that it will just let corrupt governments off the hook, b) they think that real assistance will not reach the poor, and c) they think that it does not address the real problem which is much more fundamental than the debt. One person has expressed to me the opinion that, like many other forms of aid, debt relief would be aid from the middle class of the developed world to the wealthy of the Third World.

To understand the debt problem it is important to remember how it came into existence: For the most part, it developed in the 1970s, and it is very frequently attributed to aggressive lending policies of commercial banks as a way of dealing with excess petrodollars. This is a real part of the cause of the debt, but it is not the only cause. I am personally convinced that there would have been a debt crisis even without the oil crisis. Loans are made so that the money can be invested, a profit made, and the debt serviced and repaid while the debtor also is better off for the investment. If we want to know why the debt crisis came about, it is not enough to simply look at why the creditors lent. We must look at why the loans did not bear a profit. The failure of many attempts at rapid industrialization in the 1970s, the large investments in agriculture (with the promise of the green revolution) and the consequent collapse of commodities prices, along with the money wasted by corrupt or inefficient governments, or used in a non-profit generating way such as prestige projects and military spending (often encouraged by the cold war), were all factors that resulted in the failure of the loans to generate a profit, and are all causal factors of the debt crisis.(7)

The debt crisis itself points to numerous structural problems and to problems of socio-cultural and ideological bias. First, there is the fact that the commercial banks thought that they could lend safely to countries, since countries cannot go bankrupt. In ordinary financing, the risk of bankruptcy is a form of accountability to the creditor: creditors will hesitate to make loans that may drive the debtor into bankruptcy. The absence of this kind of accountability at the international level must be seen as one of the causes of the debt crisis.

Secondly, running through the whole development of the debt crisis is the weakness of agricultural products on the market. What happened to commodity prices at the end of the seventies is just one more example of a problem that exists with agricultural produce: when production goes up, prices go down. Any farmer could have warned the economists in the 1970s that the massive increase in production brought on be the green revolution and the investments that accompanied it would result in a collapse of prices. Even in the Roman Empire it was said that farmers are more afraid of good crops than bad crops.

Thirdly, the attempts at development in the Third World were frequently guided, or at least strongly influenced by the agendas of the developing countries. An important part of this agenda from the mid-seventies on was taming inflation: the influx of raw materials and agricultural produce at collapsed prices played an important role in this. Even when attempts to promote development have genuinely sought the benefit of the Third World, other policies adopted by the developed world to protect their own interests (especially those affecting terms of trade) have conflicted with these same goals.

Fourthly, there is the notion that the models of development that are believed to have made the developed world rich can do the same for the Third World. There are a number of important fallacies in this thought. For one thing, the interpretations of how the developed world got rich are guided by the ideology of the interpreter and do not really describe what happened. So consequently the prescriptions derived from that for the benefit of the Third World probably would not have even helped the countries of the developed world as they were in the process of development. Additionally, the attempt to apply these models of development do not take sufficient consideration of the social, political, economic, and cultural circumstances of the Third World countries. Furthermore, and I think that this is in fact the most important, when we talk about the development of Third World countries, especially in the context of globalization, we are actually talking about the development of the whole world, and the whole world is a closed system. There is nowhere outside the world from where we can get resources and there are no markets outside the world to which we can sell goods. The developed countries have been completely dependent not only on external sources of raw materials but also on external markets. No developed country has demonstrated that their economic model is viable in a closed economy.

Fifthly, and this is very closely associated to what I have just said, but it adds another dimension, there has been an attitude on the part of all involved of seeing the experts from the developed world as the ultimate authorities. Often enough, they operate from specific ideologies and have very limited viewpoints. At times, they may be more preoccupied with their own career than with the good of the country they are supposedly helping. They are likely to operate from the presumption that they are there to teach and the others are there to learn. Perhaps what is most important is that they do not pay the price for their mistakes, nor do any of the important international institutions, and nor do the developed countries when their aid to (or other involvement in) a poor country goes wrong. Sometimes, the advice given and projects promoted by the experts from the developed world amount to sheer experimentation. There are no adequate structures of evaluation and accountability to deal with problems that have arisen from bad advice and programme direction.(8) The price is simply paid by the poor country.

The above are all background issues for how the debt came to be, and a real resolution to the debt crisis must mean a real resolution of these problems. What, then, will I say about a cancellation of the debt. It is clear from what I have said that I think that we need to go way beyond a cancellation of the debt. Certainly a cancellation of the debt only addresses a symptom. But it addresses a symptom which is causing a great deal of suffering in its own right. The first campaign I am going to recommend to you and ask you to support is the Jubilee 2000 Campaign.

The Jubilee 2000 Campaign seeks a cancellation of the backlog of unpayable debt of the world's poorest nations by the year 2000. To this end, it is promoting a petition for which it hopes to receive 25 million signatures, and which it plans to present to the G8 at its meeting in Cologne next year. The people involved in the Jubilee 2000 Campaign know full well that a cancellation of the debt is only a partial step. In the petition they add the request that the leaders of lending nations "take effective steps to prevent such high levels of debt building up again." They are vague for a reason. What is most needed is for as many people as possible to call out in a loud voice that we want the debt problem resolved. To get this kind of unanimity, it must be formulated in such a way that most people can support it. If the goal of the petition became more specific, or more technical, many people would hesitate to sign.

I think that there are numerous reasons for supporting the Jubilee 2000 Campaign. First of all, it is a worthwhile goal. If the debt is cancelled, that will be a step in the right direction. Secondly, promoting this petition can give us the opportunity to reflect on the debt and to get others to reflect on it. It can provide the opportunity for us to discuss with people how the debt crisis came to be, what might result from cancellation, and what other problems need to be addressed. Most importantly, if the Jubilee 2000 Campaign is successful in gathering a truly massive number of signatures, I think it will send a very important message to the leaders of the wealthy countries and to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. I think it will tell them that people are watching and that they are concerned. I think that it will send them the message that ultimately they are accountable to the people of the world.

2. An international insolvency procedure

There is an idea being pushed by some NGOs that an international insolvency procedure,(9) in other words a procedure whereby nations could declare bankruptcy, should be established. This would be modeled after a similar procedure in the US(10) whereby a city or county can declare bankruptcy without the creditors taking over its property and without penalizing the citizenry. In fact both New York City and Orange County in California have declared bankruptcy under this procedure.

The argument is that, at the international level, such a procedure would provide the possibility of a termination to an escalating debt crisis for a country, and would also operate as a form of accountability for creditors and a deterrent for irresponsible loans and loans to corrupt governments.

For example, the Marcos government left the Philippines with an external debt of over $27 billion.(11) Obviously, Marcos financed his regime with borrowed money, wasted it on prestige projects, used it for military spending to suppress the rebels, etc. When he came to office, the Philippines was the second most developed country in Asia, second only to Japan. When he left office, it was the second poorest, second only to Bangladesh. Obviously, the majority of Filipinos did not benefit from his regime. Yet they are the ones who have to pay the debt.(12)

If there were an international insolvency procedure in place, Cory Aquino could have declared bankruptcy when she came to office. Independent negotiators would have to step in and determine a resolution that did not prejudice the future of the Philippines and was as fair as possible to both sides. What the creditors lost in the deal, they would simply have to write off as bad loans.

The most important effect of this would be to make creditors more accountable for their loans. If there had been an international insolvency procedure in place, it is very unlikely that the creditors would have loaned to the Marcos government the way they did. The risk of the subsequent government declaring bankruptcy would have been too great. They would have wanted to be sure that the loans were used in a genuinely income-generating way. And one can only guess at how different the Marcos government would have behaved, and what would have been the difference for the Philippines, if there were such strictures on their access to finance.

The opposition to this idea that I have heard is a) that governments would be unwilling to go through the humiliation of declaring bankruptcy, and so the procedure would be useless, and b) that it is not feasible because the developed countries and the IFIs would not be willing to accept it. Firstly, governments already go through this humiliation when the go to the Paris Club and the IMF for help, and they place themselves at the mercy of their creditors possibly even more than if the settlement were arbitrated by independent negotiators. Secondly, when new governments take over after corrupt dictatorships that have left their countries indebted and impoverished, there would be no humiliation in declaring bankruptcy, and it is hard to imagine that they would hesitate to do so if the procedure showed promise of giving them the opportunity to get a start without the enormous debt overhang from the previous government.

Thirdly, I don't think we should back away from a campaign because it seems impossible. Campaigns are for goals that seem impossible. We take what seems necessary but impossible, and work to make it possible. And we should remember that all the social developments that have been achieved, from the abolition of slavery to the universal right to vote, have seemed impossible when they first started. In fact, if both a government and its creditors were willing, even with present international law, an insolvency procedure could be applied. A test case would probably be the best step forward in establishing this procedure internationally.

I do not have any particular suggestion as to how we can participate in promoting this. But I think that it would be good to remain aware of it, and, when the possibility emerges, take part in the dialogue. For it is very clear that there will have to be plenty of loud voices declaring that the settlement achieved by such a negotiation should respect the well-being, the autonomy and the right to participate equitably, of the people of the country that has declared bankruptcy.

I think that the proposal points to a few important needs on an international level:

•That loans to public bodies such as governments, especially development loans, should be subject to the same risks and the same accountability as loans to individuals and private institutions. Commercial loans that are not income generating should become bad loans. This is a necessary form of accountability. Where there are emergencies and other needs for funding that will not be income generating, these should be made by public institutions on a not-for-profit basis.

Whether an international insolvency procedure is established or not, some form of international procedure that can assume this role while respecting these principles is necessary.

3. Campaigns for transparency in IFIs

How to deal with the International Financial Institutions is a complex question, and there are numerous NGOs who give different answers. David Korten advocates that the World Bank simply be abolished and that the IMF and the WTO be absorbed into the UN in a totally transformed way.(13) Others advocate the abolition of the IMF as well. I will suggest some of the campaigns that I think are of most immediate importance. These campaigns focus around three general issues: a) seeking more transparency on the part of these banks; b) seeking the establishment of some form of overseeing body that would make the institutions less of a law unto themselves; c) seeking policy changes in such matters as debt conditionality, structural adjustment, etc..

a) Transparency: A number of individuals and groups are pushing for greater information disclosure on the part of the IMF, the World Bank, and the development banks. Among other things, they aim for Country Assistance Strategies to be made public. These CASs set the direction for the World Bank's dealings with each country, and determine the conditionality of loans, etc. They therefore effect internal policy in each country, and when they are carried out in secret, they infringe on autonomy and democratic principles.

b) Campaigns to have some kind of overseeing body tend to focus around the idea of inspection panels: these would promote accountability to the people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of these institutions.

c) There are innumerable groups seeking changes in the policies of the Bretton Woods Institutions, particularly with regard to structural adjustment and conditionality. There is a great deal of risk in this. When NGOs with specific agendas push to have conditionality changed so as to make it more ecologically conscious, more gender conscious, or more socially conscious, the end result winds up being that there are simply more conditions added without any change in the most basic elements of conditionality. These most basic elements are: reduced government spending, privatization, trade liberalization, emphasis on export led growth, promotion of foreign direct investment, and (frequently) currency devaluation. Quite simply, this is the neo-liberal agenda. Every aspect of this is questionable, particularly when the unique aspects of each individual country are taken into consideration. I think that we should focus on working for change or at least flexibility in these, rather than on trying to add more conditions. An approach that is promoted by many is a more participatory approach to conditionality and structural adjustment. One group that has been working on this for a long time is the NGO Working Group of the Bank-NGO Committee.

The first two groupings of campaigns are being promoted by, among others, the Global Challenge Initiative, the Bank Information Centre (bicusa@igc.apc.org), the Center for International Environmental Law, and the Asian NGO Coalition. I think the best thing for us to do is keep in touch with these groups, collaborate with them when we can, and contribute our own ideas to them.

As I have already noted, the dominant position of the Bretton Woods Institutions in the world today represents the predominance of economic institutions over political. It also represents the concentration of power in the hands of the wealthy countries, for voting rights in these institutions are determined by the size of the contribution each country makes (as against the United Nations where, except for the overriding power of the Security Council, each country has one vote. I think that we need to aim at a situation where a) there are structures of accountability for all these organizations, b) control of international institutions is not concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy countries, c) resolutions to debt crises are not controlled totally by creditors, d) trade and other economic and financial disputes, particularly when they occur between parties of substantially different economic power, are dealt with by impartial arbitrators and not by persons or institutions who are aligned politically, culturally, economically or ideologically with the wealthier countries.

4. Issues of Property and Ownership

I would now like to turn to questions of property and ownership. I use the words property and ownership here because, while I want to include questions of land reform, I want to focus more broadly and address other issues as well. I think that we need to seriously think about what ownership is, and what people can and cannot, should and should not own. In an economy such as ours, where economic development is supposed to be directed by the profit motive, there is a trend to try to quantify everything so that it can be expressed in monetary terms, and to make everything subject to the possibility of ownership so as to motivate entrepreneurs. In issues of land ownership, we see a trend towards an increasing concentration of land in the hands of TNCs rather than of domestic landowners. We also see an increasing amount of patenting of biogenetic resources (including, in some cases, even the genes of indigenous peoples), of technical processes, and of traditional indigenous knowledge. It is clear today that the control and ownership of knowledge is one of the primary factors that concentrates power in the hands of the few and excludes the many. As with control of land and material resources, this "knowledge" has often been purloined from the very people who are excluded from using it. Our tasks here are to deepen our knowledge, contribute our own insights to those working on these questions and collaborate in campaigns to effect change.

There are such a myriad of groups working for land reform in specific countries that it would be impossible to list them. FIAN (the FoodFirst Information and Action Network) is planning on launching a Global Campaign for Agrarian Reform next year. It might be worth keeping in touch with them.

I think it is important, in dealing with the question of land reform, to focus on how things could backfire. We must be aware of the other legislation that is enacted that could affect it. If the Multilateral Agreement on Investments is signed, or if similar policies are adopted in another form, then land reform could be just one step on the way to the concentration of landholding in the hands of the TNCs. Under the MAI, restricting the purchase of land to local poor farmers could be seen as discrimination against foreign investors. Even if the original distribution of land could be restricted to local poor farmers (since it might not be seen as a purchase, or it might be seen as a form of privatisation), the resale of land could not be restricted in this way. And the rate of resale of land among recipients of land reform programmes is very high. Many of the processes that are a part of land reform programmes (such as giving individual title to land), also constitute a step in the direction of making the land a marketable commodity. I am afraid that in years to come, this could result in an even greater transfer of land to the hands of TNCs. We need to be very watchful.

5. Campaigns to achieve international procedures to guarantee food security

The right to freedom from hunger has already been clearly declared.(14) Unfortunately, for many people in the world, this declaration is like an icon on a computer screen that has no software behind it. No matter how many times you click on the icon, nothing happens.

Foodfirst is promoting a Code of Conduct on food security. This Code does have many of the essential elements which we would seek: it demands respect for the "ancestral land rights particularly of indigenous peoples" (6.1); it places the obligation on the state to "ensure that private entities or individuals, including transnational corporations over which they exercise jurisdiction, do not deprive individuals of their access to adequate food" (6.2); it recognizes the need for a certain autonomy in access to food, referring to "the freedom to feed oneself" (6.2, see also 13.4) and makes specific reference of the importance of this autonomy for women (13.4); it argues that where food aid is necessary it should be oriented towards ensuring the long-term ability of people to realize this right for themselves" (6.3); it affirms the priority of the right to food, stating that "Nothing in the international treaties establishing international organizations or regarding other international matters such as international finance and trade, shall be construed to override the obligations of international organizations under the right to adequate food." (8.3); it calls for regulation at both national and international levels to ensure that the activities of economic enterprises, including transnational corporations, "do not adversely affect access to food" (9.1); and it states that "food should never be used as an instrument for political and economic pressure" (5.5; 13.6).

This is perhaps the clearest and most comprehensive proposal for such a code.(15) How much would be achieved if it were adopted? Probably about as much as has been achieved by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: its real enforcement would be limited but it would provide a yardstick to appeal to. It would surely be a step forward in establishing a real international order that respects food security as a human right. We could promote the Code by promoting awareness of the endeavour, sharing it with the our organizations and passing on feedback to FoodFirst. Another possibility would be to lobby government officials, particularly those working on food related issues, to support it. We could urge governments to support the Code of Conduct and get a governmental letter sent to the FAO and the Human Rights Commissioner in support of the Code of Conduct.

Conclusion

I have given a brief description of various campaigns, some still a little amorphous, that I think are worthy of attention. There are obviously many more. One of the other important areas of focus that I have not touched on might be that of overseeing the activities of TNCs, and indeed we should keep in touch with, and collaborate with, watchdog groups that keep a track of them. Another campaign that is worthy of our support might be the Tobin Tax. Still a third would be the many activities to stop the Multilateral Agreement on Investments.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate three points that I have already made:

1) I think it is important that we be willing to collaborate with others. The more we network and collaborate with others the more effective we can be. That means communication and dialogue with other NGOs. It also means that we bring our own insights to this dialogue and contribute at the level of policy and programme formulation. And it means that we have the flexibility to find a common solution with others.

2) An important question is: are we looking for revolutionary change or for evolutionary change? I would say that our goals must be revolutionary but our methods must be evolutionary. We should focus on those changes within the system that can be a real and effective means to change. But what ultimately must emerge from that is not just a modified or developed version of the present system. It is a completely new system. Earlier, I said that we ought not to back away from campaigns that seem impossible. I was actually referring to the issues for which there is no political will. If a campaign is for something so far from the present system that it is not realizable, we probably should not waste much energy on it.

3) It is important that we do not have an overly simplistic view of any particular class or group of people. While it is important that we never be naive and remain constantly aware of the human potential for ill-will, self-will, deception, greed, etc., it is also important that we never lose sight of the real dignity and potential for goodness of every human being. It is important that we remain open those very people we oppose, to accept them as human beings with warmth and good-will, but without in anyway compromising our commitment to the poor, the oppressed and the marginalized.

Endnotes

1. Gen. 1. 28-30. The phrase "subdue the earth" is an invitation to the people to make their home on the earth. The word used is Kebesh, which is the word used when the Israelites subdued (settled in) the promised land. It is not used when they subdue a nation in battle. The object is always land, never people. It consequently does not imply the kind of "subduing" that is associated with battle. The passage is a blessing, not a command as it is sometimes interpreted to be. God is simply inviting the human beings he has created to make themselves at home on the earth and take their nourishment from it.

2. In Catholic Social Teaching, this principle is described as "the universal destination of material goods" which means that material goods are destined for all human beings to the exclusion of none. Catholic Social teaching has typically made a distinction between the right of use and the right of ownership, arguing that the former has priority over the latter. The implication is that the right of ownership does not override the right of use of someone other than the owner who has had need of the material goods in question to sustain their well being. It can be put more simply: human life is more important than property.

3. Quadragesimo Anno, 82

4. Gen. 2.17

5. Eph. 1.10; Col. 1.20.

6. A recent example of this is the patenting, on March 3 of this year, of a biotechnological process whereby plants are genetically altered so that the seed they produce will not germinate. This was patented by a US company, Delta and Pine Land Company, together with the US Department of Agriculture. Use of this technology would mean that farmers could not save seed for replanting. They would have to buy new seed every year. While this technology has only proved effective with cotton and tobacco so far, there is no technological reason why it will not work with other plants. It gives seed companies enormous control over food production. Many experts also fear that this genetic mutation could be transferred by cross-pollination to the crops of farmers using traditional seed, making their seed infertile. It comes at a time when control of the seed market is becoming ever more concentrated in few hands. In November of last year, the Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) estimated that approximately 40% of global commercial seed production was controlled by the ten largest producers (RAFI Communique: The Life Industry. November/December 1997). Since then Monsanto has bought Delta and Pine Land Company, so not only has concentration increased, but the patent referred to has fallen into the hands of one of the largest, and perhaps one of the least scrupulous, agrochemical companies.

7. For a more detailed, but still fairly brief, discussion of the background of the debt crisis, see the Position Paper of the SEDOS World Debt Working Group.

8. For a significant example, see Joseph Hanlon, "Can Mozambique Make the World Bank Pay for its Mistakes?" (In Around Africa. Africa Faith and Justice Network. October, 1997). Cashews are Mozambique's second most important export. They are grown by small-farmers and formerly, the shells were removed in 14 state-run factories which employed 9000 workers, mainly women. In 1994, these factories were privatized at the World Bank's insistence. The highest bidders were, surprisingly, local investors who put up $9,000,000. No sooner had they invested this money than the World Bank revealed a secret study which showed that the process of removing the shells in Mozambique was inefficient, that it could be done more cheaply in India, and therefore that the peasants would gain more by exporting raw cashews to India for de-shelling. Mozambique had an export tax on raw cashews precisely to protect this industry, and the World Bank made it a "necessary condition" that this tax be completely eliminated. The tax was, in fact, cut to 14% (from 20%). In February of 1997, having heard the protests of all concerned President (of the World Bank) Wolfensohn ordered a new study which found the previous study to have been flawed and recognized that Mozambique lost by the removal of the export tax, and that any increased incomes were pocketed by the traders and never reached the peasants. Wolfensohn ordered that the policy be reversed. But already substantial damage had been done to Mozambique's cashew industry: most of the fourteen factories were closed; 700 out of the 900 employees were out of work; most of the cashews had been exported to India. By one estimate, the Mozambican Cashew Industry lost $15 million. At the time of writing, certainly, no compensation had been paid by the World Bank, and in the long term, probably the most that can be expected is loans at concessional rates. The openness to admit mistakes that has emerged in the World Bank in recent years is encouraging, but admission of mistakes and loans at concessional rates do not constitute accountability. Accountability would require payment.

9. This idea is being promoted particularly by Kunibert Raffer, of the University of Vienna, and is supported by the Jubilee 2000 Coalition.

10. See Chapter 9 of US insolvency law. For a fuller discussion of this idea see Kunibert Raffer "Applying Chapter 9 Insolvency to International Debts: An Economically Efficient Solution with a Human Face", in World Development, 18(2) 1990.

11. See The Library of Congress Country Studies: Philippines. Chapter 3. Economy: External debt.

12. The Global Investor Directory gives the current external debt of the Philippines as $41 billion.

13. David C. Korten. When Corporations Rule the World. Copublished by Kumarian Press (West Hartford, Connecticut) and Berrett-Kohler Publishers, Inc (San Francisco), 1995, pp323-324.

14. This has been declared by numerous international agencies, the most important of which are:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (25.1):

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (III.11.1):

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.

15. There is also a movement for an International Food Security Treaty which can be accessed easily on the internet. I find it rather vague. There would be no harm in keeping in touch with this, but I find the FIAN Code of Conduct much more to the point.