Contents: Keynotes, Panels, Sessions
- About the Summit
- F.A.Q.
- The Madrid Agenda
- Participants
- Programme
- Related Links
- Document Library
- Media Room
Contents
Community/People
March 9, 2005
Balancing the Agenda (Part 2)
(Continued from: Balancing the Agenda, part 1)
Eveline Herfkens
Well, let me say that the meeting in September 2005 at the United Nations when world leaders come back to review progress is a very important meeting. Because, in fact, on the main development goals the world globally is off track. And it’s very late but not too late to get the train on the rails again, in order for it to meet the station in 2015. But the good news is that where countries actually live up to their promises, the goals are achievable. Even in some of the poorest countries in Africa. Then countries least developed in Africa will achieve the education goal, Mozambique will achieve the poverty and child mortality goal, Uganda, Senegal already refers to the aids endemic.
Now, what is the secret behind the success story? The secret is that both parts lived up to their promises. And I want to say, Mr Watson, the essence of the main development goals that we recognized shared responsibility, it’s a primary responsibility for poor countries to improve their governments, fight corruption, make public expenditure management transparent and focused on priority sectors. But we did agree at the millennium summit in Monterey, at the conference that poor countries simply can’t achieve the goals unless rich countries do a better job, not only in more aid, better aid, but also in creating trade opportunities. And we Europeans have to stop destroying agricultural markets on which poor farmers depend. It’s us rich countries that are not living up to these goals. Relatively speaking, poor countries are better governed than ever in history. Now the problem that the UN has, we cannot send police to Spain or Finland when they don’t do what they promised internationally. It’s only the citizens of countries that can remind their governments of what they promised.
And from that prospective the wonderful thing is that more than ever in history, people are mobilising. Labour unions, Women’s movements, citizens, parliamentarians, to remind their governments of their promises, in order to insure that they live up to what they promised and that their goals will be met. My concern is political diversion.
I’ve been a politician myself, what’s today on the front page of the newspaper? Or the front page of CNN. That’s what drives politics. It’s important that citizens worldwide make it clear to their governments that their personal front page, and the way they’re going to cast their next vote is going to depend on the degree that their government lives up to what they promised.
Because nobody wants to live in a world where 1.2 billion people live on less than a dollar a day. We can’t afford a generation in poor countries again. 100 million kids not going to school. But we cannot afford either in the United States or in Spain yet another generation of children that grow up without knowing how children live in Africa and how their own society shares responsibility for their plight. And that’s what this is all about. We are the first generation that can put an end to poverty. And I invite you to refuse this unique opportunity. This is what I’m going to tell […]
Jesús Núñez
Siguiendo en esta misma línea, que creo que hemos empezado ya a desarrollar y contando, ya digo, con alguna reacción que pueda haber a los comentarios ya realizados, Kumi me lo estaba planteando en esos términos. Me gustaría solamente, para añadir más elementos, contando ahora con reacciones también de quienes estamos en la mesa, algo que creo que podíamos identificar como peligros, me gustaría dejar de alguna forma todavía cuestiones que teníamos, si se quiere acordadas, para poder tratar en el debate y por parte de los participantes de la mesa y luego poder dar la oportunidad a la participación de la audiencia, si no les importa, es cuestión espero, no más allá de quince minutos.
La idea sería por lo tanto que hemos detectado algunos peligros que en función de este doble, de esta doble dinámica, de una Agenda de Seguridad que no parece que vaya por el mismo camino de la Agenda del Desarrollo, hay algunos peligros, que yo quisiera señalar para ver si pueden ser recogidos en algún comentario, en alguna reacción no personificada, sino que cada uno de ustedes podría reaccionar frente a alguno de ellos.
Yo entiendo que hay un peligro claro de subordinación de todos los criterios de ayuda, ayuda entendida en términos amplios, no solamente, como ya se ha dicho, ayuda al desarrollo, sino también en términos de términos de reglas comerciales más justas, alivio de la deuda, una arquitectura financiera internacional distinta más o menos desigual de la actual. Por tanto, parece que estamos yendo hacia una subordinación de todos los criterios de ayuda al grado de entusiasmo con el que algunos gobiernos están colaborando en la guerra contra el terrorismo en esta dinámica, en esta agenda de guerra contra el terror que hoy parece dominar todo el escenario. Y ese sería uno de los peligros.
El segundo que me permito señalar, sería hasta que punto se está produciendo un desvío de la atención sobre otras prioridades. Sería casi volver a aquel viejo debate de cañones o mantequilla, de si estamos poniendo el esfuerzo financiero fundamentalmente en atender más al protagonismo de instrumentos militares que a otros instrumentos que podían ser más válidos, más eficaces para resolver problemas que ya hemos señalado.
El tercero de los peligros que quisiera resaltar es el de si no estaremos convirtiendo todo lo que se hace en el terreno de la cooperación al desarrollo y de la acción humanitaria, si no lo estaremos convirtiendo en un componente más y secundario encima de la seguridad, en ese proceso de securitización que se está produciendo a marchas forzadas en algunos entornos.
Y por último, como cuarto de los peligros que me gustaría resaltar y [de los cuales] conocer opiniones, estaría el apunte sobre si se está produciendo o no, si estamos ya, es un peligro o es una realidad, que se está produciendo ya un debilitamiento del marco de libertades, del marco de derechos en nombre de la seguridad, lo cual está frenando, en algunos casos quizás, procesos democráticos que podrían arrancar en muchos países. Sobre estas cuatro cuestiones y contando cada uno con que elija alguna de ellas que pudiera resultar adecuada para un comentario y con cualquier reacción que pueda haber previa de las intervenciones anteriores, pues me gustaría abrir nuevamente la mesa. No sé si, Theo, quisieras empezar en este caso.
Theo Sowa
I think how I’d like to start follows on a bit from what Eveline was saying. I actually think that relegating this to a debate between whether it’s a development agenda versus a security agenda actually disguises some of the trends that have always been happening. Whether or not this war on terror had happened, we were not going to reach those millennium development goals with the way in which promises made by both governments in developed countries as well as governments in developing countries had been broken on a regular basis.
We have had a campaign for education for all for decades and we have not reached those aims. The money, which has been promised, has not turned up. Even when governments in the South have come up with the plans they were asked to come up with, the money that should have followed has not come through. We’ve had a commitment with governments in the north around this 0.7% GDP going in development aid for over thirty years, and that hasn’t been met either. And I think it’s really dangerous for people to start saying “actually it’s the war on terror that’s stopping us fulfilling some of the development agendas that we have established because it’s not.
I don’t think it’s helping and when we are told that actually over 20 billion of the development money is actually going to debt relief for Iraq that is really worrying. But I believe that we can’t get sidetracked into blaming one thing on something that we failed to do for the past 30-40 years. So I think it’s really important that we look at that. And I really want to emphasise as well what we were saying about the range of activities, this isn’t just about aid to countries in the south. There are things that are happening in the North, there are economic circumstances, there are trade rules, which exist, which actively work against countries in the South ever achieving the kind of economic and therefore social and political independence that countries are looking for.
And I come from Ghana and I know that it’s a completely crazy situation where our farmers in the north who have been farming rice for generations and have been feeding the country, now find it economically unviable because it’s cheaper to buy in subsidised rice from the west, and it’s cheaper for Ghanaians to buy that subsidised rice than to buy rice that is being grown a couple of hundred kilometres North of where we are living. And that’s to do with subsidies, trade rules and as long as some of things exist, it almost doesn’t matter how much aid goes into Africa because it’s not going to change the basic inequalities that are causing some of these base problems.
So, I think it’s really important that we don’t just look at one aspect, that we are holistic about it and in the same way in which recognise that there are things that governments in the South have to do. And I have to say that some governments are doing that. Some governments in the South, and I’m not going to sit back and say that African governments are all wonderful –they are not, and we’re the first to actually criticise them–, but there have been huge attempts by many African governments to change the way in which governance is progressed and there have been attempts by some of the regional bodies to look at what can be done to change the ways and change the frailties within the systems.
So, we can’t just look at one area. We need to be holistic about this, and we need to look at all of this, because if we only concentrate on one part we are going to allow a displacement to take place, which means that we are going to spend another 30-40 years not achieving any of the targets that we are setting ourselves.
Jesús Núñez
Thank you. Do you have some comments about the points that I mentioned?
Peter Watson
Just a brief one on your last point, Mr Chairman. The freedom quotient if you want the indices of freedom the question I think you put is a challenging one. Do we believe that we are in an environment internationally that has greater degrees of freedom than in pre-September 11? And I think we would be remise if we did not respect and honour the men and women who lined up to take their freedom back and to take their personal sovereignty back, in the streets and the boroughs of Afghanistan and Iraq. If we did not respect the roll-back of weapons programmes of Libya, the deconstruction of the Pakistan nuclear supply programme, the environment I think we could say in that context certainly freedom has been advanced.
But I would agree with Theo, that’s one measure of freedom and it’s an important measure of freedom, but it’s not a substitute for saying that we will now not give the same emphasis and the same focus and the same priority to eradicating poverty. Again I think we need to start bearing down on what are the necessary conditions on growing people out of poverty. And we have to focus even more critically on those questions than before because otherwise we are just going to continue to waste the money that’s gone into development. And I would just stop there to point out that the work of de Soto does point out if you give people the opportunity to represent their savings in legal structures then you can start to grow that. But that’s not to grow their personal wealth it’s to grow their community wealth. But there has to be also continuation of ODA and other wealth.
Kumi Niadoo
I just want to say a few things. One is, it’s not as if we don’t know what certain obvious things that need to happen that are not happening on the key issues that get out of poverty. We’ve spoken a lot about aid, and I just want to say one simple thing about aid. Firstly we do not believe in the developing world that aid is going to sort out all our problems. Let’s be very clear about that. However, we would say thirty years is a long time to wait for less than 1% and we would say that when we talk about aid, please understand certainly for Africa that the basis of when we make the calls for meeting the obligations that are being made, it is not the basis of charity, it is the basis of justice and historic interests. Let’s be very clear about the basis of that call.
Having said that, trade is fundamentally more important as a basis to get us out of poverty, but when you look at the […] and the double standards it is so obviously patent that it’s painful that we can be at conferences like these and so on, but we don’t put it on the agenda and deal with it. Two very simple examples: the World bank and the IMF, two very important global institutions dominated by the rich countries of the world particularly the United States, made a range of policy decisions over time to engage in structural adjustments, programmes, part of which ended up saying to developing country governments, “you can not support your farmers with subsidies”, for example. And today in the United States cotton farmers get subsidies, steel producers get subsidies, and I have to say that President Bush has made the European Union and Europe look good over the last couple of years and Europeans can feel maybe a little bit comfortable, but the European Union is just as culpable. Every single day the European Union subsidises every single European cow to the tune of 2 euros a day.
I’ve got nothing against cows, but the issue of the injustice of that […] and how in heavens name are developing country farmers able to play on the same playing field?
It’s not as if we don’t know that these obvious things are done. Then, in terms of debt, it’s very important that we understand that debt is a very complex matter. But again it goes to the root of the question of justice, because the people who give the loans, historically, to Africa, Asia, Latin America, have given aid on the basis of trying to secure political advantage. And, let me tell you, in my own country, an ex-apartheid, just to see the injustice, every year since South Africa became a democratic country, the biggest slice of our budget goes to education and the second slice of our budget goes to servicing the debts that were incurred to buy guns and tanks and so on, to kill us.
It just so happens that the debt in South Africa’s case, which is called the odious debt or the apartheid debt, is primarily internal, but you take that and you look throughout the African continent, the culpability of the loan-givers is completely […]
So when we are saying that it is immoral to be giving to Africa in one hand 1 dollar and taking out 2 dollars or more in debt repayments then there should be debt cancellation, it’s on the basis of justice. So, if you want to make a move in terms of addressing the current context, those things appear. The problem is the political will on the part of the dominant nations of the world, and here I may conclude on a positive note.
The tsunami disaster taught us something very important. That the citizens in the rich countries as well as those in poor countries are well ahead of their governments. The generosity, the understanding of global citizenship, the understanding that this planet will be sustained, not on the basis of winning or losing nations, but on the basis of us working together. So, on that basis right now I would say that the campaign that Eveline spoke about, called Global Call to Action Against Poverty has already mobilised the largest coalition ever. […] from the Islamic relief agency has already supported it, the symbol is a white fan, so without telling you anymore if you can just visit whitevan.org, there’s an opportunity for each of us as citizens to get involved with the purpose is to push public opinion in each of our countries so that the governments in those countries can move.
Let me just say that there is a lot of ignorance around how much money is given. President Clinton at the World Economic Forum, pointed out that most American citizens believe that the US government give about 10% of GDP in terms of aid. Whereas the US is one of the lowest (I stand to be corrected) at 0.13%. So I think that there is a basis right now for us to actually move things forward by increasing knowledge but also increasing the political opinion and the way that justice is done, not charity.
Ignasi Carreras
Durante la comida, hemos tenido un debate sumamente interesante. Ha habido un momento que hemos hecho bromas; hemos dicho, quizás lo grabemos en vídeo y lo pasemos luego, que seguramente será más interesante que la discusión de ahora. Y coincidíamos, como dice Peter, que el objetivo principal es la seguridad humana, la lucha contra la pobreza, la erradicación de la pobreza.
Pero sí que apuntábamos esos peligros que Jesús nos estaba comentando y creo que el peligro principal es el de la subordinación. La lucha contra el terrorismo, la agenda contra el terror es muy fuerte. Los ciudadanos no nos tenemos que preocupar de ella. Los estados están tan preocupados y obsesionados por ella que van a seguir con toda la fuerza. Lo determinante es que encuentren unos medios no militares, unos medios quizás más adecuados, más idóneos, para luchar contra el terrorismo.
El problema es que esto lo arrastre todo; antes se ha hablado de ayuda al desarrollo; ahora estamos hablando temas de deuda externa. Durante muchos años hemos pedido la ONGs que se condonase, se aliviase la deuda externa, de esos países que han tenido dictadores, que han contraído una deuda que está perjudicando a las poblaciones sin que hayan pintado nada en todo ello y las instituciones financieras nos han dicho que no. Y después del 11 de septiembre, Irak ha visto como su deuda externa era cancelada por parte de alguno de sus acreedores bilaterales y multilaterales. Y es una deuda externa que hace mucho daño. Los países menos avanzados están pagando cien millones de dólares cada día por esa deuda externa, más que sus presupuestos de educación y de salud, el doble de la ayuda al desarrollo no reembolsable que reciben.
Tenemos que conseguir que la lucha contra la pobreza sea autónoma de ese rodillo, que funcione y debe funcionar para luchar contra el terrorismo. Si no es autónoma queda muy subordinada y perdemos buena parte de los objetivos que queremos llevar a cabo.
Y hay un segundo aspecto sobre los cañones y la mantequilla que comentabas. Y esa estrategia militar de la agenda contra el terrorismo se marca en un periodo previo al 11 de septiembre y después de la caída del muro de Berlín donde los gastos de defensa y las compras y ventas de armas se han ido incrementando. Nuestro mundo es un bazar de armas y cada minuto muere una persona como consecuencia de un arma de fuego. Nos cuesta mucho conseguir que nuestra comunidad internacional se ponga de acuerdo para tener un tratado internacional que controle el comercio de armamento. Que evite que países en conflicto, en potencial conflicto puedan recibir armamento. El problema está en los países que compran y en los países que venden, pero en un mundo globalizado, no poder tener un tratado internacional que regule el comercio de armamentos cuando están relacionadas muchas más otras cosas relacionadas con aspectos muchos más banales de nuestra vida, realmente es lamentable. Esos aspectos, esos peligros de esas dos agendas que pueden confrontarse pero que en muchos casos lo que hacen una arrastrar a la otra, es lo que tenemos que trabajar.
Nosotros, yo personalmente, no sé de terrorismo. No nos pregunten a las ONGs cómo es la mejor manera de luchar contra el terrorismo. Nos dedicamos a conseguir, a contribuir a que cada vez más personas vivan dignamente. Lo que queremos es un mundo más seguro, en paz y donde haya más oportunidades para todo el mundo y que la lucha contra el terrorismo no sea un inconveniente para avanzar en eso.
Jesús Núñez
Muchas gracias, Ignasi, creo que queda afortunadamente todavía algo de tiempo para poder contar y siento no haber podido dejar más para la intervención de quienes nos acompañan. Tenía algunas palabras pedidas. Vamos a adoptar si les parece el mecanismo de recoger algunas preguntas y que puedan ser luego contestadas, como en una última ronda de los participantes y por lo tanto lo único que pediría evidentemente, es ser telegráfico, si puede ser. Por favor.
Representante de la República Dominicana
Hay una dimensión en todo esto que vale la pena plantear en este foro. La misma lucha contra el terrorismo está implicando costos crecientes. Le está imponiendo a los estados, a todos los estados una inversión importante de recursos, en control de fronteras, en incorporación de tecnologías, en preparación de unidades antiterroristas, porque ningún estado quiere verse arrastrado a una situación interna de terrorismo internacional que termine afectando sus intereses. Pero los costos de esas inversiones no están recibiendo, ni siquiera esos costos, un buen apoyo de los países que tienen más posibilidades de apoyar a la lucha contra el terrorismo en ese campo.
Y con relación a la deuda, yo quiero dar, aportar un dato dramático de mi país, República Dominicana. La deuda con banca privada se elevó en un 1.000 % en un periodo de 3 años, de 3 años, justo cuando el gobierno de mi país entraba en un línea de apoyo incondicional e inconstitucional a la política de Estados Unidos en Irak. Y los organismos internacionales toleraron ese proceso completamente anómalo de endeudamiento que ha terminado en un gran latrocinio. De modo que también la lucha contra el terrorismo está permitiendo que los países que están conduciendo esta lucha le toleren, como los viejos tiempos de las dictaduras latinoamericanas, a los gobiernos locales ese tipo de licencias que terminan en desastres económicos como el que acabamos de pasar en el gobierno anterior.
Adamés Batista. Embajador de Política de Frontera de Haití
Buenas tardes a todos, es una pena que la señorita Eveline se haya marchado pero queda la joven de África y también la compañera Virginia que salió hace un minuto y lo digo porque de ayer a esta parte he tenido el placer de poder ver que la mujer como género esté entendiendo más el problema. Y lo enfoca con más valentía y con más dirección que lo que el común de los hombres que a veces los veo divagar con teorías y no aterrizan. Y parece ser que el mismo compromiso directo de la mujer con la familia es lo que está haciendo que ellas vean que el problema, a quien le está afectando precisamente es al núcleo familiar que es donde que hay que trabajar primero para poder entender qué está pasando en el mundo. Mi nombre es Adamés Batista y soy embajador encargado de la política de frontera de mi país, República Dominicana y Haití.
Y yo me pregunto, estos grandes foros contra el terrorismo, ¿dónde está la comunidad internacional que no mira a Haití, un país históricamente unido al África? De ocho millones de habitantes, yo me pregunto ¿qué es el terror?, ¿qué se preguntarán las madres de Haití sobre el terror cuando explota una bomba en España, o explota Bin Laden un World Trade Center o una bomba en Kenia? ¿qué es el terror?, ¿la bomba que explotó en el extranjero o mi hijo que muere de hambre hoy? Entonces la lucha es por ahí. Es un país en disolución, un país que solamente le han dejado la comunidad internacional que no atiende ese problema, le han dejado tres caminos trágicos. O lanzarse al mar e inmigración a Estados Unidos, o tirarse en inmigración terrestre hasta la República Dominicana o morir tranquilamente en su país, un país de 8 millones de habitantes donde el 5% está afectado del SIDA y donde de cada 1.000 niños 165 mueren al nacer, y de cada 1.000 niños, 220 mueren de 1 a 5 años, entonces ¿qué es el terror? Hay que plantearse...
Jesús Núñez
Gracias, señor embajador, yo creo que está planteado el tema en su perfil principal. Aquí delante por favor.
Delegate from the floor
Western countries have signed up for the millennium development goals, but as Kumi in particular has pointed out, western countries have continued to operate agricultural subsidy programmes, which destroy development throughout the world and have no basis in economic rationality. What is it that we need to do to stop this hypocrisy, on the one hand signing up for development, and on the other hand operating programmes that destroy development?
Delegate from the floor
Thank you very much. Jacky Allen from Concorde the European Alliance of Development NGOs.
The failures that Kumi talked about are very depressing and at meetings like this we look at failures that we have and we look at the mountains we have to climb. In a way the failure to reach millennium development goals has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. Failure is the failure of governments and the failure of we as citizens in making governments stand up to the commitments they’ve made. Kumi gave us a way forward and I think we should not be pessimistic. It’s easy to lose heart and say the mountain to climb is too big. But just look what’s happened on the […], immobilizing citizens, look what happened in G8, look what will happen this year, and look at this campaign, the Global Call on Action Against Poverty. I think what’s needed now is exactly what Eveline said, we as citizens have to mobilize. The good news is that we’ve won the moral argument. Those of us that were around in 1995 at the Copenhagen world social summit knew that we were on the back foot, and we were losing the argument. 15 years on and we’re ahead. We’ve won the moral argument and the problem is we don’t know how to get our governments to deliver what they are promising, that’s what we have to do for Hong Kong in December.
Representative of the Iraqi Prospect Organization
Thank you very much. […], Iraqi Prospect Organization. I just wanted to mention some facts about the debt of Iraq that a lot of people don’t know about. Only a fraction of Iraq’s debt has been scrapped and at this moment in time, if Iraq was to repay its debt we would still be paying our debts by the year 2070 and the oil would run out. So I think it’s important to realise that Iraqis have lived under a great deal of poverty themselves and just as Mr Carreras said, we should encourage all scrapping of dictatorship debts, because it’s not fair for Iraqis to pay for the money that oppressed them. It’s not their fault that western countries gave their money to Saddam in order for him to reap more wealth, and oppress his people and even the UN turned a blind eye and even aided Saddam in reaping wealth. So I think it’s important to remember that.
Jesús Núñez
Última palabra de continuación y cerramos ahí.
Delegate from the floor
Buenas tardes y muchas gracias. Soy Agustín Moya de la Fundación Internacional y querría saber la opinión de los panelistas.
Han hablado del desarrollo y la seguridad, y han hablado mucho de las responsabilidades de los gobiernos y las relaciones de las ciudadanías, pero me gustaría saber sus opiniones sobre los papeles que podrían jugar las multinacionales o los grandes centros privados de divisiones económicas en las Naciones Unidas
[??? …] jobless who have no hope out there, and who blow themselves up as human bombs and shields because they have no future, no hope, no career. So I was wondering if these potential of young people, especially in the developing world are not dealt in the proper way it could be disastrous because if the hope of the young people in a nation is doomed that nation is doomed. My question is, what kind of interventions are needed to really create sustainable livelihoods for these young leaders, of these nations especially in the South, to engage them in a proper way? What kind of policies are needed? What kind of actual implementation processes is needed for governments who take the work together with the broader civil society and also engaging young people?
Jesús Núñez
Sé que hay más palabras pedidas, pero desgraciadamente estamos con el tiempo tan limitado como ya hemos dicho al principio. No puedo, en todo caso, antes de pasar ya, como en el circo, al más difícil todavía, es pedirle a nuestros cuatro participantes en la mesa, en no más de un minuto, si cada uno puede decir algo sobre las cuestiones que se han planteado aquí contando con que todavía nos queda lo que nuestro relator, José Antonio Sanahuja, nos pueda comentar.
Y antes de eso; aquí existe una diversidad apreciable y positiva para la propia dinámica del encuentro. Esta diversidad de muchas procedencias y muchos enfoques me llevan en cualquier caso a hacer una mínima mención sobre la presencia entre los tres miembros del movimiento “Peaceful Tomorrow” familiares de víctimas de Nueva York y de Washington del 11 Septiembre al que tantas veces hemos hecho referencia durante el debate, que nos acompañan hoy en este encuentro. Y me gustaría que alguno de los representantes que nos han visitado hoy, pueda plantear un saludo en todo caso a la sala.
Delegate from the floor
Thank you. It’s good to see you all here. I’m here with Karen Shay, Adel Welty, I’m David Petori, one of the co-founders of the 11 September families for a Peaceful Tomorrow, and we’re happy to be here.
Could I just take a minute to respond? I really appreciate your remarks, especially what was said about empowering ordinary people and hearing their voices and I was making some notes. And I think that when we talk about development and fighting terrorism that it has to be about amplifying the voices of those who have been affected by terrorism and poverty, and all of the other kinds of terrorism that we talked about.
And our organization grew out of a desire for our voices to be heard by our government in the United States. And what we experienced after September 11 was that our voices were not being heard as we spoke out against the war in Afghanistan and against the war in Iraq and we found that our views as American citizens and as victims, and how many times have we mentioned 9/11 in this short meeting here. Our views were sanitised, marginalised and terrorised, terrorised by our own media into a kind of silence and we’re here meeting with family members of the train bombings, the 3/11 families, and we were in the park last night as some of them held their candles.
And we witnessed one mother from the Madrid train bombings yelling at one of the photographers “Where have you been all year? Why have you not covered us? Why have you not heard our concerns? And now it’s the anniversary and you’re here with your cameras and your microphones. Why have you not heard us for the rest of the year? So much of our work with A Peaceful Tomorrow has been about giving a voice to those who are voiceless, who have not been heard. Because we think, that is what terrorism grows out of, when we do not hear their voices and we do not give them the attention they deserve. And one of the first things we did with our group was to go to Afghanistan in January 2002 and meet with families who had been bombed by the United States, by accident of course when a bomb went off course. We met with those families and discovered that the media of the United States wanted to cover them, and talk about them but they were unable to get their stories filed until Americans were there and then suddenly it was okay to write a story about an American who lost their child on one of the planes and a mother in Afghanistan who lost her child to one of her bombs...
We sent a delegation to Iraq in 2003, just to call attention to the fact that there were millions of people there besides Saddam Hussein. And to give them a voice. And we were criticised and attacked in our country because we dared to try to give a voice to people who suffered under Hussein and now would suffer under our bombing. So that has been the nature of our work, and we have sent delegations. We most recently sent to Jordan 600,000 dollars of supplies to victims of Faluya. Humanitarian supplies and medicine. And this is so appreciated; this one on one connection and I think this is where power comes from. When people reach out to each other and recognise that common humanity. That is where our power comes from. And I was so appreciative of the idea that we have to lead the leaders. We citizens. And many people say “Bush is a horrible president” but I think our citizenry is horrible in the United States. We’re so uninformed and uncaring. And I believe that presidents are as good as we force them to be, or as bad as we let them. And I think it’s up to the citizens, up to us, all individuals and when we do that that is when we’ll create a more peaceful tomorrow.
Jesús Núñez
Muchísimas gracias. Vamos entonces a lo más difícil todavía y yo pediría que solamente aquellos puntos que necesitan un tipo de aclaración o comentario. Ignasi por favor.
Ignasi Carreras
Siguiendo lo que decía nuestro amigo norteamericano yo creo que, y para contestar la pregunta sobre el comercio agrícola e internacional, la gran dificultad que tenemos es que el público en general entienda situaciones, casos técnicos, que afectan a mucha gente y que dominan unos cuantos. Cuando hemos sido capaces de explicar al gran público en la situación del algodón que explicaba Kumi, o la del azúcar, en la Unión Europea, que explicamos en Oxfam International, o la del arroz o la de la leche. Y como el dumping, las muchísimas exportaciones, ha generado tanto daño. El público entiende; allí hay una causa para cambiar.
El segundo aspecto es; no se cambian cosas si no tienes aliados entre los propios países. Pero tener aliados es también tener aliados entre los sindicatos agrarios europeos. Que ven peligrar su agricultura. Se cambiaba la política agraria como en Italia. Y necesitamos una política agraria, como en Italia, diferente, hacer propuestas, las estamos haciendo. Pero al final se necesita un momento, y el año 2005 es un momento.
Print
this page
Send
to a friend
