The Responsibility Faced by Developed Countries towards the New Ethical Challenges Related to Development

1. Ethics challenges international relations and the politics and practices of development in very concrete ways. Development means getting on with the fight against poverty and marginalisation. Ethics challenges political pragmatism and provide signposts for equity, justice, participation and inclusion. Fighting poverty is a moral imperative.

2. A value framework means little unless applied to action and choice, behaviour and relationships. By people and groups, within nations and across nations. And especially by those in power. Expressions of values are open for differences of interpretation. Values may also compete. Sometimes in ways that make choice extremely difficult. But competing values can also be used as an excuse for not being willing to engage in ethical analysis and take the consequence of it. The time has come to speak more concretely and more openly about the way we pursue interests and the way we make compromise as individuals and institutions in development.

3. We cannot escape the fact that many people have said the right things for a very long time. Still it seems so difficult to convert words to actions, and so easy to cover up double agendas. We must somehow break this pattern. Because we are at risk of loosing credibility. We see a growing apathy and opposition in reaction to institutions that do not respond. Seattle and Prague gave evidence of system failure. If we are to break this pattern, we need to squarely face the shortcomings and contradictions of our policies and actions. The time has come to speak more concretely and more openly about the way we pursue interests and the way we make compromise as individuals and institutions in development. The ethical imperative in development is to break the forces and interests that sustains poverty, powerlessness and marginalisation.

4. We are not dealing with an even playing field. Some have more options than others do and therefore also more obligations. Others have hardly access to choice. The voice of the weakest part needs to be heard and respected when the agenda for development is being shaped and implemented. It may be disagreement about what good development is. But it is little disagreement about what development is not and what the barriers are. Partnership in development means joining forces to overcome those barriers . It demands access to information and negotiating power for all parties involved. With the unequal partnership and complex patterns of interests, there is a need for agreed codes of conduct, based on a shared value framework. There is a need for explicit global ethics.

5. The basic, unifying framework for ethical behaviour by governments is, and must be, the internationally agreed human rights. These are ethical, moral imperatives to which we have all agreed. We have accepted their authority. This must have consequences for us. The Norwegian Government believes strongly that it also must have consequences for the way we approach economic development, both in our respective countries and internationally. Because fulfilling human basic needs is an essential part of sustainable economic development, and an essential part of any credible policy to promote human rights. Ignoring poverty is to violate basic human rights.

6. We, who are part of the "global development business" on the donor side, whether in the multilateral or bilateral sphere, need to constantly measure our actions against this tough standard. How do we exercise power and influence? Policies and relations must be assessed as to whether they promote values such as dignity, equity, justice, inclusion and participation. This applies to the whole range of issues decision-makers face; trade and security, immigration and environment, economic policies at home and abroad and policies and programs for economic development in developing countries. Norway is proud to be in the lead in terms of aid. But we are struggling to match these intentions in areas such as trade and agriculture. Our welfare is financed largely by oil exports. We benefit from high oil prices, yet the same oil prices represent a heavy load on developing countries economy. In a globalizing world we need to ask the really tough ethical questions, and be willing to engage in an honest dialogue about the international system we are all part of, in terms of how it serves the stated agenda for fighting poverty which is globally shared.

7. Today's multilateral system was set up after the terrible experiences of Second World War. The rationale was primarily ethical: to force each and every state to take responsibility for the system, the whole. To protect the weakest. To find negotiated solutions. To create and protect common goods. Over the decades, this shared ethical base has tended to be overshadowed by projects and programmes and debates about the comparative advantages of each institution in the multilateral framework. Now there is a need to get back to the basics: how can we make international relations and systems work, not primarily for self interest in the short term, but for shared interest and common good, over generations? Fighting poverty to enable fulfilment of human potential and rights represents such an ethically based shared interest. Getting there requires synergies in political choice and diversity and creativity in response. Providing an enabling framework for this to come about, is the overarching challenge of the multilateral system. Also the emerging conceptual debate about global public goods should be seen in this context. The UN consultations on Financing for Development carry important potential in this regard.

8. This coming January Norway will start its two-year term as member of the UN Security Council. This is a multilateral forum with obvious ethical connotations and challenges. Whose security are we concerned with? Security in what sense? We have heard several people here speak about poverty as a security problem. Not so much in terms of world stability, although that is also relevant, but more as a security problem for those affected most by poverty. The poor themselves. In this regard proliferation of arms, and especially small arms in poor societies, is a critical security problem hurting the poor most of all. Also here there are double agendas that need to be exposed and dealt with in international relations.

9. Few issues bring out the ethical challenges and contradictions more clearly than those related to environment. This is true all the way from the local level and up through the national, the regional and the global. Clearly, industrialised countries have a particular responsibility for our global environment. In effect, it is our actions to date that have brought about a large portion of the environmental problems today at the global level. We must face up to that responsibility, be willing to expose interests and assess ethical imperatives, short term and long term. May be more than in any other area we need to apply a shared framework for ethical analysis against which seemingly competing interests can be examined to guide policy choice and allow transparency and accountability.

10. Neither the poverty problem, nor the environmental problems can find solutions without co-operation across all geographical and economic divides. We need to work together, to bring in the resources, ingenuity, intelligence and determination so abundantly available also in developing countries--if we are to make real progress. High capacity industrial countries have a particular responsibility to enable especially the poorest countries to participate fully in the global negotiations that will affect their future. This means help to build capacity and negotiating power, help to access information and options. It is part of what honesty and fairness must be about.

11. In the age of globalisation , the ethical challenge clearly goes beyond governments. The big corporations and conglomerates, as well as smaller enterprises, have a big stake in global economic development and play the lead role in forming it. There is a growing realisation world-wide that business has a moral responsibility of its own. It goes beyond simply abiding by the law, whatever that might be in a given country. It is about abiding by shared, universal human values. Again taking the human rights seriously. Taking human dignity seriously.

12. Much has been achieved in terms of establishing a global agenda of Corporate Social Responsibility. But, most of the job is still left undone. So far the concrete, practical implications are few and far apart. In Norway, we have set up a special forum for this purpose. Here, business leaders, government representatives, experts from academia, and NGO representatives meet to discuss how to advance the ability of business to be a force for good, especially when investing abroad. This forum has brought the debate up to a new level. The parties are now discovering a common ground, and a common interest in making real improvements. Other countries have similar initiatives. Since the Corporate Sector has its own international networks and linkages, this can be an important force for change and even corrective to governments. In similar ways the NGO networks have an essential role in watching and pushing the agenda forward.

13. The issues I have addressed so far are outside the realm of development co-operation traditionally defined, but highly related to the ethical responsibility facing OECD countries. Let me now turn more specifically to the field of international development co-operation and highlight some emerging issues that demand attention and quite simply better conduct by us as donor community:

• First and foremost we need to define more explicitly what our commitments as so called "developed countries" or "donors" are. The concept of charity must not cloud definite responsibility. While solidarity is basic to the motivation, the moral obligation of human rights is the imperative. This perspective is highly relevant to the entire development agenda, including current critical challenges such as debt relief, HIV/AIDS and humanitarian crisis in countries hit by disaster and war.

• A new standard of transparency and accountability by donors and development institutions must be established. We must practice what we preach. This means being transparent about our plans and programs. It means moving from one-sided conditionality to real dialogue and fair negotiations. And it means being willing to identify and deal with barriers to effective and rational investment of aid resources towards the purpose of poverty reduction and the international development targets.

• Aid receiving governments and people must havethe entitlement to own and steer the developmental course. This is what the Comprehensive Development Framework must be about. It is of critical importance that the process around the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) be subjected to this standard, rather than becoming yet another top-down initiative programmed by technocrats. It is a question of compliance and commitment, also for the development agencies. The process of including all involved, the opening up for democratic decision making and leadership and the issue of governance and accountable institutions must be central to the development effort.
• We need new, innovative forms of co-operation and partnership that can draw on the strengths and resources of the private sector, the public sector, and knowledge and research centres. The new initiatives for partnering to combat HIV/AIDS and make quality vaccination services available and accessible are good examples of the potential out there, combining the strengths of a broad range of actors.

• Debt relief for the heaviest indebted, poor countries is a precondition for development. Sustainable debt relief is a moral imperative and we must carry this agenda forward. Here we have yet to deliver on our promises as donors, finding ways that do not undermine the level of aid allocations for the purpose of development and humanitarian need.

• Finally, we need to do a better job at home in terms of communicating to our citizens why international co-operation for economic development is so important. The ethical dimension needs to come out more strongly, including the notion of moral duty. Again, human rights provide the best basis in this regard.

In the light of all the above, a lead issue in pursuing ethics and development is real commitment to good governance. Not just on the part of developing countries, but also on the part of us in the industrialised world. We must start with ourselves. Are we a net contributor of good or do we generate obstacles that render people and nations vulnerable? Better governance in international relations is as essential as national and local governance.

It takes courage and commitment to examine choices and actions in a framework of explicit ethical values, and determination to overcome obstacles. It takes a special commitment to procedural justice, with transparency, participation and inclusion at its core. The framework must hold together charity and justice, compassion, solidarity and rights. It is not cheap and it creates risks, but it is the only way open if we aim at sustainable development, peace and dignity.