Speech by the Minister of International Development and Human Rights Hilde F. Johnson

Opening speech, Hanoi meeting on the 20/20 Initiative

(Utviklings- og menneskerettighetsministerens besøk til Vietnam 26 - 29. oktober 1998)

Hanoi meeting on the 20/20 Initiative, 27 - 29 October 1998

Ministers,
Excellencies,
Ladies and gentlemen,

The global economic crisis is forcing people out of work, families out of their homes and children out of their schools. Faceless and anonymous forces of the global market are shattering the hopes and dreams of millions, not only here in Asia, but all over the world.

As always, the weakest among us are the ones that suffer the most. Mothers in despair. Children lacking education and access to basic health services. Young boys and girls exploited in factories and brothels. Newborn babies opening their eyes only to die of curable diseases.

Although the current crisis is hitting Asia particularly hard, Africa is experiencing an even deeper and more permanent poverty crisis. But everywhere we are faced with the same challenge: alleviating and eradicating poverty. Securing the human dignity of every individual.

We must never lose sight of the intrinsic value of every human being. Recognizing the worth of every person carries an obligation; it requires us to have faith, to care. About human dignity. About human development. Everyone has a name. Every person counts.

Development is “ the process of expanding peoples choices”. This UN definition should guide all our efforts. It shows us that growth - economic or otherwise - is not an end in itself. It shows us that people must be given the means and the opportunities to take command over their own lives. They must be given a chance, a chance for change.

This means investing in human capital. No country has ever succeeded in sustaining economic growth without putting people first, putting people at the centre of development. The prospects for the future depend on our willingness and ability to make long-term social investments in people - above all in their health and education.

The investment base must be broad. It will not suffice to care only for the upper strata of society. A wealthy elite alone will never lift a country out of poverty and make it just and prosperous. The full creative potential of society can only be unleashed if all people are stakeholders with equal rights in the development process.

Arguing for increased resources for the social sector in a situation where many governments are forced to reduce their expenditure may seem a rather futile exercise. But there is no alternative to focusing our efforts on health and education if we are to achieve broad-based development and sustained economic growth. If Asia - on top of its current financial trouble - experiences real setbacks in health and education, it will undoubtedly mean an even more serious setback for development.

We are gathered here in Hanoi to focus on how we can work together to achieve universal access to basic social services. Two years ago, in April 1996, many of us were assembled in Oslo as part of the follow-up process to the Social Summit in Copenhagen. There, we agreed on the importance of investing in basic social services, defined the substance of the 20/20 Initiative, and recommended follow-up action at the national and international level. We are pleased that Vietnam, as one of the developing countries that has demonstrated a keen interest in the 20/20 Initiative, offered to host this follow-up meeting here in Hanoi.

No investment is more important than an investment in primary health and education. No investment yields a higher return. World Bank studies even show that educating girls is the single most profitable investment of all. Investing in girls' education means higher productivity, lower infant and maternal mortality and lower fertility. Educating women means educating the whole family.

Improving people's health yield similar gains. Only healthy children fully benefit from schooling. Only healthy adults can utilize their full potential in the service of their families and communities. Health is essential for choice. Illness breeds dependency and diminishes everyone's possibilities. It is an obstacle to development.

The 20/20 Initiative is special because it calls for a partnership - a mutual commitment by developing countries and their partners to provide basic social services for all and to rearrange their budgets accordingly. By giving priority to basic social services, the initiative is more directly targeted at the poor than most other means of intervention. By holding up the goal of universal access, it focuses on equity. The 20/20 Initiative should appeal to all those who are concerned with poverty reduction strategies.

Access to basic social services not only forms the core of economic and social development, it is also a fundamental human right. In fact, the quest for development and the pursuit of human rights represent two sides of the same coin.

As Minister of International Development and Human Rights, I am often in a situation where I am perceived as wearing two hats, which of course is true. I keep telling people that these hats fit perfectly well together; I can wear one on top of the other, and I would not be without the two! My favourite illustration of how well they fit together is the aim of universal access to basic social services.

Take, for instance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. Article 25 addresses the issue of standard of living. The need for “ food, clothing, housing and medical care and social services” is the same whether you consider it to be a goal for development or a human right.

The next article of the same declaration is perhaps even more of a case in point. The right to education is fundamental, and is explicitly defined in terms of availability, accessibility, content and parental rights. I know of no major development programme which does not also seek to implement this human right. The Convention on the Rights of the Child also explicitly recognizes access to primary education and to the highest attainable standard of health as rights.

For far too long, the debate on human rights has been dominated by the assumption that human rights is all about civil and political rights, while development is all about economic growth. This is not the case. Combating poverty is one of the most important human rights issues we are faced with. Most of the industrialized world has turned a blind eye to this important fact.

Economic, social and cultural rights must be given their rightful place alongside civil and political rights. Human rights constitute an integrated and mutually reinforcing whole. Development means respecting peoples human rights. All of them.

Combating poverty is of course also the overriding objective of our development policy and lies at the very core of the 20/20 principle. Breaking the vicious circle of poverty, eliminating the unsustainable debt burden. Norway, for its part, has launched a new debt relief strategy for the poorest and most heavily indebted countries. We urge others to follow suit.

The current economic and social crisis clearly illustrates that the free play of economic forces does not deliver equality of opportunity. However well the market forces allocate resources, they do little to promote equity or to respond to common needs. Such needs can only be articulated and met by people and those who represent them - their governments. It should therefore come as no surprise that the studies carried out in preparation for this conference emphasize the vital role of the public sector in guaranteeing universal access to basic social services.

The studies further show that efforts to meet the 20/20 objective can be pursued at all income levels. Many of the worlds poorest nations are intensifying their efforts to ensure basic social services for all, while many of the richer countries are far from living up to their responsibilities. What is required is not necessarily a high national income, but a firm political commitment.

Achieving universal coverage of basic social services would cost around 200 billion dollars annually. Full implementation of the 20/20 Initiative could bridge this financing gap. In a world where more than the double is spent on tobacco every year, there should be no insurmountable obstacles to achieving this goal. The obstacles are found in the minds of people. People with the power to set new priorities, but who fail to do so. People who can influence political outcome, but who fail in their duties towards their fellow man and woman.

Spending, however, is only one side of the 20/20 Initiative. The other relates to how the resources are actually used. It is above all the responsibility of the government to make sure that the money allocated for basic social services maximizes equity, efficiency and impact on the ground. Our efforts have little meaning if they do not produce concrete results for the individual human being, and in particular the poorest.

During the next three days we will have ample opportunity to discuss the validity of the 20/20 Initiative and the progress made since Oslo. Above all, however, we should focus our attention on the future. Where do we go from here?

I wish I could stand here today and say that developing and developed countries alike have taken the importance of basic social services to heart, and are now investing their resources accordingly. I especially wish I could say so on behalf of the donor community. But the figures tell us quite a different story. Global ODA is shrinking, in relative as well as in real terms. It is a shameful fact that the industrialized countries are increasingly distancing themselves from the agreed target of 0.7 per cent of GDP for development purposes. The OECD average now stands at less than one third of this. Even worse, the decline in volume has been accompanied neither by a greater emphasis on health and education, nor by a focus on the least developed countries.

Norway has been well above 0.7-target for decades. We intend to further increase our development assistance to 1 per cent of GDP in the years ahead, and are allocating increased resources to the poorest countries and to the social sector.

The developing countries, too, are responsible. Aid budgets must have democratic support. The taxpayers of the North see that in many countries military spending is given higher priority than social programmes. They witness corruption and inconsistent policies. They observe how the rich and wealthy are unwilling to share their affluence with their own countrymen. We cannot hope for increased Official Development Assistance unless development programmes are viewed as worthwhile. Primary health care and education are precisely areas where development assistance can be seen to make a difference.

It is in times of crisis that we - as individuals and countries - reveal our true nature. The current economic turmoil presents us with a challenge to defend the dignity and worth of the human person, in the words of the Charter of the United Nations. The fortunate few have for too long kept the destitute poor at arm's length with good wishes and the rest in promissory notes. As Martin Luther King said, “ the check has come back from the bank of justice marked “insufficient funds”.

This meeting should not only help keep up the momentum from Oslo, but also lead to an agreement on new and concrete follow-up actions both at the national and the international level. We should make a difference.

Many tracks can be pursued. I have already mentioned the human rights context, the need to allocate more resources, and to spend them as effectively as possible. But we can follow up in other ways as well. Not least we should strive to integrate the 20/20 Initiative into relevant processes and mechanisms. This regards not only economic reforms and Structural Adjustment Programmes in developing countries. Consultative Groups and Round Table meetings should also be used more actively to pursue these goals. When planning Sector Investment Programmes or Sector-wide Approaches we should focus more directly on the basic service level and on targeting the poor, as well as on equity in access. Efforts to improve monitoring should be intensified, as should efforts aimed at better donor coordination.

Alleviating and eradicating poverty is the most pressing challenge of our time. It is the essence of all development efforts.

In this years Human Development Report, the renowned economist John Kenneth Galbraith has made an insightful contribution which provides some key truths in the poverty debate. For Galbraith the problem of poverty is “not economics; it goes back to a far deeper part of human nature”. The veteran economist calls for “ a larger sense of common responsibility”.

This is our moral challenge. It constitutes the very essence of the 20/20 Initiative, and should guide our discussions in the next few days.

As human beings we have all the same value.
We have a moral obligation to care and to share.
Across borders, across generations.
To stand by our commitments even in stormy weather.
To provide opportunities for everyone.

This must be our point of departure. For the sake of the vulnerable among us. For our own sake - for the sake of our decency.

Thank you.