New Challenges
Two events during 2001 present MS with new challenges. The first event is the terrorist attack on people in the World Trade Centre in New York on September 11. The second event is the outcome of the Danish elections November 20, resulting in a right-wing government with a different Danish perspective on global issues than in the past. Although different in scope, both events present MS with new challenges, and we carefully need to consider how to respond.
Bjørn Førde/Secretary General and Bent Nicolajsen/Chairman14. January 2002
1 Introduction
It is not our intention to cover all the issues MS will be working with during the year 2002 in detail in this ’Annual Message’. But we find it important to provide you with an overview of some of the most important challenges we need to deal with, and to indicate the position of MS with regard to these issues. We hope some of the reflections can also be part of the discussions during the Annual Meeting, and we would welcome any reactions that can be part of the future policy-making of MS.
Over the years, we have tried to improve the dialogue between the Southern and Northern parts of the MS family. The Annual Policy Meeting taking place in September in Denmark, bringing representatives from the Policy Advisory Boards, the MS-Board and the Secretariat together, has become an important forum for sharing of experiences and ideas, at times even taking decisions together.
The fact that this meeting will not take place this year is not an expression of unwillingness to develop the dialogue even further, but simply a consequence of the decision to organise the APM at the same time as the MS General Assembly. Since this will now take place for the first time in April 2003, we felt it would be difficult, for reasons of resources, time and logistics, to organise one APM in September 2002 and then another in April 2003.
2 A new global policy in Denmark?
Over the years, Denmark has committed itself to a high level of Official Development Assistance [ODA] as well as to a new ’Global Deal’ with the South. With strong pressure and support from civil society and NGOs, the Danish Parliament had decided on a target of 1% of GDP in ODA rather than ’only’ 0,7% as proposed by the UN back in 1970. In recent years the government has taken the initiative to break the deadlock between developing and developed nations by proposing a new global deal on issues like trade, environment, governance and ODA.
The elections on November 20 resulted in a clear majority for the parties to the right of the centre of Danish politics. Two parties have formed a minority government: the Liberal Party [the largest party today] and the Conservative Party. They command a majority in Parliament with the support of the Danish People’s Party, which is the most right-wing party. Although it is still not clear exactly what the global policies of the new government will look like, it should be expected that the global profile of Denmark will change dramatically in a number of areas. It is likely to be less pro-active and progressive than in the past.
With regard to trade, the new Prime Minister, Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, in a recent interview made it very clear that he considers it to be "hypocritical to talk about helping developing countries, when the rich countries are protecting themselves against competition from the poor countries with trade restrictions. All of this should be done away with." But to what extent the government will be able and willing to deliver when the specific proposals are to be negotiated remains to be seen.
With regard to the environment, it already seems that there will be a dramatic change. A large part of the Danish support provided for environmental programmes around the world is being cut away, and the new Minister for Environment is not likely to have the same interest in the international issues as the former Minister. This could have a profound negative effect on the Rio +10 Summit in South Africa in September, since Denmark is holding the Presidency of the EU at that time, which means that the Danish Minister will be crucial in the negotiations.
With regard to development co-operation, we have had clear indications of what the new government plans to do. It was part of the election campaign by the two ruling parties to cut approximately 1,5 billion Danish kroner from the proposed ODA budget of 2002. Although this will still leave Denmark well above the 0,7% level, probably around 0,9%, we fear that the international credibility of Denmark will be seriously damaged.
MS has of course reacted strongly against this proposal, alone as well as together with a broad group of Danish NGOs. First of all because we consider it to be the wrong signal at a time when there is need for more development assistance, and also because we find it unacceptable to carry out cuts without entering into a decent dialogue with countries, international organisations and NGOs that will be cut.
While this is being written, neither MS nor the public have any exact knowledge about the cuts. But a persistent rumour circulating in the media during the last week is that Danish programme countries like Eritrea and Malawi will be cut dramatically; that environmental programmes will be cut away; and that all the major Danish NGOs will be asked to deliver a 10% cut in their budgets.
Although it should of course be remembered that a 10% cut will still leave MS with 90% of its budget, there is no reason to hide the fact that it will place MS in a very difficult position if we are asked to cut away such a large amount of our budget in just one year. First of all because MS is a personnel sending organisation; because MS operates with country offices as a cruicial part of our set-up; and not least because we co-operate with a large number of very small organisations based on long-term agreements and commitments. Hundreds of people are directly dependent on the resources from MS, and thousands are indirectly dependent.
MS will not know precisely what the government intends to do until the Budget 2002 is presented to Parliament on January 29. Negotiations will then take place during the next month or so, and a final budget can be expected at the beginning of March. Only then will the Ministry be able to inform us officially in writing.
The Secretariat has of course already started to look closely into the various areas of the budget, because we need to be prepared. The Coordinators and the Head of the International Department is meeting at TCDC in Arusha on January 14-19 to discuss the situation. And the Board of MS will meet on February 6 to discuss how we deal with the situation when we have more precise knowledge.
It looks like we have to be prepared to deliver what the government demands from us in a very hectic and erratic process. This will most likely not allow us to consult and dialogue in the way we normally do in the MS programme. We apologise for this, but we also promise to inform you as quickly and as fully as we can. We will therefore send a seperate message to the Annual Meetings as soon as the Budget 2002 has been presented to Parliament.
It is not unlikely that the cuts being made in the 2002 Budget will be followed by more cuts in the 2003 Budget. With the cuts being made right now, Denmark will come down to an ODA-level of 0,88% of GDP. If the Liberal Party of the Prime Minister gets its way, we could end up with an ODA budget equal to what Denmark had in 1999, which would be equal to about 0,81% of GDP.
This should definitely not be allowed to happen without the public knowing what the consequences will be for ordinary people in the South, and hopefully not without people objecting actively to the entire exercise. Together with other NGOs, MS must therefore make an extraordinary effort to communicate the daily reality of what is taking place in the South, and how we contribute to changes.
One immediate initiative has been to initiate a ’Human Development Report’ about activities MS is involved in as soon as possible. We need to provide the Danes with specific examples of what we are doing in all the MS in the South programmes, in the Youth programme in the Balkans, in workcamps in Denmark and around the world, with etnic minorities in Denmark. ’Human interest’ stories that can make Danes understand that what w are doing together is worthwhile and make a difference for ordinary people.
Another initiative will be to propose to the entire Danish NGO community of some 250 organisations that we unite our efforts in a major campaign in the second half of this year, during the Danish EU Presidency. The idea should be to give the Danes an opportunity to meet and discuss development co-operation in their own community. During a ’Global Solidarity Week’, there should be an exhibition, a seminar, a theatre show, a lecture, a discussion forum or whatever in every library, community centre, high school, etc. around the country. Hopefully we could also get funding from private companies to run television spots, streamers on busses, etc.
If such an initiative is received positively, it could of course impact on priorities already made within MS – like activities related to the Global Action theme. This we must accept. With the new Danish government, we live in a new era, and this requires new ideas and new responses.
Terrorism is not a new phenomenon, but after September 11 it is most certainly a much more dramatic part of the thinking and doing in international affairs, as well of the thinking and doing of national affairs, including the affairs of civil society.
We all know that for decades innocent men, women and children have paid with their lives because people decided to use terorist attacks as part of their political struggle. We have seen it in the Middle East, in the struggle between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, in Peru when the Shining Path tried to overthrow the government, in Northern Uganda with the Lords Resistance Army, in the fight between religious groups in India, and in many other places.
As we see it in MS, in many cases violent actions clearly go beyond what can be defended from any reasonable perspective. But we also recognise that they are sometimes natural reactions produced by deep-rooted conflicts, sustained exploitation and marginalisation by those in power. In such situations, one should be very careful when talking about "terrorism" and thereby condemning groups with very legitimate wishes for improvement of their living conditions.
For this reason, the long-term, but not so openly violent repression carried out by regimes in power, should not be accepted just because marginalised groups turn to violent action. And consequently we should be aware that in addition to the direct threats of terrorism, the talk of terrorism also holds a threat: The threat of further marginalisation of the world's most destitute people!
In the concrete cases mentioned above, it is possible to identify the parties involved in the struggle or conflict; it is possible to explain the long history of repression and inequality that has resulted in conflict; and it is also possible to identify the actions that need to be taken by the various parties in order to solve the conflict and stop the suffering of innocent people. Including those who suffer or die from indiscriminate terrorist attacks. But when airplanes with civilian passengers on September 11 were used to destroy the World Trade Centre in New York and another hit the Pentagon, the world was confronted with a different type of terrorist attack.
We asked ourselves: Who and what was in fact being targeted by the terrorists? The government of the United States led by George W. Bush? The Western world, Western civilisation or Modernism in general, represented first of all by by the US? The US because it was not doing enough to resolve the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis? The US because it was supporting a feudal and autocratic regime in Saudia Arabia? We also wondered: Who did the terrorists directly or indirectly involved in the attack actually represent? A small but extremely dedicated and fanatic group of people led by Osama bin Laden? Or a much larger group of muslim fundamentalists around the world?
We still do not have all the answers. But the alliance of countries formed by the United States has declared full-scale ’war’ on terrorism. President Bush has made it clear that the war will continue for years, that it will use military, economic, legal, diplomatic as well as other means, and that the terrorists will be hunted down in every corner of the globe.
The most spectacular response of course has been the bombing of Afghanistan, which has resulted in the defeat and disappearance of the Taleban government which hosted Osama bin Laden, and then in December 2001 the emergence of a new coalition government. Although MS historically is rooted in a strong pacifist movement, we did not from the very beginning condemn the bombings. But at the beginning of November, when the number of civilian casaulties were growing by the day, MS called for a stop to the bombings and for the need to consider other ways of fighting terrorism:
"Fighting terrorism and catching bin Laden must build on the solution to the most pressing political problems. This places the Palestinian issue at centre stage. And the US and its allies must demonstrate to the poor world that they are ready to contribute seriously to solve their problems."
It would be wrong to argue that there is a direct link between global poverty and September 11, or that September 11 could have been avoided if the US and other rich countries had contributed more to social development in the South. This would be a far too simplistic position.
But MS has nevertheless maintained the position that there is after all a link in the sense that the fanatics wishing to use terrorism as a weapon in their struggle, can much more easily find willing ears and hands in a sea of poverty, unemployment, repression and hopelessness.
By contributing to the creation of hope and progress and a better distribution of global wealth, you are therefore also fighting terrorism. Which makes it imperative for the rich world, and the US in particular, to increase the level of ODA to the 1970 UN target of 0,7% of GDP and to make sure that real concessions are given to the poor countries in the WTO negotiations.
Furthermore, there is little doubt that another major background for the terrorist attacks can be found in the arrogant attitudes and top-down approaches that certain so-called developed countries and certain multilateral institutions have displayed for many years. In a globalised world with new technological opportunities this may obviously produce terribly spectacular violence as witnessed September 11.
If we want to deal with all of this in a serious and sincere manner, there is more than ever a need for a global deal. While there is much need for increased ODA, MS has for many years recognised that development assistance cannot in itself solve the basic problems underlying terrorism, poverty and marginalisation. Real partnership is needed.
A global deal has to be made! The year 2002 provides opportunities to make the foundations for such a global deal. We must convince our leaders that this oppportunity must be seized now!
The bombing of Afghanistan has left the country in a worse condition than it was already in. The Taliban regime did not care much about improving the livelihoods of its people, and in many areas the regime worsened the situation for children and women. On top of this the country has been marred by conflict for decades. With a new government and the attention of the international community, we can only hope that the people of Afghanistan will see genuine improvements.
MS will be part of the rebuilding of Afghanistan through its membership of the Danish Committee for Aid to Afghan Refugees, DACAAR, which is an NGO founded in 1984 with the purpose of providing support to Afghan refugees. The members are Danish People’s Aid, The Danish Refugee Council, and MS.
The objectives of DACAAR are to support rehabilitation and development in Afghanistan so that Afghan refugees and internally displaced persons can return and participate in the rehabilitation of their local community; and to support Afghan refugees in the countries around Afghanistan until they are able to return to Afghanistan and build new lives. DACAAR seeks to realise its objectives by supporting sustainable development in local areas through the involvement of the local population in the planning and implementation of its own development.
The activities of DACAAR have of course been affected during the recent months of bombing. But it is surprising to note that many programmes have nevertheless continued to operate, in the area of agriculture as well as water supply. This has been possible not least due to a tremendous effort from the hundreds of Afghan employees. It is therefore also safe to say that DACAAR will play an important role in the reconstruction programme which will be coordinated by UNDP. And MS has decided to increase its efforts in the information area, because we feel it is important not to allow the Danish public to forget the plight of the Afghan people.
Every year many students at the Danish highschools set aside one full day of work to the benefit of a project that they have commonly selected. The money they earn is all used for the particular project, and the students furthermore study issues related to the project in their classes. Thus, this so-called Operation Day's Work is a major event in Denmark, both with respect to the collection of money for development purposes and in order to stimulate debate and knowledge about development processes around the world.
Recently, the students decided that Operation Day's Work 2002, which will take place in November, should support a project developed jointly by BASE, Nepal and MS called 'Education for Freedom'. This came about after strong competition with other very good project proposals supported by other Danish NGOs, and the great efforts that staff in Nepal and Denmark have carried out to convince the students should be highly praised and acknowledged.
Education for Freedom will support equal rights of children of Kamayas and other marginalised people in Bardiya district in Western Nepal to access relevant, free and good quality education. The main objectives are:
- to raise awareness among local communities on legislation and management of education, and to involve them in the development of local education,
- to support lobby activities for improved services by central and local authorities,
- to support the development of alternative, relevant quality school models and educational materials based on local needs and involvement, and
- to provide the necessary infrastructure and institutions for the development of education in the area.
The project is based on a solid partnership between BASE and MS-Nepal and it reflects major concerns in the Solidarity through Partnership policy governing the MS programme. It addresses a basic cause of the poverty and marginalisation of the Kamaya people, it involves a number of advocacy activities, and it supports intercultural co-operation both among different groups in Nepal and with Danish high school students. We are very happy to embark on this great task in 2002.
9 MS and the UN Conferences 2002
MS has been actively involved in major UN conferences during the 90’ies, starting with the Rio Summit in 1992. In recent years MS has also been actively involved in the WTO meetings. In most cases we have been involved in close cooperation with other Danish NGOs, and in several cases we have involved selected representatives from partners and organisations in the South as well. Although the new agenda of the new Danish government will put us under pressure during 2002, we are still planning to play a role in two important UN conferences.
The first is the Financing for Development conference in Mexico in March 2002. This conference will not only discuss the prospect for an increase in official development resources from the North, but also resources like private investments and taxation at national level, and not least the possibility of coming up with new financial mechanisms like the Tobin tax on speculative financial capital. Together with other Danish NGOs we are running a series of small seminars in Denmark and some seminars in Africa and Latin America.
The second and definitely equally important conference is the Rio +10 Conference on Environment and Development taking place in South Africa in September. Together with Ibis and WWF Denmark, MS has launched a major global networking project, intended to develop a strong bottom-up agenda from civil society in the South. For MS a major objective is to position, once again, the poverty issue as a central focus of the environment agenda, just like the Brundtland Report did in the preparations for the Rio Conference.
10 A non-violent EU Presidency
Another major challenge for MS during 2002 will be to ensure that the global dimensions will be an important and visible part of the Danish Presidency of the EU during the second half of the year. We are fully aware that the enlargement of EU with a large number of new countries will dominate the European agenda. But we have to make sure that the global role of EU is not forgotten.
There will be at least three major opportunities to do this: a ministerial meeting between EU and the countries in South East Asia; a ministerial meeting between EU and the SADC countries in Southern Africa; and then of course the meeting of Heads of State taking place in Copenhagen in December. We hope to get some resources from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to involve partners from the South in these meetings, but we do not know at this point.
The violent anti-globalisation demonstrations taking place in cities like Prague [the World Bank annual meeting], Gothenburg [the EU Summit] and Genoa [the G7 meeting] indicate a strong polarisation within civil society regarding the approach to globalisation. MS has reacted strongly against those groups wishing to use the streets for violent battles with the police to send the message that they want to stop globalisation. We have argued that we need to use peaceful demonstrations to send substantive statements to the leaders as well as to the public.
In June 2001 MS therefore took the initiative to form an open forum of Danish NGOs planning to undertake activities during the Danish Presidency. This forum now consists of around 40 very different NGOs, some working with development issues, others focusing on the environment and social issues, some being strongly committed to an anti-EU platform, others not having a particular position on the EU as such. The only non-negotiable requirement is that the NGO wants to be part of a non-violent dialogue with the political leaders.
To what extent this is possible or realistic is difficult to sy, considering that people from all over Europe are likely to come to Denmark. But in MS we felt we had to try it, and we know it will require a major effort – as well as a lot of luck - to succeed.
As indicated in the introduction, we will not be able to cover all issues and concerns. But we need to close our message with two major concerns, one relating to our programme in the South, and one relating to Danish society.
While Annual Meetings are taking place around the world during February, we have decided to postpone the Zimbabwe AM to a later date. This is because of the upcoming presidential elections set for March 9-10. The reality of Zimbabwe is already characterised by serious political violence, and the government has recently introduced legislation that will effectively do away with whatever ’democratic room’ was left. Everything points to a further escalation of intimidation and violence, and whoever wins the presidency one thing seems almost certain: there will be a major confrontation between supporters of the ruling party and the opposition.
We can only hope and pray that this will not be the outcome! But we felt it would be too risky to gather partners and DWs for the AM at this critical point in time. Hopefully it will be possible to organise the AM some months after the election. Hopefully it will also be in a situation where the Zimbabwe programme can return to a more normal routine and be allowed to focus on development.
We also hope the situation in Nepal will return to normal in the not so distant future. It is not as chaotic as Zimbabwe seems to be, but the state of emergency called by the government after the clashes between the Maoist insurgents and the military is definitely serious.
Compared to the realities of Zimbabwe and Nepal, Denmark is of course a very peaceful and harmonious little country. But increasingly the world around us point to ’something being rotten in the state of Denmark’. In particular they point to the way we deal with and talk about ethnic minorities that today are part of Danish society. They ask us how it can be that people living in one of the richest countries of the world can be so afraid of or insecure about a relatively small group of people with different cultures, religious beliefs, marriage patterns, etc.? And how can it be that this fear and insecurity can play a major role in an electoral campaign?
There are no easy answers. It should of course be acknowledged that the integration of ethnic minorities in a society is no easy matter, and something which one must expect and accept will create tensions, misunderstandings and conflicts. But it is also a challenge we must accept, because Denmark must accept a responsibility in receiving some of the millions of refugees who have been forced to leave their homes for reasons beyond their control.
They must be treated with respect; they must be informed about their rights and obligations; they must be seen as people with resources that can be used to benefit themselves as well as society as a whole; they must be given a chance and the tools to enter the labour market.
MS has worked for years to inform the Danish public about the facts of immigration into Danish society. We have for many years pointed to the fact that Denmark already is a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society, and it therefore does not make sense when politicians tell the Danes that we will fight to prevent Denmark from becoming such a society. What is at stake is rather what type of multi-ethnic society we should work towards becoming. One which is inclusive and ready to accept that Danish values and customs are not necessarily the only ones that count? Or one which is exclusive and unwilling to accept that other values and customs count.
These are major challenges and dilemmas the Danes need to confront and resolve in the years to come, and MS will continue to raise its voice in this debate. But it will not be easy to be heard, and many will be happy to see us shut up!
