|
UNAIDS and IPU launch a Handbook for legislators
I N T E R V I E W
Dr. Peter Piot
Director of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)
By Luisa Ballin
A Handbook to assist parliamentarians in placing issues related to the AIDS virus on their national agenda was launched by UNAIDS and the IPU on 24 November 1999 together with the Westminster Parliament, the Scottish Assembly in Edinburgh, the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff and the Northern Ireland Assembly in Belfast.
Q: What is the purpose of the Handbook for Legislators on HIV/AIDS, Law and Human Rights?
Dr. Peter Piot: This is a unique guide that provides parliamentarians with critical information on the role of law and human rights in responding to the HIV epidemic. It gives guidance on how, amongst others employment, criminal and public health legislation can better enhance HIV/AIDS prevention and care strategies at the national level: for example, through the prohibition of discrimination based on HIV/AIDS and on mandatory HIV testing and the safeguarding of standards and availability of testing kits, safe blood, condoms and medicines. It identifies the processes that a legislator can use in order to implement a particular law and cites examples demonstrating how some countries have implemented such supportive laws.
Q: Why is it so important to target MPs directly?
P.P.: Parliaments and their members have an important role to play. Enacting HIV - related law and policy reform requires information not only about the epidemic but also about the key role of human rights in the response to the epidemic. The Handbook is a practical tool, rather than simply a policy document. It is a parliamentarian's blueprint for action, at a time when laws, policies and protection of human rights are more essential than ever. I would hope that this Handbook for Legislators will provide a clear map for those legislators concerned with pushing back a disease which today is spreading, which was not even known two decades ago.
Q: What is your assessment of the AIDS epidemic at present?
P.P.: Today, the global epidemic continues to grow. Our latest figures show some 33.6 million men, women and children affected by this fatal disease. During 1999, about 5.6 million more people became infected by HIV. This same year, 2.6 million people died from AIDS. Half of the infection occur among young people under 25 who typically die from AIDS before they reach 35. The disease is also mortgaging our future generations. By the end of 1999, AIDS will have left behind a total of 11.2 million AIDS orphans, children who have lost their mothers before they reach the age of 15. While 95% of people with HIV live in developing countries, HIV also remains a challenge in the industrialized world.
Q: What exactly is the tie-in between AIDS and human rights?
P.P.: Since its inception, UNAIDS has emphasized that respect for human rights, besides being of value in its own right, is crucial if this epidemic is to be rolled back. A lack of human rights can fuel the HIV epidemic in several ways - through discrimination, which worsens the impact of the epidemic on people living with HIV or AIDS and on those affected such as their families and communities. For example, someone dismissed from his or her job for being HIV-positive will have to bear the burden of being jobless, apart from dealing with the psychological stress of his or her status and the humiliation and stigma caused by such a discriminatory treatment. Second, when economic, social or cultural rights are not respected, people are more vulnerable.
Q: How would you sum things up?
P.P.: Basic to the respect of human rights is greater involvement of people living with or affected by HIV or AIDS. This well-entrenched principle is known as GIPA, officially adopted at the 1994 Paris AIDS Summit by 42 national governments which declared that the principle of greater involvement by affected people is critical to ethical and effective national responses to the epidemic. To conclude, changing the legislative framework within which we function will heop reduce discrimination and stigma and contribute to slowing the spread of the epidemic
Women in national Parliaments
The IPU published (17 December 1999) the latest figures showing that parliaments currently have an average of 12.9% women members, as compared with 11.3% in 1995. At the end of August 1999, the 179 parliaments in the world had 13.2% women representatives and 10.9% women senators. The parliaments of the Nordic countries continue to have the highest share of women in parliament with an average of 38.9% women MPs. Europe and the OSCE member countries (including the Nordic countries) come in second with 15.5% women in the lower house and 10.0% in the Senate. Asia has 14.9% women in the lower House and 14.6% in the Senate. Then come the Americas with 14.7% women in the lower House and 14.8% in the Senate, followed by Europe - OSCE member countries (excluding Nordic countries) with 13.1% women in the lower House and 10.0% in the Senate. Sub-Saharan Africa has 10.9% women in the lower House and 13.3% in the Senate. The Pacific region counts 8.7% women in the lower House and 21.3% in the Senate. In the rear are the Arab States with 3.8% women in the lower House and 2.5% in the Senate. (see on IPU Web site:Women in politics)
Women in the Executive
As far as the Executive is concerned, data collected by the IPU and valid for August 1999 show that , a mere 7 (Guyana, Ireland, Latvia, Panama, San Marino, Sri Lanka and Switzerland) out of 190 countries had a woman Head of State (excepting queens and governor-generals) and only 3 States (Bangladesh, New Zealand and Sri Lanka), could boast a woman Head of Government. The world average of women in Government is 11.7% out of 190 States. World highest percentage of women in Cabinet: 55% in Sweden (11/20). Only 4 States (Bangladesh also Head of State, Cambodia, Norway and Sri Lanka) have a women as minister of Defence and Veteran Affairs. Meanwhile 15 States have a women as Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Meeting of Presiding Officers of Parliaments
The third session of the Preparatory Committee of the Conference of Presiding Officers of National Parliaments will be held at the United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG) on 31 January and 1 February 2000 at the invitation of the Director-General of UNOG, Mr. Vladimir Petrovsky. The purpose of the session is to finalise preparations for the Conference of Presiding Officers of National Parliaments that the IPU is organising in the United Nations General Assembly Hall in New York from 30 August to 1 September 2000 on the eve of the Millennium Assembly.
Mission to Belarus by the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians
A delegation of the IPU's Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians visited the Republic of Belarus from 19 to 24 November 1999 to investigate the case of several members of the Thirteenth Supreme Soviet currently before the IPU Council. The mission met the relevant authorities and the MPs concerned, including those currently in detention or serving prison terms.
The delegation will submit its report to the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians at its next session, to be held from 23 to 27 January 2000 at IPU headquarters in Geneva.
WTO seeks IPU's cooperation
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has sought the cooperation of Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) in the wake of the Seattle fiasco, IPU Council president Najma Heptulla said on Tuesday. After the failure of the WTO summit, its chairman has expressed the desire to involve IPU, an apex organisation of national parliaments having a strength of 139 in negotiating with the trade organisation, she told newsmen here.
Ms Heptulla, who was unanimously elected the first woman President of the IPU Council in its 110 year history, said IPU's main thrust was human rights and disarmament, and played a major role in protecting the rights of the members of houses.
The Observer New Delhi
15 December 1999
Kuwait: no votes for women
The Parliament of Kuwait has rejected a bill that would have given women the right to vote, just a week after rejecting a decree promulgated by the Emir allowing women to vote and stand for election. Hundreds of men from the Emirate rejoiced at news of the bill's rejection by 32 votes to 30. Sixty-four MPs, including fifteen ministers with voting rights, attended the session. Only two members abstained.
On 25 November 1999, the Parliament rejected [by 41 votes to 21] a decree promulgated by the Emir, Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmed Al-Sabah, granting women the right to vote.
Conservative religious parliamentarians and liberals claimed to support women's rights but objected to the Emir's signing a decree while Parliament was in recess. The Emir is empowered to promulgate emergency decrees under such circumstances but Parliament can vote against them when the session resumes.
Associated Press (AP)
30 November 1999
Symposium on the strengthening of Parliaments in the Arab States
Since yesterday Lebanon has been hosting a conference on the strengthening of Parliaments in the Arab States organised by the UNDP Regional Office for the Arab States in collaboration with the National Assembly. The event is actually a preparatory symposium for the congress of Arab parliamentarians to be held in the Lebanese Parliament.
The purpose of the symposium was clearly stated by Mr. Martin Chungong, representative of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU). The idea is to set in motion a process of reflection on "ways of enabling legislative bodies in the Arab countries to accomplish their mission of responding to the aspirations of the people". In the same vein, the presiding officer of the Parliament, Nabih Berry, who chaired the opening meeting, proposed organising a congress on the women's movement in national assemblies, having deplored the Kuwaiti Parliament's refusal to give women the right to vote. "We cannot move forward into the third millennium representing only one half of society", he said.
L'Orient - Le Jour (Beirut)
7 November 1999
POSTER OF THE IPU
|
|
| |
The Director General of the World Trade Organization, Mr. Mike Moore, has agreed to attend the Parliamentary Meeting of the IPU to be held on the occasion of UNCTAD X in Bangkok (10 and 11 February 2000). In this Journal, he provides some thoughts on the Seattle Ministerial Conference before coming to Bangkok.
A historic assembly of legislators
On 2 December 1999, at the Seattle Ministerial Conference, I had the great pleasure of addressing the first ever assembly of legislators from WTO member countries. This historic meeting, which was the result of an initiative taken by Senator William V. Roth Jr., Chairman of the US Senate delegation to the Seattle Ministerial Conference, ended with the adoption of a call by parliamentarians to establish a standing body of WTO parliamentarians. This standing body which should allow WTO parliamentarians to "exchange views, be informed and monitor WTO negotiations and activities" is expected to convene an initial meeting not later than February 2001". The timing of this legislators' assembly and the agreement to establish a standing body could not have been more opportune or significant.
Legitimacy and accountability - the role of parliaments and parliamentarians
The Seattle Ministerial Conference was the site of some of the most dramatic and hostile demonstrations to have ever been witnessed at a WTO meeting. The unfortunate but lasting image which many around the world will retain of this Ministerial Conference will be that of angry confrontation between protesters and police. To some of WTO's critics, the organization appears remote and mysterious, powerful and unaccountable. It is seen as serving only to enforce a set of rules for trade which seem to conflict with central concerns of society.
Others worry about some of the new features of the multilateral trading system, most notably the impact of WTO's binding dispute settlement procedures on the needs of poor developing countries producers, consumers and endangered species. Perhaps the most serious of all the criticisms which have been hurled at the WTO in recent months, is the accusation that the WTO is unrepresentative and undemocratic, and undermines the sovereignty of governments.
Is the nation-State surrendering its legitimate rights and prerogatives to global institutions? This is a valid question and one which will continue to be debated for many years to come. However, in the case of the WTO, there are some fundamental factors which should not be forgotten. The WTO is member driven, thus driven by governments, congresses and parliaments. Every two years, WTO Ministers meet to give guidance and impetus to the work of the organization. WTO agreements must be agreed and ratified by members and parliaments. This alone makes the WTO one of the most accountable international organizations. Moreover, the WTO operates from and by consensus. Any nation can and does block progress. Any nation can pull out of the WTO given six months' notice.
Amongst the Members of the WTO is the largest democracy in the world, India. It takes about 300 million people to elect a Government in India. The Government is accountable through its Minister, who is accountable to Cabinet, his Prime Minister, his party, his caucus and to the Parliament, and then to his electorate at home, and to the wider public. This system of accountability is how it is for most countries who are Members of the WTO and it remains the best system known. Details may change from nation to nation, but the principles of accountability are the same. Governments and parliaments act with the consent of their peoples, and through them, so does the WTO. I believe that it is also how it should be.
To criticise the WTO for being unrepresentative and unaccountable, is thus not only inaccurate but undermines and attacks the role and legitimacy of parliaments and legislators world-wide. Non-governmental organizations play significant roles in the formulation of public policy and are undoubtedly increasingly important channels of public opinion and concerns. However, Parliaments remain the only elected, publicly accountable and therefore the most legitimate assembly of representatives of citizens.
On a more personal note, during the Seattle Ministerial Conference one member of parliament said to me "it is fine you are talking to non-governmental organizations, how about government organizations, it is us who sustain the government of the day". He was right, we should do both. Equally, when I was talking about non-governmental organizations and their proper, correct and democratic influence on governments, an ambassador from a non-resident country asked us at the WTO to reach out more to him. About 30 countries cannot even afford to keep missions in Geneva. So we have reached out. I have been in the job a few months, my deputies started even more recently. But we managed to organise a seminar for non residents to brief their officials fully on what will take place in Seattle. We have also done our very best to ensure that new technologies, such as web pages, and reference centres are used to keep them in touch.
Ultimately, Parliaments remain the most effective route for those who correctly want to scrutinise, criticise and influence the decision taken by Members in the WTO. This fact needs to be emphasised and I would urge the IPU to occasionally recall to its membership this important role and responsibility of parliaments.
Recalling lessons of the past for the future
In the modern world, it is well known and accepted that without international cooperation and agreements, sovereign governments are unlikely to be able to function and advance their national interests. Any international agreement affects sovereignty but it also represents an act of sovereignty: an acceptance of commitments in exchange for a similar acceptance of commitments by other signatories. A nation's integrity and independence, especially in the case of the smaller countries, are enhanced by international institutions, treaties and agreements.
In this regard, the GATT/WTO has over the last 50 years been remarkably successful at finding mutually beneficial formulas for international cooperation, despite the complexity of the issues tackled. The word millennium is overdone, but a new century is faced and it is worthwhile to reflect on the future and to see what can be learnt from the past. The GATT/WTO was first envisaged by our brave parents who saw it as a sister organization to the UN, ILO, IMF and the World Bank. They served in uniform, my generation serves in suits and ties. They lived through the Great Depression and saw how it was prolonged and made more deadly because of protectionism. That depression and the Treaty of Versailles made war almost inevitable and from that came the great tyrannies of our age, fascism and marxism. They said never, never again and the GATT/WTO and the other institutions in the global architecture were created to be owned by the people via their governments.
Our system has done well. During the Asian crisis, many predicted the end of the global economy and suggested that it had gone too far. Yet because of sound policy in the affected economies and the foresight of the US, Japan and Europe who kept their markets open, Asia is coming back. The resilience of the multilateral trading system has been proven many times before. History has shown us that liberalization, despite its potential for good, is never easily accepted and that a retreat to protectionism, despite all its failings, is ever popular. The multilateral trading system would never have done all which it has to contribute to economic growth and development around the world, had it not been for those willing to stick to their convictions and to champion seemingly unpopular ideas.
When the Berlin Wall came down, when Nelson Mandela was freed, when the Generals went back into their barracks, elsewhere, the world celebrated. They celebrated the universal values of political and economic freedom. They celebrated the end of the barriers, social economic and political, and they welcomed the closer integration of the world. The future was greeted with optimism as people around the world saw the tremendous potential which the removal of these barriers had for improving their lives. The challenges remain the same. More jobs and more successful businesses, so that more is available in taxes to pay for the dreams we all have for a better health care, a safer and more liveable environment, education and care for the elderly. The means to do so also remain the same.
I, and many around the world, strongly believe that trade and business are the most powerful generator to achieve these ends.
Beyond Seattle
However, much more needs to be done to get this message across. The concerns expressed, not only by non-governmental organizations but also by Members, are genuine and proper. For the future, there needs to be a more vigorous and sustained effort by governments and by the WTO itself to establish and maintain dialogue with civil society. Parliaments can play a vital role in this regard and I very much welcome the initiative taken by the legislators' assembly meeting in Seattle to establish a Standing Body of WTO parliamentarians. I hope in the future to spend more time, within my constraints of time and resources, with parliaments. Resources is a critical proviso, considering that WTO's total expenditure is less than the travel budget of the IMF, and even the WWF has a budget three times larger.
Equally, we need to ensure that developing countries have a fairer place at the table. Too many countries, especially the least-developed countries which account for 0.5% of world trade, are marginalized They are frequently locked out even when they have a competitive export advantage. This is wrong and needs to be addressed with urgency.
Many countries need time and technical assistance to digest and implement their commitments. This can be done. We need to move beyond the Seattle Ministerial Conference and march boldly forward, recognising the contradictions and difficulties, but firmly resolved to begin to negotiate an outcome which is balanced. There are differences amongst WTO Members. This is not surprising. However, these differences should not stop us from getting closer to many critical issues on the agenda of the multilateral trading system including inter alia market access, agriculture, investment, competition, transparency in government procurement, trade facilitation and e-commerce. These are all issues which sovereign congresses and parliaments have an interest in and in the end, they will have the decisive say.
While critics of the WTO have been in the limelight, we should not forget that 31 countries and over 1.5 billion people want to join the WTO. Why? Because the WTO works for the mightiest nation as it does for the most modest nation. All our critics are not wrong. The multilateral trading system may not be perfect but it is far better than no rules to govern international trade relations. Too much of this century was marked by force and coercion. We need to ensure that the next century is one of persuasion, where differences are settled within institutional law, through properly agreed dispute mechanisms. It represents a new enlightened age of international and civilized behaviour.
We should this day pay our respect to our parents who in their wisdom gave birth, from the horror of personal experience, to institutions like the GATT, now the WTO, so it can do its job after instructions from governments and parliaments to bring order and the rule of law to our commercial, political cultural and social differences. I am proud to represent an institution that is owned and driven by its Member states. I am by title the Director-General. But I am not really a Director, even less am I a General. I am, I guess, a navigator, a facilitator and a public servant.
|
|
