Speaker, it is clear to us all, on this first day of spring in 2011, that the international arrangement of power and wealth is shifting dramatically. The world in 2011 is moving inexorably from the economic dominance of the Western countries in the 20th century to a new economic reality, with the big emerging countries - China, India and Brazil - at the centre of this shift.
With this shift in economic power, is there a concomitant shift in the power of different ideas, of a different value system, of a different set of international principles? Is there equally a shift towards a world that is more people-centred and more principled? If so, what role is South Africa playing in this shift? What is our role here in changing ideas across the globe, in creating the world that we aspire to in our Constitution?
South Africa's foreign policy since the ANC-led government was elected to power in 1994 has been guided by a set of principles that form the backbone of the ANC policy; formed and refined over a hundred years of struggle for a better world for all of us to live in. From the formation of our organisation in 1912, to the remarkable Africans' Claims document - that powerful and foresighted statement of human rights - adopted at the 1943 ANC conference, then to the Freedom Charter, and ultimately to our South African Constitution - South Africans, as represented by the ANC, have sought to express a particular world view.
It is a world view that seeks to advance human dignity, equality and opportunity for all. As an internationalist organisation, we seek this for our own people, and we seek nothing less for the peoples of the world. It is these principles and values, now enshrined in our Constitution, and agreed upon as a nation, that we need to apply and promote at home and also abroad as an international citizen.
Our government describes the principles that underpin our international relations as a commitment to the promotion of human rights; the promotion of democracy; justice and international law in the conduct of relations between nations; a commitment to international peace; to internationally agreed-upon mechanisms for the resolution of conflicts; to the promotion of the African agenda in world affairs; and an economic development through regional and international co-operation in an interdependent world.
We have, as a country, indicated our readiness to play a role in world affairs since 1994 and, most recently, through securing a seat on the United Nations Security Council; through membership of various international and regional multilateral bodies and forums and including, of course, the African Union, AU, the Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa economic agreement, Brics, and SADC.
We have also taken on leadership roles in organs of these bodies, such as our chairing of the Peace and Security Council of the AU, and chairing SADC and many more. All these roles serve to signal our willingness to play on the world stage. We are thus positioned to participate in an international discourse on all the big issues that confront the world and, in so doing, to promote our principles and values.
We take a stand on conflict across the globe and on difficult international issues. So we should, if we wish to be a player and if we seek to make the world the better place that we aspire to. We must continue to articulate our county's positions on all the world's intransigent problems, on all the difficult conflicts, and in all those forgotten areas where democracy and human rights are undermined, such as in the Western Sahara.
We have a particular world view, with human dignity at the centre. We should understand our principles as our own, and we must apply them equally in all our international engagements. In a recent article in Business Day a commentator identifies two groupings in this country. One group thinks everything that the Western countries do is right by definition and is good by definition. The other group believes that everything that the Western countries do is by definition wrong. The truth is, as usual, somewhere in between!
We should be proud of our beliefs as South Africans, that we have taken decisions as a country that is independent and often unpopular with those whose interests are not served by our decisions. Equally, we should not allow ourselves to be influenced to go against our own principles in order to be popular.
Is there a shift in the world towards a new way of doing things? Will the new emerging world order reflect more closely our own set of values and principles? Will the world be a better place in the 21st century? The Africans' Claims document, to which I referred earlier, was developed in response to the Atlantic Charter. That charter was developed in 1941, in the midst of a world war and in the context of Nazi tyranny, and it called for an end to that tyranny. The Africans' Claims' response to this charter was to support the campaign against Nazi tyranny, but it also called for all forms of tyranny, including racial tyranny across the world, to be destroyed.
Through this Africans' Claims document and the Bill of Rights that was developed alongside it, our ANC leadership said that only then:
... shall there be established peace which will afford all peoples and races the means of dwelling in safety, within their own boundaries, and which will afford the assurances that all men in all lands shall live out their lives in freedom from fear, want and oppression.
Of course, this was 1943, and they did not mean all men; they meant all people. These were the foresighted thoughts and desires of our leaders in 1943. So, how far has the world moved towards their vision almost 70 years later? At the least I believe we can say these matters are now on the agenda of the world bodies at every level.
In this changed world in which we find ourselves, is there now a new opportunity to promote and influence the way the world thinks and acts in the protection of human dignity? How will the shift in economic power provide us with the opportunity to shift the world's way of thinking about our common humanity? Do we need new ideas? Most certainly I believe we do, but we also need our old values and principles at home and abroad.
We, as parliamentarians and international activists, have a role to play in this shift. For example, we are present at all the world's major forums. Our road to democracy and our recent history is admired by all, and we have a Constitution that is universally acclaimed. Are we using these advantages to make our voice heard and place our principles and values on the world agenda? Maybe, but I think not loudly enough. Thank you very much.
Hon Speaker, according to article 1 of the founding provisions of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, IPU, the following principles are fostered: contacts, co-ordination and exchange of experience among parliaments and parliamentarians of all countries; considering questions of international interest and expressing its views on such issues with the aim of bringing about action by parliaments and members thereon.
It also contributes to the defence and promotion of human rights, which are universal in scope, and respect, which is an essential factor of parliamentary democracy and development. It contributes to better knowledge of the working of representatives of institutions to the strengthening and development of their means of actions.
These are fundamental principles espoused by the IPU to further champion the improvement of a working relationship with the UN by ensuring that there is enhanced parliamentary contribution and support of the UN and its programmes. They also foster co-operation between the UN and national parliaments through its various activities such as peace, security, democracy, economic and social development, as well as sustainable development, to mention but a few.
The UN is at the core of the international multilateral fora and every effort must be made to strengthen it in order to fulfil its role and implement its mandate effectively. Hence there should be a collective approach to addressing global challenges in multilateral forums and to work in collaboration with the IPU. Greater synergy is needed between the work of the IPU and the UN. Linked to that is the important role of accountability, oversight and transparency by both organisations in its programmes and activities to ensure good world corporate governance.
The UN systems are of major importance for the maintenance of international relations, including those of peace and security. This multilateral forum is a platform for the advancement of objectives of addressing poverty and underdevelopment of the developing world. The commitments made by the developed world need to be translated into tangible actions.
The UN, through the use of systems of global governance, should recognise the need for and the importance of addressing the pressing social and economic needs of the international community, particularly those in Africa and other parts of the developing world. Stronger leadership and more equitable distribution of power are necessary to shape and develop the norms and standards of international development.
The developing world should utilise the existing negotiating groupings of the UN and alliances to pursue the objectives of the developing world. This should be done bearing in mind the need to continue engaging within the global systems of government institutions on political, economic and social matters, including the fundamental issue of the reform of multilateral institutions.
This is necessary in order to be more responsive to the development needs of the developing countries. A redistribution of power to the developing countries will lead to the attainment of an equitable global order. The UN machinery needs to be strengthened to respond adequately to the challenges of the developing world and Africa.
The World Bank was created to lend money to countries that need aid. This aid is linked to conditions of political reform, which includes democratisation, rule of law, good governance and, recently, lowered carbon emissions. These are noble principles, but many challenges to this conditionality have highlighted the need for reform. One such challenge is whether these principles are sustainable in transplanting democracy to developing countries, or lack sustainability and ownership of political reform and economic development by developing countries. They tend to be viewed as controlling mechanisms by the developing countries as opposed to encouragement, suggesting that aid is subject to manipulation by these institutions at the expense of countries that need aid. The issues of concern are manipulation of conditions, lack of ownership or reform by developing nations, and developing countries becoming dependent on aid, membership issues and no direct relationship between aid and flows of political reform.
The UN Security Council is responsible for the maintenance of peace and security in the international community. Five permanent members make decisions for the 192 UN member states and can veto decisions. The issues of reform are based on the lack of geographical representation and legitimacy. Some suggested reforms include: the creation of more permanent seats; regional representation enlargement of UNSC from 15 to 24 members; the creation of 6 new permanent seats; and the AU suggestion of two permanent seats for Africa with the powers to veto.
The hard power issues preventing reform of the United Nations Security Council, UNSC, issues such as the economic muscle of permanent members, disagreement by different regions, disagreement about reform in the world, the AU disagreement itself, and the AU lobbying individually are some of the concerns. As long as these issues of reform are not addressed, global power and ownership of the international agenda will be a pipe dream, so South Africa should be at the forefront of lobbying for these reforms.
Distribution of powers means levelling the playing field and the use of soft power to enhance global co-operation and development. The reform of Bretton Woods institutions is about making sure that this institution does not abuse soft power and turn it into de facto hard power by using aid as a means to suppress the interests of developing countries through imposing strenuous conditions for access to aid and loans. This further attempts to transplant democracy in developing countries, thereby creating a culture of dependency.
The issues of reform to be addressed are as follows: the challenges of legitimacy, accountability and credibility; effectiveness and equity of its policies; failure to regulate currency flows; lack of representivity; the consideration of candidates from developing countries for top positions - this is about the appointment of CEOs on merit and not on geographical or historical status; the ability of Western powers to veto important policy decisions; and the need to increase the voice and representation for developing countries.
These institutions were established to ensure that developing countries could gain access to global resources. The unintended consequences were that they created too much power for developed countries at the expense of developing countries.
In conclusion, the redistribution of power and ownership of the international agenda needs South Africa to assume a leadership role in the forums such as the AU, the UN, the G20, as well as the UNSC to advocate and lobby for such reforms. Every multilateral forum should be encouraged to recognise that for real world reform to take place, power needs to be redistributed equally in the world.
We should also use candidature diplomacy to recommend and support candidates from Africa and the developing world to fill these strategic positions in the World Bank, IMF and some UN agencies.
We should use the G20 as a forum for developing countries to hold the developed countries accountable to act on their commitments and to push for review of the UN Development Assistance Framework to respond to the development needs of Africa. The UN Security Council reform is essential in order to transfer power and strengthen these bodies.
We should use the upcoming COP 17 UN Conference on Climate Change to lobby for consensus and reform of global systems of governance. Power must be distributed evenly, and the playing field should be levelled and the rules of the game should be consistent, clear and coherent.
As we participate in the global governance system we need to push for more equitable power and aid to developing countries and to ensure a strong voice and representation to empower Africa. In the quest for a global world order that has equal responsibility and accountability, the developed world should implement and take action on their promises.
South Africa, along with other developing countries, should ensure that they get their house in order by driving political and economic reforms in their countries, which would ensure more equitable power distribution in the global world order and ownership of international agendas. Thank you.
Speaker, in The Second Coming, the Irish poet William Butler Yeats wrote:
... the centre cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon the world; the blood-dimmed tide is loosed; everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned; the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
In the world today, the centre is no longer holding. Anarchy is therefore beginning to manifest itself, as we saw in the streets of London recently and in the mindless massacre in Norway. A spectre of such anarchy has also been witnessed in our country. In recent months, South Africa joined Brazil, Russia, India and China, the Bric, countries. Brics represent more than 40% of the world's population. Its combined gross domestic product, GDP, accounted for only 18% of the global total last year.
Obviously Brics is keen to alter this status quo. It is clear that the redistribution of both power and wealth in the global context will have to occur. This requires that the formulation of an international agenda is henceforth democratised and decentralised.
At present, the developed world has had near monopoly on creating the agendas for the world. Notwithstanding this, they failed to conclude the Doha Round of talks which was so important to world trade. Developed countries have been unwilling to respond to the challenges posed by increasing global integration. They have demanded market access, but continued to subsidise and protect their own agriculture. This distortion has had a negative impact on Africa. The growth of the Chinese and Indian economies will, of necessity, begin to upset the apple cart. The proliferation of literature on the subject testifies to this.
Since World War II, the economic agenda has been set primarily by one country, that is, the USA. The recent failure of its financial institutions and the toxic bonds that they sold to banks of other nations resulted in the economic meltdown we are now witnessing.
Meanwhile, globalisation and accelerating climate change have been exerting pressures on commodity prices. Therefore, food prices have continued to rise. The economic security of middle class workers was put into jeopardy. The situation of the poor has worsened as a result of the loss of manufacturing capacity and agricultural output. We in South Africa and other countries in Africa have experienced this.
A total overhaul of the economic multilateral institutions has to occur. The developing nations, in partnership with Brics, can ensure that a new centre of gravity arises with an important role for them within the new formation. The Bretton Woods Accord will have to be urgently revised to involve fully new role-players and to create a new agenda which the world can possess as the product of a new consensus. For the first time, we are seeing entire nations, and developed nations at that, standing on the brink of bankruptcy.
Economic power equates to political power. Africa has the potential to become economically and politically powerful. It has to support democratisation and achieve cohesion to become a force for good. As the continent has not been able to do this effectively, it has not been able to impact on the very international agendas that directly affect it. The situation that is playing out in Libya indicates continental impotence, which has allowed the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, Nato, to call the shots.
The situation in North Africa and the Middle East is explosive. The tolerance of people for dictatorship is ending. Young people using social media are beginning to demand a right to decision-making. Beginning with the Arab Spring, young people have started to put their bodies on the line to alter the manner in which political power is generated and exercised. The international agenda for poverty, famine and unemployment has to be formulated democratically among the nations of the world.
Not since World War II have so many people begun to worry so much about the future. Not since then have so many people become so agitated with the failure of political leadership. Revolt and rebellion are becoming frequent occurrences. The social contract, whereby people ceded some of their sovereign power to their respective governments in exchange for stability, security and prosperity, has not been honoured by governments. The monopolisation of power and wealth is what is causing the fury against politicians that is now manifesting itself.
In conclusion, the guarantee of civil liberty arises from eternal vigilance, the enforcement of accountability and transparency. An activist population with a culture of heightened citizen democracy will now have to prevail for nation states to remain intact. I thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Chairperson, as this is a debate on the IPU, please allow me at the outset to refer briefly to the establishment of the International Parliamentary Union, the IFP - not IFP, but IPU. [Laughter.]
It was established in 1881. Currently it has a membership of 157 parliaments all over the world and nine associate members. The IPU normally meets every year to discuss matters of international importance. It takes resolutions and member parliaments are then expected to forward them to their respective countries for implementation.
The wording of the IPU theme that we are debating today, puts its finger exactly on the main problem facing the IPU, namely, it speaks about ownership of the international agendas. Behind these very words is hidden the real problem facing the IPU, namely, that the resolutions it passes every year do not effectively find their way into the agendas of its various member parliaments. I think this is where we all fail. Therefore, we should seriously rethink what we, as the South African Parliament, could do to pay attention to and implement IPU resolutions effectively.
The second topic of this debate is the redistribution of power, not just wealth. This is important to the current situation in South Africa because the divide between the rich and the poor is expanding exponentially. At its current rate of expansion, South Africa could eventually be divided only into two main camps, namely the very rich and the very poor. The middle class will struggle to survive because of poor governance and excessive taxation.
As far at the IPU status is concerned, we do not think that we are taking the resolutions effectively. If we do that, we will allow the IPU to become only an international talkshop with no teeth. It may eventually only serve as a very nice holiday for Members of Parliament.
In conclusion, the rich-poor situation worldwide is a serious problem. It will require a commitment from all role-players, and specifically our government, to embark upon and embrace a wealth and power redistribution policy in favour of all South Africans and not just those who know how to organise lucrative tenders and government contracts. Thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Chairperson, executives present, comrades and guests, in explicating our general principle established by the 1955 Congress of the People that two of our pillars of the new South Africa must be peace and friendship, the Morogoro Consultative Conference of 1969 pronounced that: Democratic South Africa shall take its place as a member of the OAU - the current AU - and work to strengthen Pan-African unity in all fields. Our country will actively support national liberation movements of the people of the world against imperialism, colonialism and neocolonialism. Diplomatic relations will be established with all countries regardless of their social and political systems on the principles of mutual respect for each other's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.
South Africa's strategic orientation regarding foreign relations is driven by the collective vision of all South Africans to live in a peaceful and friendly world. The ANC regards peaceful coexistence as a sine qua non for all human development. Its view is, and always has been, that peace and development are mutually reinforcing.
After being an international pariah for decades due to its relentless persecution of the doctrine of separate development, South Africa was welcomed into the sisterhood of nations in 1994. South Africa has been able to put behind it its divisive past and is united in building a new nonracial, nonsexist and prosperous society. We are one of the few countries with a Constitution that is not only the supreme law of the country, but also entrenches the Bill of Rights. Our democracy is truly based on the will of the people and takes both the participatory and the representative form.
The founding provisions of our Constitution are stated in its first section as the following:
The Republic of South Africa is one, sovereign, democratic state founded on the following values: human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedom; nonracialism and nonsexism; supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law; universal adult suffrage and a national voters roll; regular elections and a multiparty system of democratic government to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness.
Our forbears mentioned as grounds for validating our chosen path being part of the family of nations. We have chosen a path of peaceful coexistence that is underpinned by constitutionalism and without derogating from the rights of people to follow a path of our own choice, for experience persuaded us to commend the same to other nations with analogous objectives and also subjective conditions. The ANC has, from its launch in 1912, been oriented towards progressive internationalism. It has been its view that injustice and violation of human rights is a phenomenon of universal proportion. Progressive international forces should unite to fight against such undesirables.
In this regard, the ANC mobilised the international community to isolate the apartheid government, and in the same vein it persuaded the United Nations to declare apartheid as a crime against humanity. It boasts two of its former presidents, Chief Albert Mvumbi Luthuli and Dr Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, being recognised for their peace-building conduct through the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize.
The tradition of peaceful engagement had seen South Africans negotiate peacefully and agreeing to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to deal with the past atrocities. Through full disclosure and evidence of political motive, perpetrators of gross human rights violations were granted amnesty. It should be noted that we used our ubuntu values to eschew retribution for restorative justice.
In principle, we support the efforts of oppressed people to liberate themselves. However, we are opposed to all acts of terrorism. Terrorism in our view targets innocent civilians and is not focused on achieving justice. We, however, are averse to aggressive methods to deal with perceptions of terrorism; we believe that sovereign states should be engaged constructively, without a semblance of interference, and that citizens of countries should be empowered to solve their own problems. Where military intervention is inevitable for a fair, reasonable and just resolution, we are convinced that there should be a comprehensive post- conflict reconstruction and development.
The tendency to leave this to a plethora of development agencies working in silos should be replaced by a co-ordinated intervention designed to strengthen the transition to full and permanent peace by creating conducive political and economic conditions. The threat of reversal in many cases also comes from failure to transform economies, failure to expand economic opportunities to combatants, failure to undertake coherent capacity- building programmes and failure to help build post-conflict states that are capable of delivering essential services to their citizens.
Coming to my conclusion, our commitment to peaceful coexistence among nations has demonstrated itself in our activities within the Southern African Development Community, SADC, and the African Union, AU. We will continue to engage in efforts to consolidate the SADC as a regional economic community as a first step towards the development of the South African union government. We take a developmental approach in our engagements in the SADC forum to ensure diversification of the economies of member states.
It is our considered view that most multilateral institutions do not serve the interests of the poor. The UN is often obstructed and limited in its capacity to resolve international conflicts because of the lack of political will on the part of its members, particularly the permanent members of the Security Council. The Bretton Woods institutions perpetuate dominance of the world economy by the rich countries. The UN Security Council's composition and veto system benefit the interests of the permanent member states.
We stand convinced that the foregoing status quo ante requires that the mandate of, inter alia, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, IMF, should be redefined to focus on fighting poverty and assist in building the economies of developing countries. The World Bank, IMF and World Trade Organisation, WTO, should be more accountable, transparent and responsible.
It is our view that global inequality, evinced by the unequal distribution of power in the UN Security Council and international economic organisations, is a problem for our foreign policy. It breeds global poverty, conflict and terrorism. We believe that multilateralism allows for a democratic expression of the collective will of the community of nations, regardless of the size of their economies, armies and territory.
South Africa does not see values and interests as mutually exclusive, but as mutually reinforcing. Consequently, in pursuing foreign policy, South Africa does not sacrifice its values. It seeks substantive realisation of a better life for South Africa, as well as a better life for Africans and citizens of the world. We choose our allies and friends based on the foregoing principle. South Africa's world view is oriented by the struggle against inequality, injustice, oppression and crimes against humanity. As such, we envisage a new world order based on the principles of equality, justice, freedom, peace, democracy and human rights. Thank you.
Chairperson, can there be power without wealth? Sure, there can, but not the kind people want to hear about - you know the Gandhi and Jesus kind. International agendas clearly revolve around another kind of power, the kind that money buys. Archbishop Tutu's call earlier this month for a wealth tax unleashed a huge debate when it was reported that his suggestion was aimed at white people. It turns out he was not aiming his comments at whites at all. He was highlighting a problem of inequality that is threatening the existing order in even the richest countries in the world.
Addressing an audience at the University of Stellenbosch, Tutu said one of the major recommendations that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, TRC, made was to say that the gap between the rich and the poor is wide, it is dangerously wide and we recommend that something ought to be done quickly to narrow this gap. Those in the top half of people, in terms of wealth, and particularly the top 0,1%, can often borrow for almost nothing, keep profits and production overseas, hold personal assets in tax havens, and even influence legislation. In other words, they have power. Those in the bottom half of the top 1% are not quite in the same category as the bottom 99%, but have diminished power all the same, as more doors are shut to them.
In Germany very rich people who take advantage of every possible tax break pay just over 30% tax and more and more people are questioning this, saying countries can no longer afford to make do without money from their wealthiest citizens. The German system has been described as redistribution of wealth from poor to rich; a system where only a few get the profit, but the majority do not. If the rich and the corporations pay fewer and fewer taxes and keep their money for themselves, while the poor pay no taxes because they have no money, public debts result. This system has come to the end of the road and people in governments face tough decisions and tough questions: Do we raise taxes or cut spending?
The recent riots in London tell an all too familiar story of increasing social instability; the politics of inequality has gotten us into this crisis, globally. With every decision government makes it should be asking: Does this give power to people or take it away? While it is not always possible to give power back to individuals, we can do the next best thing - redistribute power both in decision-making and finances to neighbourhoods and local governments. History shows us that all politicians, when they have been in office for long enough, become centralisors. Time for radical decentralisation and redistribution of power is due on a global scale. Thank you.
Chairperson, in 2004 the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development published a report that stated:
A quiet transformation is reshaping the global, economic and trade landscape. The centuries-old economic trade geography, where the South served as hinterlands of resources and captive markets for finished goods of the North, is changing. The shares of the South in global trade and financial flows have grown dramatically during the last two decades. The old geography of international trade has been defined much by colonialism. The industrial revolution helped the colonial powers to attain decisive technological superiority in both civil and military spheres, and enabled them to occupy the central position in international economic relations, vis--vis developing countries - an asymmetric pattern that continued into the postcolonial era.
Hon members, this august House has joined parliamentarians of different countries - members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, IPU - to debate the topic: Redistribution of power, not just wealth: ownership of the international agendas. Put more concretely in the language of our challenges in South Africa, does the current international agenda and the distribution of power help a subsistence farmer in Lusikisiki to improve her livelihood? Does it offer hope to a young, unemployed person in Atlantis so that he can find a job? Does it inspire a worker in a factory in Isithebe with the knowledge that decent work is not a distant reality, but something that can be achieved here and now?
To answer those questions, we have to go back to the formation of the current economic institutions and power relations. The basic economic infrastructure that nations rely on in this globalised economy was shaped by past crises. The foundations of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the forerunner to the World Trade Organisation, WTO, were laid in the aftermath of the Great Depression, as the world emerged from the Second World War.
The victorious powers - principally, the United States and the UK - set up the Bretton Woods institutions, but they set them up on a governance model based on shareholding dominance by northern, developed nations. The agendas, the decision-making and the senior staff of these institutions reflected, in many cases, the prevailing ideas and interests of their main shareholders. They developed what became known as the Washington Consensus - a set of ideas on how countries should run their economies and on the essential ingredients of public policy.
Today, almost 70 years after some of these institutions were created, what is the state of the world? How healthy is the social balance sheet? How well have they served the common good across nations?
On the one hand, we live in an age where technological progress and wealth creation is at the most advanced in human history. The Internet, the sophisticated systems of transport that move goods across the world, the advanced manufacturing capacity that produces ever more goods, and the innovation systems that provide for an expansion of products and consumer choice, have all dramatically changed the world for many people.
On the other hand, more than a billion people live in conditions of extreme poverty. Based on the rate at which progress is currently being made, it has been estimated that it will take another 88 years to achieve a world without extreme poverty.
Globally, more than 200 million people are without jobs, and about 215 million young children who should be at school are forced to work in order to earn an income for their families. Income and wealth disparities are high and rising, both within nations and between nations. The social balance sheet is clearly not in a good state.
We have been faced with at least five large gaps in the economic governance and policy architecture: one, institutions whose governing structures are unrepresentative, as we have seen in the voting structure of the IMF and World Bank; two, developmental needs that have been marginalised, as seen in the positions adopted by industrialised economies in the Doha Round of WTO trade talks; three, policies that have not sufficiently prioritised jobs and decent work, as we see from the non-observance of the International Labour Organisation's, ILO, standards and conventions, and the high levels of unemployment across the world; four, economic activities that damage the environment and are resulting in profound climate change as we have seen in the evidence presented in the UN climate change talks; and five, economic policies that have not been connected at global level with social policies and goals, as we have seen in the lack of policy coherence across the international system, and in the social deficits that remained high in periods of fast economic growth.
We now face dual and connected challenges. To ensure we address the vast inequalities faced by so many nations, we can call these the challenges of the past, while at the same time we address the new challenge of weak economic performance, of global imbalance that led to the global economic crisis and of the growing problem of climate change.
There is the recognition by parliamentarians in many governments across the world that more can and needs to be done through the international policy agenda. Following decades of high global economic growth, policy-makers are asking whether the purpose of economic activity is simply to expand the volume of goods and services. Is all of it reducible, simply, only and principally to your rate of growth? Is it mainly to provide opportunities for entrepreneurs to make profit?
Some of these may be characteristics or consequences, but they are by no means the defining public purpose of economic activity, which is and must be to help human beings live fulfilling lives through the production of food, shelter, culture and ideas. The goal of public policy is to place the values of human development, solidarity and social justice at the centre of our common economic efforts. Producing more bread is important if more people who need bread can obtain it, and not if those with mountains of bread simply get more.
As we co-operate in societies, within nations and between nations, there are opportunities to create decent work, so that those who bake the bread can also eat. The economic, social and environmental priorities that have dominated global policy-making for so many years will have to change if we are to realise this.
Developing countries have played an increasing importance in setting the agenda and staking our claim to policies and ownerships of key institutions. More efforts have been made to build or to strengthen inclusive institutions, through the UN system.
In 2000, heads of state and governments from 189 countries came together to develop and adopt eight goals, the Millennium Development Goals, which cover areas such as health, education, reducing poverty, and promoting gender equity. It was an important initiative to set common goals, a common agenda, and to define a common responsibility in order to help to achieve those goals.
In 2008, months before the dramatic market meltdown on Wall Street, governments, business representatives and union leaders across the world discussed and adopted the Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalisation. It was a vision of economic co-operation between nations, founded on the goal of full employment. All those who want to work should be able to work. It was also founded on social cohesion and economic inclusion. Developing countries played a critical role in drafting this global vision of development.
The following year the ILO produced a global jobs pact that set out elements of a new growth path for the global economy. It recognised the limitations of the old growth model and, instead, placed investment in infrastructure, employment and social protection, together with sustainable environmental practices, at the centre of economic recovery, and set them as the policies on which millions of new decent work opportunities can be created. It recognised that development - in other words, meeting the needs of ordinary people, of fixing the environmental damage caused by decades of reckless practise - is a source of growth, of green jobs and of incomes.
For South Africa, as we chart a New Growth Path, we place employment and decent work at the centre of our efforts. We recognise that growth needs to be inclusive and balanced, and that the needs of women, young people and the rural poor need to be prioritised.
Increasingly, the international agenda has to reflect these priorities of jobs, gender empowerment, youth development and rural advancement. These are not only our priorities, but are shared by billions of people across the world.
Our New Growth Path is based on expanding opportunities for economic development on the African continent, recognising the value of increasing South-South partnerships and of economic ties and co-operation through institutions such as Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, Brics.
Through the G20, the UN climate change negotiations, the international labour organisations, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, to the World Health Organisation and our work in the UN, government seeks to advance the view of a new development contract between nations. We seek to change the agenda as well as the governance structures. We seek to promote a better connection between the economic institutions and social objectives. In a word, we seek to harness economic dynamism for social justice outcomes. Thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
May I ask that hon members take their seats upon entering the Chamber and not conduct long discussions in the passages.
Hear, hear!