The Asian crisis, now rapidly becoming a global crisis, is by no means a purely financial matter. It has disastrous consequences for millions of people in their everyday lives. Moreover, it is the poor who are hardest hit.
And poverty comes with its usual sorry retinue: hunger, social unrest,
violence, abuse of human rights. The least developed countries, the ones
least able to influence global priorities and policies, are being penalized
yet again.
Economic and financial strategies will succeed only if we jointly define the political framework within which they can be applied. No less important, the credibility of the actions that would then be devised to deal with the crisis would have infinitely greater global resonance and support.
Taken all in all, over the long term, globalization is a positive and dynamic force. It draws us closer together and offers us wider choices, enabling us to produce more efficiently, to control our environment, to improve our quality of life.
But such benefits are not felt equally by all. For many people, that "long term" is too far off to be meaningful. Millions on this planet still live in isolation, on the margins of the world economy. Millions more are experiencing globalization not as a great new opportunity but as a profoundly disruptive force, which attacks both their material living standards and their culture -- the way of life they inherit from their forebears.
The numbers who feel that way are now sharply on the rise. Some of those who had benefited most from open markets and capital flows are now feeling the greatest pain. The temptation to retreat into nationalism or populism is strong. But fortunately, in most developing countries those false solutions are being rejected.
Each country's crisis has its own local features and causes. Each country has to address its own specific problems and shortcomings. But many countries need help. This is indeed a global crisis, which must be tackled both locally and globally.
No doubt some will say that this is none of the UN's business. There are other international bodies, more specialized and perhaps more competent to deal with economic problems: the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, the Bank for International Settlements.
Indeed, I have the highest respect for the special role and expertise of each of those bodies. I have worked hard to forge closer ties with them, and I am glad to say they have been very responsive. They want to work with us, and we must be ready to work with them.
None of us would claim to have got everything right in our handling of globalization. I certainly make no such claim for the UN. All of us probably bear some share of responsibility for the present crisis. And all of us may have something to learn from each other. By working together we can all make our work more credible, more relevant, and more legitimate in the eyes of the world at large.
For these are not just financial or macro-economic problems. They have grave social and political consequences, and some of their causes are to be found in political and social systems. I believe the UN does have a responsibility, as the universal institution, to stress the global nature of the crisis -- and to insist on the need for global solutions, based on global rules that are fair to all.
It is our job to ensure that nations do not react to global crisis by turning their backs on universal values. In such crises we must come together to find solutions based on the founding principles which all our member states have in common: those of the UN Charter, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I also believe we have a special responsibility to speak up for the victims, or potential victims, of global crises. We cannot forget the countries, in Africa and elsewhere, whose debt burdens the crisis has made even more unsustainable.
Debt relief is often resisted on grounds of "moral hazard" -- that it rewards the reckless and penalizes the prudent. But were not the lenders often just as reckless and irresponsible as the borrowers? Can it really be moral for them to insist on full interest and full repayment, if the result is that children, not yet born when the debts were contracted, are denied even a subsistence diet or an elementary education?
That is one example of a global economic issue which the UN has a duty to raise, and to keep raising until there is a global response.
Many nations feel their interests are ignored or neglected in specialized economic bodies, where the strongest voices -- for quite understandable reasons -- tend to be those of countries which have already achieved economic success. But the UN provides a forum for informed debate among all those affected by the crisis. It has to represent all stakeholders in the global economy.
The United Nations must be a key player in the search for solutions that preserve the benefits of globalization, while protecting those who have suffered or who up to now have been left out.
