World leaders vow to stop genocide but leave millions in poverty
Leaders meeting at the UN summit delivered a major breakthrough on stopping genocide but did next to nothing for the
world’s poor, said international agency Oxfam today.
As leaders adopt the summit declaration today and the meeting comes to a close, Oxfam said that the one area where
governments acted boldly was to agree their collective responsibility to protect civilians facing genocide and other
similar atrocities. World leaders appeared nonchalant about the lack of real progress on more aid, fairer trade and debt
relief. If current trends continue it will take 100 years instead of 10 to meet the internationally agreed poverty
reduction targets, the Millennium Development Goals.
Nicola Reindorp, head of Oxfam’s New York office, met daily with Ambassadors at the UN in the lead up and during the
“World leaders agreed to stop future genocides but failed to provide life-saving aid to millions trapped in poverty,”
“This has been a tale of two summits. The historic agreement to stop future genocides stands in stark contrast with the
lack of progress on ending poverty.”
Oxfam warned that the debt deal announced at the G8 and endorsed at the UN summit could fall apart at next week’s World
Bank and IMF annual meetings unless Governments make firmer commitments to fully finance the debt cancellation
“Leaders must urgently get back on track to deliver debt cancellation and fair trade,” said Reindorp.
On the agreement to end genocide, Oxfam said that this ground-breaking commitment means that governments can no longer
use sovereignty and non-intervention norms as excuses to avoid having to act to protect civilians from mass killings. In
Rwanda, the UN Security Council quibbled over definitions of what was taking place and failed to act while nearly one
million people died in one hundred days. In cases where the national government is unwilling or unable to do so,
governments have now accepted their shared responsibility to protect civilians, using force as a last resort.
“The next step is turning this historic agreement on ending genocide into practice to save lives,” Reindorp said.
Oxfam is calling for the following next steps:
• Debt: Oxfam is concerned that the debt deal agreed in Gleneagles at the G8 is in danger of being watered down at next
week’s World Bank and IMF meetings and urged governments to fully commit the funding to ensure the deal is passed
without adding extra conditions.
• Trade: Progress on agricultural subsidies and recognizing the right of poor countries to decide the pace and scale of
opening their markets must happen ahead of the WTO ministerial in Hong Kong in December 2005. The European Union and the
United States must agree to a timetable for ending export subsidies to move the talks forward.
Oxfam’s analysis of the Summit Outcome document:
• Leaders endorsed their collective ‘Responsibility to Protect’ civilians from genocide, crimes against humanity, war
crimes and ethnic cleansing. This requires governments to take timely and decisive action, using a range of measures
including force to protect civilians where the government of the people concerned fails to do so.
• Education: Good text in support of Education for All Fast Track Initiative, no mention of missing the first millennium
goal of getting an equal number of girls into school as boys. Support for the elimination of user fees for primary
• Debt relief: The outcome statement confirms the Gleneagles G8 commitments, despite the need for revising and expanding
the deal. Acknowledges the need to “consider additional measures” which is a positive reference to debt relief for
• HIV/AIDS: The Summit outcome document endorses the G8 commitment to universal access to HIV treatment by 2010.
• Women’s Rights: The document recognizes the need to end impunity for violence against women and guarantee rights to
labor protections, property ownership and reproductive health services.
• Millennium Development Goals: the document fails to make a real review of progress. There is no sense of urgency, no
recognition of the goal that has already been missed, no acknowledgment that, if current trends continue, it will take
100 years instead of 10 for the goals to be achieved.
• Aid: the text is actually a step back from the Monterrey Consensus of 2002. No joint commitment was made for
governments to deliver 0.7% of gross national income in overseas aid.
• Trade: the text is weaker than the Doha trade agreement of 2001. It endorses trade liberalization and no mention is
made of the elimination of subsidies or the power of poor countries to decide the pace and scale of opening their
• Small arms: the text includes no new controls on small arms and light weapons but merely restates 2001 agreements.
• Humanitarian reform: the document includes no commitment to increasing resources for humanitarian response. There is
good wording on strengthening the authority of the humanitarian coordinator, reaffirming the commitment to humanitarian
principles and commitments on ensuring humanitarian access.