We have detected that the browser you are using is no longer supported. As a result, some content may not display correctly.
We suggest that you upgrade to the latest version of any of the following browsers:
close notification
Clos
ing Remarks at the Joint United Nations (Office of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights) and World Bank Staff Learning
Seminar on Human Rights and Development by James D. Wolfensohn,
President The World Bank Group, Washington D.C. - June 11,
2002
I would like to give you a couple of personal reactions to what
I’ve heard about this meeting, and give you a sense of the
direction that I’m hoping that this may lead to. I had long
discussions with Mary Mary Robinson, United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights for quite some time, and she has
talked to me about the importance of a rights-based approach to
development. I have said to her what I believe and what I think may
have come out in these meetings - that in terms of intent and
values and objectives, there’s not a lot that separates your
organization and the organization of the World Bank. At least I
believe that to be true and I think that we’re both steeped
in a desire to improve the human condition and to deal with the
issues of social equity and social justice. While the language that
we use may be different, the sort of people in our organizations
and the fundamentals I think are quite similar. I believe that to
be the case, and I hope that over the two days you’ve found
that the people here do not have two heads and breathe fire and are
only interested in commercial activities.
In fact, there’s a very deep commitment in this
organization to human values and to the issues of social equity and
social justice and poverty alleviation. Certainly I believe that to
be the case of my colleagues. So, it doesn’t surprise me that
as you went through your meetings and you came from the general to
the specific, that you discovered in two areas - as I
understand it - namely in the area of judicial reform and legal
rights and the area of HIV/AIDS, that although the language that we
may use may be different, that in the implementation phase we are
very, very close. That is my belief about the relationship between
us - that in terms of substance there are many, many areas that we
can work together. It so happens you’ve discussed two, but I
think there are probably twenty-two or two hundred and twenty two
areas in which we could find common ground to work.
Without asking for an acceptance even of the proposition
that we’re close in terms of underlying values, I believe
that the smart thing to do in any event would be to work on some
specifics together and try and see how it feels after we’re
done. I would suggest to tease out the problems, hopefully adduce
the areas of common interest and common understanding and try and
build a better understanding between our organization and yours. I
think we have different vantage points, and different strengths and
different leverages. I think your leverage comes from your
character as an institution based on the rights that have been
agreed to in international conventions which have not only value,
but also some political overtone because they’re politically
agreed to.
For us, this is a transition point in a fairly long journey.
You may be amused to know, when I arrived, that the general counsel
was giving me guidance on what it is that I could and
couldn’t do within the context of this, then rather more
bureaucratic, organization than it is now. He said very quietly to
me: "Of course, we are not allowed to engage in politics, and you
cannot mention the ‘C’ word"; and I said: "What is the
‘C’ word?" And he whispered in my ear: "That’s
corruption." And I said: "Why can’t I mention corruption?"
And he said that corruption is essentially political and it gets
into the concerns of our Board members and we are a non-political
organization.
I took that for a few days, and then gradually started to
redefine corruption as not a political issue but as an economic and
moral and social issue, and an issue which addresses the very
question of poverty. I gave a speech at the Annual Meetings in
which I spoke about the cancer of corruption. That was literally
the first time that a World Bank President had gone public using
the word. It’s preposterous, but it’s true; and
that’s just a little over five years ago. Yet now we’re
operating in a hundred countries dealing with issues relating to
governance and corruption, and its done without a murmur on the
part of our shareholders. In fact they join us in talking about
corruption. Now the “C” word is acceptable and a lot of
other things are becoming acceptable, such as the role in leading
judicial reform, the role in protecting contract rights, the role
in protecting property rights - these are all things which
become more and more accepted. In labor rights, we seem to be able
to get everywhere except publicly espouse the right to
organize.
I actually pulled together a group here in May when we looked at
the extent to which we can change our language and the pace at
which we change our language. I think pragmatically. We need to
take it step by step and not lose the initiatives that we are
gaining in terms of the protection of many of the rights that you
very appropriately espouse. So if the results of today’s
meeting for those of you which come from the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights is that you’re interested in
pursuing this further and talking specifics and meeting with
appropriate regularity to see how we’re doing - from our
side, we’d love to do it.
I came along at the end of the day, really with all the work being
done, simply to add my personal support to doing that and to say
that if you all decide that you want to do that, I’d be
delighted. Not because I have any less belief than you do on the
importance of rights-based work - I think I’m reasonably
passionate on the subject that you understand that I want to make
sure that we’re an effective instrument to bringing it
about.
The language may be somewhat different from yours. I don’t
even mind if you attack us from time to time on the basis of not
having a rights-based approach - it might help us. I think the
important thing is that we build a sense of mutual trust so that
together we can achieve the objectives that you want to achieve and
that we want to achieve.