Round Table : The Moral Dimensions of International Cooperation for  Development, or The Connection between the Needs of the Human Spirit and International Cooperation for Social Development

POINTS FOR DISCUSSION

International cooperation is the raison d’être of the United Nations and its major mode of operation. International cooperation for development has been, since the decolonisation movement, the main activity of the UN system, at least in financial terms, but it has entered a period of uncertainty since the late 1980s. Aid and assistance provided by developed to developing countries is criticized from different quarters, and has been declining. There is actually a “reverse flow” of financial resources, from developing to developed countries. The “rules of the game” on the international scene, governing economic and financial relations between countries, are still heavily favouring the most powerful public and private actors. The forces shaping the globalisation movement ignore the North-South divide and see the world in terms of markets to be secured. Private foreign investments, perceived as the key to development, are heavily concentrated in a few countries. Entire continents are economically stagnating or regressing. Inequalities of all sorts, between and within countries, are increasing. At the same time the model of development, on which international cooperation is based, is increasingly seen as unsustainable. And lately, an atmosphere of fear, hate, and violence –the antithesis of cooperation- has permeated the international scene.

Hence, from the standpoint of the Circle, concerned as it is with the moral and spiritual dimensions of life and society, a number of questions, which might be addressed under four headings:

• The founding values of international cooperation for development
• The level and characteristics of such cooperation
• The attitudes of the actors
• The ultimate objective of international cooperation for development.

I The founding values and level of international cooperation for development. Among the relevant questions:

• What are the moral foundations of international cooperation for development, that is cooperation for enhancing the well-being of people of developing countries? Is it a sense of social justice at the world level? A sense of decency and solidarity based on the notion of common humanity? Is it altruism and generosity of the spirit?  Is it the conviction that all nations have to be more or less “on board” for the international community to be peaceful and viable? Is it self interest on the part of the most powerful, a self interest rooted in the search for influence, for markets, or stemming from fear of the poor? If international cooperation is driven by a mix of such motives, which one(s) is or are currently dominant?
• Are the moral foundations of international cooperation for development crumbling? Have they always been insufficient, or flawed? Or is it simply a question of traditional gap between intentions and actions, or between the desirable and the possible? Or is it a question of time and patience? 
•  Does self or national or corporate interest acquire a moral dimension and legitimacy when it is preceded by the word “enlightened”? What is to day the enlightened self interest of a rich country to help a poor one?

II The level and characteristics of international cooperation for development. Among the questions:

• Moral principles, values, are nothing if not incarnated in actions, in institutions, and in the behaviour of the actors. What are at the international level the concrete signs of solidarity between the rich and the poor? Official development assistance has declined in recent years. Why?
• How should the refusal by the most powerful governments of any form of international taxation should be interpreted?
• Aid is seemingly less and less “tied”, that is less related to contracts, exports of the donors and similar arrangements. Democracy, the observance of human rights, and good governance are however increasingly part of the “new partnership” between developed and developing countries. Is this a new form of “conditionality” or the expression of a growing agreement on universal moral values?

III The attitudes of the actors. For example:

• International cooperation implies mutual respect, mutual esteem, a sort of fair play, and at least the recognition by the most powerful that a common humanity is shared with the weakest, individual, or group, or nation. It implies a shared sense humility and a shared purpose. Are these ingredients missing? Is the current emphasis on “partnerships”, at all levels and between different actors, a step in the right direction?
• To give requires the willingness and ability to receive. And to receive requires the acceptation of the other as an equal. At least in human worth. Is the “North” prepared to receive something from the “South”? Could the United Nations promote such culture of generosity and reciprocity? 

IV The ultimate objectives of international cooperation for development. Among the relevant questions:

• Could international cooperation, while keeping and strengthening its redistributive role, become a process through which the finality, the basic purposes of “development”, “social progress”, “globalization” and similar endeavours be debated, reflected upon and enriched? Through which institutions could this be done? And, would such cooperation be able to promote the degree of pluralism necessary to the flourishing of various cultures and forms of spirituality?
• The lack of purpose of the dominant culture, its materialism, is often denounced, especially by the intellectuals of the North. Could the institutions responsible for the various forms of international cooperation, notably the United Nations, become a place for reflection and debate on such matters?