Essay on Delhi Declaration on ‘Social Clause’ (Labour Standards) !
Describing the “social clause” as unacceptable, the non-aligned and developing countries rejected it outright and said the Uruguay Round of talks should be the basis for all future international trade agreements. The fifth conference of the Labour Ministers of NAM and developing countries, which ended in New Delhi on January 23, 1995, adopted a “Delhi Declaration” to this effect.
The conference endorsed the Uruguay Round of agreements on enhancing world trade and rejected “neo-protectionism” in the guise of social clause or labour, environmental standards. The Delhi Declaration sought to create and evolve a just international economic order. The declaration and the programme of action together set the agenda for the Copenhagen World Summit on Social Development held in March 1995. The declaration forcefully defended the common human cause which was becoming a victim at the altar of greed of the very few that is the ruling elite of the industrialised world.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The other important points adopted in the Delhi Declaration were:
i) Employment should be an integral part of the national and social development policy.
ii) Workers’ participation in management should be encouraged for enhancing productivity.
iii) Evolving policies on human resources development based on education and training of the workers.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
iv) Legal and administrative protection against discrimination against women.
v) Affirmative action to enhance participation of women in economic activities.
In both, the declaration and the “programme of action”, the conference noted that what was “imperative is a commitment to promote and safeguard human dignity through the promotion of measures aiming at improving the working and living conditions of all people and providing better levels of protection”.
Expressing deep concern about the “serious post-Marrakesh” efforts at imposing the “social clause”, the declaration said such coercion not only did not conform to the principle of the ILO constitution and the voluntary character of ILO conventions, but “will negate the benefits which the liberalisation of trade is intended to bring about thus aggravating further, at least in the developing countries, the existing problems of unemployment and distress.”