I had the pleasure and honour of being present for part of the peripheral discussions and side events at the recently concluded FFD process in Addis Ababa a few days ago. As a lawyer and academic who is active in civil society I had an interesting time there watching and participating in the activities and several issues caught my attention from a tax and development perspective mainly the issue of fiscal legitimacy at a global level: accountability , responsibility, transparency, effectiveness, efficiency, fairness and justice in the processes at the global level of suffrage where one state has one vote!
Firstly, it is clear that the decision to build international and global democracy is constantly being kicked at the feet. I think that all states whether they are tax havens or not, developed or developing countries all have the right to participate in the legal processes that decide on laws …call it an international democracy and that this compromise will be a much better one than the one currently in place where only the G20 decide on how the laws and their architecture are to be designed.
I watched as the discussions unfolded into a deadlock on the creation of a democratic International Tax Organisation(ITO) that then was seemingly toppled over through political manouvering and offering of concessions to individual countries. Those in biggest opposition to the ITO seem to be the usual suspects from the G20 the USA (that houses the worst secrecy jurisdiction n the world-Delaware) and the UK ( that is the home of the new tax that manages to add more competition to the global and regional landscape of taxation ). Speculation was that the African countries that crumbled included South Africa the current chair of the G77 (itself a net received of IFF) and Ethiopia, the host nation (to whom concessions were promised) It seems clear that there was clearly a ‘democratic’ decision to remove the possibility of the remainder of the non G20 world to engage in a democratic process of deciding on how global taxes and wealth should be shared.
Secondly, the limits on commitments to fiscally provide more money to ODA or even domestic revenue collection, the result can only bode ill for the Development Agenda that took place a week later in New York. How is it possible that there will be more resources committed by states globally to improved health, housing, education and gender based issues and concerns as well as rooting out corruption when the states that should have decided not only to change the architecture of the international landscape on international taxes and flows democratically bowed out of the process.
Finally, the one winning point was gender. The mentions of gender throughout the end document have been strong and have maintained their concrete issues without being undermined or weakened. However the other area of human rights remain on tenuous ground as a failure to agree on availing more funds for rights will result in their non-realisation.
In conclusion the clearest issue coming forward is that the status quo has seemingly been maintained and while one waits to see how the improved structure of the UN Tax Committee will be fleshed out and one can only hope that the fullest extent of its mandate will be explored as we inch towards global fiscal legitimacy!