Anti-globalization protesters are accused of
having no positive agenda
November 18, 2001
To hear the EU, the British Government and the WTO
congratulating themselves on getting a new WTO Trade Round started,
and even calling it -with breathtaking hypocrisy - a "Development
Round", you could be forgiven for thinking this must have
been some kind of victory for the poor. In reality, nothing could
be further from the truth. Doha spells disaster for poor people.
As a member of the European Parliament's official
delegation, I traveled to the World Trade talks in Doha last week.
It was a quiet event - the very opposite of the blanket coverage
of its previous 1999 debacle, the "Battle of Seattle."
Skulking in a small state, allowing hardly any protesters and
being knocked off the news agenda by the war, it must have seemed
like the good old days to the trade officials - meeting away from
demonstrations and massive press interest to further open up markets
to the benefit of corporations and at the price of ever rising
global inequality.
But the absence of mass protests in Doha does not
signal any let up in the campaign against corporate globalization.
To the contrary, major public demonstrations took place in towns
and cities around the world in the run-up to the meeting, and
over 100 NGOs from both North and South - those lucky enough to
get one of the very limited number of visas on offer - were present
and active in Doha.
Michael Jacobs in his article last week warned that
anti-globalisation cannot help the developing world. That depends
on how you define globalization. Those of us whose campaign is
against economic globalization. - the ever tighter integration
of national economies into one giant global economy - are convinced
that resistance can and will help the developing world. Indeed
Southern activists have been in the vanguard of such activities.
Last week, for example, hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers
joined a demonstration in Delhi specifically to protest about
current WTO rules.
They know that if they are forced to open their
agricultural markets to the rich North - according to the principles
of free trade that Jacobs so applauds - their livelihoods will
be devastated.
Developing country delegates at the WTO Ministerial
also knew about the havoc open markets can wreak. Rather than
agreeing to immediate negotiations on further industrial tariff
reductions, for example, as demanded by the EU and US, they called
for a prior study to be undertaken on the effects of such tariff
reductions on local industries and jobs. Their request was ignored,
and as a result, they face further decimation of their economies.
In Senegal, for example, previous commitments to open their markets
by cutting industrial tariffs by almost half has led to the loss
of one third of all manufacturing jobs. The same story is repeated
throughout the poorer countries.
Indeed, more than 80 countries now have per capita
incomes lower than they were a decade or more ago, and as the
United Nations Development Programme points out, it is often those
countries which are highly "integrated" into the global
economy that are becoming more marginal. Even the IMF admits that
"in recent decades, nearly one fifth of the population has
regressed - arguably one of the greatest economic failures of
the twentieth century."
Michael Jacobs challenges critics of the WTO to
come up with a new system of Trade and Investment rules designed
to prioritize poverty reduction. The Green Party, whose supporters
he later lambastes as "simplistic anti-capitalists",
has done precisely that.
In a report, Time to Replace Globalization., launched
to coincide with Doha last week, we detail a set of alternative
trade rules which are designed to replace the WTO's programme
of ever more open markets in ever more ruthless competition with
each other, with a post-globalisation alternative in order to
achieve genuine sustainability. These rules would strengthen democratic
control of trade, stimulating industries and services that benefit
local communities, and rediversifying local and national economies.
According to this new model, over time there would
be a gradual transition away from dependence on international
export markets (with every country trying to compete with each
other, leading to a downward spiral of social and environmental
standards) towards the provision of as many goods and services
as feasible and appropriate locally and nationally. Developing
countries would be given significant support to help them with
this transition.
For example, the WTO's current rules require that
imported and locally produced goods be treated equally. Thus,
under WTO rules, it is unlawful for governments to favor, or otherwise
promote, domestic products above imported goods. Under our alternative
rules, domestic products would be given priority where their production
increases local employment with decent wages. Over time, quantitative
controls on exports or imports through tariffs, quotas or bans
would be permitted to this end.
Today's rules also prohibit discrimination between
products because of concerns about the damaging or unethical processes
that have been used to produce or harvest them. Under the rules
of relocalization, members would be permitted and encouraged to
make distinctions between products on this basis in order to further
the aims of sustainable development.
Perhaps most vital for developing countries are
the rules governing agriculture. According to WTO rules, adequate
protective barriers to foster domestic farming and subsidies to
support poorer farmers are not generally allowed. Under our alternative
rules, protective barriers could be introduced to enable countries
to reach maximum self-sufficiency in food, where feasible.
Such policies have been branded as 'protectionist'
- but we would be willing to accept such a label, if it is understood
that what we want to protect are efficient national policies of
cost internalization, health and safety standards, and a reasonable
minimum standard of living for citizens, both North and South.
Historically, these benefits have come from national policies,
not from global economic integration. Protecting these hard-won
social gains from blind standards-lowering competition in the
global market is what we are interested in - not, as some would
caricature it, the protection of some inefficient entrepreneur
who wants to grow mangoes in Manchester.
A growing movement, North and South, has the courage
to suggest that more than one economic system is possible. We
have shown that alternatives do exist, and trade rules can be
rewritten to support them. In the interests of wider equity and
security, it is vital that they are.
Caroline Lucas, Observer of London
Caroline Lucas is a Green member of the European Parliament representing
South-East England
|