Turn round an unequal world
Caroline Lucas, Tribune 23rd November 2001
Caroline Lucas urges the anti-globalisation movements to find constructive alternatives to the materialism of rich countries
The WTO Conference in the capital of Qatar 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 protestors 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.
Well aware of this reality, developing countries were already furious before they arrived in Doha, because the draft negotiating text was weighted entirely in the interests of the rich North. Of course it was theoretically supposed to be the result of democratic discussions between the 142 member states, but worse was to come. If the process of drawing up the negotiating text was undemocratic, that was nothing compared to the ruthlessness of the negotiation tactics themselves. Immense pressure was exerted on the poorer countries by the powerful trading nations, including threats relating to aid and debt relief, and it was these backroom bruisings that finally forced developing country delegates into resentful acquiescence to the final unsatisfactory deal.
Despite EU Commissioner Pascal Lamy's breathtalkingly hypocritical claim that this was to be a "Development Round", what was agreed will be a disaster for the world's poor. Take agriculture. The EU fought to the very end to protect its right to dump subsidised agricultural products in poorer countries. This has a devastating effect on Southern farmers, who simply cannot compete against cheaper imports. "The wrong policy on agriculture might lose elections in France, but it loses lives in Africa." was the chilling conclusion of Tanzania's Trade Minister Mr Iddi Simba.
One of the central demands of developing countries was not to be bounced into further liberalisation until the adverse results of previous trade rounds were documented and so could point to a different direction for global trade. What is already known is bad enough. Aside from the numerous studies showing a rise in inequality world-wide, World Bank economist Michael Finger has estimated that a typical developing country must spend $150 million to implement requirements under just three WTO Agreements- a year's development budget for many least-developed countries.
The anti-globalisation movement was swift to denounced the fact that almost none of the developing country governments' concerns had been adequately met, let alone the broader grass roots concerns of civil society. These include the promotion of local economies, food security, labour, social and, cultural rights, and protection of the environment. All were clearly off the agenda. However in the light of Doha perhaps the most important change for the anti globalisation movement with be its shift from such critical opposition to the constructive proposition of alternatives.
The grass roots movements are already increasingly demanding and campaigning for a more cooperative and internationalist linkage between countries. This sees a new end goal of protecting and rebuilding local economies rather than today's damaging one of dependence on ever increasing international competitiveness. Such alternative economic models do exist and I drew upon them for my Doha report 'Time to Replace Globalisation'. This detailed a new set of international trade rules whose purpose is not to ensure the unimpeded international trade in goods and services. Instead these rules are designed to promote a more sustainable and equitable economic system by strengthening democratic control of trade, stimulating industries and services that benefit local communities, and rediversifying local and national economies.
Such 'localisation' involves a supportive internationalism, where the flow of ideas, technologies, information, culture, money and goods has, as its end goal, the protection and rebuilding of sustainable regional, national and local economies world-wide. Its emphasis is not on competition for the cheapest, but on co-operation for the best.
The anti-globalisation movement's shift to setting the debate for the alternative direction for world trade could be one of the most significant developments post September 11th. In Doha the UK Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt slavishly adhered to the US line of fighting terror with trade. Those of us in the trade justice movement are clear that the increases in inequalities inherent in the free market model could act as a breeding ground for the support for terrorism. To adequately address global poverty, environmental threats and introduce a sense of future security, it is the demands for protection and rebuilding local and national economies, rather than the contortion of national economies into ever more ruthless international competition, that will give the anti globalisers their most crucial role. A non patentable antidote to this post September 11th world of increasing personal and economic insecurity.
Caroline Lucas is a Green MEP for the South East of England, and coordinator of the Greens/EFA group on the trade committee of the European Parliament