Anti-globalisation groups and developing countries protest that the agenda at Cancun favours the rich, but the powers that be are likely to turn a deaf ear to their demands, writes Gamal Nkrumah The omens augur ill for the September 10-14 World Trade Organisation (WTO) ministerial meeting in the Mexican resort city of Cancun. Lively exchanges seem certain, and angry protests such as those that bedeviled the Seattle WTO meeting in 1999 are forecast for Cancun. Anti-globalisation campaigners are raring for a ferocious confrontation with the powers that be. Trade representatives and officials from poor, heavily indebted and the least developed countries are also lending some support to the opposition to corporate globalisation. Civil society organisations from Africa have joined hands with anti-globalisation forces in the fight for a more equitable international economic order. At Cancun, the world's poorest and weakest will again resist the arm-twisting by the powerful and rich. Many civil society organisations in the developing countries believe that the neo- liberal, free-trade paradigm has resulted in a string of socio-economic problems slamming the poorest strata of populations across the world. People have woken up to what's going on. They can see what's happening to the world. And what they see is far from satisfactory, and that is an understatement. The marked increase in income inequality and in the incidence of absolute poverty with related hunger and health problems have in turn unleashed a host of social and political problems. The vast majority of the WTO's 146 member states are poor developing countries, most of which demand that the development dimension must be taken seriously at the Cancun meeting. Among the most articulate of declarations outlining the concerns of the developing world was a statement issued in August 2003 in Johannesburg, South Africa, by the Africa Trade Network and the Southern African People's Solidarity Network entitled The African People's declaration on Africa and the World Trade Organisation . Identifying the WTO as an instrument of exploitation and oppression. "We re-affirm our recognition of the WTO as a key instrument of transnational capital in its push for corporate globalisation," the statement read. "We noted the many destructive effects of WTO agreement on the lives of working people and the poor, especially women, in Africa and throughout the world." Furthermore, the statement went on to say that the struggle to democratise the international economic order is being intensified. "We renewed our determination to continue resisting corporate globalisation, and the WTO itself until it is replaced by a fully democratic institution." The main thrust of the statement's argument was that socio-economic conditions in Africa have deteriorated to such an extent that urgent action must now be taken. And, that organisations such as the WTO are directly responsible for the crisis. "Across Africa and in other developing countries neo-liberal economic policies are putting basic services, such as health and education beyond the reach of ordinary people and deepening unemployment, poverty and social inequality," the statement emphasised. One of the intriguing developments in the past few years has been the efforts of developing countries to align themselves with Western-based anti-militarism and anti- globalisation organisations. Can leftist activists and anti-establishment environmentalists work hand in hand with bureaucrats and government officials from the developing world to defeat corporate globalisation? In spite of the neo-colonial structures prevalent in the developing world, and the invariably subservient nature of the relationship between governments of the poorer countries and those of the world's wealthiest and most powerful nations, African and Asian leaders have been speaking out against the injustices of the international economic order at forums such as the WTO meetings and G-8 summits. A few have even began co-ordinating strategies to counter corporate hegemony with anti-globalisation campaigners. However, African civil society groups are arguing that bolder overtures must now be made by African governments to anti- globalisation campaigners. The statement also stressed that "the forthcoming WTO ministerial meeting is taking place against a background of a crisis of credibility of neo-liberal policies and global capitalism, that has been deepened by the Enron and other corporate scandals exposing the duplicity and venality of the bosses of transnational capital." Reference was also made to the threat of unilateral belligerency in world politics. "At the same time, the world is faced with the aggressive militarism of the United States under a political leadership whose illegal attack on Iraq under false pretenses has shown that law and morality are no bar to what it will do to advance the interests of American capital." Government officials, academics and media workers now laud the international anti- globalisation movement's spirit of partnership with Africa. The Cancun gathering follows the fourth WTO ministerial conference which took place in Doha, Qatar, in November 2001 and which was overshadowed by the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington. The pressing problem of Africa's debt burden must be tackled head on. Health, educational and social services in Africa are systematically being dismantled precisely because heavily indebted African countries are forced to service their debt burden. African countries have long called for the writing off of the continent's crippling debt. Africa owes foreign creditors $400 billion, and servicing such a debt is causing untold suffering among the African masses. The African People's Caucus at the WTO ministerial meeting in Cancun is expected to make a stand concerning these issues. Drawing attention to Africa's numerous pressing problems at international forums such as the Cancun gathering has become commonplace. What does the rich world make of this then? Most turn a blind eye. Economic growth in Africa has hovered at around 3.5 per cent annually over the last five years, which falls far short of the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) estimate of six to eight per cent needed to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) -- adopted by African and world leaders in 2000. The MDGs include reducing by half the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day by the year 2015. The Africa-based Alternative Information Development Centre called the draft text for the WTO ministerial meeting in Cancun "heavily imbalanced." The critique goes on to say "It takes into account the interests of developed countries but ignores the development needs and developing countries' proposals". African civil society groups are concerned that the half-hearted efforts by wealthier nations to salvage the situation in the poorest countries are achieving precious little. The Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative launched by a handful of the world's wealthiest nations to economically uplift the poorest, most indebted and least developed countries has done little to help alleviate the suffering of the poorest of the poor. Wealthy nations refuse to agree to trade concessions for poor countries which would only be in keeping with the tenets of liberalisation. Instead, they heavily subsidise powerful lobbies at the cost of taxpayers -- and African farmers. US President George W Bush pushed through the so-called farm bill which sharply increased agricultural subsidies by 70 per cent over six years giving an extra $4.8 billion a year to the US agricultural sector. Meanwhile, the US is also imposing steep tariffs on steel imports to protect its crumbling domestic industry. The European Union' common agricultural policy has had a ruinous impact on agricultural production in the developing world, and especially in Africa. In preparations for the Cancun conference, trade representatives from African countries met in June in the Indian Ocean island-nation of Mauritius and issued The Mauritius Declaration which lamented the "lack of transparency and inclusiveness in the WTO negotiations and decision-making processes." The 77-member African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group which includes most of the poorest and least developed countries in the world has had a four decade special relationship with the EU that has yielded few benefits. The ACP nations will continue to press for the waiver from WTO rules of the Cotonou preferential trade agreement between the EU and the ACP. Officials from the ACP group are working hard to ensure that at Cancun, WTO delegates agree on a package of concrete and substantial measures giving developing countries special and preferential treatment. The developing countries urge wealthier nations to implement a set of measures aimed at advancing the interests of the least developed countries (LDCs), granting duty-free and quota free access to LDC products. Civil society groups in Africa are sceptical about the NEPAD, the continental development framework adopted by the Africa's leaders in 2001. NEPAD's hopes are pinned on the African continent attracting a larger share of global capital flows. But, African civil society organisations say that the trickle of foreign investment into Africa is hopelessly inadequate for the continent's development purposes. Civil society groups in developing countries are suspicious of measures such as the Trade.com -- the EU's 50 million euro trade assistance programme aimed at enhancing the capacity of ACP countries to negotiate and implement trade agreements. Development assistance to African countries has plummeted in recent years. Official aid for African agriculture fell from $4 billion to $2.6 billion during the past decade. Capital constraints have emerged as a major barrier to development in Africa. Furthermore, there has been a dismal lack of progress on special and differential treatment for poor countries. The products of poor countries have been systematically denied access to the markets of rich countries. Also, there are institutional barriers that make it difficult for poor countries to sell their products in the markets of rich countries. Examples of the disastrous impact of the forces of globalisation abound. Ghana now imports rice from the US. In the past, before the country implemented IMF policies, Ghana used to grow enough rice to cover domestic demand. Today Ghana has become a net importer of rice and the Ghanaian rice production industry has been destroyed. Once again, representatives of the poor are expected to make a direct appeal to their wealthy counterparts. "You, the richest governments in the world, are among those best placed to provide these resources," United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan told the leaders of the G-8 nations in Evian, France, in July. The same message will no doubt be repeated at Cancun. The question is will the rich care to listen. Drawing lessons from past experiences, it is doubtful that they will.
