Cancun Saw an Historic Shift in
Balance of Power
By
Pramilla Srivastava
Special Correspondent
NEW
YORK: When delegates from a group of 21 developing nations walked
out of the World Trade Organization talks in Cancun, Mexico last
week they were greeted by cheers from a large group of Non-governmental
Organizations representing rural farmers, labor, women, human
rights and humanitarian workers, and environmentalist; who had
worked in close concert with the group to protect the development
agenda promised by rich nations (the developed world), in prior
rounds of talks.
While
the agenda was not fulfilled, neither was it abandoned; and the
group thwarted attempts by the US/EU side to bulldoze the implementation
of a trade regime which would have compromised the livelihood
of millions of farmers throughout the world.
One of the most respected organizations fighting for decades for
the rights of people from the developing world in the areas of
food distribution and sustainable agricultural development is
Food First. Members of the organization worked with the delegates
during the entire conference.
South Asia Tribune spoke with Anuradha Mittal,
from Food First, who has just returned from Cancun,
to gain insight on what took place, and what the implications
are for the poor and farming populations of the world:
Q: Many anti-globalization activists were celebrating
the breakdown of the WTO Meeting. Was this a good or bad development
for the plight of the poor around the world?
No deal is better than a bad deal. What was being put forth was
a bad deal. Led by the Group of 21 nations known as the G21, with
China, India and Brazil at its heart there was an exciting and
historic shift in the balance of power. The US/EU attitude that
we know better was no longer acceptable.
Q: John Richardson, head of the EU delegation, was at
the UN today and said that "we were ready to make concessions
on a broad range of issues. We were ready to cut tariffs, and
for cotton we were ready to cut all forms of export subsidies
as well as open our markets to imports", and added that his
delegation "negotiated in good faith:". Is the Issue
agricultural subsidies or is it much more than that and do you
believe they were negotiating in good faith?
He is lying. Even Pascal Lamy, the European Trade `Commissioner,
said over and over again that he did not have a mandate to promise
that.
Moreover there was a clear consensus amongst member nations that
no new issues be added to the table. More than 80 nations made
that position clear. Yet, the document they put forth had 4 new
issues. This is not negotiating in good faith .As well, at the
start of the meeting the WTO director general said that there
would be no green room process. But it was not long before several
nations were pulled aside for a "green room" conference.
When talks failed to progress they began calling country capitals,
threatened to cut off aid, and tried other such tactics. And that
is what they call "good faith"! They gave us no timeline;
they agreed to no numbers. They only wanted to agree to a framework.
The notion of consensus was just rhetoric; it was the same old
tactics we've seen before.
Q:
Can you explain more about the Green Room and what took place
there this past weekend?
26
countries were negotiating openly and in good faith when suddenly
it was reduced to 9 countries, who were pulled aside to negotiate
privately on behalf of the larger group. They were putting a lot
of pressure on China, Chile and Mexico. They threatened to cut
aid; but they did the same thing in DOHA.
It's
the same arrogant motto used in its War on Terrorism,"you’re
either with us or against us." Robert Zoellick, the US trade
representative sounded the intention of the US to bypass the
WTO entirely and instead forge ahead with regional and bilateral
agreements. Charles E. Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee, declared that the US would "take note of those
nations that played a constructive role in Cancun, and those nations
that didn't," - punishing and rewarding as necessary. This
arrogance only further aggravate the developing countries resistance
against what was regarded as the quest for empire.
Q: Why were developing nations upset by the draft proposal
on new issues, specifically new rules on foreign investment and
transparency on government procurement?
For one thing there was a mandate by consensus already established
that no new issues should be put forth. But on the issue of foreign
investment for example, it is precisely because of India's investment
policy that it was able to avert fall out from the Asian Financial
Crisis.
Q: Can you explain this?
What I meant is that that the bilateral trade agreements between
the US and Chile and Singapore, challenge capital controls, a
policy which helped many countries escape the Asian financial
crisis.
Q:
What kind of role did India play in the talks? Should we be commending
the government or demanding more?
Definitely India should be applauded. It played an incredible
role and formed the heart of the alliance. And, India had to play
an important role. Over 70 million of its people are individual
rural farmers; it is the 3rd largest producer of food in the world;
and it represents more than a billion mostly poor people. However,
India's policies still favor the larger farmers who represent
cash crop industries so the benefits will not trickle down to
the smallest and poorest rural farmers. So there is still work
to be done within India to address the need of a meaningful livelihood
for the small farmer,.. But India does understand the plight of
its farmers. 60 million tons of food rotted last year because
it could not find export markets; and 2 million Indian farmers
are displaced every year from there land. So India finally took
a stand.
Q:
Is the answer reform of the WTO or withdrawal and is that a viable
option for developing nation?. Whose interest would a breakdown
of the WTO serve in the long run?
Reform is the wrong agenda for the WTO. I would argue that it
should be completely dismantled. It is inherently unequal. Especially
in the area of agricultural trade there should be bilateral and
regional agreements between equal economies. This is the only
thing that makes sense to preserve sustainable development and
farming sovereignty. The current trade regime has made the developing
world into an exotic fruit basket and dumping ground. This model
is clearly not working. NAFTA for example promised to add 250,000
jobs to the US economy. Since its implementation the US has lost
more than 2 million jobs. In the US the individual farmer only
makes 13% of his income from farming. The rest of his livelihood
comes from 2nd and 3rd jobs.
Q: Many in the US and EU have referred to the G21 as a
new negotiating dynamic. How is it likely to change the political
and economic realities of the world?
While this represents a historic shift in the balance of power
in the world it is important to bolster the capacity of poor nations
to negotiate. The group represents a majority of the world. It
is a group which is pro global social justice, pro democracy,
pro workers, pro human rights and pro women rights. We celebrate
the G21, but we have to remember that its an alliance and much
still needs to be done. We have to work on establishing a small-farmer
orientated agenda.
Q:
Did the War on Iraq have any affect on the mood of the group?
Definitely the Iraq war had a big impact. Many nations were fed
up with US unilateralism. They remained unified amongst threats
of punishment promises of rewards. The US is also playing off
differences with EU, trying to blame it for the breakdown; but
what's really happening is that colonial powers are fighting amongst
themselves.
Q: I also want to go back again to repercussions from
Cancun. Did you get a sense that members of G21 were in any way
intimidated by US threats to move ahead with bilateral agreements?
Are there any weak links in the group? What will happen if US
carries out its threats to cut aid and isolate specific countries?
Most developing country governments came to Cancun with a defensive
stance. The big challenge was not that of forging a historic New
Deal but that of preventing the US and the EU from imposing new
demands on the developing countries while escaping any multilateral
disciplines on their trade regimes. The Group of 21 represents
more than half of the world's population and two-thirds of its
farmers, and stalemated the EU and US pushed for further liberalization
to suit their corporate interests.
US
trade negotiators were right in discerning that the Group of 21
represented a resumption of the South's push for a "new international
economic order" in the 1970s. Sure the countries in the grouping
will come under US pressure and threats--like they did in Cancun.
However, with the changed dynamics and building support for the
coalition, Cancun offers a lesson - strong arm tactics, that might
have worked in the past for the US and the EU, are not going
to work any more.
The
walk out demonstrates that poor nations agree on one principle:
No agreement is better than a bad agreement!
Q: Also can you respond to one school of thought which
argues that although WTO was designed to serve the interests of
the US/EU, now that there is no longer a balance of power, in
a unipolar political reality the US no longer needs multilateral
institutions such as UN WTO and World Bank, which it now sees
as interfering with its interest and is therefore proactively
trying to undermine them. That the crisis at the UN and WTO are
part and parcel of a larger US strategy to dismantle all multilateral
constraints.
The United States is isolated in its unilateral approach and the
growing resentment against its "Empire Building" tactics
backfired in Cancun. Its policy of "Open Invasion: Open Markets"
is being questioned and dissent is growing in the Third World.
It is failing to persuade people to join "globalization"
when it has failed to join the global community by ignoring every
human rights treaty, every environmental treaty, the International
Criminal Court. So the failure of Cancun is not a part of US strategy,
but instead, the unraveling of the US hegemonic power.
