After More WTO Bullying Green
Groups Call for Re-Localization
of Global Economy

Tribune 23rd November 2001

Turn round an unequal world

Caroline Lucas, a Green Party Member of Parliament (MEP) from the UK,
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 denounce 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

--

Chris Keene, Coordinator, Anti-Globalisation Network

90 The Parkway, Canvey Island, Essex SS8 0AE, England

Tel 01268 682820 Fax 01268 514164