Trade

By Irfan Mufti, GCAP Campaign Manager

Globalisation has become a dominant form of pursuing goals of human development in the new world order. Some of the more euphoric admirers of globalisation describe it as a unique phenomenon, which has decoupled space and time and made cultural, economic and social barriers almost redundant. Others consider globalisation as primarily an economic occurrence, which implies the increasing interaction, or integration, of national economic systems through the growth in international trade, investment and capital flows. The process also implies a much broader process of restructuring political economies and diverse cultures into a monolithic entity.

Among many traits of globalisation there is a form of increasing consumerism and the growing power of capital to exert control over production processes. As capital has become more mobile, governments around the developing world are being compelled towards austerity in order to provide a low inflation investment climate to attract investors. It is increasingly difficult to use fiscal and monetary policies to combat higher unemployment or engage in public spending. Subsequently one sees reductions in taxes on capital gains and profits, a movement away from progressive taxes and a steady removal of financial regulations across much of the developing world.

The increasing flexibility of production processes has enabled multinationals to shift the most burdensome and least rewarding of these processes to developing countries. Trade has not really increased the incomes of the people in the world's 50 least developed countries - many of whom are surviving on less than $1 a day, half the level of subsidy given to European Union cows. A pessimistic forecast predicts that the number of people in the least developed countries living in absolute poverty, or less than $1 a day, would rise to 471 million in 2015 from the current figure of 334 million. UNDP estimates that the world's 225 billionaires have a combined wealth equal to the annual income of 47 of the poorest countries, with a combined population of 2.5 billion people.  IMF and World Bank studies provide other statistics linking liberalisation with increasing global growth. It is differing value judgments in measuring inequality underlying conflicting factual claims about how much poor people have shared the economic gains of globalisation. Though there are differeing views to which they care about relative inequality versus absolute inequality, vertical inequalities versus horizontal inequalities. The two sides in this debate do not share similar values about what constitutes a just distribution of gains from the corporate globalisation.

The economic legacies of two decades of market-driven adjustment packages are a weak investment climate, premature de-industrialisation and erratic growth, in many cases at or below population growth. Many developing countries have experienced slippages in their human development indicators in their efforts to embrace globalisation. Poor economics has had its most damaging impact on Africa, which has experienced a drop in the share of world exports from 6% in 1980 to 2% in 2002.  But far from resisting globalisation, Africa has posted the highest trade to GDP ratio of any region outside East Asia. The problem here is that Africa's growth depends on one or two primary commodities whose prices have seen a persistent decline.

The World Bank estimates medium-term welfare gains from liberalising all trade, as between $250 billion to $550 billion; one-third to two-third of these gains would accrue to the developing countries. However, such an estimate also encounters a great deal of scepticism. Luis Fernando Jaramillo, former Chairman of the Group of 77, estimates that the developing countries with more than a two-third majority in the WTO would have only 30% of the additional income to share among themselves, and they are the countries conceding the most during the Uruguay Round negotiations.  Particularly in the case of agriculture, production subsidies in developed countries depress international prices thus reducing the export revenues for developing countries. As a result of trade liberalisation in the agriculture sector, out of the total welfare gains of $122 billion only $11.6 billion will go to the developing countries, which comprise two-third of the WTO members, while $110 billion would go to the developed countries themselves.  Hence, market access has emerged as a major concern for developing countries.    Analysts and development thinkers fear that as tariffs are reduced under the WTO regime, it will lead to the inflow of cheaper products and local products in developing countries; with higher costs of unit production in agriculture and industrial sectors will be unable to compete with cheaper imports.

The poverty today has a woman’s face. Of the 1.3 billion people living in poverty, 70 percent are women. Women produce a staggering 60% of all food, run 70% of small-scale businesses and make up a third of the official labour force – in addition to caring for families and homes.  We are witnessing today that poverty is more deep-rooted for women. Exclusion are actively produced and reproduced by specific processes of production and market engagement make it an imperative for us all to address the processes of impoverishment in general and, feminized impoverishment, in particular. Feminization of poverty is a dynamic process of social exclusion and marginalization that operates differentially among women and men, involving discrimination, denial, and violation of human rights leading to deprivation and vulnerability to risks and difficulties for women.

There is considerable consensus across the world that globalisation in the form of trade liberalisation is systematically reducing women’s participation in economic activities as well as their control over resources and decision making at the community and family level. This trend is said to have particularly grave consequences in developing countries with traditional social structures.

For more information on GCAP, see wwwwhiteband.org.

 “Take the first step in faith. You don’t have to see the whole staircase, just take the first step”                                      

Martin Luther King jnr

The Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP) decided in Beirut in March 2006 to continue its work. Policy demands contained in the Johannesburg statement were confirmed in Beirut, with an emphasis on national accountability. Indeed, the issue of governance was brought to the fore and campaigners from the South and the North mentioned the importance of dealing with governance in their countries while also tackling global issues of debt, trade and aid. The decision was taken to keep our global policy messages at a broad and inclusive level in order to incorporate diverse sections of civil society at the global level. However, at the regional, national and local levels, more clearly focused and detailed policy constructions and messages targeting national governments and national change agendas are necessary.

We see now GCAP coalitions developing their demands and messages, based on the broad policy framework of the Beirut Declaration.

National platforms have increased from only 15 in January 2005 to approximately 115 in September 2006.  The formation of autonomous national platforms was part of the plan, building at the national level on existing organizations and networks, based on their own national concerns and contexts. The process of building a global campaign based on national coalitions and networks is very much a process in the making. The potential for building on existing coalitions, networks and organizations, of mobilization, varies by region and country depending on the political environment, the existence or strength of NGOs and existing coalitions and networks.

New partners are coming on board every week. Since there were less global events this year, coalitions focused on their own calendar, and respond to social and economic justice needs. The G20 was meeting in Australia, and Make Poverty History (MPH) Australia has been acting and supporting the involvement of other coalitions concerned, such as the South-African coalition. Hopefully, the actions promoted by MPH Australia will inspire follow up in South Africa in 2007. Equally, the Japanese coalition was involved in the civil society preparations for the G8 in Germany, as Japan will host the 2008 G8.

The way the campaign operates is therefore changing. GCAP 2006 is less driven by global events. The emphasis is on national demands and activities. GCAP campaigners support each other and national coalitions by sharing experiences, best practices, knowledge, analysis, materials and tools.  As a consequence, the 2005 International Facilitation Group became the International Facilitation Team (IFT), in which all regions are represented.  It took time to establish this international steering committee, but it is now fully operational; its members voice concerns, actions, from all parts of the world. The IFT represents national coalitions, international organisations, youth and children, workers and religious constituencies. Similar structures were established at the regional level, with the Asian, African and Latin American Facilitation Teams.

Where Are We Coming From?

GCAP was initiated as an international alliance of organizations, networks and national campaigns to pressure world leaders to act on poverty and hold them accountable for commitments they have made regarding debt, trade and aid.  It was conceived as a direct response to the opportunity (and challenge) presented by the congruence of three major international events to take place in one year, 2005. GCAP’s demands set forth in the Johannesburg Statement, adopted by consensus of 60-70 diverse organizations called broadly for eradication of poverty, trade justice, debt cancellation, significant increase in the quantity and quality of aid, and national efforts to eliminate poverty, with achievement of the MDGs as a first step.  GCAP’s goals were and are by necessity broad, to accommodate the very wide spectrum of viewpoints expressed by those present. Given accountability of representatives to their own organizational constituencies, the construction of a statement broad enough to encompass the whole, yet sharp enough to present an effective policy and lobbying platform meant that the consensus was a fragile one, and its maintenance a key challenge.

Justice delayed is justice denied

“First, was the realisation that there is a huge gap between the rhetoric of working to make the world a just place and the reality of implementation, particularly from those that wield immense power. So while we acknowledge the progress made every day in the lives of ordinary people around the world as a result of action taken by ordinary citizens for the public good, we must also acknowledge that ‘justice delayed is justice denied’’

An assessment of achievements reached in the course of 2005/2006 in relationship to the goals of the Johannesburg Statement would need a close monitoring. Multilateral debt write off, commitment to the largest single ODA increase ever, reduction of export subsidies by 1 billion/euros/year by 2013, and other gains made at the three international fora must be limited by the conditions attached to them. Above all these include forced expansion of liberalization and privatization, leading to erosion of public services and greater impoverishment.

Some gains were made in the area of gender equality through extensive collaboration among women’s groups.  The GCAP Feminist Task Force contributes to a growing recognition of the interrelationship of issues, help reconsidering the Johannesburg Statement, making stronger connections between issues of debt, aid and trades and the complex web of other human rights and social development issues.

While it is difficult to measure the policy impact of GCAP, there were some notable achievements in terms of constituency building.  The value of the various planned activities, concerts, stunts, demonstrations, lobbying, etc. was thought to be in their combination, rather than one or another singled out.  Some of the achievements were the increased mobilization with synergy created by the combination of high profile activities: concerts, stunts, demonstrations, march, etc., and the extensive global recognition of the white band, to symbolize a growing global social movement around issues of poverty. The political influence with elected political officials and leaders made possible by the mass mobilization, and the recognition and respect for GCAP in international fora, with space created for civil society input, e.g. the GA Informal Interactive Hearings. Finally, GCAP supporters wrote valuable MDG shadow reports, produced useful tool kits and information materials and established new and productive working relationships

A Global Call and a Modern Campaign

Some associations and partnerships have influenced the way in which GCAP is perceived, both to its benefit and its detriment.  Some saw GCAP as focusing on high visibility to the detriment of grass-roots mobilisation. At the same time, building on existing coalitions is central to GCAP’s strategy.  All our efforts this year were directed to dovetail with existing mobilizations and movements in order to gain support and achieve widespread mobilization. The need to create effective ties to national entities of such international bodies as the ITUC, and faith-based organizations operating at the local level has begun, with emphasis shifting from global fora and events to the regions and national platforms. 

Is this Global Call a Modern Campaign? Definitely, as the emblem of the campaign –the white band- and its national variations are in itself very appealing to the youth constituencies. GCAP uses a combination of actions: lobby work at the UN, the EU the AU and at government levels; evidence based advocacy with the public presentations of MDG shadow reports; media work and celebrity support, stunts, concerts; traditional marches, vigils and pickets; but also online campaigning, e-action using email, sms, faxes.

2006 Month of Mobilisation

The Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP) Month of Mobilisation 2006 was launched on September 16.  Coinciding with the World Bank (WB) / International Monetary Fund (IMF) Annual Meetings, the launch aimed to highlight the harmful impact of World Bank and IMF policies on poor countries. Under the slogan of ‘We Must Have a Voice’,  GCAP highlighted the role the IMF and World Bank play in restricting the ‘voice’ of poor countries in determining their own economic policies, as well as highlighting the lack of ‘voice’ that poor countries have in the way the two institutions are governed. 

The Month of mobilisation culminated with the Stand Up against poverty event: between 11am on Sunday 15 October and 11am on Monday 16 October, 23,5 millions  people from all over the world stood up against poverty. They rose from sitting or kneeling to a standing position for one minute, while someone read a STAND UP pledge.

Will GCAP Make History?

GCAP did not make poverty history in 2005, but GCAP is truly based on the amazing efforts done by all the existing anti-poverty campaigns of the world. GCAP might make history by connecting CSOs and supporting their engagement with decision-makers at all level. If one should recognize that GCAP remains a fragile alliance, we see CSOs getting together and developing common actions and demands, based on the Beirut Platform. Some are using GCAP outreach to showcase their specific and unique experience and knowledge. Most of us know that CSOs are essential in the difficult exercise of “localising the MDGs” and of the promotion of the UN agreed goals.

There is an emergency. The crisis of poverty and inequality has reached an unbelievable scale. Over thirty thousand children are dying every single day just because they don’t have clean water, enough food or the most basic of medicines. More people have died from extreme poverty in the last ten years, than all of the wars of the 20^th century put together. And the most tragic thing about all of these deaths is that we can afford to stop them. The world has never been richer, yet we have never left so many to die. For all civil society and members of the public, GCAP is your call to get involved and show the world that we are a strong voice that cannot be ignored.

IFT Support team at CIVICUS - January 2007

CIVICUS provides support to the GCAP International Facilitation Team, with a small team, based in Johannesburg, South Africa. One of CIVICUS’ overall goals is to work towards breaking down barriers to effective collaboration within civil society. The MDGs initiative allows for the possibility to achieve this goal. Engaging around the MDG campaign will boost civil society’s capacity to engage national governments and intergovernmental bodies, while increasing their collective experiential knowledge of the politics and operational dynamics of engagement with governing institutions.