Global Policy Forum

By Gumisai Mutume

In the countdown to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund annual meetings, Bank president James Wolfensohn has fired a broadside at non-governmental groups doggedly opposed to globalisation and those persistently opposing his organisation's programmes.

Speaking in Washington ahead of the Sep. 19-28 World Bank and IMF annual meetings to be held in the Czech Republic, Wolfensohn said while he does not expect NGO endorsement all the time, he expects some form of acknowledgement for the positive work that the Bank is doing about poverty reduction.

He says while "every president of every African country supported the Chad-Cameroon pipeline", northern NGOs doggedly opposed it. The 3.5-billion-dollar Chad-Cameroon petroleum and pipeline development project to be constructed by a consortium of oil companies including Chevron and Exxon-Mobil, with Bank assistance, is one of the more controversial projects the Bank has approved this year.

"I have 1,000 Africans working at the Bank, who unanimously support the Chad-Cameroon pipeline. And I vigorously support the Chad-Cameroon pipeline. "This is not for people in Berkeley to decide (referring to Northern NGOs). This is for people in Chad to decide. And I think it's important that we have a proper balance between the Berkeley mafia and the Chadians, and I for my part, am more interested in the Chadians."

Non-governmental groups have opposed the project for more than 10 years citing various flaws in environmental assessments, the mode of sharing revenue with indigenous communities and inadequate consultation with those affected. Wolfensohn says the project will bring in billions of dollars in investments to the world's poorest nation.

But the Bank and the IMF are not very popular these days. In April they drew nearly 6,000 street protestors to what had traditionally been quiet annual Spring meetings of the boards of the institutions in Washington.

This month some 18,000 Bank and Fund delegates, including government officials descend on the Czech capital, Prague for the institutions' annual meetings. An equally large number of street protestors are expected in one of Europe's most beautiful cities, to spoil the party.

The chorus of criticism of the Fund and Bank heightened this year with calls even in the US Congress to curtail the institutions' reach in developing countries. Other critics charge that in many instances the Bretton Woods bodies have not been able to reduce global poverty.

Recently the US Congress voted in favour of a provision, effective 2002, to pressure the World Bank and IMF to stop requiring that impoverished countries charge their people user fees for primary health services and primary education. This has long been one of the most controversial features of the austerity programmes mandated by the IMF and World Bank.

According to Njoki Njoki Njoroge Njehu, director of the 50 Years is Enough Campaign, "We do not want to raise another generation on promises from the IMF and World Bank that the sacrifice of their education and health will be 'short-term pain for long-term gain."

The UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) reports that in Malawi, the elimination of modest school fees and uniform requirements in 1994 caused primary school enrolment to increase by about 50 percent virtually overnight from 1.9 million to 2.9 million. The main beneficiaries were girls and since then, Malawi has been able to maintain near full enrolment.

Convinced that the Bank is doing more harm than good in developing countries a coalition of civic movements including the Alliance for Global Justice, Rainforest Action Network, Nicaragua Network and the Mexico Solidarity Network are calling on global citizens to confront union-busting employers in their communities. They also urge people to protest privatisation, hold forums on debt cancellation and lobby investors to stop purchasing World Bank bonds.

As a condition of lending money to poor countries, the Bank and the IMF often demand that governments privatise state-run enterprises such as universities, hospitals, water and light and power companies.

"In Bolivia, last year, a World Bank loan encouraged the government to privatise the water system, which tripled water rates and water became unaffordable for many families," notes the group's 'Call to Action', lobbying for support for mass action in Prague on Sep. 26. Workers, students, community and indigenous groups have been lobbying to have the decision reversed.

Before NGOs and Bank officials clash on the streets of Prague, they will have an opportunity to exchange views at a dialogue planned by Czech president Vaclav Havel. Some 300 NGO representatives have been invited to meet with Bank and IMF officials at a summit to be held prior to the annual meetings.

Mamphela Ramphele, a veteran of the South African anti-apartheid struggle who recently joined the Bank as managing director, notes that it is ironic that those who will protest against globalisation in Prague are the same people who take advantage of the shrinking globe.

"It is a really interesting irony, because it is precisely because of globalisation that we now have this NGO movement that can take up issues in Russia, China, Chad, South Africa, everywhere, which is a good thing. And it ought to be a good thing to also use globalisation for poverty reduction."

In other less hostile situations the Bank says it has 64 representatives on the ground working with NGOs and some 50 percent of the Bank's projects are now done with NGO participation.

Beyond the skirmishes, however, remains the daunting challenge facing development workers in both camps - how to curb the rising figures of poverty. In 25 years, another 2 billion people will be added to the planet and nearly all - 97 percent of the new additions - will be in developing countries.

"I wish that we could sit down and debate it, and not call each other names, because it's not going to bring change for Africa and it's not going to bring change for Asia," says Wolfensohn.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.