Global Policy Forum

By Mark Curtis

Is the emerging global coalition with or against eradicating poverty? Mark Curtis, Christian Aid's Head of Policy, fears that in the aftermath of September 11, the 'with or against' edict may result in policies that further harm poor people.

Tony Blair was right to tell his party conference that 'interdependence defines the new world we live in' and that 'only the moral power of a world acting as a community' can solve global problems. But the crucial question is whether countries like the UK are prepared to make the drastic changes needed to create a new world order.

President Bush's 'you are either with us or against us' edict, issued after the tragic events of September 11, has quickly cross-pollinated from the battlefield against terrorism to a much broader global arena. If this is the beginning of a massive new global push to eradicate poverty and the causes of poverty, then Christian Aid welcomes it with a passion. But if it becomes a new way to impose the economic will of rich countries on poor countries, which are weakening even further as the global economy falters, it must be resisted.

Almost two months to the day after the attack on the US, world leaders gather for high-level summitry at the World Trade Organisation meeting in Qatar. This could be the moment where the world stops and thinks about the impact of global trade on poor people. But the likelihood is that the opportunity will be missed. Already, supporters of trade liberalisation are lining up to say that now more than ever, the push for universal free trade must go on. Any opposing or critical view is seen by these ideologues as somehow heretical: you are either with us or against us.

But before trade agreements are pushed any further, we must urgently take stock of their impact on poor people. Most developing countries are opposed to be adding new issues like investment and procurement to the WTO's agenda. The UN's Sub-commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights has called the WTO 'a veritable nightmare' for developing countries and has called for a 'radical review' of trade policy. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has referred to the WTO's agreement on intellectual property as the 'silent theft' of resources from developing countries.

The UNDP has said that the current impact of trade liberalisation on poverty and food security must be rigorously assessed before pushing ahead with more of the same. Governments made a solemn promise during the Uruguay round trade agreement to assess the impact of trade liberalisation on poverty – they have yet to deliver on this. In Doha, it is incumbent on them to honour this promise and call in the evidence. In Christian Aid's experience, this is likely to show that while globalisation has brought some benefits to the few, it has not brought a better future to almost half the world's population.

Trade offers massive opportunities for reducing poverty, but the potential is often a world away from the outcome. The stories of many poor people show how harmful the current global trading system can be. Many rice farmers in Haiti, for instance, have had their livelihoods virtually wiped out by imports of rice from the USA – cheap because US rice farmers are heavily subsidised. The incredible truth is that while countries like Haiti are restricted by the WTO agreements in how much they can protect their own agriculture, subsidies paid to farmers in the USA and EU are actually on the increase.

The poorest countries will suffer far more than the rich from the downturn in the world economy which the tragic events of September 11 have accelerated. Commodity prices, already at a 30-year low, have fallen still further. Yet many governments, such as the UK and USA, continue to encourage poor countries to implement policies of wholesale trade liberalisation. Poor countries must have the right to choose their own path to development and to put in place what they believe will best address poverty and minimise risk. The thrust of the WTO's trade strategy is to reduce their ability to make such choices for themselves.

Uganda is often posited as a good example of trade liberalisation in action. There have been some short-term gains and levels of poverty have fallen. But Uganda is now wide open to the shocks as well as the spoils of the global economy. So as the price of coffee, Uganda's main export, plummets, its economy has been poleaxed and any development gains put at risk. The money committed to spending on schools and hospitals is threatened and individual cash-crop coffee farmers are slipping back to subsistence level.

As the WTO summit, one critical issue has been left off the agenda – the regulation of transnational corporations. The World Bank's chief trade economist has said that 'the dynamic behind the WTO process has been the export interests of major enterprises in the advanced trading countries.' Indeed WTO agreements bring most advantages to rich countries and to the big corporations based in them. Although poor countries can gain from investment by foreign businesses, in some cases, TNCs abuse poor people's human rights, undermine labour standards and use their market power to overwhelm local enterprise.

Holding a meeting about global trade without discussing the power of TNCs is like talking about malaria without mentioning the mosquito. Voluntary codes of conduct are insufficient – it is vital that the issue of legally-binding regulation is debated. Companies – just like countries and individuals – must conform to ethical practice. Christian Aid's view is that a Global Regulation Authority is needed to support national corporate legislation.

Mr Blair's speech gives some cause for optimism. However, if the world is to be reordered, it must not be according to a 'with or against us' mantra where wealthy countries stiffen their resolve to impose more of their ideas on the poor. Instead, the world must be prepared to put poverty eradication at the heart of trade rules and start listening to the voices of poor people themselves. Globalisation must be with them – rather than against them.

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 § 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.