(The pursuit of economic power)
From: Sakuntala Narasimhan, sakunara@vsnl.net
As I write, ministers and VIP delegates from 142 countries are about to sit down to a new round of talks and negotiations under the WTO (World Trade Organisation) at Doha. The earlier rounds of talks, at Seattle and Prague, generated unprecedented demonstrations of protests against attempts that an increasing number of non-partisan observers around the world are describing as "retrograde" and highly detrimental to the interests of the developing regions of the world.
The fact that the terms being thrust by the rich countries (led by the US) on poorer nations, will benefit mainly the former, at the expense of the latter, has been widely publicized and discussed. The US is seeking bigger markets for its products (ranging from sophisticated arms to farm produce to children's toys) , and looks upon the developing countries as potential buyers, and is aggressively pushing for access to these markets at terms that favour the US rather than the buyer-nations. At the same time, access to US markets, is being denied to developing countries, so that they may not compete with domestic products (Indian garment exports, for instance, were rejected last year, while Japanese car manufacturers have had a long battle about the American government's hostility to Japanese exports (even though the buying public prefers Japanese brands as 'superior'). All these details are known, but what comes as an eye-opener as the Doha meeting begins, is not merely American double standards, but the fact that even the terrorist attacks of September 11 are being seen as "useful tools" for tightening the screws on the poorer countries, for agreeing to terms that they are all very reluctant to sign on. This 'milking;' of the terrorist attack for commercial gain, has not been spotlighted yet, in the global mainstream media.
This is how one commentator (a reputed American pro-globalisation proponent) quoted by the International Forum on Globalisation puts it - "There is one way to enhance confidence in the future of an open economy (construed unilaterally by the US, as freedom for American goods to sell everywhere around the world, without hindrance, without reciprocal freedoms for other countries to sell in the US). (This would be to) agree on a new round of multilateral trade negotiations at Doha. The chances of success have been enhanced by this tragedy. Could Congress fail to grant the president a trade negotiating authority if it was presented as a way to strengthen the global cooperation and open international economy that the World Trade Centre so powerfully symbolized ? Could any other country refuse to enter into a round promoted by an internationally engaged US? Could anyone miss the symbolism of a global trade round launched in a Muslim country?" Language like this, the anti-globalisation activists warn us, should make us worried. "This is how they will bleed every single advantage out of a terrorist attack. The cause of corporate globalisation will march forward but now in the name of peace and freedom", the activists add.
What the WTO terms seek, is unbridled monopoly for US firms, especially agri-business and industries - American wheat and corn and apples, to be available for sale in Indian markets. But does the buyer-public, which slavers over the chance to eat corn flakes "like the Americans do", know the true details behind those attractive packets on our market shelves and the colourful ads on hoardings and television breaks?
The US farmer is able to sell at competitively low rates, not so much because he is more efficient but because his government bails him out with massive subsidies - the US government distributed $ 28 billion in direct payments to farmers last year. The top one percent of farmers in Montana state, for instance, received $ 616,000 each, on average, from the government, and the top 10 percent received $ 308,000. Nationwide, 1.6 million farmers will receive this year, on average, over $ 280,000 each, from various payments. They cannot sell it all unless they dump it on other nations. How dare India, then, refuse entry? Juxtapose this with the recent spate of suicides of Indian farmers and you get a general picture of the realities of what is going on. Add to this the chicanery of multinational seed companies that sell 'improved' seeds to Third World farmers promising higher yields (a fact proved fallacious) ,then selling them more pesticides to 'protect' the crops, giving them loans for purchasing pesticide when they cannot afford it, then driving them to suicide when the crops fail, the pesticide proves sub-standard, and the loan burden becomes crushing that there is no way out. No government can match the US government in the size of subsidies to the farm sector ; besides, under World Bank pressures and the policies of "Structural Adjustment" (now increasingly being condemned in many Third World countries), even existing subsidies are being cut, so that the Indian farmer is actually (and literally) being bled to death by the 'opening up of markets' to American interests and imports. Secretary of State Colin Powell has gone on record saying that "pursuing regional trade agreements would be a key part of achieving the Bush administration's goal to open up world trade markets". Globalisation has, in the ten years since its inception, increased rather than reduced poverty in Asia and Africa.
The nineteenth century saw political and geographical colonisation by a few countries of the west, while the latter half of the twentieth saw the dismantling of most of this imperialist rule. What the new millennium is seeing, is economic imperialism, ("Recolonisation of the Third World", as one faction puts it) with markets and powerful transnational companies (some of which have budgets larger than nation states') ruling the economies (and twisting the political-economic decision-making processes in Third World countries through clout) of developing countries. "Corporate money determines national policies and foreign policies," says Walden Bellow, one of the leading spokespersons of the anti-globalisation movement around the world. Modern multinationals are, he adds, "heirs to the East India Company". What that means, history has recorded only too well.
Development means access to drinking water to everybody - instead what we are seeing is bottled water (several brands, including 'imported' ones) slowly taking a bigger share of the market, while the poor by the thousands continue to scrape the bottoms of dried-up wells. The "water market" is estimated to be worth one trillion dollars per year - that is a lot of money, to let go! Fancy salt brands, sugar, rice, edible oil, skimmed milk powder, you name it, there is a multinational waiting to grab a piece of the profits cake.
What happened to the "fundamental rights" enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights and related charters? India is now the "largest country where health authorities are complaining of bio-engineered food donations from overseas" (this includes donations brought in by CARE). American bio-engineered crops are being fought and banned vigorously, by Japan, Europe and several countries around the globe. Being poor, Third World countries become dumping grounds for produce that is not good enough for domestic consumption. Corporations contributed handsomely to the presidential elections this time, and we now have a government for and by US corporations, (the greatest good for a small number of the powerfully wealthy) says an American academic who disapproves of the ethical underpinnings of WTO.
"This is the global equivalent of dropping a mouldy piece of bread into the bowl of a roadside beggar," says an outraged activist. Consumer activist Ralph Nader calls it "trade uber alles - corporate trade above equity and justice". Minister Murasoli Maran has also expressed his opposition to the terms being pursued by the US - but what really exposes the unethical dimensions is the perception of even the terrorist attack as a means of putting pressure on the poorer nations.
Never in human history, was money so crassly the goal, the driving force for social-international policy and the bludgeon to outdo all other weapons of dominance.
Sakuntala Narasimhan, 217 block 3, 27th cross, Jayanagar, Bangalore 560011:
