Rich keep the poor just where they want them
by George Monbiot The EU is keeping the poorer nations exactly where it
wants them: beholden to their patrons.
REJOICE! the world is saved! The Governments of Europe have agreed
that by 2015 they will give 0.7 per cent of their national income in
foreign aid. Admittedly, that is 35 years after the target date they
first set for themselves, and it is still less than they extract from
the poor in debt repayments. But hooray anyway.
Though he does not become president of the EU until later this year,
Tony Blair can take some of the credit, for his insistence that the G8
summit in July makes poverty history. It is inspiring, until you
understand the context.
Everyone who has studied global poverty - including European
governments - recognises that aid cannot compensate for unfair terms of
trade.
If they increased their share of world exports by five per cent,
developing countries would earn an extra $350 billion a year, three
times more than they will be given in 2015. Any government that wanted
to help developing nations would surely make the terms of trade between
rich and poor its priority.
This, indeed, is what the U.K. appears to have done. In March it
published the most progressive foreign policy document ever to have
escaped from London. A paper by the U.K. Departments of Trade and
International Development promised that: "We will not force trade
liberalisation on developing countries." It recognised that a policy
that insists on equal terms for rich and poor is like pitting a bull
mastiff against a chihuahua. Unless a country can first build up its
industries behind protectionist barriers, it will be destroyed by free
trade.
Almost every nation that is rich today, including the U.K. and the
U.S., used this strategy. But the current rules forbid the poor from
following them. The EU, the paper insisted, should, while opening its
own markets, allow poor nations "20 years or more" to open theirs.
But two weeks ago the Guardian newspaper obtained a leaked letter
showing that the European Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, was
undermining the U.K.'s new policies. His most senior official complained
that the policy document was "a major and unwelcome shift ... Mandelson
is taking up our concerns and will press for a revised UK line." Double
game
We are being asked to believe, in other words, that a man who owes
his entire political career to Mr. Blair, and who has repaid him with
nauseating sycophancy, was conspiring to destroy his cherished policy.
It does not look likely, and it does not take a great imaginative
effort to see a double game being played. Before the election, Mr. Blair
makes one of his tear-jerking appeals for love, compassion and human
fellowship, and gets the anti-poverty movement off his back. After the
election he discovers, to his inestimable regret, that love, compassion
and human fellowship won't after all be possible, as a result of a
ruling by the European Commission.
This outcome was predicted by the World Development Movement when the
remarkable paper was published in March. "Time will tell if the U.K. ...
will put real political capital into this announcement, or if they will
hide behind the European commission and claim inability to affect the
negotiations."
The idea that Mr. Blair had no more intention of introducing fair
terms of trade than I have of becoming a Catholic priest gains credence
from the U.K.'s support for the bid by Pascal Lamy, Mr. Mandelson's
predecessor, to become head of the World Trade Organisation - a post he
won on recently. Making Mr. Lamy head of the WTO is as mad as making,
say, Paul Wolfowitz ... er, satire doesn't really seem to work any more.
Everyone seems to have forgotten that Mr. Lamy was the man who
destroyed the world trade talks in Mexico in September 2003. He tried to
force through new rules on investment, competition and procurement,
which would have allowed corporations to dictate terms to the poor
world's governments. He persisted with this policy even when he had lost
the support of European governments, and when it became obvious that his
position would force the poorer nations to pull out. For cynics like me,
it was not hard to see why.
For the first time in the WTO's history, the poor nations were making
effective use of collective bargaining and demanding major concessions
from the rich. By destroying the talks, Mr. Lamy prevented a fairer
trading regime from being introduced. He left the rich countries free to
strike individual treaties with their weaker trading partners. And the
U.K. and the rest of Europe hid behind him. Continued exploitation
So the poor world is going to need the extra aid, in 2015 and far
beyond. This means that it will remain obedient to the demands of
countries with an interest in its continued exploitation. Those demands
have done more than anything else to hold it down. As the World Bank's
own figures show, across the 20 years (1960-80) before it and the IMF
started introducing strict conditions on the countries that accepted
their loans, median annual growth in developing countries was 2.5 per
cent. In the 18 years after (1980-1998), it was 0.0 per cent.
The British Government has made its own contribution to the poor
world's misery by tying aid disbursements to the privatisation of
essential public services. It has been paying the Adam Smith Institute,
a rightwing lobby group, up to nine million a year to oversee
privatisation programmes in developing countries.
Tanzania pulled out of a deal the British Government had rigged up
for the British company Biwater to privatise water supplies in Dar es
Salaam.
While using the right language and flattering their critics, the U.K.
and the EU are keeping the poorer nations where they want them: beholden
to their patrons. Suddenly, an increase in aid doesn't look like such
good news after all.
(Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004) |