Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 4 • Number 2 • 6th February 2004
TRADE AGENDA EVOKES CRITICISM AT TWO WORLD FORUMS
TRADE AGENDA EVOKES CRITICISM AT TWO WORLD FORUMS
Critical voices could be heard at both the World Social Forum (WSF) and the World Economic Forum (WEF) regarding the negative impacts of globalisation and trade liberalisation particularly on disadvantaged groups in developing countries. The WSF — held in Mumbai, India from 16-21 January — drew over 100,000 participants from 132 countries, who attended numerous seminars, workshops, exhibitions and cultural displays to voice concerns and hopes for a better world. The WEF convened from 21-25 January in Davos, Switzerland, for its annual gathering, accompanied by the "Public eye on Davos" — the alternative conference to the WEF — and the Open Forum, co-organised by the WEF and civil society organisations.
Globalisation and trade in the spotlight at WSF
At the WSF, key topics included issues as diverse as arms control, tourism, rights of women and indigenous peoples, international trade and sustainable development including land, water and food sovereignty. The common thread linking the sessions was social impacts, particularly on weaker and under-privileged groups. The forum ended with a street march drawing tens of thousands of anti-globalisation protestors. The WTO and the collapse of talks in Cancun dominated many of the globalisation debates. In particular the G20 group of developing countries — led by Brazil, India, China and South Africa — met with mixed reactions, finding respect from some for its courage while attracting criticism from others for its political pragmatism and overly free trade position, which it is alleged to pursue.
Debates at the meeting repeatedly touched on the impacts of globalisation as promoted by international trade and finance. Speaking at a panel on ‘Globalisation, Economic and Social Security’, former World Bank economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz stressed that the path of economic globalisation must be altered to avoid undermining social security — which would continue to exacerbate poverty and therefore violence. Stiglitz called for new leaders at the helm of global lending institutions, commenting that one of the reasons for the excessive narrowness of the trade agenda was the excessive narrowness of the participants. He went on to assert the need for a new ruling body in charge of the institutions, ideally the UN. Stiglitz said the economies of developing nations were made vulnerable and volatile under the current system based on "market fundamentalism" and "unreal assumptions of the economy". He proposed that the WTO include on its agenda plans to strengthen social security and fight poverty.
Strong criticism could also be heard from Juan Somavia, Director-General of the International Labour Organisation. Speaking at the WSF panel on ‘Globalization, Global Governance and the Nation-State’, Somavia noted that globalisation "has not delivered", pointing to a rise in unemployment, losses in social security protection and diminishing purchasing power in Latin America over the last twenty years. "The rules of the trade and finance are blatantly unfair to the developing world and they should change," he added. However, rather than opposing globalisation per se, he stressed that it was "patently unfair globalisation that we are discussing, which puts profits before people". Speaking at the same panel, Mary Robinson, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, criticised the international trading system for being "unfair", as it did not "reflect the majority". Abolishing the institutions, however, might not help, she noted, calling for real reform, including "a legal commitment to implement human rights".
WEF-WTO linkages
During the conference "Public eye on Davos", civil society groups voiced strong criticism of the current round of trade negotiations. Commenting on an informal gathering of trade ministers held on the sidelines of the WEF to revive the stalled Doha round, Toni Juniper of Friends of the Earth International pointed to the strong links between the WEF and the WTO. He highlighted the linkages between economic globalisation and environmental impacts, such as damage to habitats in developing countries and the neglect of policies to save the local, national and world environment in favour of compliance with trade rules in developed countries. Moreover, he attacked the business sector for influencing trade policy and advocating the use of trade agreements to block action for the environment or society, including on trade in genetically modified organisms, patents for drugs, privatisation of public services or undermining the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements. Holding a meeting of trade ministers alongside a meeting of 1,000 chief executives from many of the world’s leading companies provided ample opportunity for a "business steer" on the future of global trade policy, he added.
Background: WSF - Another World Is Possible
Created as a response to neo-liberal economic policies and a globalisation driven by capitalism, the World Social Forum is built around the slogan ‘Another World is Possible’. The first WSF, held in January 2001 in the city of Porto Alegre, Brazil, was timed to coincide with the WEF in Davos, as the annual WEF was perceived as being an ‘exclusive club’ for elites to chart out a global economic agenda to the exclusion of innumerable social groups around the world. This year’s WSF in Mumbai was the first one outside Brazil. A large number of Indian grassroots organisations participated in the Forum, ranging from church and tribal groups to marginalised dalit (scheduled caste) groups. The WSF is set to return to Porto Alegre next year. Commenting on the Mumbai WSF, some participants said that staging the event in India had made the Forum truly global. The challenge for the coming years of the WSF would be to prove in practical terms that another world is possible.
"A forum of contradictions," FES, 3 February 2004; "Globalisation bashing at global meet," YAHOO NEWS, 18 January 2004; "WSF delegates call for enforcing human rights," HINDUSTAN TIMES, 17 January 2004; "Ex-World Bank Chief Economist Slams Trade Rules, U.S", UNWIRE, 20 January 2004; "WSF globalisation not delivering," UNI, 19 January 2004; "The secret trade meeting in Davos - why have our trade ministers gathered with the multinational companies?" FOEI, 23 January 2003.