Last week, the growing turbulence in the Middle East came to a head as protests erupted over the publication of some cartoons picturing a caricature of the prophet Mohammed. The protests soon spread around the world. "It would be tempting to look for an explanation to these events in a single issue, in this case the publication of a drawing showing Mohammed wearing a turban shaped as a bomb or portraying him holding a sword, his eyes covered by a black rectangle. We should note, however, that the riots erupted five months after the actual publication in a Danish right wing newspaper which printed twelve caricatures of Mohammed back in September last year," notes this commentary posted on the website of the Centre for Civil Society at the university of KwaZulu-Natal.
Related Links
* Niger: Thousands protest caricature of Prophet Muhammad
http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=51616
* Somalia: Violent protests against Prophet Muhammad cartoons
http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=51603

In 2002 the International Council on Human Rights Policy published a short report, 'Local Rule: Decentralisation and Human Rights', which mapped some of the potential human rights implications of decentralisation reforms. On one hand, reforms can enhance political participation, increase local autonomy, empower disadvantaged groups and lead to more accountable government. On the other, it can entrench the powers of local elites; weaken national institutions; exacerbate social division and provoke violence; deepen inequality; and cause regression of social and economic rights because of corruption, shortfalls in resources or discrimination and loss of economies of scale.

Multinational companies have an undue influence over the making of global trade rules at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Big business lobbyists have privileged access to government policymakers and use it to push trade agreements that undermine the fight against poverty. This Action Aid report highlights many examples of privileged corporate access to, and excessive influence over, the WTO policy-making process. It argues that governments must take urgent action to curb corporate influence in the WTO and put the rights of poor people before the profits of multinationals in the current round of global trade talks.

A man from Mali was stabbed to death early Sunday (February 5), the head of an organization for Africans in the city said. Aliu Tunkara, president of African Unity in St. Petersburg, said the victim had graduated from a medical school in St. Petersburg nine years ago but was jobless and had been living on the street. Tunkara said police told him the man was found dead, but the RIA-Novosti news agency, also citing police, said he died in an ambulance on the way to a hospital. St. Petersburg has seen numerous racially motivated attacks in recent months. A student from Cameroon was stabbed to death in St. Petersburg in December, and a Congolese student was killed in the city in September.

Does foreign aid help develop public institutions and state capacity in developing countries? In this Working Paper, the authors suggest that despite recent calls for increased aid to poor countries by the international community, there may be an aid-institutions paradox. While donor intentions may be sincere, the authors conclude that it is possible that aid could undermine long-term institutional development, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. By reviewing the evidence of the potentially negative effects of aid dependence on state institutions, the authors provide a thorough analysis of the institutional effects of aid.

This paper illustrates the challenges involved in providing good-quality gender-equitable education for children of nomadic and pastoralist households who are beyond the reach of mainstream, formal education. Some of the key issues highlighted in the paper include the limited, and failed, provision of static schooling, or projects which have focused on getting nomadic boys and girls to adapt to the formal system.

The mission of the Funders Network on Trade and Globalization is to support foundations and other members of the funding community in their efforts to promote global relations, policies and institutions that foster environmentally sustainable, human-centered and just economic development in the US and around the world. FNTG is for grantmakers who care about human rights, democracy, peace, social justice, and environmental sustainability.

Here in the US white people can talk about all the atrocities that happened in the past and atrocities that happen in the present, but you cannot get them to admit to slavery in the US as an inhuman act against African slaves.

When you bring up the effects of slavery on African descendants and how it robs the US of the total participation of all its' people, sometimes things are said like "when are you people going to forget slavery".

Whites are unable to understand that the wealth of the US was built on the genocide of its native people for free land and the enslavement of African people.

The other great damage of slavery is to internalize the self hatred of many African descendant people against themselves and other African descendant people.

Please can you publish some exposure and analysis of the current lethal exploitation of African countries' resources by China. Statistics, if any? If accessible?

The articles in the first of the special issues on trade justice are excellent, but as we necessarily focus on Europe, USA and multi national corporations, China is undercutting, with alarming speed, what were advances in African manufacturing.

Talking to friends from many African countries, it seems that each country on the continent is undergoing massive invasion by China, but we all tend to think it is only in our own country and therefore miss the larger, frightening picture.

It is very important to stop this takeover by China, particularly as their trade system at home (and international advantage) is based on such exploitative labour conditions and they, no doubt, care far less about labour conditions in Africa.

Thank you for all your work!

EDITORS reply: We have schedule to publish material on China and Africa shortly. Watch this space!

I read with keen interest Charles Aburge's article on debt, aid and trade which appeared in Pambazuka News 240.

I enjoyed his strategic counselling and "scolding" of civil society in Africa for mindful engagement with African regional bodies in areas of debt and trade with Africa. I especially enjoyed reading his recognition that sometimes we in civil society unconsciously contribute to the erosion of sovereignty and the loss of self-worth in Africa. We are sometimes quick to demand or endorse "governance conditionality" where aid and debt relief is made conditional to progress in these areas.

This reminded me of the on-going row between the Government of Chad and The World Bank regarding the "Chad-Cameroon Oil Pipeline", where Chadian civil society activists are encouraging The World Bank to withold financial support from Chad.

Surely, who suffers? Should the role of civil society be to support global institutions at the expense of national programs? I am mindful of the governing record of the government of President Derby. However, to seemingly support a project which from its inception was de-cried for its erosion of the supremacy of Chadian Constitution in the interests of corporate law is worrisome.

The key element of contestation by the Chadian government is the off-shore account where oil revenues are kept for future generations. Wouldn't it be in the interests of Chadian civil society that in fact these funds are made available to the current generations from whom oil is extracted? Wouldn't a better role of Chadian civil society then be to monitor proper government use of these funds for education, health, environmental management and security of the nation? Surely, sometimes civil society in Africa must work for national and/or even regional prosperity, not against it.

International Aid Report will become your first port of call when you need a comprehensive analysis of trends and key developments in this sector. Articles on a wide range of themes will give you an informal, critical and challenging perspective on the key issues affecting donors, implementers and recipients of aid. Bilateral / Multilateral donors and private foundations will use it to help set priorities and guidelines for their funding decisions. NGO's will stay aware of where donors are spending their money and any shifts in spending patterns. This will help to not only secure funding but also to understand the changing priorities of donor funding.

UN delegates drafting a treaty to protect the rights of the world's 600 million disabled have resolved many of their differences and are on track to complete the document in August, the diplomat leading the negotiations has said. ''It should be possible to conclude drafting at our next meeting in August,'' New Zealand Ambassador Don MacKay told a news conference after a three-week drafting session. ''We have made real progress and there are relatively few unresolved issues,'' he said. ''But it is more than just dotting the i's and crossing the t's.'' A UN committee that includes all 191 UN member-nations has been working since 2001 on a treaty to promote and protect the rights of the disabled.

UNFPA is currently receiving applications for its Special Youth Programme for 2006. This programme seeks to recruit young people aged 20-24 from developing countries with some programme experience in development issues to join UNFPA for a 9-month remunerated fellowship.

The Child Rights Information Network (CRIN) has launched its new website. The website has been redesigned to offer more features and interactive tools, with easy navigation, highlighting latest information added to the site, and using new technology, such as RSS feeds. You can subscribe to our email lists or CRINMAIL on the website and browse for past issues here: http://www.crin.org/email/index.asp

UNICEF today (February 6) applauded the women and men who are working together to end the practice of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) and to respect the right of girls to grow to womanhood without harm to their bodies. Throughout sub-Saharan Africa and in Egypt and Sudan a social movement is unfolding to end FGM/C, one of the most persistent, pervasive and silently endured human rights violations. Over the last six years, thousands of villages in West Africa have joined together in public pledging ceremonies to abandon FGM/C, bringing greater hopes of ending the practice globally within a single generation. “We stand at a pivotal moment in history as we work toward a truly positive collective change,” UNICEF Executive Director Ann M. Veneman said Monday, the fourth annual International Day of Zero Tolerance of Female Genital Mutilation.

World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz has sworn to crack down on corruption by governments and officials in developing world nations where the bank operates. He has also promised to examine any irregularities within the bank itself, vowing to tackle "difficult issues". Speaking to employees worldwide, Mr Wolfowitz said the bank had to move "more decisively and energetically".

In late 2005, the International Labor Rights Fund filed an Alien Tort Claims Act case in the US District Court in California against Bridgestone, alleging "forced labor, the modern equivalent of slavery" on a Firestone Plantation in Harbel, Liberia. The lawsuit states: "The Plantation workers allege, among other things, that they remain trapped by poverty and coercion on a frozen-in-time Plantation operated by Firestone in a manner identical to how the Plantation was operated when it was first opened by Firestone in 1926." Robtel Pailey investigates modern-day slavery in the "land of the free".

In the early 1820’s, Liberia transformed into a land of exile for repatriated American slaves. In fact, the country was a proverbial refuge from the dehumanizing, deplorable conditions of chattel slavery in the United States. So any mention of the word “plantation” should have Liberians visibly shuddering from the historical legacy that many of its descendants endured.

Ironically enough, a recent development suggests that Liberia itself has served as a breeding ground for modern day slavery disguised in the form of what some would call indentured servitude for the American corporation, Firestone. Declared Africa’s first republic in 1847, Liberia has been embroiled in an asymmetrical relationship with the rubber giant since the corporation first landed on the shores of the country in 1926. Eighty years later, human rights groups have sidestepped Firestone’s alleged abusive practices and lodged a class action suit against the American company for violations of child labour laws, cruel and unusual labour practices, and environmental degradation. Practices, they claim, are no different from the moment the plantation opened. Since 1926, Firestone has allegedly relied on forced labour, involuntary servitude, recklessness, negligence in hiring and supervision, unjust enrichment and unfair business practices.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of workers and their children at the plantation under pseudonyms, names Japanese parent company Bridgestone, Bridgestone Americas Holding, Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire and other units as defendants.

The International Labour Rights Fund (ILRF) filed the class-action suit in the name of 12 Liberian workers and their 23 children, who remain anonymous to protect themselves from retaliation. The plaintiffs are bringing their case to the US because the Liberian judicial system has been eroded in the mire of civil breakdown. “The plantation workers are stripped of rights, they are isolated, they are at the mercy of Firestone for everything from food to health care to education, they risk expulsion and certain starvation if they raise even minor complaints, and the company makes wilful use of this situation to exploit these workers as they have since 1926,” the lawsuit claims. ILRF and its allies - Liberian human rights lawyers and activists - serve as an advocacy apparatus for the health and legal rights of Firestone workers in Harbel, Liberia.

The history of Firestone in Liberia is revealing. In 1926, the company signed a concession agreement with the government of Liberia for a period of 99 years. That agreement covered one million acres of land, leased for six cents per acre for a total annual price of $60,000. Large sectors of the indigenous population were displaced to pave the way for setting up Firestone’s largest plantation in Harbel. Even in the company’s infancy, Liberians were recruited to provide forced labour to harvest and cultivate the rubber trees, after which they engaged in “tapping,” the labour-intensive act of using primitive tools to tap the raw latex out of rubber trees for export. Labourers were initially conscripted at gunpoint, and many of the descendants of those labourers serve as plaintiffs in the case against Firestone today.

Despite a surge of civil dissent and democratic outcries in 2005, Firestone signed a new 37-year agreement with the Transitional Government in Liberia to lease the land for 50 cents per acre, a “hike up” from the original leasing agreement. According to a recent report published by the Save My Future Foundation, Firestone exported 167,165 tons of rubber between 2000 and 2003. The price of rubber reaches astronomical highs today at $486 per ton. In the measurement of trade regulations at present, Firestone is receiving $81,242,190 from its production in Liberia. All of the rubber produced in Liberia is sent to the United States for processing into tires, and other materials. No processing, manufacturing, or other value added production is done in Liberia.

The level of poverty in Liberia is so astonishing that people flock to the plantation for a mere pittance. The average tapper generates $900 monthly for the company yet receives barely a tenth of that as compensation from Firestone once fees and services are deducted from wages. As a result, the tappers slog for a mere $3.19 a day. After having worked for Firestone for over 50 years, some retired plantation workers apparently collect less than $50 a month in pension earnings.

Aside from dealing with the poverty of indentured servitude, Firestone labourers must contend with health-related infirmities. The tappers expose their eyes to the potentially blinding latex, applying dangerous pesticides and fertilizers to the rubber trees. The raw latex from the rubber trees is fatal when applied to the eyes, as there have been countless reported cases of workers suffering from permanent eye damage due to exposure. They are forced to carry 75-pound buckets overflowing with the collected latex quota of the day. Unschooled about the dangers of the products they are handling, the workers know not to ask for safety equipment. Many of the tappers have severe scars and bone muscle abnormalities as a result of the tapping.

The labourers work 12-15 hour days, then must enlist the help of their families (including young children and wives) to complete a daily quota in order to ensure a weekly wage. No days off, no paid holidays, no sick leave. A shameful phenomenon in the Firestone scheme is its implied support of child labour. Most of the children are working on the plantations instead of attending school. The few that do attend go to substandard schools in dilapidated conditions. Firestone claims that it provides free education to the children of its workers, but in actuality the workers must pay an income tax automatically deducted from their monthly wages to cover the costs of so-called educational expenses.

The children and their families toil on the plantation by day, and return to the squalor of primitive living conditions at night with no electricity or running water. Firestone blames the country’s more than a decade long civil war for the breakdown of infrastructure, yet members of the Firestone clan aided and abetted the rebel leader-turned president Charles Taylor so as to avoid damage to the plantation when the war raged on. Some of Taylor’s rebel armies were even stationed at Harbel, enjoying the fruits of their fellow countrymen’s literal blood, sweat, and tears.

Miles away from the deplorable living conditions of the Liberian labour force, the company’s managerial staff benefits from the rubber wealth, luxuriating in air-conditioned bungalows and even stopping from their “backbreaking” work as overseers to play a round of golf on the erected course nearby. Mud huts and shanty huts coexist with big, immaculate looking makeshift houses. Firestone claims that the mud huts that exist on the land were created by internally displaced Liberians who flocked to the plantation during the height of civil war in the country. Yet, Firestone owns the land and retains all the responsibilities of its upkeep. Furthermore, some of the conditions existed before the civil war and were entrenched for years.

The entire scenario represents a microcosm of inequitable trade rules benefiting large Western corporations that exploit raw material within the developing world, leaving the indigenous people with environmental spills, physical ailments, and broken morale. The Firestone case in Liberia is a microcosm of American corporate takeover and a flagrant disregard of indigenous rights. It is an extension of the transatlantic slave trade, and should be exposed as such.

* A native of Buchanan, Liberia, Robtel Neajai Pailey currently serves as Assistant Editor of The Washington Informer, a Washington, D.C. based community newspaper.

* Please send comments to

2005 was supposed to be a year of action for Africa, with demands for “more and better aid, debt cancellation and more just trade policies”. What happened? Charles Abugre from Christian Aid offers some insights into the demands of the last year and provides pointers on where African civil society should focus their energies in the related areas of aid, debt and trade.

The rationale behind the “more and better aid, debt cancellation and more just trade policies” is that these will create the conditions to ensure adequate resources to finance Africa’s development. Undoubtedly, if fully addressed, these will put more money in the hands of governments and people and ease the resource constraint. We will argue however that on their own – never mind the quality of aid, the speed of debt cancellation, the degree of market opening in the north and the end of export subsidies - these demands will not provide the resources adequate for Africa’s development.

These demands, though relevant, are slightly misplaced in their singular focus on sources of “inflows” to the total denial of the mechanisms of “outflows”. It is the balance of inflows and outflows that create the net resources for development. We will also argue that the singular focus on “inflows” entrenches the sense of Africa’s dependence and perpetuates the myth of Africa’s resource poverty and powerlessness. In addition, in focussing on trade policy per se at the exclusion of what underlies trade, we miss a fundamental explanation for government’s persistence on liberalisation – beyond the view that they are reckless, ignorant, powerless or uncaring.

More and Better Aid

Our demand that governments in the north fulfil their obligation to deliver 0.7% of the gross national products for international development is right. It is indeed a right of African countries in particular, to demand it in view of the fact this promise has been used repeatedly in the past as a bait to secure economic and social reforms in Africa. But realistically, we know it won’t be delivered. The slow pace and low volume of aid increases committed at the 2005 G8 meeting in spite of all the noise, and the subsequent threat by the US to undermine the 0.7% target itself, shows how difficult and risky it is to rely on increasing volumes of aid for Africa’s development. The explanation is simple, to the extent that traditional aid continues to depend on taxpayers in the north, its ebbs and flows will depend on the political temperature and economic performance in the north, especially Europe.

But the key problems of aid are its purpose, its governance and its impact on the psychology and accountability of our governments and elite. Official development aid is hardly ever completely altruistic or single-purpose or hardly ever completely divorced from foreign policy. Consequently, we are constantly going from opposition to one thing or the other associated with the provision of aid, e.g. tied aid, policy conditioning; human rights conditioning, policy leveraging and more recently the increasing link with the war on terror.

Regardless of the rhetoric, aid cannot be separated from foreign policy objectives and to the extent that these shift, the purpose of aid will shift. In any case why not? Why shouldn’t taxpayers in the north demand that their taxes serve values and goals they hold as dear to them? Why shouldn’t they expect their governments to account for the impact of aid, therefore put in place measures to ensure that their money delivers the purpose for which it is given.

Conditionality is an important issue for Africa largely because aid forms too large a share of budgets, therefore risks associated with aid policy are more significant for African than other continents where aid forms a minuscule proportion. Whilst it is proper to keep ensuring that the conditions associated with the provision and management of aid do not exacerbate Africa’s development problems, the real challenge is to reduce its importance to Africa’s development.

The more debilitating impact of development aid is what it does to the mentality of the African elite and to the democratisation and accountable governance process. Governments have developed the myth that their economies cannot survive without aid. In reality it is their governments and the patronage systems that maintain them which are under threat without the aid machinery.

The competition among African governments for inclusion in the club of favoured nations leads to wilful abandonment, to donors, of sovereignty won at the cost of lives in the anti-colonial struggle. The multi-donor budget support arrangement is one manifestation of this loss of sovereignty. Without a break in the aid dependency mentality Africa stands no chance of building democracy based on accountability to citizens. Worst still, the imagery that aid agencies – private and official – find necessary to deploy in order to sustain domestic political interest for aid is often an affront to the African personality and spirit, diminishes the African self-worth and perpetuates negative stereotypes. Whilst we cannot ignore aid, we should not be glorifying it.

Sometimes we in civil society contribute unconsciously to the erosion of sovereignty and the loss of self-worth. We are sometimes quick to demand or endorse “governance conditionality” where aid and debt relief is made conditional to progress in these areas. To monitor compliance often requires even greater involvement and power of donors in domestic governance. It is like saying that new forms of colonisation are acceptable on human rights grounds. This is dangerous. Yet, there are cases where human rights abuses, dictatorship and corruption are at such a level that the impact of debt relief and aid will be to strengthen repression and enrich a few than promote development. What do we do under this situation?

A solution could be based on the principle that regional political bodies are better placed to manage political problems in member states. This is the principle applied by ECOWAS, SADC and the AU in conflict resolution and peace building/keeping. This is also the principle underlying the Africa Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). We propose a Peer Trust Fund to be managed by the AU and used as the financial muscle behind the APRM. Debt relief and humanitarian funds meant for countries abusing the citizens will be paid into this Fund, to be held in trust for the country and be released by the AU as the country makes progress in the governance areas of concern. Such a mechanism will:

- Strengthen and give teeth to the AU’s desire and capacity to promote accountable and democratic governance in the region;

- Act as a muscle and an incentive for the APRM;

- Take away the excuse of creditors not to write off debts owed to Africa or withhold aid needed for humanitarian purposes but which, for reasons outlined above, cannot be channelled directly to an abusing country or to NGOs;

- Allow Africans and their political institutions to drive their own political reforms;

- End the arbitrary and selective means by which donors apply governance conditionality.
-
So what should we do about aid:

- Support our northern partners’ efforts to make their governments fulfil their part of the global compact but scale down its importance in Africa’s plan of action;

- Support the establishment of a Peer Trust Fund to assist the AU to deal with the governance issue;

- Increase domestic CSO interests and involvement in budget processes so as reduce the influence of donors on budget governance and steer budgets to deliver public services and fight corruption;

- Oppose donor-driven budget management arrangements that undermine parliamentary oversight and propose parliamentary oversight procedures that are transparent and inclusive of civil society.

Whilst these actions are necessary to improve the quality of aid and reduce its damage, they do not address the resource deficit problem per se.

Debt

The issue of debt is not so much what we demand but whom we address with what messages. First the message of ending the debt burden has been directed largely at one direction – the creditors. The message itself has been one of appealing for understanding whether based on justice or empathy. There is nothing wrong with this in as far as this appeal is coming from our northern partners directed at their publics and governments. Whatever strategies they find as feasible to exert pressure for action should be welcomed by us as long us these strategies neither diminish the African dignity nor undermines the messages coming from Africans.

But directing our energies at appealing to northern creditors suggests our lack of belief in the power of the debtor. However, the Nigerian debt relief effort, no matter how unsatisfactory, and the Argentinean debt restructuring initiative suggest that debtors do have power and can force change. In the Nigerian case, it was the threat by Parliament to withhold appropriation for debt servicing and the subsequent road show that the joint committees of parliament undertook in Europe and America to drum home their threat that forced the Paris Club to rush through a debt relief package. In Argentina’s case, an economic and political meltdown resulting from years of faithful compliance with the IMF’s conditions and faithful debt servicing, forced Argentina to impose a unilateral moratorium on debt servicing and then subsequently unilaterally discounted its debt instruments by 75%. After heaving and puffing both the IMF and the private creditors accepted their lot and Argentina’s economy rebounded.

Africa’s debt overhang of over $200bn provides the muscle for a successful collective African threat. This is the task for the African Union and we should make that forcefully clear. The cancellation of $200bn poses no threat to the global financial system but can save millions of lives. Even a threat of a collective moratorium will send the message clear and loud, especially if this threat were accompanied by an enforceable commitment to transparency and anti-corruption and the channelling of the money so saved into revamping public services. We should not celebrate divisive debt relief initiatives like the one delivered at Gleneagles although we can celebrate the victory in terms of the comprehensive principle, i.e. that all debts, including the debt stock owed to the IFIs must be cancelled.

So where do we go from here in relation to debt:

- Welcome the principle of debt stock cancellation agreed at Gleneagles and at the annual meeting of the IMF/Bank but condemn the selectivity and divisive approach;

- Develop a strategy to pressurise the AU and its member states to adopt a debtor-led strategy;

- Campaign for an International Law to regulate international debt.

Trade

The trade policy focus has been in four areas:

- Defending our domestic markets from further harmful liberalisation;

- Defending our producers – especially our farmers – from demise resulting from “dumping” of subsidised imports;

- Seeking market access without reciprocal market opening obligations;

- Promoting regional integration.

These demands are relevant and we should continue to maintain a focus on them. We should prioritise, in particular:

- The defensive interests of our people: For example, our focus on agriculture should be driven by food security and rural development objectives rather than export promotion. Not only is the latter not realistically attainable in a significant way (except traditional commodities) but detracts from what Africa’s needs are at this moment. In this sense, the key policy focus is to prevent any further market opening (liberalisation) whether this is through aid and debt deals or through multilateral negotiations. Better still, the goal should be to protect the space for flexible policy whereby countries can vary tariff policy to meet development goals, starting with consumer goods and shifting to intermediary inputs of capital goods – whilst relaxing consumer good imports – as the economy develops. It is this flexible and progressive use of tariffs that is essential as an industrialisation strategy.

- Conditions for industrialisation: This intersects with the defensive interest. The key constraining factor for industrialisation is demand - the competition from foreign consumer goods which makes it impossible for local produce to carry on producing let alone innovate. Investing in infrastructure including roads and energy will contribute to reducing transaction cost but are not, at the most constraining to industrialisation. We should not be detracted by the so-called supply-side argument that suggests that investments in infrastructure will correct for competitive pressures. The policy demand is to not give any more market access through the Non Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) negotiations and others whilst securing the policy space necessary to allow for flexible use of trade policy.

- Defend public services: The aggressive push embarked on by the EU and the US at the on-going talks to open up the services sector reflects the shift in the structure of these economies into services. It also reflects the increasing importance of services for profits and services as a means of gaining control of scarce natural resources such as water. Without the universal provisions of public services by the public sector, Africa stands no chance of reducing poverty, managing inequality and conflict and growing the labour force of the future. We should put in all the energy we can marshal to campaign for the universal provision of public services by the public sector, the minimisation of commercial ethos in basic services and the avoidance of market opening commitments.

- Regional markets: The key issue here is to support the AU and sub-regional trading blocks to resist the pressure to make market opening and third-party tariff concessions before the dynamics of intra-regional trade are worked out, not least in the Singapore issues. This suggests the need to postpone the market access aspects of the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with the EU and to shift energy into campaigning for a reform of Article 24 of the Regional Trade Agreements component of the WTO in order to protect the principle of less than full-reciprocity. In the interim we should back the Stop EPAs campaign’s call for a reform of the rules of origin aspects of the Everything But Arms (EBA) to make it meaningful for African LDCs.

- The Mandate of the WTO and dispute settlement: Developing countries, and Africa in particular, stand to lose with a WTO saddled with a broad rather than a narrow agenda. This is because Africa has the least capacity to defend, let alone promote their interest in multiple negotiating forums. The continent’s heavy dependency on the IFIs for resources exposes it to unilateral liberalisation pressures. Once unilateral liberalisation has been embarked upon, there is always the risk of easily committing liberalised sectors to the lock-in mechanism of the WTO. In addition, making commitments at several fronts imposes an implementation burden, the cost of which is relatively higher for poorer countries than richer ones. It is therefore in the interest of Africa to see a slimmer WTO.

However, the decision to focus on trade to the exclusion of investments is a serious limitation. In the first place, the Services Agreement and the Singapore agenda are essentially about investment. It is important to note also that underlying the market access concessions that African governments give to the north, especially in services, is an expectation of foreign direct investments and its mythical value as the solution to underdevelopment. Similarly, FDI expectations underlie the anti-inflationary macroeconomic policies of governments and debt servicing compliance.

The belief in FDI is so strong that governments have happily adopted negative taxation policies to attract foreign companies. To have a chance of developing trade and macroeconomic policies that promote development, restrain our governments from giving away market access concessions recklessly and channel attention towards domestic resources for investments, we must first effectively champion a more realistic and less jingoistic expectations associated with FDI.

So what do we do in relation to trade and investment?

- Encourage national governments to be more proactive in protecting their markets especially in the area of consumer goods, agriculture and essential public services. They will not necessarily suffer punitive action. Even if they did, their economies may still come out better-off.

- Drum home to national governments that opening markets will not necessarily bring FDI and even if it did, FDI will not necessarily bring about development. Encourage the AU to promote a critical debate on the role of FDI in Africa’s development.

- Continue the campaign for policy flexibility and an end to coerced liberalisation. This is crucial for defending Africa’s producers.

- Scale down the export focus of agriculture (market access in the north) and emphasise its food security and rural development objectives.

- Support the Stop EPAs campaign

Financing Development: Beyond aid debt relief and trade

What matters for ensuring that governments have adequate resources to finance development are net flows. This means factoring in not just inflows such as earnings from trade, or aid or remittances but also what is lost to the rest if the world. Debt servicing is one outflow. But there are several other ways in which resources are lost to the continent. Indeed, the reality of Africa is that the resources that leak out far exceed those that flow in. This is why Africa is a net exporter of capital.

And the sums are staggering. Njukumana et al estimate that between 1970 and 2000, whereas Africa received about $100bn id aid (including loans) it lost $274bn in capital flight induced by debt, trade mis-invoicing and imputed interests. Add cumulative losses due to terms of trade of non-oil producing Sub-Saharan African countries, estimated by the World Bank to be in the area of $400bn or 120% of combined GDP. Add also losses that African countries have incurred simply by opening up their markets.

Africa was made to reduce their rates of protection at a pace three times as fast the countries of the OECD. This has left the continent ridiculously open, relative to its stage of development. Christian Aid recently calculated that over the past two decades, Africa lost in income terms the equivalent of over $270bn from the negative growth effects alone of trade liberalization. This amount alone more than matches the accumulated value of grants, loans and net FDI channelled into the continent.

Add losses due to tax competition, tax evasion and tax avoidance. Taxation which has served developed countries well as a means of redistribution and source of investment capital but which has been undermined through the enforced deregulation which has promoted tax competition, tax avoidance and tax havens. As a result, whereas government revenue from taxation in developed countries average 30% of GDP between 1990 and 2000, in sub-Saharan Africa this has declined over the years to an average of 17.9% of GDP.

Losses from tax competition have largely benefited multinational corporations whilst the tax burden has been transferred to wage earners and small businesses. Some analysts suggest that African oil producers command less than 20% of the profits. The rest are lost to a complicated network of unfair trade practices. The transfer of revenues to tax havens by these corporations and rich individuals further exacerbates the revenue loss. It is estimated that at least $11.5 trillion is currently held in about 74 tax heavens – lost to tax authorities – by wealthy individuals. This does not include laundered profits of businesses which operate through tax havens to avoid tax, nor does it include money illicitly transferred abroad through corruption, drugs and money laundering. These latter elements in any case comprise a much smaller share of resources losses than is generally believed.

As is obvious from above, Africa is not as poor or as helpless as is often presented. Instead, it is a continent that leaks heavily. The task is to plug these leaks. To do so, African civil society must turn attention to addressing:

- Support for campaigns aimed at corporate transparency;

- Campaigns against tax concessions and for progressive tax policies;

- Work with relevant networks to campaign for the end to banking secrecy and tax havens;

- Follow-up on the recommendation of Africa Commission report to pursue and return stolen wealth from Africa and to put in place measures to discourage illicit transfers abroad.

Incidentally, taxation and reliance on domestic sources for financing development also provide a more conducive environment for promoting democratic accountability than the dependence on aid. We have an obligation to plug the leaks.

* Charles Abugre is currently the head of policy and advocacy at Christian Aid. He has been a development activist in Ghana and many parts of Africa and Asia. This is a shortened version of a paper presented to an Africa consultation of the Global Call to Action Against Poverty, held in Harare, Zimbabwe from 7-10 November, 2005.

* Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org

So, can trade in the era of globalisation be ‘just’? Pambazuka News will carry a series of four special issues during 2006 that include articles designed to raise awareness and debate on issues of trade and justice. In this, the first issue, we have a range of articles that examine diverse issues related to slavery, colonialism and reparations. Other articles look at how trade impacts on women, provide pointers for civil society in their campaigning activities and examine new forms of trade injustices currently facing the continent.

It’s one the smallest states in a world were seemingly everything and everyone is globalised. That makes mountainous and landlocked Lesotho, with a population of just under two million and an unemployment rate of 50 percent, both vulnerable and dependent on the whims of market super powers to maintain its economy.

A January 1 termination of a previously little known agreement - the Multi-Fibre Arrangement (MFA) - resulted in Lesotho’s fragile textiles industry losing 13,000 jobs out of 54,000 and the closure of 10 factories. The 1970s MFA was a series of quotas set up to protect indigenous producers from import surges, but since 1995, the WTO began phasing out quotas to bring trading agreements governing textiles into line with global free trade regulations. It’s abolishment resulted in a surge of imports, mainly from China, where production costs were far lower.

In a country where one worker may be responsible for feeding, clothing and schooling a large extended family, the impact for Lesotho has been harsh. “The country is in crisis. We are in a real crisis,” said Daniel Maraisane, the General Secretary of the Lesotho Clothing and Allied Workers’ Union.

The reality of the 13,000 workers in Lesotho or the 250 000 others in Africa who lost their jobs as a result of the MFA (http://www.icftu.org/displaydocument.asp?Index=991223274&Language=EN), is that all of them were part of a complex trade web linking countries of the world that no-one could have imagined a century ago, a system where justice and the interests of ordinary workers often take backstage to global trade policies dictated by global powers. Countries like Lesotho and even entire continents like Africa, frequently appear to be on the losing end of the equation.

It’s in this context that 2005 saw a cacophony of calls for ‘trade justice’, defined as a commitment to lobbying for the introduction and implementation of trade rules that work for all people, instead of benefiting those who already have the most (http://www.tjm.org.uk/about/statement.shtml). Campaigners for trade justice argue that existing trade rules are damaging to many people, especially the poor and vulnerable, the environment and social policies. They maintain that the global trading system must be rebalanced, taking into account the needs of the poor, human rights, and the environment.

But can trade in the era of globalisation be ‘just’?

The world market has long been conquered, controlled and dominated by metropolitan capital. This was not achieved by economic means alone, but also by the use of brutal force. The metropolitan countries imposed unequal treaties, demolished existing manufacturing industries, enslaved, robbed, seized by tricks, exploited, and carried out wholesale colonization. Once the conquest of the world market had been achieved, and the North had ensured its domination, and only once that had been guaranteed, did the dogma of ‘free trade’ get imposed on a world scale. Just as the industrial revolution led to massive over-production and the voracious appetite to conquer the world and seize its markets, so the more recent revolutions in micro- and bio-technology have led, in their own way, to an era of conquering the world through a massive restructuring of economies – which was what the period of structural adjustment programmes and PRSPs was all about.

And it is no surprise that ‘free trade’ is once again the banner of the neoliberals and neocons. This new voracious surge is what is currently referred to as ‘globalisaton’. It is what has led to the rich getting richer, and the poor poorer. It is what has condemned us to be consumers, not citizens, and commercially degraded every aspect of our lives. And since only a minority have the capacity to consume, the vast majority of Africa’s people are effectively disenfranchised.

Trade in the era of globalization is neither ‘free’ nor ‘just’. 'The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas…And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies to flourish is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps.' (Thomas L Friedman: The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization, New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 1999, p 373)

'There is a notion gaining credence,' writes Arundhati Roy, 'that the free market breaks down national barriers, and that corporate globalization’s ultimate destination is a hippie paradise … What the free market undermines is not national sovereignty, but democracy. As the disparity between rich and poor grows, the hidden fist has its work cut out for it. Multinational corporations on the prowl for sweetheart deals that yield enormous profits cannot push through those deals and administer those projects in developing countries without the active connivance of state machinery – the police, the courts, sometimes even the army.” (Arundhati Roy: The Ordinary Person’s Guide to Empire. Harper Perennial, 2004. p 37).

Leading up to the 200th commemoration of the abolition of the slave trade and the 50th anniversary of independence in Ghana – both crucial points in terms of marking Africa’s historical relationship to the rest of the world - Pambazuka News will carry a series of four special issues that include articles designed to raise awareness and debate on issues of trade and justice. In this, the first issue, we carry a range of articles that examine diverse issues related to slavery, colonialism and reparations. Other articles look at how trade impacts on women, provide pointers for civil society in their campaigning activities and examine new forms of trade injustices currently facing the continent.

- Patrick Burnett and Firoze Manji, Pambazuka News

- Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org

Contents list

1. A leaking ship: The role of debt, aid and trade

2005 was supposed to be a year of action for Africa, with demands for “more and better aid, debt cancellation and more just trade policies”. What happened? Charles Abugre from Christian Aid offers some insights into the demands of the last year and provides pointers on where African civil society should focus their energies in the related areas of aid, debt and trade.

Full article: http://www.pambazuka.org/index.php?id=31754

2. A Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade

Manu Herbstein’s first novel, ‘Ama, a Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade, recently published in South Africa by Picador Africa, won the 2002 Commonwealth Writers Best First Book Prize. Set in the late eighteenth century, it tells the story of a young woman who is captured and enslaved in the West African savannah and transported to Brazil. Here, Herbstein reflects on the historical background to his novel and some of its contemporary implications.

Full article: http://www.pambazuka.org/index.php?id=31755

3. Modern-day tyranny and slavery in Liberia

In late 2005, the International Labor Rights Fund filed an Alien Tort Claims Act case in the US District Court in California against Bridgestone, alleging "forced labor, the modern equivalent of slavery" on a Firestone Plantation in Harbel, Liberia. The lawsuit states: "The Plantation workers allege, among other things, that they remain trapped by poverty and coercion on a frozen-in-time Plantation operated by Firestone in a manner identical to how the Plantation was operated when it was first opened by Firestone in 1926." Robtel Pailey investigates modern-day slavery in the "land of the free".

Full article: http://www.pambazuka.org/index.php?id=31756

4. Trade, justice and the case for reparations

Are claims for slavery reparations of US$777 trillion, as made by a 1999 African World Reparations truth commission in Accra, realistic? How does one begin to conceptualise claims for reparations in a broader historical and social context when it comes to centuries of exploitation? M.P. Giyose from Jubilee South Africa makes the case for understanding reparations as a transformation of the way the world functions, ultimately serving to restore and sustain human civilisation.

Full article: http://www.pambazuka.org/index.php?id=31757

5. Trade, gender and the search for alternatives

It is women who bear the brunt of the effects of trade liberalization on social development through a lack of access to basic social services. But, writes Jennifer Chiriga from the Alternative Information and Development Centre, one of the major impacts of trade on women is how the capitalist ethic plays into building masculinity while at the same time playing down the role that women play in society. Alternatives are in the offing, she argues.

Full article: http://www.pambazuka.org/index.php?id=31758

6. Vulnerable and poor face up to the implications of GATS

The time is fast approaching when water, health care and every other essential service become tradable - with enormous implications for the lives of the poor and vulnerable. Oduor Ongwen, the country director of SEATINI Kenya, describes the international agreement that is going to regulate trade in services, the General Agreement on Trade in services (GATS), noting that it is a “dangerous instrument for the externalisation of resources of underdeveloped countries such as those in Africa”.

Full article: http://www.pambazuka.org/index.php?id=31759

* What do you think of the articles in this edition? How have you used them? Have you forwarded them to friends or colleagues? Let us know by sending an email to editor@pambazuka.org We'd love to hear from you!

In 2000, the International Council published 'Performance & Legitimacy: National human rights institutions.' National institutions had multiplied during the 1990s and the report looked at what made them effective and successful. Five years later, despite unfavourable developments in the international human rights environment, the growth of national institutions is unchecked. The present report from the International Council on Human Rights revisits the issue of effectiveness and examines how national institutions might improve their performance and impact by using benchmarks and indicators to assess their work.