Trade Liberalization Through the Back Door : Financing for Development > > As government representatives and diplomats gather at the UN in New York > this week to consolidate the power of the World Bank, the IMF, and the WTO, > the world does not seem to care. The so-called anti-globalization > demonstrators must be busy somewhere else, and as there is no "violence" to > cover, so is the press. Meanwhile, the meetings at the UN are actually open > to the public, and there have been some, albeit quiet, attempts to keep the > process semi-inclusive. So why the lack of interest ? > > Perhaps it is the focus on development rather than something more catchy. > Though the document negotiated these days in New York actually focuses on > topics that elsewhere have drawn much negative attention -- such as the > expansion of NAFTA Chapter 11 style investors' protection and further trade > liberalization -- the title is deceptively low profile : Financing for > Development. And though the center of most recent rage has been institutions > supposedly charged with precisely this financing, the buzzwords of the > debate have been much more exciting : neo-liberalism, neo-colonialism, > neo-fascism, and even neo-capitalism. Equitable and sustainable development, > on the other hand, is neo-boring. > > This is a big mistake. > > Lack of development and the growing gap between rich and poor within and > between countries is the most obvious reason for massive human rights > violations and injustice today. While the international community is > bickering over whether or not developed countries should commit themselves > to spending a meager 0.7% of their GNP on development aid, developing > countries > have to set aside 10 or 20 times that to service foreign debt, thus > restricting (or eliminating) their already tiny budgets for essential health > and education services. Those unfortunate enough to be on the "wrong side of > the tracks" in developed countries don't fare much better. In the United > States, tax dollars are more readily spent on Black Hawks for Colombia than > on schools or public health services. > > Yet none of this is discussed by the UN diplomats gathered in New York this > week. The prevailing consensus seems to be that development is an > exclusively economic process -- thus eliminating the need to discuss health, > employment, and education -- and that financing will come from further trade > liberalization and the much-talked-about-but-yet-to-materialize trickle-down > effect. Economic growth, price stability, and "prudent" fiscal policies > (technocrat language for public budget cuts) are employed as concepts > synonimous with development. Initiatives to this effect, such as for example > the WTO Doha declaration > and regional trade liberalization talks -- are celebrated in the negotiated > document which does not at any time mention human rights. This despite the > fact that development itself is a human right, and that the protection of > human rights is one of the objectives for international cooperation > established in the UN Charter. (Trade liberalization is, on the > other hand, NOT an established objective for international cooperation). > > The truth is, of course, that in the current economic structure productive > long-term investments and therefore the business sector are very important > for purposes of job creation and tax contributions. Trade liberalization may > or may not lead to a surge in this > type of investments and to economic growth. The resulting "development", > however, is sure to benefit only those that already have enough if it is not > conditioned by global principles such as the protection of internationally > recognized human rights, non-discrimination, joint responsibility, and > inclusiveness. Economic growth, price stability, and fiscal balance are only > tools that might lead to eradication of poverty and underdevelopment, > depending > on the context. Development, full employment, education, just working > conditions, housing, > democracy, and non-discrimination, however, are non-negotiable human rights. > The negotiators at the UN should acknowledge that, and so such the world > outside the New York offices. > > Development is anything but boring. It is a human right. And it is being > traded away, right now, in New York. > > > ***** > Marianne Møllmann > CEDAL, Centro de Asesoría Laboral del Perú > Jirón Talara 769 > Jesús María, Lima 11, Perú > +51 1 433 3207, cel: +51 1 912 8773 > marianne@cedal.org.pe/mmollmann@yahoo.com > www.cedal.org.pe > >

Back to FfD New and Upcoming Issues