Hands up all those who read about the meeting of the World Economic Forum in New York about two weeks ago. Yes? Now hands up those who heard of another meeting held at Porto Alegre in Brazil at the same time, called the World Social Forum. No? I wonder why. They both dealt with the world economic system, and the latter was much larger.
Perhaps the reason is that they came to very different conclusions about what that economic system should be. Not surprising, because the World Economic Forum represents governments and the very large international corporations, who invite input from civil society. They favour the global market system as an engine of growth.
The World Social Forum ? an alternative World Economic Forum ?brings together civil society movements that challenge the present economic order. This year about 65 000 to 70 000 people gathered at Porto Alegre. Because they must find their own funding, the majority were from Latin America; but Africa, including South Africa, had substantial delegations. They held workshops about economic research, and rallies around mobilisation for change. Don?t you think we might have been helped as citizens and voters if we had heard something about that?
One thing has become clear. Despite the attempt to ignore the international popular movement for change, the conventional confidence about the success of the unregulated global market is beginning to wobble. The evidence mounts that footloose capital and free trade actually create poverty, far from attacking it; and the repetition of the same old formulae no longer convinces.
The new ?enlightened? formula goes something like this: The global market in capital and trade will spread wealth, but only if it is properly done. What is wrong is that the rich countries have demanded that the poor ones open their markets, while they themselves continue to restrict their own. The answer is for rich countries to open their markets to poor countries? produce. That will level the playing field, and Bob?s your uncle.
Ignoring for a moment whether the playing field will really level when Lesotho and Mauritania are kindly allowed to compete equally with the United States and Japan, let us agree at least that the playing field is now a downhill slalom. The rich world now spends $1-billion a day subsidising its farmers. This is six times their aid budgets. In addition the average import duties on farm produce are 40% to 50%. Japan?s tax on foreign rice is nearly 1 000%. Protection is rising since the post-September 11 recession set in.
Meanwhile, developing countries, including South Africa, are required to abolish subsidies and import barriers, which are categorised as illegal contravention of the World Trade
Organisation?s rules ? made by the rich countries. Thus, for instance, the organisation has decided that tariffs may increase on goods as value is added to them. So primary products, such as those exported by most of Africa, can have relatively free access, but if they are processed, the tariffs rise ? giving the more profitable job of adding value to the rich.
So can we agree that the solution lies in the rich opening their markets to the poor? Let?s say for the sake of argument that we do.
Please explain to me what will persuade US President George Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, French President Jacques Chirac or German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder to do that. Please tell me what is the political process in democracies, whose leaders are regularly challenged by active opposition parties, that will enable them to threaten the livelihoods of substantial parts of their electorates. Unless you can describe that process, the new orthodoxy is no more than whistling in the wind ? a pious hope to keep critics quiet.
I can think of only one way. ?Emerging? markets like our own must refuse further ?emergence? as markets for the rich unless and until they fulfil their implied part of the bargain. We should protect our enterprise until we see the advantage to ourselves of globalising it. This is how the ?Asian Tigers?, as well as India and China, developed: they opened their trade when they were ready. Economies that fell headlong into open global trading ? most of Africa and Eastern Europe ? have virtually disintegrated.
This month we are hosting American representative Robert Zoellink, who will propose a new free trade agreement with us and our customs union neighbours. We should watch him carefully. His unilateral approach will separate us from the rest of the Southern African Development Community ? thus cherry-picking the richest country, hoping we will abandon the rest. If history is any guide, Zoellink will require concessions from us against promises of later American action when their political process allows it. Which will be never.
Together with other developing countries we should now rescind the tariff concessions we have already made on American, European Union and Japanese goods unless and until they match our concessions with their own.