Current Issue

The principles of food sovereignty

2008-06-18

Yash Tandon

A proper analysis of the food crisis is a matter that cannot be left with trade negotiators, investment experts, or agricultural engineers, writes Yash Tandon. It is essentially a matter of political economy. A crisis for some is an opportunity for others. Any analysis of the present food crisis carries with it its own prescription, and these prescriptions have the potential to bring benefits for some and losses for others.A proper analysis of the food crisis is a matter that cannot be left with trade negotiators, investment experts, or agricultural engineers, writes Yash Tandon. It is essentially a matter of political economy. A crisis for some is an opportunity for others. Any analysis of the present food crisis carries with it its own prescription, and these prescriptions have the potential to bring benefits for some and losses for others.
====

Global food prices have been rising steadily since 2002 and since January this year by 65%. Global hot spots of unrest caused by spiraling food prices in the last few months include Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Haiti, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, Mozambique and Senegal.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, reported in March this year that despite real growth in some countries of the South overall there has been little progress in reducing the number of victims of hunger and malnutrition. Hunger has increased every year since 1996, reaching an estimated 854 million people despite commitments made at the 2000 Millennium Summit and the 2002 World Food Summit to halve it. Every five seconds, a child under 10 dies from hunger and malnutrition-related diseases. The situation, he said, is alarming.

Among the most popular suggested causes of the food crisis are:

- Global warming that has disrupted the balance of natural systems of air, water and weather patterns essential for food productioN;

- Rising fuel prices pushing up cost of e.g. fertilizers, transport, etc.;

- Conversion of food land to Biofuels;

- Increased consumption by rising middle classes in e.g. India and China;

- Dismantling of agricultural infrastructure in countries in the South that during 1980s and 1990s followed the Structural Adjustment Policies of the Bretton Woods Institutions;

- WTO Doha negotiations that could reduce applied tariffs on food products by further up to 36% increasing the vulnerabilities of many countries in the South;

- US farm policy;

- US and EU subsidies -- including the practice of “shifting boxes” in order to maintain subsidies, and EU CAP reform;

- Financial Speculation in the food sector

Before anybody goes deeper into an analysis of any of the above, it is necessary to tread the jungle of “probable causes” warily, for one could tread on sensitive toes. The issue is not only “hot on the streets”, it is also “hot in the board rooms.” Jacques Diouf, the Director-General of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), was treading carefully through this jungle when in describing the spiraling food prices as an "emergency", he blamed both the developing and the developed countries as the sources of the crisis. In the developing countries, he said, it was, among other factors, the steady migration of rural populations to the cities, adverse weather conditions such as an unexpectedly severe cold spell in China, droughts in Australia and Kazakhstan and floods in India and Bangladesh. And in the developed countries it was, also the diversion of farmland to produce biofuels, and speculation in the futures markets.

So, how do we traverse this jungle? Like all forest dwellers, it is important to equip ourselves with a set of simple guidelines before setting on the journey. In our view, there are five basic guidelines, or principles, that must form the basis of any food policy. These are:

1. The Principle of food sovereignty. This is not the same as “food security”. A country can have food security through food imports. Dependence on food imports is precarious and prone to multiple risks -- from price risks, to supply risks, to conditionality risks (policy conditions that come with food imports). Food sovereignty, on the other hand, implies ensuring domestic production and supply of food. It means that the nationals of the country (or at the very least nationals within the region) must primarily be responsible for ensuring that the nation and the region are first and foremost dependent on their own efforts and resources to grow their basic foods.

2. The Principle of priority of food over export crops produced by small farms sustained by state provision of the necessary infrastructure of financial credit, water, energy, extension service, transport, storage, marketing, and insurance against crop failures due to climate changes or other unforeseen circumstances.

3. The Principle of self-reliance and national ownership and control over the main resources for food production. These are land, seeds, water, energy, essential fertilizers and technology and equipment (for production, harvesting, storage and transport).

4. The Principle of food safety reserves. Each nation must maintain, through primarily domestic production and storage systems (including village storage as well as national silos) sufficient stocks of “reserve foods” to provide for emergencies.

5. The Principle of a fair and equitable distribution of “reserve foods” among the population during emergencies.

Sadly, and with dire consequences, the above quite commonsensical and, we believe, reasonable principles have not been followed by many governments in the South. They have been grossly violated through five main reasons, among other minor ones:

1. Distorted state policies on production and trade (e.g. removal of tariffs that made local producers vulnerable to imported food from rich countries that subsidized their own food production and exports).

2. Land grab by the rich commercial farmers, thus disempowering small producers and rendering them vulnerable to “market attacks.”

3. Effective loss of control over resources of food production, including land (even where nationals “owned” land) because of imported seeds, imported fertilizers, imported machinery, imported technical assistance, and imported banks, and also loss of control over water and energy through surrendering these to foreign corporations attracted by the lure of so-called FDIs (foreign direct investments).

4. Donor aid dependence, and bad advice that came with it from donors including the World Bank and the IMF during the heyday of the “Washington Consensus” (1975-2005).

5. Disruption of the infrastructure of food production (as described above) that came as a consequence of the above four factors.

Many countries have, as a result, lost their food sovereignty (even as they talked of “food security”), became food importers and “cash crop” or mineral exporters, lost control over the resources needed for production (land, water, seeds, energy, technology, etc), and became hostage to foreign supplies of food not only during periods of emergencies but also during “normal” times.

HERE ARE A FEW EXAMPLES OF THE ABOVE “EXISTENTIAL TRUTH” OF OUR TIMES

It is estimated that up to 15 million Mexican farmers and their families (in particular indigenous peoples) may have been displaced from their livelihoods as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and competition with subsidized American maize.

Just 10 corporations, including Aventis, Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta, control one third of the $23 billion commercial seed market and 80% of the $28 billion global pesticide market. Another 10 corporations, including Cargill, control 57% of the total sales of the world's leading 30 retailers and account for 37% of the revenues earned by the world's top 100 food and beverage companies.

In an increasingly liberalizing (globalizing) world, Transnational Corporations (TNCs) have increased their control over the supply of water, especially in the South. In many cases, private sector participation in water services has been one of the “aid conditionalities” of the so-called “donor assistance” (ODAs) from donor countries and the IMF and the World Bank. Just three companies, Veolia Environnement (formerly Vivendi Environnement), Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux and Bechtel (USA), control a majority of private water concessions globally..

The biofuels industry is inherently predatory on land and resources, especially if it is generated out of food such as maize and Soya beans. It is estimated that to produce 50 litres of biofuels to run a car for one day’s long trip or three days city-run, it would consume about 200 kg of maize -- enough to feed one person for one year. This does not even take into account the cost of energy, water and other resources that go into biofuels production.

The Social Enterprise Development (SEND) Foundation in Ghana have criticised multi-national companies that are trying, using the “opportunity” of “food crisis”, to capture African agriculture through the so-called “Green Revolution” for Africa. FoodFirst Information and Action Network (FIAN) said that peasants have been evicted in several African countries so that palm oil can be produced from forests.

The heavy production and export subsidies that OECD countries grant their farmers - more than $349 billion in 2006 or almost $1 billion per day - mean that subsidized European fruit, vegetables lower grade meat, and chicken wings can be found in markets all over West Africa at lower prices than local produce.

CONCLUSION

A proper analysis of the food crisis is a matter that cannot be left with trade negotiators, investment experts, or agricultural engineers. It is essentially a matter of political economy. A crisis for some is an opportunity for others. Any analysis of the present food crisis carries with it its own prescription, and these prescriptions have the potential to bring benefits for some and losses for others.

The analytical jungle needs to be carefully traversed. But in this jungle, watch out for animals that have sharp claws and powerful teeth. We thought “imperialism” was a “dirty word” not to be uttered in polite company. But under the title “Food Investment, not Imperialism”, an editorial in the London Financial Times of May 13, 2008 advocated foreign investments as a solution to the problem of food crisis. However, having expounded the virtue of what it called “cross-border farm investment” (read, FDIs), it goes on with what we cannot but agree. It says:

“The only exception is if investment in agriculture turns into imperialism. That is a practice with a long and unpleasant history, from the plantation agriculture of the European empires to the 1954 coup in Guatemala, assisted by the US Central Intelligence Agency, at least in part for the benefit of the United Fruit Company. A developing country can suffer if capital intensive cash crops are produced at the expense of labour intensive food.”

Bravo! There is sometimes wisdom that comes through looking at history from hindsight. Sadly, history is often forgotten by those who are in a hurry to sign free trade agreements (FTAs), Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), donor aid loans and grants, and Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs). The lure of money to balance the budget or to finance food imports is too powerful against the lessons of history. Only if our policy makers were able to exercise some foresight!


*Yash Tandon is the Executive Director of the South Centre, an Intergovernmental think tank of the developing countries.

*Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

Zimbabwe: Memo to African Leaders

2008-06-23

African civil societies

To: President Kikwete, Chairperson of the African Union
To: President Yar’Adua, Chairperson of the Peace and Security Council, AU
To: President Mwanawasa, Chairperson of the Southern African Development Community
To: Dr Jean Ping, Chairperson of the African Union Commission
To: Members of the UN Security Council

Your Excellencies,

As you know, Zimbabwe is in the throes of a devastating political, economic, and humanitarian crisis. A presidential run-off election was scheduled for June 27th but the widespread political violence inflicted on the population has overshadowed the poll to the point where the opposition feels it cannot participate. Indeed President Mugabe insists he would remain in office regardless of the results, mocking the courage of those voters still willing to go to the polls. Meanwhile men, women and children are daily bludgeoned, medical care is scarce, homesteads burned, food is exhausted and the thousands displaced are on the move. The depth of the crisis has moved the governments of Tanzania, Angola, Nigeria, Rwanda, Kenya, Senegal, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Zambia and Botswana to express their concern and to criticise the government of President Robert Mugabe.

African leadership is desperately needed at this time; we urge you to launch an urgent program of action to accomplish the following goals:

- Cessation of the violence and repression through deployment of a protection force and monitors, and containment of perpetrators;

- Restoration of aid flows and urgent increase of humanitarian assistance;

- Convening of a process to secure a political solution establishing effective governance, restoration of the rule of law, independence of the judiciary, along with necessary steps to allow economic recovery and a rapid return to democratic rule.

- Prevention of any further destabilizing spillover into the wider region.

THE DEPTH OF THE CRISIS

ZANU-PF responded to President Mugabe’s loss in the first round of elections on March 29, 2008, with violent retaliation against the population, characterized by brutal beatings, burning of homes and villages, harassment, arrests, and torture. The violence is largely one-sided, perpetrated by agents of the government and ruling party and the impact has been devastating; indeed, what Zimbabwe is now experiencing is more akin to conflict, than an election. In such conditions, while we salute the determination of the voters to be heard, any election result must lack credibility.

The Zimbabwe Association of Doctors for Human Rights states that it has documented so many cases of systematic violent assault and torture that at times its members have been overwhelmed by the numbers. In May alone ZADHR members saw 1007 patients suffering from extensive injuries sustained during these violent attacks. A hospital in Harare says it has seen almost 2000 victims of violence and torture since the first round poll. The opposition MDC states that at least 70 of its supporters have now been killed and 25,000 forced from their homes as a result of the state’s campaign of violence.

A CONFLICT SITUATION

As observed by President Kagame of Rwanda, there is no reason to hold a vote if you do not intend to abide by the outcome. Yet President Mugabe declared that he would refuse to cede power, regardless of the result. He thereby confirms that an election cannot resolve Zimbabwe’s crisis. President Mugabe even threatened more violence, warning of “war” if the vote goes against him. Continental leaders and regional neighbours can have no clearer indication of the threat to regional peace and security and the impending and increased danger to civilians, a threat that is even greater if the election is not completed. We call on you to find solutions for Zimbabwe that go beyond merely salvaging the election.

NEIGHBOURS AT RISK

Regional governments bear a significant burden as a result of the economic and political crisis. Approximately 25% of the people of Zimbabwe have left. Millions of them are now in neighbouring countries and their needs impose a strain on already stretched domestic social services and intensify tensions between the host population and immigrant communities. This flow of people across borders contributes to active instability and conflict in the region as evidenced by the recent xenophobic attacks against immigrant populations in South Africa. The Southern African Development Community (SADC) has recognized the threat that the situation in Zimbabwe poses to peace and security in its region by mandating President Thabo Mbeki’s efforts to mediate a resolution to the crisis between the ruling party and the opposition. It is time to make resolution of Zimbabwe’s problems a priority for the continent.

AFRICA’S RESPONSIBILITY TO ZIMBABWE’S CITIZENS

Although SADC must be commended for its attempts so far to resolve the crisis in Zimbabwe, its effort has not been repaid. The ruling party is effectively refusing to subject itself to a democratic contest, and waging a violent conflict against its citizens, aggravating a humanitarian crisis. As such it has lost legitimacy, triggering a necessary shift in Africa’s stance. Under the Constitutive Act of the African Union, member states are enjoined to “promote and protect human and peoples’ rights in accordance with the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights” and the African Union has an obligation “to intervene in a Member State pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.” There is extensive documentation in Zimbabwe today of torture and killing of named individuals by agents of the ruling party and government who have been described and/or identified. African Union engagement, particularly by the Peace and Security Council, is fully mandated by conditions on the ground and is urgently needed.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

To SADC: Convene an emergency summit to:

- Recognize the failure of the Government of Zimbabwe towards its citizens and the need for an urgent regional, continental, and international response;

- Request the AU to assume leadership of a mediation process with support from SADC and the UN;

- Authorize and initiate a discussion with international partners about funding humanitarian needs and a recovery plan for Zimbabwe.

To the AU Peace and Security Council: Convene an emergency session to:

- Establish the responsibility of Zimbabwe’s authorities for the situation, confirm AU responsibility to protect civilians and prevent further destabilization of the region;

- Authorize deployment of a protection force and additional monitors;

- Plan discussions with the United Nations about support, resourcing and deployment of a protection force;

- Send a fact-finding mission to determine the level of responsibility of the different branches of the State in the current human rights violations and humanitarian crisis.

To the AU Commission:

- Include, as an urgent matter, the current situation of Zimbabwe in the agenda of the Sharm El Sheikh Summit and ask the Assembly for a mandate to intervene in the crisis and protect citizens;

- Appoint a Special Envoy on Zimbabwe;

- Authorise him/her to initiate dialogue with key players and the international community with the objective of establishing a mediation process aimed at achieving a political settlement and associated plan of work for achieving long lasting peace and timetable for return to democracy.

The UN Security Council: - Urgently adopt the crisis in Zimbabwe as an official item on the UNSC agenda recognizing the threat it poses to international peace and security and requiring regular political and humanitarian briefings to the Council;

- Issue a clear statement indicating GoZ responsibility for the current violence, deploring the tactics used against the population by the GoZ and demanding the facilitation of adequate humanitarian assistance;

- Provide support for an AU-led mediation effort and protection force.

Respectfully,

1. Action des Chrétiens Activistes des Droits de l'Homme à Shabunda (ACADHOSHA), DRC
2. Aids Law Project, South Africa
3. Botswana Civil Society Solidarity Coalition on Zimbabwe (BOCISCOZ), Botswana
4. Centre for Excellent on Aid Effectiveness, Ghana
5. Centre for Peace and Conflict Management (CAFSO), Nigeria
6. Coalition for Peace In Africa (COPA), Southern Africa
7. Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, Zimbabwe
8. East African Law Society (EALS), East Africa
9. Economic Justice Network of FOCCISA, Southern Africa
10. Environnement, Ressources Naturelles et Développement (ERND), DRC
11. Foster National Cohesion (FONACON), Kenya
12. Global Zimbabwean Forum, Switzerland
13. Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF), South Africa
14. Human Rights Institute of South Africa (HURISA), South Africa
15. Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), Kenya
16. le Centre de Recherche sur l'Environnement, la Démocratie et les Droits de l'Homme (CREDDHO), DRC

For full list of signatories, please follow this link:
17. Legal Assistance Centre (LAC), Namibia
18. Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe (MMPZ), Zimbabwe
19. MISA, Swaziland
20. Muslim Human Rights Forum (MHRF), Kenya
21. National Association of Democractic Lawyers, South Africa
22. Nigeria Bar Association, Nigeria
23. Open Democracy Advice Centre, South Africa
24. Open Society Foundation for South Africa (OSF), South Africa
25. Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA), Southern Africa
26. Positive Life Association of Nigeria (PLAN), Nigeria
27. Protection Enfants Sida, DRC
28. Public Personalities Against AIDS Trust, Zimbabwe
29. Rencontre Africain pour Defence des Droits des L'Hommes (RADDHO), Senegal
30. SANGONeT, South Africa
31. Southern Africa Communications for Development (SACOD), South Africa
32. Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC), Southern Africa
33. Southern Africa Resource Watch (SARW), Southern Africa
34. Southern African Legal Assistance Network (SALAN), Southern Africa
35. The Botswana Centre for Human Rights – Ditswanelo¸ Botswana
36. Treatment Action Movement (TAM), Nigeria
37. Trust Africa, Senegal
38. West Africa Bar Association, West Africa
39. West Africa Network for Peacebuilding (WANEP), West Africa
40. Youth Intercommunity Network, Kenya
41. Zimbabwe Association of Doctors for Human Rights, Zimbabwe
42. Zimbabwe Coalition on Debt and Development, Zimbabwe
43. Zimbabwe Exiles Forum, South Africa/Zimbabwe
44. Zimbabwe Human Rights Association, Zimbabwe
45. Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, Zimbabwe
46. Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZHLR), Zimbabwe
47. Zimbabwe Liberation Veterans Forum¸ Zimbabwe
48. Zimbabwe National Students Union (ZINASU), Zimbabwe
49. Zimbabwe Solidarity Forum (ZSF), South Africa
50. Zimbabwe Women’s Resource Center Network, Zimbabwe
51. The African Women’s Development and Communication Network (FEMNET), Kenya

CC: Member States of the African Union

More...

FAO’s Food Crisis Summit versus the People’s State of Emergency

2008-06-18

Eric Holt-Gimenez

Eric Holt-Gimenez looks at the FAO Food Security Summit in contrast to the parallel “Terra Preta” meeting organized by social movements, Indigenous Peoples’ organizations and civil society organizations to discuss issues of food sovereignty.
====

The FAO’s recent Food Security Summit held in Rome 1-4 June called for more free trade, more Green Revolutions, more direct food aid and more investment in agriculture to stem the growing global food crisis. The issue of agrofuels—the original reason for holding the conference in the first place—was effectively taken off the agenda by the United States. Nowhere did world leaders address the root causes of the food crisis.

In a parallel meeting called “Terra Preta” organized by social movements, Indigenous Peoples’ organizations and civil society organizations, and supported by the International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty, a “People’s State of Emergency” was called for. In a statement on the World Food Emergency called “No More Failures-as-Usual!” activists demanded governments accept responsibility in creating the food crisis:

“Historic, systemic failures of governments and international institutions are responsible. National governments that will meet at the FAO Food Crisis Summit in Rome must begin by accepting their responsibility for today’s food emergency… The emergency today has its roots in the food crisis of the 1970s when some opportunistic OECD governments, pursuing neoliberal policies, dismantled the international institutional architecture for food and agriculture. This food crisis is the result of the long standing refusal of governments and intergovernmental organizations to respect, protect and fulfill the right to food, and of the total impunity for the systematic violations of this right among others. They adopted short-term political strategies that engineered the neglect of food and agriculture and set the stage for the current food emergency.”

THE AGRA MEMORANDUM

The Terra Preta statement identifies the Green Revolution as one of the causes of the current crisis, and condemns the call for a “new” Green Revolution in Africa:

“We reject the Green Revolution models. Technocratic techno-fixes are no answer to sustainable food production and rural development. Industrialised agriculture and fisheries are not sustainable.”

Drawing from the findings of the recent International Assessment on Agriculture Science and Technology (IAASTD) Terra Preta insists that:

“The new interest in agriculture remains fundamentally flawed as private US foundations partner with global agribusiness to press national governments and international research systems to pursue a so-called “green revolution” in Africa and elsewhere based upon technological quick-fixes and failed market policies rather than social policy decisions. Governments, research institutions and other donors must learn from this study; change direction; and support small scale sustainable crop and livestock production and fisheries based on the expressed needs of local communities.”
(Also see the Civil Society statement on the World Food Emergency statement, by clicking here

These statements fly in the face of the “Memorandum of Understanding” signed by UN agencies and AGRA that claim the new Green Revolution will “significantly boost food production in Africa’s “breadbasket regions.” The strategy of the new AGRA-UN memorandum is to increase yields in Africa’s most productive regions to offset low yields in other areas. While this may appear on the surface as a new idea, it is actually quite old (like most of the ideas floated at the Food Summit). In fact, the original Green Revolution’s strategy was to seek impressive gains in production by concentrating their efforts on regions that were already high-producing, like India’s Punjab. This not only led to a displacement of poor farmers by rich farmers, it caused severe environmental problems.

Today, the Punjab has the world’s highest farmer suicide rateand Green Revolution techniques have severely depleted the groundwater and poisoned the soil. The “new” Green Revolution for Africa appears to be faithfully following in the footsteps of the old one.


*Eric Holt-Gimenez is the director of Food First (http://www.foodfirst.org).

*Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org

Appeal: Karamoja food crisis

2008-06-23

Aware-Uganda

Semi- arid Karamoja region in the remote North Eastern part of Uganda is made up of five districts; Moroto, Nakapiripirit, Kotido, Kaabong and Abim.

The region presents a unique geographic, developmental and humanitarian challenge to Uganda’s stability and development. The region constantly has the nation’s lowest scores in key development and humanitarian indicators. Mortality and malnutrition levels routinely surpass recognized crisis thresholds.

Over 100 people, amongst them children, the elderly, breast-feeding mothers and people living with Aids have so far died of hunger. And about 8,000 people have migrated to the neighboring districts.

The region has not won the urgent attention of enough governmental and non-governmental actors. AWARE-UGANDA, which operates in the Karamoja region would like to bring to your attention the plight of the Karamoja people as their basic right to adequate food is violated.

In addition to death, the famine is causing severe hardship and human suffering and has grave impacts on the women of Karamoja and their families. The efforts by the World Food Program in Karamoja and other parts of Northern Uganda their supply are just a drop in the ocean.

We appeal to you for assistance.

*For more details, please contact Mrs. Loumo Grace Action for Women and Awakening in Rural Environment AWARE-UGANDA at, [email protected] or call 256-772-516458.

*Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org

The oil crisis in global context

2008-06-23

John Samuel

We could be on the threshold of a new phase of globalisation, one where there will be a new protectionism, more regional trade and regional economic activism and where governments will be forced to address the problems of the vulnerable middle class and poor, argues John Samuel.
====

Oil is back in the centre of economic and political discourse, at the international, national and local level. What does this mean for the future of the economy and geo-politics?

The roots of this phase of economic globalisation lie in the economics and politics of the 1970s. The protagonist was oil. There was a food crisis too. This perpetuated the new cycle of debt and highly indebted poor countries. The economic turmoil of the 1970s (due to the oil shock, saturation of the role of the State and consequent inefficient and ineffective public expenditure, food crisis, and consequent new indebtedness of poor and developing countries) paved the way for the new mix of neo-conservatism, neo-liberalism and the third way. The indebtedness and balance of payment crisis in many countries gave unprecedented power to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank -- and the consequent economic and policy conditionalities they imposed. That is how the story of the new phase of economic globalisation, a mix of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism – the Reagan-Thatcher prescription -- commenced, sometime in the early-'80s.

While there are similarities between the oil shock, food crisis and economic conditions of the '70s and the one we are beginning to face now, the political and economic context are not the same. The first 25 years after the Second World War saw unprecedented and sustained economic growth in Europe and America. In fact, the demand created by reconstruction activities after the war, the aid system in the '50s, and the capabilities in Europe without the burden of maintaining the colonies, helped to a significant extent to propel this economic growth. In other words, there was a significant demand within western countries and internal market competence to deliver the supplies.

By the '70s, the market got saturated in terms of demand, and the State got saturated in terms of the sustainability of public sector spending and effective social welfare. As a result, there was a real compulsion to find new markets elsewhere and to restructure the tax and public expenditure pattern. The rise of Japan and the competitive edge of Japanese products in Asia, the oil rich Gulf countries and the United States also created a sense of urgency to create new markets. To a certain extent the European Union was a sort of political solution to enable market integration to address the issue of market saturation.

The oil shock, and the consequent debt trap and balance of payment crisis, was a great opportunity for OECD countries to develop a combined strategy of trade, aid and debt and the conditionality approach to open up the markets of developing countries and less developed countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa. The economic and political implosion of the USSR in the late-'80s also created a crisis of the centralised policy planning mode and a non-dollar-based trade framework (there was almost a barter system between the USSR and many other countries). In fact, more than the ideological threat of communism, the West was worried about trade (in oil, arms and other commodities); such a system was a global road block for the western capitalist mode of trade. After the fall of the USSR, it was a free ride for finance capitalism and the neo-liberal mode of policy and trade framework.

The present situation is very different. The growth of the last 15 years is propelled by the growth of Asian economies, of Latin America, and parts of Africa. For the first time, the population of China and India tend to become an economic asset, instead of a liability, in terms of productive capability and domestic market expansion. Such a growth is partly due to new infrastructure development in different parts of Asia (in fact, much bigger in scale than the one in Europe in the '60s), and also due to the competitive edge in terms of cheap labour and skills. The finance capital market too played a key role in propelling new investments in the stock market that, in turn, propelled the economy. Asian countries are beginning to play a competitive game and are also using the finance capital market to acquire market share, productive capacities and big multinational corporations. Many of the takeovers (by Tata, Mittal and others) are of immense symbolic importance.

Due to the flight of jobs and due to the crisis of social development, there is a fast emerging, vulnerable, middle class and poor across Europe and the US. There is the added shade of identity politics (dramatically different from the old communist “threat”). The migrant communities which provided the crucial labour inputs during Europe's growth period have become a political liability now. This means there is more political and economic insecurity among a large number of the working class, vulnerable middle class, and the poor. All European countries are facing a new internal crisis of politics and economics (particularly in the context of the alienation of Muslim communities born and brought up in Europe).

This means there is a shift in the political sociology at the grassroots level in the USA, the EU and other parts of Western Europe. Many European countries such as Italy, Spain and France are facing a serious economic crisis. This also means that there can be a shift in the macro-political economy and geo-politics. Hence, the context is dramatically different from that of the economic crisis of the '70s. Today, there is no crisis of balance of payment (so far) and there is lots of foreign exchange reserves. There are vibrant domestic markets in India and China. In fact, the growth is sustained by the economic growth in Asia.

It seems the ongoing economic troubles, oil price hike, and food crisis, will be the springboard for another key political and economic shift in the world. The price of oil climbed from $10 a barrel in 1999 to $135 in the second week of June 2008. Goldman Sachs says it will hit $200 within the next 24 months! This means that the price of oil has risen by 900% in the last one decade. Oil spending as a share of global economy may cross 7% (more than the peak in 1979). Oil drives the engine of the present global economy. The US consumes 25% of the world output. Though demand in China and India increased, China consumes 9% and India consumes only 3% of the total oil demand.

As the price of oil climbs, commodity prices will go up. This also means that food prices will be relatively higher in the international market. The oil price increase is bringing about new political tension and turmoil. But if the price goes up, at least in some segments there will be a decrease in demand. The SUV market in the US and elsewhere was already in a slump and will face a crisis. This will also have consequences in countries like China and India which sustain the global economic growth (and demand for commodities) to a large extent. It will be difficult to sustain subsidy levels for oil in India and governments will be forced to increase the price (there is no other way). A mix of inflation, increasing oil price and deceleration of the economy (for example in real estate) can create new political tensions and equations in many countries, including India.

The increasing price of oil will make the oil-producing countries very cash rich. So the prominence of Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries will significantly increase. This may also induce a new arms race -- led by Russia. On the one hand it will give rise to a multi-polar world, and on the other hand it can propel a war. It is also interesting to note that most of the oil-producing countries are run by autocratic or authoritarian regimes, many of them in the Arab world.

The role of National Sovereign Funds of Gulf countries will increase dramatically. It is estimated that if the price of oil price climbs, six Gulf countries will have a value of $95 trillion dollars (the American economy is around $13 trillion) -- about twice the size of the public equity market. Already Sovereign Wealth Funds of the Gulf countries are buying up the major and controlling stakes of big western banks and this will create new protectionism. A possible inflation (if it crosses 15%) in Asia can cause serious economic trouble. There will be a devaluation of currencies in these countries -- with potential trouble for the finance capital market. There is a real trend of inflation in most countries in Asia (Vietnam is the highest, Thailand is almost 10%, and India, China and others too face it) and the oil price hike will further accentuate the problem. Persistent inflation and stagnant economic growth may result in stagflation in different parts of Asia, including India.

All this means that (a) this phase of economic globalisation will not be sustainable and it will be a transit to the next phase, (b) there will be a new protectionism (particularly in terms of commodity markets, food etc), and (c) There will be more regional trade and regional economic activism.

So, there will possibly be a tendency to regulate finance flow and there will be more restriction for commodity markets. The elections and politics of Europe and the USA will be forced to address the issue of the vulnerable middle class and the poor. Look at the election promises in the USA – it's about jobs. The health system and social security are also top of the agenda. There will be political pressure to increase the allocation for the social sector and for creating new jobs and a reduction of foreign aid (this is what happened in Japan from 1999 onwards).

The next US President will be forced to initiate new protectionism and new social welfare measures. This will have an impact on global trade. The oil price hike may affect travel as well as trade (due to higher freight charges). All this does not mean a “reversal of globalistion”. It means a new phase of globalisation along with a new protectionism in many countries. There will be scope for a New Deal and a new kind of social democratic politics in Europe and elsewhere.

The world is on the threshold of a new phase. The present economic slowdown is likely to persist for another four years. It will influence the shape of the economy, political dynamics and geo-politics in the years to come.

*John Samuel is a social activist and the International Director of Actionaid.

* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

Operating on a risk basis

2008-06-18

Salma Maoulidi

It seems to me that the world over, and more so in our developing nations, that our very existence is built on risk. Women’s ability to bring life into the world is full of risks; the ability of the child to survive past her childhood is surrounded by risks; the ability of the child to obtaining basic schooling is a momentous risk. And the risk of a young girl falling into the poverty trap is greater than her succeeding in life - writes Salma Maoulidi.
====

Twice in one week I refused to be served by two men, both vendors, who would not heed my request that they wash their hands before serving me. Consequently, I forwent satiating an appetite for delicious oranges in one instance and ‘muhogo wa kuchoma’ in the other. And this is not the first time I have had to forgo appeasing my fetish for local yummies. One night I went to bed hungry after one man decided to serve me my portion of Swahili delicacies using his bare hands. I asked him to use a serving spoon and skewers. He responded by rudely asking me to leave his stall.

It is surprising that these men react extremely negatively (and even violently) to requests of consideration for a client’s welfare, in this case mine. They would not even have a discussion about why they could not or would not heed to my requests. I did not need to explain myself but just so that I left nothing to chance I clarified that we all know what men do when they need to relieve themselves. How could I be sure that cleaned up after, or if that he had not scratched himself somewhere wicked?

Momentarily the resistance I witnessed offered a vivid image of what women who have to negotiate with men over a condom must face. While a woman is keen to protect her self during intercourse her male partner has no sense of obligation towards her well-being. At all times his needs seem to eclipse all else. Indeed, if being asked to wash one’s hand to serve another causes such resistance and uproar what must putting on a condom entail?

For almost a week after the event I tried to figure why it was hard for the men to understand that what they were offering me with their bare hands would be consumed by me and enter my system. I, therefore, had no choice but to be prudent as to where what I consume originates and how it is served. It is enough that it is sitting by the side of the road. I don’t need the extra risk of exposure from a known carrier of bacteria. Did they honestly believe that I would trust their hands over my judgment? That I would defer to their ego over my wellbeing? Better safe than sorry I urged myself on as I turned my back to the oranges, muhogo and other choice bites.

I will not be surprised if someone attempts to explain such behaviour from a cultural perspective. I don’t think there is anything indigenous about risking another’s life but what I do buy into is the link between risk and a way of being. Indeed, it seems to me that the world over, and more so in our developing nations, that our very existence is built on risk. Women’s ability to bring life into the world is full of risks; the ability of the child to survive past her childhood is surrounded by risks; the ability of the child to obtaining basic schooling is a momentous risk. Rather she risks dropping out after a few years of schooling to work or to get married. The risk of a young girl falling into the poverty trap is greater than her succeeding in life.

WHY IS A DISCUSSION ON RISK RELEVANT?

Someone mentioned to me recently with regards the power outage in Zanzibar that if this was in another place (and perhaps in another era) the government would be sued for non performance, for the inconvenience caused and for the sheer negligence that leads to subjecting a whole population to power blackout, and for failing to have an emergency plan.

Elsewhere heads would have rolled: a few hours of power blackouts is serious enough let alone a whole month! But this is Tanzania so the President and his Ministers explain away the situation asking citizens to remain calm and preserve as they as they do other mess-ups by the leadership.

One would think that one scandal is enough to warrant a government to clean up its act lest it resigns. Not so in Tanzania. In the same week a few schools closed down because of food shortages. Apparently suppliers stopped sending food supplies to schools due to back payments in the millions of shillings. The ministry concerned through the Deputy Minister Mwantum Mahiza issued a weak statement asking suppliers to bear up as the Ministry has just completed an assessment of the contracts before sending them to Treasury for action.

Imagine our future is risked by poorly conceived and executed contracts! This fiasco happens at a time when students are gearing for their final ‘A’ level examinations. So the suppliers are promised action but what about the students, who will make up for their lost study time? How is it that the Ministry can have overlooked paying suppliers for months while they know children are in schools? No wonder national secondary education results have been dropping…

I worry about the placid response to all this goofing by the taxpayer. Indeed our sense of outrage over recent scandals involving grant theft in government is short lived. Imagine our national pride is compromised in order to appease political egos and we heed calls to stay calm. Our sense of justice is compromised so as not to risk offending the powerful and their friends or those who may be harbouring them. We watch as materialism and expediency puts at risk our sense of what is ethical - and morally just and applaud this as development.

Annually Tanzania remembers the victims aboard MV Bukoba on Lake Victoria who died after the Captain risked taking on extra baggage (perhaps to compensate for the transport shortage) resulting in a massive loss of life. Just recently in Lake Tanganyika another accident has claimed the lives of scores of passengers from all parts of the Greater Lakes. According to official reports overloading is to blame. Was this not a risk?

More disconcerting in all this is the power outage - a matter of national security not addressed as such. Indeed it is not only a grave matter with respect to the risk of an invasion or sabotage but with respect to the threat to life and livelihoods it has posed and continues to pose to local communities. How many people have died as a result? What is the sheer cost of running on generators for extended periods when oil prices are soaring? Who, I wonder, will meet these unexpected costs?

As the world braces itself for food shortages and soaring food prices how much food has wasted away in freezers? How much income has been lost when industries and business fail to operate or to operate maximally? Will the revenue authorities bear this in mind as they go after our taxes? Surely citizens cannot be expected to pay taxes but remain silent and docile when authorities mess up.

More shocking to our nationalist sensitivities is the reason behind the longetivity of the outage. Apparently the only one who can fix the problem is an expert from Norway. After four decades of national independence, why is an area of national sensitivity like power still in the hands of foreign experts? And this is by a government that claims the political right to protect the isles against a take over from some gulf state!

Incredulous as it seems, it is becoming increasingly clear that our belief that we have entrusted the governance of this country to people who know what they are doing is wrong. It is abundantly clear that highly paid professionals and people who claim to have high qualifications posing as politicians and bureaucrats don’t have a clue about what they are doing. Conversely those who do have a clue may not care enough to make a difference. The result is pure misery for the common taxpayer.

It is no wonder that a friend of mine signs off all her messages with quote that reads “experts made the titanic but an amateur made the ark.” The Americans would say “go figure!” but I say we need to figure a way out of this leadership mess.

*Salma Maoulidi is an activist and the Executive Director of the Sahiba Sisters Foundation in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

*Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org

Revamp the peace movement!

2008-06-24

Mildred Barya

In response to Peace with sexual violence is still war. I hear you so well, loud and clear. We need to revamp the peace movement and commitment to ably protect that which is sacred-life. I am beginning to think that only under a vibrant peace revolution can we gain political will and safety for our women, girls, and little boys.

Best now that the MDC has pulled out

2008-06-24

Matthew Doherty

Pan-Africanists: Our collective duty to Zimbabwe is an excellent and perceptive article. Although perhaps a little more on what mechanisms might be pursued for the 'African solution' was desired?

I don't know enough about Tsvangirai's policies to justify the term 'neo-liberal' but he has a trade union background no? And I hope Mbeki's negotiated compromise doesn't eventuate; simply another shield for cronyism isn't going to help Z. Best now that the MDC has pulled out.

On anti-imperialist imperialists!

2008-06-24

Hamadi Walls

I welcome the writers’ analysis and assessment in the article, Pan-Africanists: Our collective duty to Zimbabwe. It provides information, which I believe, is critical in placing the crisis in Zimbabwe in perspective.

It falls short, however, by not offering a viable alternative to anti-imperialists forces which might be masquerading as something else, as he seems to imply about the Mugabe regime. However, the present opposition as far as I can tell does not in any way represent a strong and independent alternative which will uplift the impoverished underclass and protect human rights.

On the contrary, it is clear to me that it is the tool of western imperialism and will carry out its mandates as opposed to the mandates of the people. I believe our job is to educate the people on how to best protect their interest. We must reexamine our definition of democracy very closely making sure it conforms to the needs of the people for universal health care, redistribution of the land, and an economic safety net.

The lack of this kind of examination of political forces in Zimbabwe is tantamount to replacing one despotic regime with another with neither having any true anti-imperialist credentials. Despite the chaos in Zimbabwe and the debate about who or what is mostly responsible, we have an obligation in remaining vigilant in protecting the interest of the most under privileged Zimbabweans. We must help develop and support a government in which progressive, anti-imperialists can place their faith in its authenticity.

On the politics of fear

2008-06-24

Sarah Motha

Best writing and facts in The politics of fear and the fear of politics - much needed in this lifetime. Let this message be shared with local radio stations if possible.

Fahamu