Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
If you're interested in African developments, then you know about the recent WTO trade talks in Cancun that "collapsed." Pambazuka News interviewed four African activists that were in attendance for the African side of the story. When you read about Green room processes, you'll see why I said they were in attendance rather than participating. And you may understand why the African Union refused to go along with the program.
'NO LONGER DINNER': AFRICAN ACTIVISTS SPEAK ON CANCUN
Picture this. An island strip of expensive Florida styled hotels, white beaches and brilliant blue skies, disturbed by the violence of wrought iron barriers the length of the Convention Centre and 20,000 armed Mexican police and federal paramilitary. More than 10,000 people land on the island strip for the Inter-ministerial, 3,000 accredited NGO officials - but only 180 from Africa and 30 Africa Peoples Caucus activists on the outside; 1,200 accredited media journalists, of whom fewer than 100 from Africa; roughly 600 European Commission staff, but only 10 African Union staff and consultants. While the Italian delegation consisted of 106 people, there were 45 on the Kenyan delegation and 3 on the Gambian delegation. Throughout the four days, there were 150 parallel NGO workshops within the official NGO hotel; and outside the perimeter, there were daily protests, stunts, marches by Mexican workers, Korean farmers, North American and European activists and the tragic but dignified self-sacrifice of Mr. Lee.
…and towards the end, long and anxious hours waiting for the secretive green room discussions to end. The tears…and then the shouts of joy and relief when the Kenyan Head of Delegation leaked the news of the collapse of the talks at 3pm on Sunday, 14 September. Africa emerged from the talks a major negotiating player, no longer the dinner of other trading partners, but defining the direction and outcome of the talks in Cancun.
At the invitation of Pambazuka News, Irungu Houghton interviewed four Africa activists who had attended the fifth Inter-Ministerial WTO Conference, Cancun, Mexico:
IRUNGU: What prepared African negotiators prior to Cancun for the resilience they displayed?
GICHINGA: Firstly, CSO representatives in various countries had strong support from their respective countries. The Senegalese minister remarked about the power of the petition she received from the public in Senegal before leaving. Secondly, the various meetings from the African, Caribbean and Pacific, Africa Union Trade Ministerial and the Heads of State meeting had called for solidarity. Thirdly, a range of groups such as ActionAid, Econews Africa, Seatini, Third World Network-Africa, Heinrich Boll Foundation and Oxfam worked with the Geneva based African negotiators and Ministers to hold a pre-Cancun consultation in August.
CRYSTAL: Alongside the official processes, groups came together in Johannesburg to agree on our position.
IRUNGU: Uganda had been very active during the lead up to Cancun, yet it seemed to get marginalized during the Conference, why was this?
SHEILA: Unlike the official delegations from Kenya and Senegal, our Head of State broke with the consensus that was building up in Cancun by purportedly circulating a letter that urged African countries to stay out of the G21. This prevented Uganda from joining the African countries in the forefront. However, it did not have much impact on the conference as it was so clearly out of step with the positions being taken by the Africa Group and the ACP/LDC alliance. You must realize, this was the first time for African parliamentarians to attend, we were equipped to lobby even if the president gave other orders to the members of the government delegation. That was helpful ... to have parliamentarians on board.
IRUNGU: What was unexpected about the process in Cancun?
SHEILA: The unity of African and least developing countries was unexpected.
MOUSSA: We watched carefully for those countries that seemed likely to break with the African Union position; South Africa, Egypt and some of the francophone countries. When the Green room processes started we thought the coalition would collapse.
GICHINGA: For me it was the total lack of vision on the part of rich countries that was totally unexpected. They completely misread the mood. Instead of issues the majority of delegates wanted discussed, they continued to insist on Singapore issues (For explanation, see notes below). They failed to read the mood up to the last moment.
IRUNGU: For people not familiar with the procedures in the Inter-ministerials, the "Green Rooms" seem very strange processes. What kind of discussions take place?
MOUSSA: The Green Rooms are called arbitrarily by the WTO Chairperson to discuss parts of the Declaration that are contentious. In Cancun, it was announced that a Green Room of 29 Ministers and one Advisor each would start at midnight the same day. We spent time speaking to the African Ministers, urging them to remain strong and determined only to hear at 11.45pm that the format had all changed. Nine Ministers and one Advisor each would now meet alone, not on the whole Declaration but on the 'Singapore Issues' only. The Senegalese Minister was initially part of the 26 and was then dropped. I think she was radicalized by this experience. She went from being a privileged negotiator to a victim of these tactics. From then on, I noticed she seemed to react to African delegates proposing to open negotiations on new issues that they were betraying Africa.
GICHINGA: Cancun reflected the lack of transparency that was behind the collapse of the talks in Seattle and Doha. In Seattle, Green Room meetings took place without African and Caribbean Ministers. In Doha, the process continued, this time with wider representation, but in essence the process was still flawed. In some cases, ministers were denied access to advice from their experts. This is tragic as Ministers are not involved in the day-to-day negotiations of WTO.
MOUSSA: I believe this is a mechanism for arm-twisting. It is very undemocratic.
IRUNGU: How effective was the media? Here in Kenya, all I am asked is whether I went naked on the beach in protest?
CRYSTAL: We in the African Peoples Caucus worked with media organizations from South Africa and the rest of the continent. This way, we were able put Africa on the agenda and assert "Africa is not for sale!" We interpreted some of the technical jargon for social movements to understand, we put it into language that my mother back in South Africa could understand.
IRUNGU: What was the decisive moment in the collapse of the talks?
GICHINGA: The collapse started with the presentation of the revised draft declaration on the third day of the conference. It came too late in the meeting. The text was clearly unrepresentative of the submissions of Africa, Caribbean and least developed countries. I remember the very long queue of people rushing for copies and people became frustrated when they saw no improvement. Heads of delegations met and expressed strong views one after another. I was struck by the words of the Minister from Antigua and Bermuda, Sir Ronald Sanders, when he said and I quote; "My government has a duty to care for its people. Were we to accept this document we would deserve our people's condemnation. For we would not only have gained no relief for them, we would have condemned them to a life of perpetual underdevelopment. That my delegation will not do. I have to advise that this draft does not enjoy the support of my government." I could feel this meeting was headed for collapse.
MOUSSA: For me, the most decisive moment happened in the Africa Union/ ACP meeting around midday on the last day. Minister Nkate of Botswana requested the other delegates to accept one of the Singapore Issues in return for an agreement on agriculture. African and Caribbean countries emphatically asked what part of "NO" they didn't understand.
IRUNGU: Media coverage captured the excitement at the collapse of the talks, what did it feel for you at that moment?
GICHINGA: For me there was a sense of relief. I felt like we were being led to the slaughterhouse. There was sense of victory. We had avoided a bad deal. I was elated and relieved by the outcome.
MOUSSA: I was also relieved but angry that we had not achieved anything. We had gone to Cancun for nothing; we did not make any deals. Yet I guess, we managed to stand firm on our positions and I guess that was a victory. It meant that Europeans and Americans had not reached their goal either.
SHEILA: I was excited. We had done a commendable job in keeping Africa's interests on the table and when this did not look possible,
[it contributed] to the end of the talks. After that, a fear come upon me - we had won the victory but how long can we sustain it. It was excitement and fear.
CRYSTAL: Of course on the outside we were happy. It was cause for celebration. Now we need to go back to the drawing board. The hard work starts now. It is no use celebrating - we have to work harder to ensure we take the work forward. We can't sit back; we have to start mobilizing to prepare for what is coming ahead.
IRUNGU: What were your personal lowlights of the conference?
MOUSSA: The night when I learned that the Green Room started, everybody had left and a secret process was going on. I was thinking this is the real conference, and we can do nothing about it. We have no means to influence the secret process and that night I was anxious.
SHEILA: When the greenroom process began. My lowest was when we were told about the changes in the Green Room meeting. I knew we had been beaten. But the following morning things seemed to be coming up.
CRYSTAL: The uncertainty of whether the South Africa delegation would hold to the Africa position, we were certainly not clear on whether South Africa would sell out or support African groupings, but [eventually] it became clear that South Africa did not break ranks with the Africa group.
IRUNGU: What were your personal highlights of the conference?
MOUSSA: As I heard our minister speak on BBC I realized how important her role was and how I could support her in getting her positions across.
GICHINGA: When Minister Nkate listened to the opposition to his proposal to start negotiations on trade investment and then said �well I have heard you, I am going to represent what you have said". The Green room had failed utterly and democratic representation was running the meeting.
SHEILA: My high moment was the collapse of the talks - that was my highest moment.
CRYSTAL: The high moment was when we heard the negotiations had failed.
IRUNGU: What are the dangers ahead for African agriculture, health and wider economies?
GICHINGA: Agriculture - in many African countries the danger is that we are now left with a situation where we do not know what will happen in two years time. We do not have domestic support; there is no motivation or inclination to move forward on this area. It has been a long wait. We have fought for long and in this particular outcome we have no roadmap on how the issue will be addressed.
SHEILA: The issue of regional block. We are now celebrating. But I am sceptical. I think that [many] would rather consider negotiating as individual countries. I think that could undermine the regional block. I think the only way to go is have regional integration.
MOUSSA: I fear that what they could not achieve on a multilateral basis i.e. negotiating on new issues, could be achieved on a bilateral basis. I am concerned about what ACP negotiations are going on. So, basically, the process in Geneva and bilateral processes are reasons to be worried. What they could not achieve on a multi-lateral basis they will try to do so in negotiations like the Cotonou phase 2 negotiations.
CRYSTAL: Some of the concerns that I have is that we don't know what is going on there and we have to be cautious.
IRUNGU: For the next Inter-ministerial, what should African CSOs do differently?
SHEILA: We need to lobby African governments to include more parliamentarians in their delegation - like in Norway, Britain and Italy. As elected representatives, we speak on behalf of our people.
MOUSSA: Africans need to strengthen themselves by connecting more to grassroots. Negotiators from northern countries negotiate under pressure from lobby groups We need to link up more with northern civil society and work more on subsidies reduction.
CRYSTAL: We need to connect local processes in-countries and international events better. We need to make sure that CSOs are represented on all delegations as in some cases we had no representatives from certain countries.
GICHINGA: Yes, we must engage more with the public and show them why they must make their governments accountable for the positions they take. We need civil society to challenge our governments to take the lead from their Geneva experts. We must insist that the pro-active role must come from Geneva rather than capitals. Next time maybe we should do a dummy ministerial WTO declaration to measure against our expectations.
SHEILA: We shouldn't become somebody else's dinner in these meetings. We should set an agenda and put our feet down and say this is our Position, we stand by it. I know its tough but that's what we have got to do.
CRYSTAL: Not all of our Governments are accountable yet. We should work hard towards understanding technicalities and ways of unpacking processes and complex ideas, make it clear that negotiations taking place thousands of miles away impact on our livelihoods. Yea, we are sick and tired of being dinner, we should make dinner for a change.
30 September 2003
Our thanks to Emily Nyanjugu for transcribing the interview. Irungu Houghton is Pan-Africa Policy Advisor for Oxfam GB; Gichinga Ndirangu is Media Coordinator for Heinrich Boll Foundation; Moussa Faye is the Programme Coordinator for ActionAid Senegal; and Crystal Overson is a Media activist with AIDC-South Africa. The views expressed do not necessarily represent the views of these organisations.
NOTE FOR READERS: "SINGAPORE ISSUES" :The 1996 Singapore Ministerial Declaration mandated the establishment of working groups to analyse issues related to investment, competition policy and transparency in government procurement. It also directed the Council for Trade in Goods to undertake exploratory and analytical work on the simplification of trade procedures in order to assess the scope for WTO rules in this area. Most developing countries were unconvinced of the necessity or value of negotiating multilateral rules on these issues, which they see as being of primary interest to developed economies. Since the beginning of June 2003, 101 developing countries (including 68 WTO members - well over half of the WTO's developing country embers) have said they did not want negotiations on the Singapore Issues to be agreed in Cancun.[back]
Posted by P6 at October 2, 2003 05:55 PM | Trackback URL: http://www.prometheus6.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1816