By Thobile Yanta

Trade liberalisation creates First World winners and Third World losers. The effect of trade liberalisation on third world economies has been drastic, with the shedding of jobs in many sectors, especially, clothing and textile, agriculture, and fishing.

In South Africa alone, 34 000 jobs were lost in the formal clothing and textiles industry between 1999 to 2001. In Agriculture, trade protectionist policies of the industrialised countries such as the European Union, United States, and Japan threatens millions of livelihoods in Africa. Poor communities and farmers are condemned to perpetual poverty because the rich countries are refusing to open their markets to agricultural products from African countries. Trade-distorting measures by the developed countries continue to render lives miserable for vulnerable sections of society in many developing countries.

Advocates of economic globalisation insist that all countries benefit from increased trade collaboration. 'Globaphiles – who view globalisation as a panacea to the current world problems – 'view closer co-operation between countries, characterised by trade liberalisation, open markets, and removal of trade barriers, as fundamental to global prosperity.

However, there is growing evidence that the current international trade regime creates winners and losers. Despite the closer co-operation between countries and the creation of institutional frameworks, developing countries are realising that international trade is an area in which economic theory is divorced from concrete reality.

The establishment of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 1995 has not assisted developing countries to reap the benefits of their participation in international trade. The human costs of unfair trade in Africa, East Asia, South Asia, and Latin America are evident.

Doha Conference

In 2001, the developed countries made several commitments at Doha, Qatar to take measures to address some of the fundamental concerns of developing countries in areas such as market access, agricultural subsidies, TRIPS and public health. However, despite commitments made in Doha, for example targets set in the Millennium Developmental Goals, developing countries still face

tariff barriers (for their products) that cost them $100 billion a year. The lack of implementation of Doha commitments is a step backward for many developing countries. For instance, agriculture remains a strategic trade area for Africa and the removal of agricultural subsidies in developed countries would contribute towards job creation and poverty eradication for millions of people, particularly in Africa.

Double standards

The Cancun WTO 5th Ministerial Conference comes at a time when civil society organisations and some developing countries’ governments are increasingly aware that the robbery and plunder that characterised international trade in the sixteenth century has now been replaced by double standards and deceit by the rich, industrialised countries of the North. These double standards are apparent by the fact that despite the lack of implementation of the Doha commitments, developed countries are introducing new issues for negotiations in Cancun. The most significant have been interpreted as attacks on the sovereignty of developing countries:

* Multi-lateral investment terms, to provide rights of entry and operation, and extensive protections and guarantees for international investors in all countries;

*Open access for global corporations to participate in programmes of government procurement, that is the award of public tenders in almost all spheres in all countries

*Uniform competition policies to create a 'level playing field' for global corporations and investors all over the world, and particularly in relation to national/public corporations and state enterprises where they still exist

Though developing countries have been trying to resist the unfair treatment during trade negotiations, no progress has been made due to internal divisions and lack of common interests. African countries are further hampered in negotiations by a lack of technical expertise.

Implications of current trade regime on sustainable livelihoods

There is no doubt that the current international trade regime will not result in the creation of jobs in developing countries. If the negotiations on the new issues proposed by the developed countries proceed in Cancun, developing countries, particularly Africa, will suffer set-backs.

Africa is still trying to face the harsh realities of IMF implemented Structural Adjustment Programmes. Implementing the new issues will mean African countries take a 'double dose' of the adjustment programes.

These International Financial Institutions are conspiring with some bilateral donors and multinational businesses, under the cover of the WTO, to subject essential public goods and services to the dictates of the free market and thereby, disabling governments’ ability to ensure affordable access to essential services. For example, in South Africa, although our Bill of Rights compels the state to "respect, protect, promote and fulfill the rights of citizens", these commitments are undermined by an ideological attack on the role of a developmental state in favour of free markets.

If the global corporations get their way in the next round of negotiations the rights of the poor to access essential services such as water, electricity, food, sanitation, housing, education, and health will be compromised. Global service corporations will enter into developing countries with vast financial, technological professional and management resources. This is a scenario where it will be difficult for domestic service providers, both public and private to compete.

Trade liberalisation in services will also have a direct impact on jobs and conditions of work. The struggle for job retention and creation of new quality jobs will be undermined as the international corporations put profits before people.

What is the role of social forces? The struggle for sustainable livelihoods throughout the developing world is currently being fought on many fronts. The establishment of the World Social Forum is one of the key initiatives and platforms used by progressive social formations to present alternatives to socio-economic injustices brought about by the current international trade regime. The formation of alliances among organised labour and other civil society groupings is key to bringing about fundamental changes in the current world trade system. These social alliances must continue to demand the transparency and accountability of the international trade system. In particular, the World Trade Organisation should be pressurised to be sensitive to the needs of the poor. However, the struggle waged by social forces for better lives should start at national, country level i.e. making trade issues and trade agreements public issues. At the moment, trade agreements are characterised by a lack of transparency and accountability on the part of governments. Social movement organisations must demand that governments be open about their negotiating positions when dealing with trade issues. Governments together with concerned social forces should undertake a country or regional assessment on the impact of trade agreements on the welfare of their populations i.e. incomes, employment, access to basic services etc. Such an inclusive approach will ensure that governments and relevant public officials develop a systematic programme to ensure that the ongoing threat to sustainable livelihoods is reversed. The struggle for a better world includes ensuring that international trade system works for the poor.

[Thobile Yanta is Researcher Co-ordinator of Naledi’s South-South Programme]