Days before the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, anti- poverty advocates staged their own egg hunt in Lafayette Park to urge President Obama to “find political will to end global hunger” during the upcoming G8 Summit at Camp David.

Hunger advocates call on President Obama to pledge a commitment to global hunger at the G8 summit. Credit: ActionAid USA

Sponsored by ActionAid USA, the activists held banners that read “Obama: Find the Will to be a Hunger Hero at the G8,” next to a cutout of the president in a superhero suit.

“This year, Americans are expected to spend over two billion dollars on Easter candy, according to CNN. We estimate that if the U.S contributed less than half that amount to a G8 food security initiative, we could empower 50 million smallholder farmers to boost themselves out of poverty through sustainable agriculture,” Katie Campbell, senior policy analyst at ActionAid USA, said in a press release.

“President Obama must do everything possible to find the political will and financial resources to combat hunger when international leaders meet at Camp David in May.”

The number of hungry people worldwide increased to historic levels due to the global food price and economic crises of 2007-2008. In 2010, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated 925 million hungry people in the world, with a vast majority of the undernourished living in developing countries, mostly in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

In 2009, soon after new poverty figures showed one-sixth of the world was now hungry, the G8 declared the “L’Aquila hunger pledge” in Italy prioritising food security issues and committing 22 billion dollars over three years in support of country-led plans for agriculture.

The L’Aquila financial commitments are set to expire this May. In its place, anti-poverty advocates are calling out for a new financial pledge for a new food security initiative upholding the five “Rome Principles” set during the 2009 World Summit on Food Security.

“The Rome principles basically hold countries accountable for investing in country-led plans in a comprehensive, coordinated and sustainable way. We would like to see the Rome principles, not just as principles countries should abide by, but as the fundamental framework for a new food security initiative,” Campbell told IPS.

It’s also important to evaluate impact targets, Campbell added. Instead of just allocating a certain amount of money, the pledge should calculate how many people are reached when country investment plans are fulfilled.

The new suggestions are improvements over the shortcomings of the current pledge. A 2011 report by ActionAid found that two years after L’Aquila, almost two-thirds of the way through, only 22 percent of the aid had actually been spent. Despite the U.S. leading the way and promising transparency of progress, delivery of aid has been significantly slow, mostly attributed to delays in the Congressional budget process.

Some G8 members had even “deliberately inflated aid to agriculture figures” by including previous aid commitments and money used in non- agricultural sectors in their calculations.

Campbell thinks solutions to such problems, other than holding governments accountable, is to ensure long-term investments rather than year-to-year ones. “If we make six- or seven-year investments, countries don’t have to necessarily rely on congressional appropriation.”

Campbell says the pledge has been relatively successful in its Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP). She just returned from Rwanda, where she witnessed GAFSP transforming the lives of farmers by building terraces on hilly land, increasing productivity tenfold.

Agriculture is the most effective way to drive economic growth in the world’s poorest communities, and women’s inclusion is considered paramount for any growth.

“We actually believe strongly that to pull people out of poverty and to improve food security is to invest in women smallholder farmers because women, especially in Africa, make up the majority of farmers and the majority of farm labour,” Campbell said.

Despite comprising 43 percent of the agricultural labour force, women in developing countries often lack access to resources male farmers have. By giving women access to credit, labour saving tools and so on, their impact in agricultural development can be multiplied.

“The second thing is climate resilience of agricultural practices. We are already seeing the impact of climate change in poor nations. So we feel it’s really important that any new investments in agricultural development need to be resilient to climate change and be sustainable,” Campbell said.

Melinda Gates (right), co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, pressed for gender-sensitive development aid at a conference on Apr. 4 Credit: A. D. McKenzie/IPS

By A. D. McKenzie
PARIS, Apr 5 2012 (IPS)

Though United Nations experts agree that governments should focus on empowering girls and women as a key to managing a world of seven billion people, not enough is being done for women’s rights in developing countries, aid advocates say.

“There are 215 million women around the world who would like access to some kind of birth control tool who don’t get it today,” said Melinda Gates, co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, at a conference on development aid held here on Apr. 4.

“This is particularly true in many of the countries (with which France has bilateral aid agreements), in West Africa, for instance,” said Gates, the wife of Microsoft’s founder. “If women have access to contraceptive tools, they can save their own lives, because we know it will decrease the number of women dying in childbirth and also save children.”

She added that the whole idea of aid is “not to have people on aid forever.” It’s to build countries that provide the right products and services to their people. “That’s what leads to sustainability, and that’s when a society can lift (itself) up.”

Development commitments lagging

On the same day that Gates spoke in France, the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) issued a report showing that global development aid declined by nearly three percent in 2011 for the first time in more than 10 years.

The organisation said that in 2011, members of the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD provided 133.5 billion dollars of net official development assistance, representing 0.31 per cent of their combined gross national income (GNI). This was a 2.7 percent drop in real terms compared with 2010.

Meanwhile, total net official development assistance provided by all 27 member states of the European Union was 73.6 billion dollars in 2011, which represents 0.42 percent of their combined GNI, down from 0.44 percent in 2010, the OECD report said.

The drop came despite the EU’s pledge to allocate 0.7 percent of member states’ GNI to development assistance by 2015. French aid, for instance, fell from 0.51 percent of GNI in 2010 to 0.46 percent last year.

“This is a major cause for concern, ” said Guillaume Grosso, director of the French branch of ONE, the anti-poverty group co-founded by Irish musician Bono.

“France is one of the most important players in terms of how much money they put on the table. So if France is starting to move backwards, it can have a domino effect,” he told IPS.

He added, “Each reduction in the aid budget prevents children from going to school, prevents treatment for the sick, and prevents families from having access to clean drinking water.”

ONE wants France to take a leading role in championing development aid, because of the country’s status as a “driver” (with Germany) in the EU, and as a member of the Group of 8 (G8) major global economies.

French president Nicolas Sarkozy has supported a tax on financial transactions (FTT) to aid development, and the French government plans to implement the tax without waiting for its European or G8 partners to come on board.

But Sarkozy faces a two-round presidential election in April and May, and there is no guarantee that he will be around to see new policies through. He currently trails in the polls to Socialist challenger Francois Hollande.

“The situation of Africa and development has been largely overlooked in the election campaign, but it should be an essential part because what France will do or will not do in the next five years can have a tremendous influence in the world for good or for bad,” Grosso told IPS.

Marie-Do Aeschlimann, national secretary for the ruling Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) party’s international humanitarian and solidarity action, told IPS that Sarkozy “was the first to fight for innovative financing”. She said that the FTT will be implemented in August of this year in France, and will be used to fund development from 2013.

“The stronger France is financially, the more (it) can help to aid development overseas,” she said, adding that Sarkozy and his party were “very attached” to the goals of promoting gender equality and women’s rights as outlined in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

“We will continue to support programmes that enable women to become more autonomous, particularly through professional training, but also in their function as mothers, which is very important,” Aeschlimann added. “We also support the right of women to choose to have or not to have children, and at their own timing.”

Reproductive justice boosts development

Many NGOs, U.N. agencies and parliamentarians continue to call on governments around the world to do more for women’s reproductive rights.

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) says that reproductive health and women’s empowerment are linked to the eight MDGS. Regarding poverty reduction, for example, the UNFPA says, “Countries that support desires of their citizens for fewer children and longer time between births, while simultaneously reducing mortality, reap benefits in social and economic development”.

At last year’s G8 summit in France, parliamentarians from 35 countries also appealed to leaders of the world’s major economies to focus on the role of women and girls in development.

“We wish to draw the world’s attention to two aspects of human rights that are the most neglected – the situation facing girls and adolescent women and the challenges posed by global population dynamics at present,” said a resolution issued at the end of the Global Parliamentarians’ Summit held at France’s National Assembly last May.

The resolution said that 600 million girls and young women in the developing world “are in a vulnerable situation, facing injustices and inequities that constitute a major obstacle to social and human development, both at a personal and a societal level.”

The parliamentarians, from European Union member countries as well as from Africa, Asia and other regions, called for changing the policies that see women receiving less than two cents of every development dollar.

This week, Gates added her own support to the push for more development assistance to women.

“Women are the fabric of society and they lift their families up,” she told IPS. “We know that every extra little bit of income a woman gets, they invest it back in the heath and education of their families, so they are absolutely fundamental towards getting a society to grow and develop.”

But even if development aid to women were to increase significantly over the next years, NGOs worry that investment will be undercut by the EU’s own corporate policies. Groups such as ONE are pushing for strong legislation on the extractive industries, for instance.

“We need legislation at the EU level so that Europe can take a strong stance and force European companies to publish what they pay to countries in which they exploit resources,” Grosso told IPS.

He said this was to avoid situations such as in Equatorial Guinea, which is one of the richest countries in Africa, with a GDP equivalent to that of Portugal, but where “two people out of three live on less than a dollar a day”.

“The contracts between petroleum companies and governments are so opaque that there can be all kinds of corruption and misuse of funds,” Grosso said.

“It’s very important that development aid is not some kind of excuse for running atrocious commercial or agricultural policies that close the door to access to markets for African farmers, for instance, two- thirds of whom are women,” he told IPS.

Brian Atwood Credit: Sanjay Suri/IPS

By Sanjay Suri and - -
LONDON, Nov 22 2011 (IPS)

For a start, stop calling it “aid”, Brian Atwood, chair of the Development Assistance Committee at the OECD, tells IPS.

Brian Atwood Credit: Sanjay Suri/IPS

Signs are that the Busan summit will take agreements on development cooperation forward substantially, Atwood says in an email interview. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which is leading the fourth high-level forum on aid effectiveness taking place in Busan, South Korea, Nov. 29-Dec. 1, says that at a time of particular economic difficulties, agreements reached at Busan would be vital.

Following is the text of the interview:

Q: What is the best-case scenario that can realistically emerge at Busan? A: We will improve global cooperation and local coordination, reaffirm commitments made in Paris and Accra and rededicate the development community to achieving the MDGs. We will state that north-south and south-south cooperation are complementary and will commit to working together, including in triangular efforts.

Q: What might be the worst-case scenario, and what would be its implications? A: That Busan becomes a finger pointing exercise rather than an effort to overcome political obstacles to progress. Thus far, there is no indication of that.

Q: What does the Paris sherpas meet tell us? A: This represents a real negotiation over differences of interest and perspective, but it has been infected by a spirit of accommodation.

Q: Is language a problem: and so is the word ‘aid’ itself a problem, in that it suggests a giving that implies patronage and loss to the ‘donor’? A: We hope that Busan will eliminate words like “aid” and “donor” and “recipient.” However, the forum is called “aid effectiveness.” The word is used in the outcome text as a synonym for Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) at a time when developing partners are increasingly concerned that ODA levels might go down. So “aid” remains for now, but is hopefully to be replaced by “development cooperation.”

Q: The idea that aid is not a loss but is for the greater good, including one’s national own, is becoming a bit more current. Are there signs that governments are buying the argument? A: Never has the need for development been discussed at such high levels of government, including the G-20 and G-8. The attention being paid to Busan, versus Paris and Accra, is phenomenal. Attending will be the U.N. secretary-general, the U.S. secretary of state, 110 ministers, 30 foreign ministers and a half a dozen heads of state.

Q: Could such an idea be interpreted to take us back to the practice of heavily tied aid that some countries at least have been stepping away from? A: Around 80 percent of tied aid has been eliminated and I see no effort to turn the clock back on previous commitments. The last 20 percent is the most difficult because it involves popular programmes like food aid, scholarships, civil society organisations from donor countries and technical cooperation. However, I believe we will continue to make progress.

Q: Is there a distinction to be made between ‘evolved’ self-interest and narrow self-interest? Can politicians be persuaded to see that difference? A: We have a self-interest in bringing people out of poverty. That is a long-term endeavour and in that sense it is not ‘narrow,’ rather it requires an enlightened view. I believe that despite the economic pressures, we have acquired that view and I believe that Busan will demonstrate that.

Q: In the current economic squeeze, cutting aid might be more populist than sensible, and keeping up aid can potentially be unpopular. Are voters in Western Europe and North America showing any indication of resisting development aid? A: Some politicians are resisting and advocating budget cuts, but I believe they are in the minority. There is little to be gained in cutting these programmes which represent a small part of budgets, but much to be lost.

Q: If aid must be channelled in harmony with national priorities set by governments, where does civil society stand? Can we go back to old classic patterns of non-government organisations (NGOs) carrying out pockets of aided development? A: Civil society is a vital part of development and the development of a viable civil society is best carried out by NGOs with similar missions.

Q: In what way does the aid story change when it flows from south to south? Are those more instances of heavily tied aid? Is it more legitimate when the flow is south to south? A: We don’t know enough about the details of south-south cooperation. There is an important affinity among these nations and that is an important attribute.

Q: It may take a book and more to really answer this, but broadly, in what ways has the Paris Declaration worked, and where and how has it not? A: Yes, a book. Please take a look at our evaluation and survey. It is the evidence that demonstrates that ownership, alignment and mutual accountability produce results.

Excerpt:

By Cléo Fatoorehchi
CANNES, Nov 4 2011 (IPS)

While the Greek bailout and stimulus package dominated discussion among the Group of 20 (G20) major industrialised and emerging market economies at the high-level summit in Cannes, France, this week, the proposed financial transactions tax (FTT) received meagre attention.

Heads of the Group of 20 (G20) major economies meet at this year's summit in Cannes, France. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider

Back in February, French President Nicolas Sarkozy nudged Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates to prepare a report on the enourmous potential of such a tax to jump-start development in poor countries, particularly after the 2008-9 crash pushed many donor nations to slash their official development assistance (ODA) to the global south.

A ‘technical note’ from the report, released at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund spring meetings in Washington D.C. in September, claimed that the adoption of an FTT by the G20 or even the European Union could generate “substantial resources.”

According to the note, “Some modeling suggests that even a small tax of 10 bp (basis points) on equities and two bp on bonds would yield about 48 billion (dollars) on a G20-wide basis, or 9 billion (dollars) if confined to larger European economies. Some FTT proposals offer substantially larger estimates, in the 100-250 billion (dollar) range, especially if derivatives are included.”

Eyes on Europe

However, fears about potential ripple effects of massive instability in the Eurozone pushed the FTT further and further down the G20 agenda over the last few days.

Many experts were fearful that if the EU crumbled further, the global impacts, especially in developing countries, would be severe.

Alan S. Alexandroff, director of the Digital20 Project at the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto, told IPS that the current global economic architecture meant that any regional crisis posed grave threats to other, interdependent parts of the world.

“Since China’s major export market is Europe, it is going to be a very difficult problem for China if they cannot export because the economy in Europe is under stress,” he said, adding that India and Brazil were also vulnerable to shock waves emanating from the Eurozone.

Samuel A. Worthington, President and CEO of the U.S. umbrella organisation InterAction, told IPS, “The Greek crisis, the broader euro crisis, as well as the fiscal crisis in the U.S. have a direct negative effect on the developing world.”

“It decreases remittances; it decreases bank investments around the world, particularly with European banks in Africa; and it makes the overall prospects of global growth lower,” he added.

Strong push for financial transactions tax

Luckily, the release Thursday of Gates’ long-awaited report, entitled ‘Innovation with Impact: Financing 21st Century Development,’ shed light on alternative methods of boosting ODA, even under economic pressure, through innovative development financing schemes.

Touching on a broad range of issues, the report stressed, “well designed aid reduces poverty right now, and accelerates poor countries’ progress toward the moment when they will no longer need it.”

It outlined the proposal of a tobacco tax, an idea promoted by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and also suggested taxes on aviation and bunker fuels, which would serve the dual purpose of addressing environmental concerns about pollution and over-exploitation of natural resources, as well as generating substantial revenue.

Finally, the report called outright on the G20 governments to commit to the FTT. According to the report, even taxing financial transactions at the minimal scale of 0.001 percent would mobilise billions of dollars towards developing countries.

Various international and development NGOs warmly welcomed Gates’ support on these issues.

Luc Lamprière, Oxfam’s spokesperson at the G20, said in a statement on Thursday, “Gates’ enthusiasm for an FTT and a carbon charge on shipping and aviation should encourage champions like France, Germany, and Brazil and convince sceptics like Canada, UK and the U.S.”

But as Worthington pointed out, “unfortunately, the trend seems to be going in the opposite direction.”

While some G20 countries have already implemented their own versions of an FTT at the national level – namely South Korea, South Africa and Brazil – influential countries like France are looking for a coalition, or collective agreement on the issue. Worthington believes that “France is afraid to act in isolation” for fear of putting Paris’ markets at risk.

Sarkozy eventually closed the G20 meeting in Cannes on Friday with the announcement that ten out of the twenty countries support the implementation of the tax, though no concrete action plan was put in place.

The U.S. and the UK refused to agree to the FTT, but were convinced to mention it in the final communiqué – a significant step forward, according to Khalil Elouardighi, a relentless advocate of the tax through Coalition Plus.

With a strong coalition of countries throwing their weight behind the FTT, NGOs expect that nothing will keep it from being implemented.

Last Friday, the Leading Group on Innovative Financing and Development published a draft treaty on the FTT, complete with a blueprint for action beginning in September. The group plans to meet in Madrid on Dec. 29, at which point many hope that the leaders will be true to their word, and sign a concrete treaty on the tax.

Excerpt:

By Cléo Fatoorehchi and - -
CANNES, Nov 4 2011 (IPS)

While the 20 heads of state of the Group of 20 (G20) industrialised and emerging countries gather in southern France to deliberate on the future of the global economy – particularly the crises unfolding in the Eurozone – pockets of activists are amassing around the summit to make their voices heard.

French honour guards at the G20 Summit at the Palais des Festivals in Cannes, France. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider

At a protest rally on Tuesday, John E. Ruthrauff, international advocacy director of InterAction, an umbrella organisation of close to 200 U.S.-based NGOs, expressed his doubts that the G20 would put people first.

“The G20 leaders will look at the European crisis first, and the people second,” he told IPS.

Experts like Marica Frangakis, an economist at the Nicos Poulantzas Institute at the University of Athens, believes that fiscal consolidation and debt relief for countries like Greece will likely have a negative effect on society, leading to even tougher austerity measures that will result in “high unemployment, high poverty, high inequality, and will prolong the pain of the crisis for the vast majority of people.”

The EU leaders’ decision to boost the coffers of the European financial stability facility, or financial fund, from 440 billion to one trillion euros in order to strengthen banks and provide fresh aid to struggling Greece, has been widely criticized.

Frangakis blasted the move as a “halfway measure” and called for a total restructuring of the euro architecture.

“Right now the European Central Bank acts as a bank for other banks; we need it to become a government’s bank and we need a community budget that can help member states when there is a crisis or a downturn,” she told IPS.

She also identified a lack of commitment by the banks to implement decisions made by governments.

Lidia Canha, from the Portuguese association UMAR, an organisation of women working to end gender- based and domestic violence, stressed that the prioritisation of finance capital over social welfare is detrimental to a country, since it breeds a precarious labour environment and effectively dismantles the public service infrastructure.

In a huge push against these risks, swathes of civil society are striving to inject their perspectives and demands into the G20 process.

Peter Bosshard, policy director of International Rivers, told IPS, “Civil society groups want to have access to G20 meetings so we can ensure that social justice, environmental protection and the fight against climate change remain part of the official agenda and that the deals agreed upon at these exclusive meetings don’t just benefit the richest one percent.”

Incremental efforts

French president and summit host Nicolas Sarkozy promised this week that he would prioritise stimulating employment and improving social protection mechanisms.

Sarkozy also met with heads of various NGOs and labour unions on Wednesday in an effort to include more civil society voices in the debates currently underway.

In a statement released Thursday, Samuel A. Worthington, president of InterAction, applauded the joint effort by Sarkozy and billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates to drum up support for the controversial financial transactions tax (FTT), which activists have dubbed the ‘Robin Hood Tax’, as a potential fresh source of development aid for the global south.

“The G20 is in a unique position to use its leadership to not only achieve economic recovery but also to ensure that it is done in a way that is inclusive and helps the poor to improve their lives,” Worthington added.

However, the ongoing crisis in Greece suggests that even efforts to reform the G20 will likely do little to prevent future financial meltdowns.

Changing the system

Referring to the crisis in Greece and throughout the Eurozone, Mamdouh Habashi, vice president of the World Forum for Alternatives, told IPS, “The only way to save the euro is to change the system.”

He stressed that the “cosmetic” solutions agreed upon in response to the global recession in 2008 would do little to ease the cyclical problems of the financial system, adding that much deeper, structural changes were required to address the issue.

“Contradictions within the system itself are now too great for the system to adapt to,” he said.

Given that the destructive impacts of transnational capital, like poverty and inequality, are no longer relegated to the ‘third world’ but have spread also into the global North, Habashi believes that the time is ripe to foster “a new consciousness of solidarity” across borders.

According to Habashi, the dominant economic ideology of free market capitalism is unable to bring an end to the crisis, no matter the outcome of the numerous late-night meetings in Cannes.

“They will only increase the ‘financialisation’ of this world, or reform it instead of fundamentally changing it,” he concluded.

Having co-founded the Egyptian socialist party and witnessed first hand the Egyptian revolution, which successfully overthrew Hosni Mubarak’s regime in February, Habashi is convinced that systemic change is not only possible, it is necessary.

He also stressed the need to simultaneously imagine and construct a new system, even while dismantling the old one.

For this reason, he strongly advocates for social movements from the ‘Occupy’ protests in the U.S. to the ongoing demonstrations in Tahrir Square to “coordinate, exchange views and look at the system as a common enemy.”

Excerpt:

By IPS Correspondents
DEAUVILLE, France, May 28 2011 (IPS)

Stressing that there is only so much money to go around, development experts worry that the aid package the Group of Eight (G8) has announced for North Africa may mean fewer funds for the rest of the continent.

During their two-day summit here that ended Friday, G8 leaders envisaged financial aid of some 40 billion dollars to Tunisia and Egypt, with other countries in the region set to benefit when democratic reforms take hold.

The G8 also announced a “renewal” of their partnership with Africa, welcoming the “spread of democracy” and the “new dynamism” of African nations. The group met with leaders of seven African states and, for the first time, adopted a joint declaration with them.

Non-governmental observers hailed these moves, but many said that much more needs to be done for the poorest people on the continent, and that the G8’s focus on the Arab world should not detract from the commitments made to Africa in the past.

“At their Gleneagles summit in 2005, the G8 promised 25 billion dollars to Africa by 2010. We’re now in 2011 and looking back we’re missing 40 percent of the sums that were promised,” said Guillaume Grosso, French director of anti-poverty group ONE.

“We can say the G8 has not fulfilled its promise, and there is no new promise, which is quite worrying,” he told IPS. “There is no money lined up to reach the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.”

Grosso said that while it was “a good thing” that the G8 was now “embracing democracy and freedom for the first time”, world leaders should not forget about sub-Saharan Africa.

“The Arab Spring could mean an African Summer drought,” he told IPS. “The overseas development budget is under severe strain, and funds have been frozen or reduced in several countries.

“We are concerned that by putting a lot of emphasis on North Africa, we get even less money for sub- Saharan Africa, which would be a big mistake,” he added.

Prior to the summit, NGOs had slammed Italy and some other G8 countries for not honouring their commitments. The United Kingdom is the only member of the G8 on target to meet its promises, and Prime Minister David Cameron urged his partners to follow the UK example.

“I think what people back at home think about these summits is that frankly a bunch of people in suits get together and make some promises, particularly to the world’s poorest, and then they go in and have a big lunch and forget all about the promises. I am not prepared to do that,” Cameron said.

“The UK will not balance its books on the backs of the poorest,” he told reporters.

ATD Fourth World, one of 50 NGOs accredited to attend the Deauville summit, said extreme poverty persists.

“The G8’s commitment for the values of freedom and democracy will remain half-baked while extreme poverty continues to persist in all corners of the globe,” the group said.

Despite fast growing economies on the continent, there are still 300 million people going hungry in Africa, with many in “dehumanising poverty”, according to African Monitor, a pan-African, non-profit organisation.

Its founder Njongonkulu Ndungane, former archbishop of Cape Town, wrote prior to the summit that it was important that the G8 and its African guests make their commitments count.

“Africans expect their economies to grow and to grow fast. But they also expect that a simple life of dignity – not necessarily opulence – should be guaranteed for all,” Ndungane stated.

For its part, Tunisia says that the priority will be on boosting its economy, providing jobs for the thousands of young people who are out of work, and giving humanitarian aid to refugees, many of who are from Libya.

“The Tunisian people have, in a very short time and only through the strength of its democratic convictions, achieved a peaceful revolution, which will go down in the history of humanity,” the country’s delegation to the G8 summit said in a statement.

“Tunisia has launched a profound democratic movement in the Arab world that may completely remodel the future of North Africa and the Middle East, as well as that of the Euro-Mediterranean zone,” it added.

Tunisian Finance Minister Jeloul Ayed said that G8 had expressed a clear willingness to support this democratic movement, but he said that the financial package announced came with conditions.

Tunisia pledged to implement better governance, speed up the development of infrastructure, “develop its human capital”, increase its participation on international markets, and transform the financial sector.

“Without international aid, the risk will be great for Tunisia: increase in unemployment and social instability which, in their turn, will lead to more poverty and an augmentation of migration flows,” the country warned.

Tunisian Prime Minister Beji Caid Essebsi, head of the country’s interim government, said that women would play a more important role in governing the country after the next elections, originally set for Jul. 24, but expected to be delayed. He told reporters that 50 percent of government seats would be allotted to women in the next government.

Many activists as well as parliamentarians from 35 countries had called for development packages to focus on women and girls during the G8 summit. As the Deauville meeting began, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had launched a high-profile initiative at UNESCO in Paris to highlight the specific educational needs of girls.

The G8 did not announce the canceling of Tunisia’s foreign debt as some observers had expected. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who hosted the summit, told journalists that this was because there were “many countries poorer” than Tunisia that also needed help.

In all, 33 of the world’s least developed countries are in Africa, and many of them are former French colonies.

Excerpt:

As leaders of the Group of Eight ended their two-day summit in this seaside town Friday, non-governmental organisations said the meeting had resulted in few concrete commitments.

Oxfam called the summit the “G8’s YesNoVille”, saying that the heads of states were “losing credibility by showing no real decision-making” in their final declaration.

“The G8 has still not come to terms with the reality of the official OECD verdict on their aid figures, which shows that the 50 billion dollar aid promise has been missed by a massive 19 billion dollars,” Oxfam said in a statement.

“Instead they are content with listing both this number and their own massaged figure that puts them almost on target,” the group added.

“When it comes to giving basic, practical milestones, G8 leaders have once again fallen short. We need specifics,” said Samuel A. Worthington, president and CEO of InterAction, the biggest alliance of U.S.- based international NGOs.

Some organisations said the summit had failed to address the issue of poverty and human rights sufficiently. Matt Davies, head of policy and advocacy for ATD Fourth World, told IPS that his group was disappointed that although the G8 stressed economic recovery, “there is no recognition that poverty is also an issue, with one in 12 people living in severe and material deprivation in Europe.”

“This is a number that is unacceptable,” he said.

At the summit, the heads of state of the world’s major economies focused on developments in the Arab world, relations with Africa, nuclear safety, the Internet, climate change, and the global economy.

They came out strongly in support of the move towards democracy in countries such as Egypt and Tunisia, and called on Libya and Syria to end the brutal crackdown on their populations.

“In light of the recent developments in the Middle East and North Africa, and in Sub-Saharan Africa, we renewed our commitment to support democratic reform around the world and to respond to the aspirations for freedom, including freedom of religion, and empowerment, particularly for women and youth,” the G8 leaders said in their declaration.

“We demand the immediate cessation of the use of force by the Libyan regime forces as well as the cessation of all incitement to hostility and violence against the civilian population,” the statement said.

It continued that that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had “failed to fulfill their responsibility to protect the Libyan population” and had “lost all legitimacy.”

“He has no future in a free, democratic Libya. He must go,” the statement said.

Speaking to journalists at the end of the summit, French President Nicolas Sarkozy reiterated this stance, stressing that mediation with Gaddafi was not possible.

“Mr. Gaddafi must go,” Sarkozy said. “What we can discuss are the modalities of his departure.”

The President said he planned to visit the rebel base of Benghazi, perhaps on a joint trip with British leaders.

To help promote democracy, G8 leaders also announced a 40 billion dollar financial trade and aid package to countries in North Africa, particularly Tunisia and Egypt, although other states might also benefit later.

Tunisia’s Finance Minister Jelloul Ayed told the press that his country was “satisfied by the clear decision to help.” But he said that the G8 announcement did not amount to a concrete agreement, only that this was the financial package being envisaged.

There is already agreement on a 1.3 billion dollar package from the World Bank, the African Development Bank and other institutions, he said.

He said the country’s priority was to create employment for the thousands of young people out of work.

In implied criticism of the way Europe has treated Tunisian refugees, some of whom are living outdoors in parks in Paris, Ayed told IPS that “Tunisia has shown and demonstrated its civility and its deep sense of civilisation” by the way it has treated its own refugees, particularly from Libya.

He said Tunisia has had more than 410,000 refugees passing through the country. There have been recent clashes between various groups of the refugees, and Tunisia has asked for help.

“It’s a big problem, and we are concerned that the difficulty will be exacerbated if the situation in Libya were to deteriorate even further,” he told IPS. Both France and Britain have said that there will be a new phase of operations against Gaddafi.

Some organisations said they were disappointed that the G8 had failed to work more closely with civil society and citizens in trying to reach goals that would improve the lives of people in the Arab world and sub-Saharan Africa.

“Drawing on the lessons of the people’s movement in North Africa, it would have been normal to prepare this summit not only with ministers but with structures coming from the revolution that are preparing the democracy of tomorrow,” said Nathalie Dujat, a spokesperson for Coordination Sud, a coalition of French NGOS.

“For years now civil society has been trying to gain a place at the summit and it has been very difficult,” she added. “One good thing about this year is that we got a place among the media.”

She said that NGOS planned to work towards having a larger presence at the G20 summit in Cannes later this year, and at next year’s G8 summit which will be hosted by the United States.

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, May 25 2011 (IPS)

When leaders of the Group of 8 (G8) industrialised nations meet in Deauville, France later this week, there is a strong possibility that politics will take precedence over traditional socioeconomic issues like food security and development aid, which are being overshadowed by the Arab revolution and Palestinian statehood.

“The upcoming G8 likely will be dominated by a range of international political issues, especially Libya,” predicts Rob Vos, director of the Development Policy and Analysis Division of the U.N.’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

The nuclear plant crisis in Japan, he told IPS, is likely lead to discussion on stricter international standards.

The economic repercussions of the recession in Japan and the global financial disruption also will be subjects of discussion, as well as the European sovereign debt crisis. But the policy implications of these likely will be left to the larger G20 bloc, he added.

A summit meeting of G20 leaders is scheduled to take place in Cannes, France in November this year.

The G8, which comprises Germany, Italy, Britain, Canada, Japan, Russia, France and the United States, is also expected to place priority on strengthening its partnership with Africa, including on issues related to food security and poverty reduction, and the critical role of agriculture in achieving these goals, according to the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

But some of these critical socioeconomic issues may be left for the G20, which (besides the G8) includes Australia, Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, and also seven developing countries ‑ namely Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa ‑ plus the European Union.

According to one newspaper report, U.S. President Barack Obama will attempt to counter the proposed General Assembly resolution on Palestinian statehood by trying to convince some of the European leaders not to vote for the resolution when it comes up at the United Nations in September.

“But this may be a good try in a lost cause,” says one Asian diplomat, who points out that some of the major European nations, including Britain and France, have already hinted they may support the resolution on Palestinian statehood.

Asked whether the G8 has fulfilled most of its past economic pledges, Vos told IPS: “As to global commitments to the South, clearly the G8 fell short about 20 billion dollars on aid commitments in 2010 (the deadline to deliver on the commitments made at the Gleneagles Summit in 2005).”

Additionally, he said, the G8 also still has to deliver on the promise of more support for sustainable agriculture to deal with ongoing the food crisis.

However, he pointed out, this G8 Summit, scheduled to take place May 26-27, does not seem to have this on its agenda.

“So the summit likely will be dominated by international political issues and I don’t expect anything much in terms of new pledges for supporting developing countries” said Vos, a lead author of the U.N.’s two flagship reports, ‘World Economic and Social Survey’ and ‘The World Economic Situation and Prospects’.

In a statement released early this week, IFPRI Director General Shenggen Fan said G8 leaders had pledged more than 20 billion dollars to boost food security and agricultural development.

And last year, a multilateral fund, the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program, was launched with the goal of improving agricultural production, crop productivity, and food security.

“Although these financial commitments are substantial, challenges remain,” Fan said.

First and foremost, donors need to make good on their promises, as do African governments themselves.

Second, investments in agriculture should reflect a country’s national priorities, contribute to an overall development strategy, and be supported by good governance and effective policies.

Finally, determining the how of agricultural spending is as important as the how much, he added.

Luc Gnacadja, a senior U.N. advisor, was quoted as saying that the world’s food production system is under stress. But the critical links between land degradation, food insecurity, political instability and migration are often overlooked.

“Examining these links would advance the G8’s agenda on partnership with Africa on peace and security,” he pointed out.

Additionally, this will “concretely advance” the 2009 L’Aquila G8 summit declaration on sustainable development.

“Growing political restlessness, unceasing economic hardships and increasing environmental vulnerability globally mean a lot is expected from this year’s G8 and G20 summits,” Gnacadja declared.

Excerpt:

Amid a flurry of meetings in Europe, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will help to launch a “global partnership for girls’ and women’s education” here Thursday at the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).

The high-profile launch of the initiative is meant to raise awareness of the fact that 39 million girls, or 26 percent of the 11-15 age group, are not enrolled in either primary or secondary education, according to UNESCO.

Clinton will be joined by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and UNESCO’s director- general Irina Bokova, in a bid to turn some of the world’s attention to the gender issue, even as most eyes will be on the opening of the two-day Group of Eight (G8) summit in the coastal town of Deauville, northern France.

Activists and parliamentarians have called for the world’s major economies to focus on investment in women’s education and health as a path to development, but this of itself is not one of the official topics on the agenda at the summit of world leaders.

Along with cyber security, nuclear safety, and the global financial crisis, the main subjects scheduled to be discussed at the summit include financial aid for the countries in North Africa emerging from dictatorships and the ongoing turmoil in the region.

Ending the Libyan conflict is seen as a priority, and there will also be a special session on partnership with Africa, with nine African leaders scheduled to attend the meeting.

Some policymakers say that all discussions and decisions should be tagged “where are the women”, as it is often girls and women who are affected the most by political upheaval and conflict, especially in developing countries.

“Seventy percent of the world’s poor are women. They don’t have the same resources and their rights aren’t respected,” said Pauline Chabbert, an education specialist with the French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs.

“Women have less access to training, to school, and governments need to focus on this,” she told IPS in an interview.

UNESCO says that only one-third of countries have achieved “gender parity” at the secondary level and that more political will is needed to invest in girls’ education.

The new global partnership, also known as “Better Life, Better Future” brings together policymakers and the private sector to focus on programmes aimed at “stemming the dropout of adolescent girls in the transition from primary to secondary education and in lower secondary schools”, said Svein Oesttveit, the executive office director in UNESCO’s education sector.

It will also focus on increasing women’s literacy programmes through stronger advocacy and joint action. A number of companies, including Microsoft and Nokia, have signed on to advance the education of women and girls, with a particular focus on Africa, Oesttveit said.

He told IPS that it was a coincidence that the launch of the global partnership for girls’ and women’s education comes at the beginning of the G8 summit.

“The high-level delegates are in Europe for other meetings as well, so the time was right,” he said. The prime ministers of Mali and Bangladesh are set to attend the launch in a show of support.

The event also coincides with “Africa Week” at UNESCO – a five-day showcasing of the continent’s art and culture, along with symposia on the “role of women in the rebirth of Africa and the building of peace”.

Oesttveit said that while UNESCO fully supports the UN goal of “education for all”, statistics show that globally it is girls who are falling behind, although in some regions such as the Caribbean, it is mostly boys who drop out of school.

UNESCO says that internationally girls face a “distinctive set of barriers to learning” which range from early marriage to teen pregnancy and gender-based violence in and around school.

“Targeted measures are needed to get girls to school and keep them there,” the agency says, emphasising that a lack of education for girls means high numbers of adult women without literacy skills.

Currently two-thirds of the world’s 796 million illiterate adults are women, according to UN figures.

The organisation estimates that some 1.8 million lives could be saved in sub-Saharan Africa if girls were to benefit from universal secondary education. Research shows that “each extra year of a woman’s schooling reduces the probability of infant mortality by 5 percent to 10 percent,” UNESCO says.

In addition, children raised by women who are literate have a higher likelihood of living beyond age five, the agency adds.

Experts also say that an extra year of female schooling reduces the fertility rate by 10 percent. They point to the case of Mali, where women with no education have an average of seven children while those with secondary or higher-level education have an average of three, generally making for a better quality of life.

One of the problems facing those wishing to improve education opportunities for girls is religious and cultural norms that discriminate against women, observers say. Many of UNESCO’s member states are guilty of such bias, but agency insiders say they cannot get bogged down in religious debates. Instead, work is being done to change community perceptions, according to Oesttveit.

“There is no justification – be it cultural, economic or social – for denying girls and women an education,” UNESCO’s director-general Bokova has stated. “It is a basic right and an absolute condition for reaching all the internationally agreed development goals.”

It will be noted that among the G8 heads of state meeting in Deauville, only one is a woman – German chancellor Angela Merkel.

By Ranjit Devraj
NEW DELHI, May 21 2011 (IPS)

With the search for a new chief of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) increasingly likely to stay within the European pale, a top Indian economist says that what matters is that the Fund changes its approach to countries in distress.

“The experience at the World trade Organisation (WTO) shows that nationality of the person at the top has only symbolic value…. Supachai Panitchpakdi from Thailand made precious little difference to the WTO,” says Jayati Ghosh, leading Indian expert on international economics.

Ghosh, who is professor of economics at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, told IPS that what is really important is to get leaders who are prepared to change the approach and orientation of multilateral institutions to suit changing global realities.

“Among Strauss-Kahn’s various crimes is that he pushed pro-cyclical policies on countries in distress, including those in Europe,” Ghosh said, referring to IMF loan agreements that tended to keep borrowing countries in recession.

“Strauss-Kahn could have used IMF resources to provide non-conditional lending to poor, developing countries but he failed to do that even when the IMF was carte blanche by the G20,” she told IPS.

“We are yet to hear of compensatory finance for food and fuel price hikes, which is well within the IMF’s powers,” said Ghosh. “We need to change all that, not just having a person from the developing world lead the IMF.”

Since its creation in 1945, the top job at the IMF seems to have been reserved for Europeans, who have monopolised managing director positions.

Attempts at reform in recent years have raised the vote share of the emerging economies from 39.4 percent to 44.7 percent while the G7 countries still control 41.2 percent of the vote, despite vast differences in the population sizes of the two groups.

India, which is among emerging countries that have been calling for reforms, seemed keen to push the chief of its main economic planning body, Montek Singh Ahluwalia as a candidate for the top job at the IMF.

Soon after Strauss-Kahn announced his resignation, following his arrest by New York police on charges of attempting to rape a hotel maid, India’s chief economic advisor Kaushik Basu stirred speculation by stating that he thought Ahluwalia a good candidate “not only from India’s point of view, but from the world’s point of view also.”

Ahluwalia said he was happy with his current assignment and not in the running, but speculations died down only after it was known that at 67 he had crossed the age limit for the job by two years.

The age bar also ruled out Stanley Fischer, currently governor of Israel’s central bank. Other non- European names doing the round for the job were those of Turkish economist Kemal Dervis and South Africa’s finance minister Trevor Manuel.

Armino Fraga, who has served as president of Brazil’s central bank, and is credited with controlling the fallout of the country’s 1999 currency devaluation by hiking up interest rates and making borrowing more difficult, is seen as another emerging country possible.

Brazil, as also South Africa and China, have called for a new approach to selecting the IMF chief.

If Europe is able to retain the IMF leadership, French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde is considered the favourite, but she faces charges of bypassing the French justice system to help former minister and businessman Bernard Tapie in an arbitration case.

A decision should ideally be made before the leaders of the G8 countries – the United States, Russia, Japan, Canada, Germany, France, Britain and Italy, plus the European Union – meet in the French seaside resort of Deauville from May 26 to 27.

Excerpt:

Ahead of this month’s G8 summit in France, parliamentarians from 35 countries have issued a strong call for leaders of the world’s major economies to focus on the role of women and girls in development.

“We wish to draw the world’s attention to two aspects of human rights that are the most neglected – the situation facing girls and adolescent women and the challenges posed by global population dynamics at present,” said a resolution issued at the end of the Global Parliamentarians’ Summit held at France’s National Assembly on Monday and Tuesday.

France’s minister for Cooperation, Henri de Raincourt, told IPS that discussions of the issues affecting women and girls would form a “real part” of the G8 meeting.

“France insists on this,” he said. “The role of girls and women are absolutely central to development. France is militating in favour of the rights of women and young girls.”

The parliamentarians’ resolution said that 600 million girls and young women in the developing world “are in a vulnerable situation, facing injustices and inequities that constitute a major obstacle to social and human development, both at a personal and a societal level.”

In a report this week by anti-poverty group ONE, France, Italy and Germany were censured for failing to meet targets set for them at the 31st G8 summit held in Gleneagles, Scotland, in 2005. France made good on 44 percent of its promised increases, compared with 86 percent from the United Kingdom.

Given this background, some delegates at the Global Parliamentarians’ Summit told IPS that they were not sure if any concrete action would emerge from their appeal. But they said that if nothing was done, the world would face greater instability as lack of investment in girls affects peace, progress and population growth.

“Women and girls are the backbone of our societies, but we’re failing to support their full potential,” said Raymonde Folco, a former member of Canada’s parliament and organiser of the previous summit in Ottawa last year.

“The time is right for action now,” she told IPS. “If people in power adopt certain concerns, the people working on the ground will have something to look forward to. We need to elect leaders who are feminist, people who are ready to do the work.”

The parliamentarians, from European Union member countries as well as from Africa, Asia and other regions, said they wanted governments to take into account the fact that “equality between men and women is still far from being achieved” and that “women and men live in realities that are very different.”

As a consequence of this, public development assistance expenses should be analysed and adapted to benefit those that most need it, the resolution said. Development aid should be used to stop the “feminisation of HIV AIDS” for instance, and its spread among young girls.

Danielle Bousquet, vice-president of the European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development (EPF), which co-organised the summit, said that the call to action would be sent to all G8 parliamentarians.

“It’s estimated that women receive less than two cents in every development dollar,” she told IPS. “We want that to change.”

Governments need to address the issue of the millions of girls out of school, and the problems of child marriages and unwanted pregnancies, delegates said at the summit titled ‘Girls and Population: the forgotten drivers of development’.

“We … are convinced that the violations of the human rights suffered by girls and adolescent women are severely impeding global development,” the parliamentarians stated. “It is their right to become actors in a world that is progressing: their future is our challenge, and their well-being is our priority.”

The French government currently holds the presidency of the G8. When the group’s heads of state meet in Deauville, northern France, on May 26-27, the parliamentarians’ resolution will be just one of the many issues on the table.

Funding to the world’s poorest countries will also be part of the debate, especially as the G8 has been criticised for delivering only 61 percent of the increased development aid that member states pledged in 2005 to give to sub-Saharan Africa by 2010.

Assiata Bocoum, a 15-year-old girl from Mali’s National Parliament of Children, sent a poignant appeal to G8/G20 leaders on behalf of young people. She called on governments to make the United Nations goal of education for all a reality and to take steps to protect girls from forced marriages.

“Child marriages are a big problem,” she said. “That’s one of the main issues affecting teenage girls in poor countries.”

Sexual abuse, unwanted pregnancies and early childbirth are other issues that parliamentarians and development experts would like to see addressed at the G8 summit.

“Girls having children at an early age is not good for them, and it’s catastrophic for the world,” said Judith Bruce, a senior analyst with the Population Council, an international non-governmental organisation.

She said that if current trends in certain sub-Saharan countries continue, between 30 and 70 percent of young women in these developing countries will be single mothers.

A key message from the Global Parliamentarians’ Summit was that focusing on girls and women was also a way to manage population growth. The number of people in the world will reach 7 billion this year, and the U.N. predicts a global population of 9 billion by 2050, which will put a severe strain on resources.

“We’ve been talking about family planning in my country since 1969, but now the issue is crucial,” said Maria-Goretti Agaleoue Adoua, a delegate to the summit, and one of the 17 women in Burkina Faso’s parliament of 111 members.

“It’s good to have children but we need to have children that we can feed, educate and keep in good health,” she told IPS. “We have to invest in ourselves and get partners interested in the subject to help us as well.”

By Mario Osava
RIO DE JANEIRO, Nov 9 2010 (IPS)

A “grave recession” in the world economy may lie ahead, with a profusion of new barriers to trade and capital flows, if the Group of 20 major economies (G20) fail to come up with solutions to the present crisis.

The G20 will probably begin to suffer “progressive fragmentation” at its Nov. 11-12 summit in Seoul, because it is based on “unsustainable coalitions” and there are insurmountable conflicts between members, according to Fernando Cardim, a professor at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Only “a remarkable diplomatic initiative” at this point could bring about the common understanding needed for “a collective solution,” which would be the only way out of the global economic crisis, he said. “Perhaps the vision of the abyss” will stimulate a spirit of cooperation among government leaders, the Brazilian professor added.

The G20 is made up of the main industrial powers and emerging economies, spanning wide differences: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, the United Kingdom, the United States and Turkey, as well as the European Union.

Carlos Tadheu de Freitas, chief economist for the National Trade Federation and former head of Brazil’s Central Bank, said nothing but “hot air” would come out of the Seoul summit. He forecast a period of global “stagflation”, with stagnation or deceleration of economic activity in emerging countries that had previously been growing, aggravated by inflation.

“After three decades of globalisation, the worldwide system of production of goods and services is integrated, and it would be seriously disrupted if an epidemic of protectionism blocks the flow of trade and investment,” said Mariano Laplane, head of the University of Campinas’ Institute of Economics.

This would spell “chaos for the countries of Asia, which depend heavily on exports,” and it would seriously damage Latin American countries that are highly reliant on foreign trade, like Argentina, Chile and Mexico, Cardim predicted.

Brazil, thanks to its huge domestic market and relative self-sufficiency, is likely to suffer to a lesser extent, Cardim and Freitas concurred. One reason for this is that the country has accumulated substantial reserves, which could cushion the expected fall in annual GDP growth from five percent to three percent, Freitas said.

The U.S. Federal Reserve (or Fed) announced it will buy Treasury bonds worth 600 billion dollars in the next eight months, flooding the global market with dollars and causing further devaluation of the currency. The announcement was met with gloom around the world.

The general reaction will be greater control over capital flows, as a first step, Freitas said. If that does not work, there will be a tidal wave of trade protectionism, which will slow down economic activity in the emerging countries that are shoring up the global economy, he predicted.

In seeking to solve its own crisis, the United States is transferring the cost to the rest of the world. The policy adopted by the Fed between 1979 and 1981, when it gradually raised interest rates to more than 20 percent a year to tame inflation, plunged a large part of the world into a crisis which cost indebted countries one or two “lost decades.”

Today, the situation is different: the goal is to overcome recession and devalue the dollar to increase exports, to the detriment of trading partners. But “emerging countries nowadays have means to defend themselves,” Laplane said.

Brazil, for instance, has acquired massive foreign exchange reserves of close to 300 billion dollars, paying a high price for keeping them because of its high basic interest rate, at present 10.75 percent. Unable to stem the appreciation of the local currency, the real, against the dollar, it raised taxes on inflows of foreign capital, from two percent to six percent.

The government needs to adopt other measures “to select” capital inflows, including the requirement that investment must remain in the country for a specified period, as Chile requires, said Laplane. However, he acknowledged that after the Fed decision, “nothing will stop the flood” of investment in Brazil, attracted by the high interest rates and strong economic growth.

The United States and China have their reasons for keeping their currencies undervalued, but emerging countries have “appreciable moral force” on their side, in their effort to prevent an “economic recession” that would be disastrous for everyone, as it would lead to a trade war and the closure of capital markets, he said.

“At some point, common sense will prevail” in the defence of an “open and integrated economic system, which the G2 (China and the United States) is thwarting,” Laplane predicted.

Cardim said that, in fact, every country always “tries to transfer internal problems outside itself,” but actions by great powers have effects of a different magnitude, and in today’s world “everyone reacts, so a very dangerous period is opening up, with unlimited potential for conflicts.”

In 2009, there was “a climate of cooperation,” because of the general fear of a global economic depression, Cardim said. But once the panic was past, there was a return to the old ways of “casting the burden of costs onto other shoulders,” he added. The gains by the opposition in the Nov. 2 U.S. congressional elections mean the government cannot slow its pace now, before the new legislature takes office Jan. 3.

“Avoiding a collapse” along the lines of the 1929 crash was very important, “but God only knows what will happen after this G20 (summit); it will be a time of tension and regression,” Cardim concluded.

An “exchange rate war” is now being waged, and the future “depends on how far U.S. monetary policy goes,” according to Freitas, because if inflation rises substantially, interest rates will also go up, putting an end to the dollar’s spiral of devaluation.

The flood of dollars generated by the Fed’s decision will further drive up the already soaring prices of farm and mineral commodities, due to speculation, which could reach 2007 levels. Inflation and hunger would then join unemployment as looming threats arising from the global economic crisis.

Excerpt:

By Marwaan Macan-Markar
BANGKOK, Nov 5 2010 (IPS)

South Korea’s closing of ranks with Asian countries that have recently embraced capital controls signifies that such measures will be up for discussion at next week’s summit of the world’s 20 major economies in Seoul.

This move by South Korea, on the eve of the G-20 summit on Nov. 11-12, reflects Asian economies’ worries about the pressure on their currencies – and their financial sectors – caused by the disruptive flood of short-term foreign capital in recent months.

The imposition of capital controls by Thailand, Taiwan, China, South Korea and Indonesia gives new legitimacy to what was seen after the 1997 economic crisis as a radical measure that undermines free-market policies. South Korea itself was among the countries badly hit by that crisis.

“The government believes it needs to turn away from the perception that controlling capital flows is always bad and consider introducing measures to improve the macroeconomic prudence,” South Korea’s ministry of strategy and finance said in a Nov. 4 statement.

Indeed, “several developing countries are countering excessive capital inflows (and pressures for currency appreciation) either by intervention in the currency market, or by capital controls such as taxes on certain types of foreign capital entering the country,” wrote Martin Khor, executive director of the South Centre, a Geneva-based developing world think tank, in a recent commentary.

“The governments concerned have a good case when they argue that these measures are needed to protect their countries from the damaging effects of speculative capital inflows, and that they are not manipulating their currencies,” he added in his assessment made after the October meeting of G-20 finance ministers and central bank governors in South Korea.

Thus far, several Asian economies have imposed different forms of capital controls to deal with the unsettling impact of huge amounts of capital coming from developed economies.

In October, the Thai government introduced a 15 percent tax on short-term inflows into its bond market. Earlier in June, Indonesia introduced what financial analysts describe as a “quasi-capital control measure” by making short-term investment less attractive to foreign funds.

The South Korean government has moved to stabilise the won by limiting assets accessible to foreign capital, while Taiwanese officials have made some bank deposits off limits to foreign investors.

Asian economies hope these measures can manage the capital inflows that they have been receiving and putting pressure on their currencies, driving their appreciation and prompting exporters to cry foul.

The Japanese yen has appreciated the most, reaching a 15- year high against the U.S. dollar in August, followed by the Thai baht, whose appreciation in October hit a 13-year high against the dollar, media reports say.

Under renewed pressure to address the perceived undervaluation of its currency, China has allowed the yuan to appreciate by more than 2 percent since June. Financial experts predict continued pressure on Asian currencies in the near future.

It is actually these Asian economies’ financial health following the global financial crisis, which began in late 2008 in the United States, that is helping prompt this West- to-East capital flight.

“Asian economies are back on track. They are the world’s growth driver, the emerging centre of economic gravity,” says Nagesh Kumar, chief economist for the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), a Bangkok-based U.N. regional body. “The massive inflow of short-term capital reflects the confidence in the region’s emerging markets.”

“Even at the height of this crisis, Asia and the Pacific displayed a newfound resilience,” stated ESCAP in its annual ‘Economic and Social Survey of Asia and the Pacific 2010’. “Its developing economies achieved an annual growth rate of four percent, making it the fastest-growing region in the world.”

Such impressive numbers, heavily shaped by China’s GDP growth of 8.7 percent and India’s 7.2 percent in 2009, has ESCAP forecasting that the region’s developing economies will grow by 7 percent in 2010 compared to 4 percent in 2009, “led by the self-sustaining motors of China, growing at 9.5 percent, and India at 8.3 percent”.

But amid concerns by Asian economies that their excessive liquidity would lead to inflationary pressure, asset price bubbles and job losses in the export sector, they are turning to capital controls as their rallying cry.

In fact, in the run-up to the G-20 summit, ESCAP convened a meeting of its over 50 member states to support the use of such controls. “The message we sent was that the G-20 should support member states to use mechanisms to control capital flows,” Kumar told IPS. “Capital controls will protect the countries against currency appreciation and will help moderate the volatility of capital inflows, which are causing the problems.”

Even the International Monetary Fund (IMF), at one time a resolute opponent of such intervention, has been warming up to the idea of capital controls. In 2010, an IMF study praised its role in reducing the impact of the global economic crisis on the developing world.

This rethink by the IMF marks a dramatic shift from its position in the wake of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, when it opposed then Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad’s use of capital controls to protect the Malaysian currency and economy.

Mahathir was vindicated after his country became the first success story to rise out of South-east Asia’s economic meltdown. Indonesia and Thailand, which went with IMF prescriptions that avoided capital controls and included strict austerity measures, suffered longer.

Yet some caution against a rush toward capital controls. “This is a global issue, a systemic issue. If many countries introduce capital controls, where will this global liquidity flow?” asks Masahiro Kawai, head of the Asian Development Bank Institute, a Tokyo-based think tank for the regional financial institution.

“It is not a global solution; capital controls may be okay for smaller economies,” Kawai said in a telephone interview from Manila. “This global liquidity has to be neutralised. And many countries must allow their currencies to appreciate in an equal and even way.”

Excerpt:

By Matthew O. Berger
WASHINGTON, Oct 7 2010 (IPS)

Among the topics expected to be discussed at the annual meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) that started this week and will continue through the weekend is the reform of the IMF’s governance.

The latest chapter in this ongoing governance debate came Thursday when the Group of 24 (G24) developing and emerging economies met here and came out in favour of the reform – specifically of realigning the quotas of votes allotted to countries on the institution’s board.

“The realignment must reflect the rapidly evolving weights in the world economy,” said the communiqué from the G24 meeting, noting that the legitimacy, relevance and effectiveness of the IMF rests on how it addresses “the imbalance in voice and representation.”

The composition of the IMF’s board and the number of votes allotted to the countries represented there were set following World War II and still largely reflect the relative economic weight of countries at that time.

With the emergence of China, India, Brazil and other countries, however, there have been increasing demands for rebalancing countries’ say in the IMF’s day-to-day operations.

Those demands finally bubbled over in August when the U.S. made good on threats to use its veto power over the size of the IMF board to demand a larger voting share for emerging economies – thus cementing the issue’s importance amongst the laundry list of topics to be discussed here this weekend.

The IMF has come out in favour of giving these developing countries more influence, and Europe therefore is under increasing pressure to relinquish some of its seats and votes. European countries currently hold about a third of the seats on the board, despite accounting for an increasingly small portion of the global economy.

A book put out by the World Bank last week concluded that developing countries have “come to the rescue” of the global economy – picking up the slack of the advanced economies in the wake of the financial crisis.

And in a major speech last week, World Bank president Robert Zoellick said, “The developing world is becoming the driver of the global economy. Led by emerging markets, developing countries now account for half of global growth and are leading the recovery in world trade.”

Yet Belgium and the Netherlands still combine for a larger vote total than China, while India and Brazil each hold fewer votes than either of those small European countries. Brazil, in fact, holds about the same number of votes as Spain – and less than half those allotted to Italy or Canada. Likewise, Europe currently holds nine seats on the board, while Africa holds two.

“Africa is hugely under-represented at the IMF. A third chair for Africa would be a step towards making the institution fit for purpose in the 21st century,” said Oxfam’s Elizabeth Stuart. “The IMF reform battle is a confrontation between the old and new, and it’s time for the old guard to move aside.”

The IMF board originally consisted of 20 seats. Maintaining a board with 24 seats requires an 85 percent majority vote every two years. The U.S., however, holds a large enough percentage of the vote – about 17 percent – that it can veto this re-approval, which is what it did in August, meaning the board will shrink by four seats by the end of October if the U.S. does not change its mind.

This move has started a scramble to rearrange the board, and, says ActionAid’s Soren Ambrose, “forces the European countries that control 9 out of 24 seats to either give some up or watch as Brazil, India, Argentina, and 23 African countries lose all their representation on the board.”

“It is absurd that it has come to this. Europe must get its act together and agree on a way to consolidate,” Ambrose adds.

The European Union offered a plan late last week. It proposed adding two additional groupings of countries, which would be made up of emerging economies.

It drew less than enthusiastic responses from U.S. and developing country analysts. The most likely outcome remains that the European countries will lose seats. It is also possible the 85 percent majority will be reduced, thus depriving the U.S. of its veto power.

Another possible reform would be ending the long-standing – though unofficial – agreement whereby the World Bank president is from the U.S. and the IMF managing director is from Europe, thus making the selection of these senior positions a more transparent and potentially egalitarian process.

Whether that will come to pass remains to be seen, but IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn addressed the topic briefly at a press conference Thursday.

“I think that is one important part of the governance reform, and I think it has been accepted,” he said. “The idea has been accepted, the so-called agreement between the U.S. and Europe for the leadership of the two sister institutions has to disappear. I think that on that principle, everybody agrees. The question is how will it be implemented. That is another point.”

NGOs like the London-based Bretton Woods Project question whether the reforms that are on the table will go far enough. They point to proposals offered by the IMF in July and a G20 working group in August that would shift less than three percent of voting shares to under-represented developing countries, short of the five percent shift the IMF promised at the conclusion of its annual meetings a year ago.

There is also “a real danger that the promised shift in IMF board quotas will end up just shuffling power from of one set of emerging countries to another,” says Oxfam’s Stuart.

A senior U.S. Treasury official told Dow Jones Newswires Tuesday that he does not expect a governance compromise to be reached this weekend, and instead indicated an agreement may be worked out ahead of the G20 meet in Seoul.

Excerpt:

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 30 2010 (IPS)

The G20, a group of powerful political and economic decision- makers criticised for its exclusivity, has invited five non- members to its next summit meeting in South Korea in November.

The five invitees, who will participate in the upcoming summit in Seoul, are Ethiopia, Malawi, Singapore, Spain and Vietnam.

Malawi has been invited in its capacity as chair of the African Union; Ethiopia as chair of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD); Vietnam as chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN); Singapore as chair of the Global Governance Group (3G); and Spain as “one of the 10 largest economies in the world and a participant in the past four G20 summits”.

Ambassador Vanu Gopala Menon of Singapore told IPS the decision by South Korea to invite some non-G20 countries “appears to indicate that the G20 is moving towards practising variable geometry [the idea that not every country need take part in every policy but some can cooperate more closely], a concept advocated by 3G”.

He noted, however, that there is no formal position of chair of the 3G, and Singapore was only the convenor of 3G meetings. “We therefore cannot claim to represent the 3G although we will, in line with the 3G’s spirit of inclusivity and transparency,” he said.

Menon said that Singapore will do its best to represent 3G “views and concerns” at G20 meetings and other fora.

In keeping with the G20’s previous practice, South Korea has also invited several international organisations for the Seoul summit scheduled to take place Nov. 11-12. They include the United Nations, the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Trade Organisation and the Financial Stability Board (FSB).

The G20 was spawned by the former G8, comprising the world’s most industrialised nations – namely the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Canada and Russia. It includes Australia, Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, and also seven developing countries – namely Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa – plus the European Union.

Addressing the General Assembly last week, Celso Amorim, the foreign minister of Brazil, decried the presence of only one African nation in the G20. “The Group must be adjusted to ensure greater African participation,” he said.

Amorim said the G20’s “relevance and legitimacy” can only be preserved if it maintains frank and permanent dialogue with all the 192 nations represented in the General Assembly.

Joseph Deiss, the president of the General Assembly, pointedly warned that “the United Nations is in danger of being marginalised by the emergence of other actors on the international stage”.

“The feeling is that a decision on urgent action can be taken more easily and quickly in a smaller forum,” said Deiss, a former president of the Swiss Confederation, making an oblique reference to the G20.

When the G20 suddenly gained a higher profile with the onset of the global financial crisis two years ago, there was apprehension the group would sooner or later try to upstage the United Nations and its key decision-making role.

As a result, some of the smaller and medium-sized members of the United Nations, unwilling to be shut out of the discussions, created a 27-member informal coalition, known as the Global Governance Group or 3G.

The 3G coalition was aimed at ensuring that the legitimacy of the world body was not hijacked by the G20.

The newly-formed 3G comprises the Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Botswana, Brunei, Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Jamaica, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Monaco, New Zealand, Panama, Peru, the Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, San Marino, Senegal, Singapore, Slovenia, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay and Vietnam.

At a ministerial meeting held last week, the 3G reaffirmed the central role of the United Nations in global governance, “given its unique universality and legitimacy”.

The ministers welcomed General Assembly President Joseph Deiss’ decision to “reaffirm the central role of the United Nations in global governance” as the theme for the 65th U.N. General Assembly currently in session.

In taking up the development agenda, the 3G ministers said, the G20 should consider how it can complement and strengthen the important and on-going efforts of several international platforms, including the U.N. and U.N.-related agencies, in the area of development.

The G20 Working Group on Development could also support initiatives targeted at keeping global markets open, creating new opportunities for developing economies and providing assistance for developing countries, especially the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), to take advantage of these opportunities.

Addressing the General Assembly Tuesday, Singapore’s Foreign Minister George Yeo said that with the world becoming multipolar, global macroeconomic coordination has become more complicated.

Recognising the inability of the G7 or G8 to achieve such coordination, the G20 was formed two years ago when the global economy stared into an abyss after the collapse of the U.S. investment firm, Lehman Brothers.

“Without the G20 acting in concert, the economic crisis could well have led to a global depression,” he said.

The G20, whose members collectively account for some 85 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP), is therefore a vital grouping in the community of nations, the minister added.

Excerpt:

By IPS Correspondents
WINDHOEK, Sep 1 2010 (IPS)

The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) has received a major boost as several countries have begun drawing on funds from a $22 billion pledge made by the G8.

Under CAADP, African governments are committed to increase their national budget expenditure on agriculture to at least 10 percent. The Programme, agreed by heads of state at the 2003 summit of the African Union, expects a six percent growth rate in agriculture every year.

Dr Nalishebo Meebelo, the Country CAADP Process Facilitator at the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), told IPS that the overall goal of CAADP is to help African countries achieve food security and higher economic growth through agriculture-led development

Meebelo said leaders at the G8 Summit held in L’Aquila, Italy in 2009 pledged to raise over $22 billion under the Global Agriculture and Food Security Programme.

The World Bank is administering the funds. The United States, Spain, South Korea and Canada as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are the development partners that have contributed towards the finances.

“But there are conditions attached to how countries will be accessing these funds,” Meebelo told IPS. She said countries need to have gone through the CAADP process, which includes designing national investment plan which contains detailed and fully-costed programmes and signing a CAADP compact.

The compact is a high level agreement between the government, regional representatives and development partners for a focused implementation of the programme.

“The investment plans should have undergone an independent technical review and the plan should also have been tabled before a high-level CAADP business meeting,” Meebelo explained.

The countries that have accessed the funds so far are Togo, Sierra Leone and Rwanda. Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya and Malawi are all expected to also benefit from the fund after they successfully submit their investment plan by the end of September.

COMESA, in partnership with the African Union Commission and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, is coordinating and facilitating the CAADP.

Mbeki Ndlovu, a Pretoria-based researcher at the Food Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) in South Africa, explained that CAADP has four pillars which guide governments on sustainable land and water management; building trade and marketing infrastructure; increasing food and nutrition security; and promoting research in agriculture, extension and training for adoption and dissemination of new technologies. FANRPAN, a network of researchers, farmers and governments presently covering 14 Southern African countries, is coordinating the implementation of the programme at the national and regional levels in the sub-region.

He said many countries in Africa are now linking their agricultural programmes to CAADP. “However, there’s need to complement national level priority interventions with priority regional investment programmes.”

COMESA, according to Ndlovu, is implementing major programmes in infrastructure, trade and agriculture in line with the continent-wide plan. It has developed a regional compact that is working on harmonising agricultural investment programmes in the region.

“Strategic priorities in this harmonisation include increasing food output and productivity throughout the regional value chain such as on farms, in processing industries and in marketing, developing human and institutional capacities and developing priority regional trade and development corridors,” said Ndlovu.

Malawi is one country that has since signed the CAADP Compact, Director of Malawi’s Livestock Department, Wilfred Lipita, said the country’s agriculture policies are now linked to CAADP’s pillars. “We are no longer working in isolation. All our policies are tied to the CAADP pillars,” he said.

Lipita hopes that trade and development corridors will be implemented soon. He said Malawi is doing well with its agriculture programmes where it is utilising a nation-wide subsidy programme for agriculture inputs to become a net grain exporter.

“We have inputs that have to be imported from other countries and we have agricultural produce that we have to export. All this can work well if the trade and development corridors are in operation,” said Lipita.

He hopes the funds from CAADP will help in the development of the trade and development corridors.

Excerpt:

By IPS Correspondents
TORONTO, Jun 28 2010 (IPS)

Nearly 600 people were arrested as global leaders and elites met behind a fortified perimetre during the G8 and G20 Summits in Huntsville and Toronto this weekend.

A police car burns at Bay & King Streets in Toronto. Credit: Marty Olauson/IPS

Several blocks north of the protests that were the assumed cause of the transit shutdown, IPS observed a police officer conducting random searches of pedestrians. Asked why he was doing so, the officer, who refused to identify himself, replied, “Do you want to be responsible for a terrorist attack?”

The officer stated that the transit system was shut down due to a “terrorist threat” posed by anarchists, that a cache of Molotov cocktails had been discovered, and that the crude weapons were “all over the city”.

A spokesperson for the G8/G20 Integrated Security Unit later contradicted the police officer, stating in a phone interview, “There’s no terrorist threat.” The spokesperson would not clarify the reasons for the transit closure saying only that it was due to a “security precaution” and that it was “just part of the [security] process”.

The stealthy side of this process revealed itself on Thursday, when police arrested an individual under the ‘Public Works Act’, a provision passed in secret by Ontario cabinet officials earlier this month that allowed police to question, search and potentially detain anyone within five metres of the G20 security fence.

In the weeks months leading up to the summit, protesters were under surveillance by the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS). One of those protesters targeted by CSIS, Stefan Christoff, called this part of a broader “chill effect” and “culture of fear” that the security forces were allegedly seeking to foster in advance of the largest, most expensive, and most heavily secured meeting of global leaders in history.

Arbitrary and sometimes preemptive arrests became the norm as the weekend progressed, drawing denunciations from several prominent human rights organisations. Amnesty International decried the “curtailment of civil liberties” that accompanied “high fences, new weaponry, massive surveillance, and the intimidating impact of the overwhelming police presence”.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, some of whose members were swept up in the arrests, decried police tactics, and expressed concern about the conditions of those being detained. “It would appear that the presumption of innocence has been suspended during the G20,” they said in a statement.

On Saturday, following a peaceful march of between 10,000 and 25,000 demonstrators, hundreds of Black bloc protesters wove their way through the streets, breaking windows of banks and other symbols of corporate power, torched police cars that police abandoned, and chanted anti-establishment slogans.

Decried as “thugs that prompted violence” by a spokesperson for Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the organisation No One is Illegal defended the protesters, stating that they were symbolically targeting global capitalism, and were merely “engaging in corporate property destruction”.

While security forces did not step in to stop the bloc protesters, late on Saturday night, approximately 150 peaceful protesters were placed in detention after staging a sit-in.

On Sunday morning, supporters of the hundreds detained at a makeshift detention facility on Toronto’s eastside rallied for their release. They were met with tear gas, rubber bullets, and more arrests. At the time of press, upwards of 600 mostly peaceful protesters had been detained, including several journalists.

A ‘Movement Defence Committee’ has called on supporters to ‘Free the Toronto 500’, and to “mobilise a show of political strength and solidarity for the nearly 500 people arrested in the last four days”.

The final communiques of the G8 and G20 did little to assuage the central grievances that were expressed before the events during the ‘People’s Summit’ held by activists Jun. 18-20, or in the many peaceful demonstrations held prior to and during the summits.

The major issues being protested – lack of commitment regarding climate change and clean energy, the mounting concerns regarding the development of the Albertan tar sands, ongoing wars and foreign occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the imposition of fiscal austerity measures on member states despite continuing fallout from the global economic crisis which began in 2008 – were not resolved.

And perhaps the core concern – that a select, if somewhat broadened, group of elites are making decisions that concern all peoples around the globe largely in secret – appeared to be flaunted by members of the corporate elite, dubbed the ‘B20’ (Business 20), who were on hand.

During the summit, several dozen of the globe’s most powerful CEOs were given exclusive, off-the-record meetings with the G20’s finance ministers and Prime Minister Harper.

The G20 includes the “world’s most industrialised nations” (which also comprise the G8): Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Britain and the United States.

Its other members are Australia, Mexico, Turkey and South Korea, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa, plus the 27-member European Union.

In concert with the eventual announcement by the G20 that they would seek to halve deficits by 2013 (with the exception of Japan), one business leader projected, “Stimulus is winding down and the private sector is going to have to come in and pick up the slack.”

Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty praised the corporate leaders, saying “The advice we get from you is invaluable in terms of our deliberations and the deliberations of our leaders.”

Offering an indication of the B20’s influence, South Korean Finance Minister Jeung-Hyun Yoon told Toronto’s Globe and Mail, “I sincerely hope the business summit can serve as a platform for public-private collaboration and the starting point of the new normal in the global economic architecture.”

As the effects of the latest policy pronouncements begin to be felt, many fear that Toronto will become known as the staging ground for the security model that will be deployed to protect this new architecture.

Excerpt:

By Bankole Thompson
DETROIT, Jun 27 2010 (IPS)

The 2010 U.S. Social Forum ended Saturday in Detroit, a city viewed by many as a metaphor for the excesses of U.S. capitalism, with strong parting words from Pablo Solon, Bolivia’s permanent representative to the United Nations.

Bolivian ambassador Pablo Solon said the great challenge of this century is to build a new environmental and social contract. Credit: Bankole Thompson/IPS

Solon said the British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which is wrecking livelihoods and ocean and shore ecosystems alike, is a perfect example of the kind of issue that should be brought before an international court designed to address such environmental cases.

“There has to be justice. This is something we cannot accept,” Solon said. “The message is we need to build an environmental court of justice when it comes to nature and mother earth.”

The Bolivian diplomat said the great challenge of this century is to “build a new environmental and social contract”, dismissing the vision promoted by Group of Eight (G8) wealthy industrialised nations – also meeting this weekend in Canada, along with the slightly larger G20 bloc – of a “green economy”.

“What do they mean by a green economy? That means we have to bring capitalism to nature. They want a price placed on nature,” Solon said. “We are in the middle of a new offensive and it’s going to be the Washington consensus – privatisation and commodification of water. We have to find a new alternative.”

He added that his nation is urging the U.N. to declare that access to adequate water and sanitation is a human right.

Solon reiterated Bolivian President Evo Morales’s commitment to the environment, which he said was the idea behind the World People’s Summit on Climate Change and Rights of Mother Earth held in Tiquipaya in April.

“In order to guarantee human rights, we have to defend mother earth’s rights,” he said.

Solon also railed against the U.N. Security Council and its five permanent members, which he called “anti-democratic” because they were not elected by the General Assembly.

Critics of the Security Council have long labeled that most powerful body in the U.N. as an example of “Western hegemony and control”, questioning why regions like Latin America and Africa cannot have a permanent seat instead of a rotating membership.

“You can’t have a small group of nations think they are going to decide for the rest,” Solon said, referring to the U.S., Britain, China, Russia and France.

The ambassador’s remarks were reflective of the fiery issues with tremendous national and international implications tabled at this year’s forum, where activists tried to connect the dots between what is happening locally and on the global scene.

Vanessa Nisperos from New York said she got what she hoped for at the forum.

“I met a lot of people who are like me – street fighters – who are committed to make a change,” Nisperos said.

She said one of the sessions on transformative organising models made her reconsider her approach to social justice issues.

“Sometimes people involved in social justice causes don’t necessarily treat people who work for them with respect. That session helped me understand how to sit back and think about how we deal with each other with respect and also take a break,” Nisperos said.

She is going home to New York with a lot of connections and a “renewed passion for things that I’m committed to”.

Maureen Taylor, head of the Michigan Welfare Rights Organisation and chair of the U.S. Social Forum organising committee in Detroit, described the gathering as a success and economic boost for the city, which has shed thousands of jobs in its lifeblood auto industry over the last few years.

“We secured 3,000 hotel rooms in downtown Detroit, except for the MGM Grand Hotel who wouldn’t work with us,” Taylor said. “It was good to come to Detroit. We are validated. We’ve got love, commitment and anger.”

Taylor said the recommendations that arose from the 20,000- plus attendees will all be codified into a report that will be issued in the next three or four months.

“Many issues, local and national, were identified in the different plenary sessions,” Taylor said. “But certainly the clarion call on what to do next will be released soon.”

Taylor also said one focus of the forum was unity of purpose, which she said was on display at the tents set up by activists.

“In the tents we have some Detroit Muslims sharing candles and prayer rugs with the Quakers,” Taylor said. “That is what the social forum is about.”

She said that kind of camaraderie is needed to fight the bigger and sometimes seemingly overwhelming issues they are facing as activists.

Mary Kramer, an organiser for the forum, said Detroit will be remembered as a gathering that birthed new ideas and reaffirmed people’s commitment to real change.

“We talked about a world court for abuses against women. You could see the enthusiasm amongst the people and for it to be in Detroit was big. We truly see another world is possible,” Kramer said.

Excerpt:

By Stephen Leahy
BERLIN, Jun 26 2010 (IPS)

The G8 bloc of wealthy nations promised five billion dollars Saturday for health and nutrition programmes that benefit women and children in developing countries.

The five-year Muskoka initiative announced at the annual G8 meeting, this year outside of Toronto, is intended to help prevent the deaths of hundreds of thousands of women and babies who currently die during childbirth each year. Nearly eight million children, mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, die before they reach the age of five.

Flavia Bustreo, director of the Geneva-based Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health, which represents more than 300 global and national organisations, welcomed the world’s richest countries’ focus on maternal and child health, which is a historical first, she said.

However, she told IPS from Geneva, “The glass is half-full when it comes to their financial commitment.”

Oxfam and other NGOs also charge that G8 donor nations have been playing a shell game – making multi-billion-dollar commitments at such meetings but without increasing their overall spending on overseas development aid.

“No maple leaf is big enough to hide the shame of Canada’s summit of broken promises,” said Mark Fried, spokesperson for Oxfam.

Activists say the G8’s “fair share” is at least four billion dollars a year, or 20 billion of the additional 30 billion dollars needed through 2015 to meet the Millennium Development Goals of a 75-percent cut in deaths of women related to childbirth and a two-thirds reduction in deaths of children younger than five by 2015, compared with 1990.

That 30 billion dollars would save the lives of an estimated one million women and 11 million children under five, and prevent 1.5 million stillbirths, the United Nations and the Partnership have calculated.

Canada, as host of the combined G8 and G20 summits, has made much of its commitment to maternal and child health, offering to contribute 1.1 billion dollars over five years.

“I am very pleased to announce Canada’s contribution to this critical initiative,” said Prime Minister Stephen Harper in a statement.

Critics point out that Canada’s new five-year contribution to saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of women and children is less than the overall cost of hosting the back- to-back summits over three days. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent fixing up and “securing” a remote area north of Toronto for the day and half G8 summit, that also happens to be the riding of Canada’s Industry Minister Tony Clement.

The larger G20 summit is being held in Toronto Saturday and Sunday. More than 20,000 security personnel are involved including the Canadian military. The security costs, which include 5.5 million dollars for a security fence, have outraged the Canadian public. Last year’s G20 Summit in London, England reportedly spent 30 million dollars on security.

The G20 includes the “world’s most industrialised nations” (which also comprise the G8): Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Britain and the United States.

Its other members are Australia, Mexico, Turkey and South Korea, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa, plus the 27- member European Union.

Although Canada did pledge 1.1 billion dollars of new money, it is less than the 1.2 billion being spent for three days of security at the G8 and G20 summits, said Robert Fox of Oxfam Canada. Moreover, other G8 leaders failed to give more because Canada is freezing its aid spending next year to bring down the deficit.

“We had hoped to see much more coming from the countries of the G8. It’s a disappointment,” said David Morley, president of Save the Children Canada.

There are also charges the Harper government is imposing its religious views on the rest of the world by stating that none of its money can be used to support abortion or abortion services irrespective of a county’s laws.

Abortion is legal in Canada. Each G8 country chooses where and who gets its funding and under what conditions, Bustreo said, noting that the G8 documents do not make any specific references to abortion.

“This year the headline is maternal health, last year it was food. With overall aid frozen, the G8 are just shuffling the same money around to different pots,” said Oxfam’s Fried said in a statement.

At the last G8 Summit, donors pledged 22 billion dollars over three years to support agriculture in developing countries, but Oxfam calculates that at most 6.0 billion dollars of this is new money.

“The only promise that counts is the Gleneagles one to increase aid by 50 billion dollars by 2010 and that is the one they have abandoned today,” said Fried.

The main focus of the G8 meeting has been on economics and deficit reduction, with Harper calling on G8 and G20 countries to pledge to cut their deficits in half by 2013.

“After the scandal of the G8’s broken promises, the G20 now has the chance to stand up and deliver for the world’s poor,” said actor and Oxfam Global Ambassador Bill Nighy in Toronto.

“A Robin Hood Tax on banks is a simple but brilliant idea to raise hundreds of billions of dollars to help millions of poor people who have been hit hardest by global economic downturn, hunger and climate change,” said Nighy.

Excerpt:

By Antoaneta Becker
LONDON, Jun 26 2010 (IPS)

Against a backdrop of rising expectations that it holds the key to global economic recovery, China has sent a subtle signal that its economic health is frail and that external pressure to revalue its currency will cause more damage than good.

Just ahead of the G20 summit in Toronto this weekend, Chinese auditors released an explosive report throwing cold water on global perceptions of China as a country of low debt.

Chinese banks may have escaped the mortgage-related turmoil that has been battering U.S. and European financial institutions but in zealously lending to keep recession at bay they may now find themselves in peril.

China’s National Audit Office published its findings this week that some local governments have run up debts amounting to three times their available budgets. The auditors found that local debts totaled 2.79 trillion yuan (41 billion dollars), and nearly 40 percent of it was generated in 2009 during the country’s spending and lending spree to fight recession. Nationwide, banks loans to local government investment companies have risen 70 percent over the year before.

While the report did not raise the prospect of a Greece scenario of default on national debts for China, its message was meant to dampen expectations that Beijing will take the lead in redressing economic imbalances and allow a significant rise in its currency, the yuan.

This message was reinforced by a high-ranking Chinese official quoted in the state media as saying on the eve of the G20 meeting that “China and India will bleed if burdened with driving the global economy.

“To entrust global economic recovery to China and India is to be completely oblivious to the realities of emerging countries,” Zhang Yansheng, director of the Foreign Economic Affairs Department of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) told the ’21st Century Business Herald’.

“We are not to be made to pay the price for developed countries’ loose monetary policies,” Zhang added.

Beijing is facing mounting calls to resume relaxation of the yuan, a relaxation that it halted in mid-2008 when the financial crisis broke, in order to help its exporters ride out the global credit crunch.

The value of the Chinese currency has been the most talked about issue among the world’s economic policy makers in recent weeks. For a while the crisis enfolding in the euro-zone had given respite to global accusations that China keeps its currency artificially undervalued to give its exporters competitive edge.

But with U.S. mid-term elections in sight and congressmen and the Obama administration unhappy with high unemployment, this is changing. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said last week that the yuan was an impediment to global rebalancing, suggesting that U.S. patience with Beijing’s currency polices is wearing thin.

Many U.S. politicians are clamouring again that China be named by the Treasury a “currency manipulator” and tariffs up to 40 percent imposed on its goods to offset the undervaluation of its yuan.

“The Chinese will keep treating us like they have us on a yo-yo unless we make a serious push for our legislation,” Senator Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, told a Senate Finance Committee hearing focusing on U.S.-China trade this week. “They take a step forward, and then a step back. It’s the same pattern we have seen for years.”

China’s weekend announcement that it planned to abandon the dollar peg has failed to rally markets, proving too vague and void of definite commitment and a precise timeframe. Many analysts have speculated that the announcement was intended to deflect pressure ahead of the G20 meeting and the upcoming Jul. 15 U.S. report on currency manipulation.

Contrary to global expectations that Beijing feels more confident of the economic rebound in the country, Chinese commentators have been frank in speaking against the intended relaxation of the yuan peg, questioning the country’s readiness for it.

“The pressure on China to revalue has never been greater but we must make it clear to the outside world that China is undergoing a painful internal restructuring of the economy,” says Ye Qiang, analyst who follows the reform of Chinese currency. “Priority is given to U.S. plans to boost its exports and Europe’s new austere policies, but what about our own plans to change economic mode of development and create social welfare system? Should we put them on hold to bail out the U.S. and Europe?”

The news that China is burdened with piles of debt came to reinforce the ambiguous aftermath of the last weekend announcement, shattering perceptions that Beijing is one of the few global oases of low debt and economic health.

“The pressure from some government debt burdens is quite heavy, and poses a definite risk,” Liu Jiayi, director of the national audit office said in his report.

The Greek debt crisis, which caused the euro to slump by some 15 percent against China’s yuan, has made Chinese goods more expensive in the eurozone and has threatened Beijing’s ability to increase export sector jobs. This has come amid a wave of workers strikes demanding that Chinese leaders provide decent wages and better working conditions.

Deflecting attention from China’s move on the yuan, Beijing is now urging the G20 to concentrate on avoiding a second economic slump. Zhang Yansheng from the NDRC, China’s main planning economic body, has warned that Europe’s determination to implement austerity measures and fiscal discipline in the eurozone will be followed by the U.S. and Japan, threatening the fragile state of global recovery.

“What we have to be most wary of is a double-dip recession for the global economy,” Zhang said.

Excerpt:

By Stephanie Nieuwoudt
CAPE TOWN, Jun 23 2010 (IPS)

Questions are being asked about whether the Group of Eight invitation to seven African states to attend its summit in Ontario, Canada, reflects its concern about the litany of unmet promises dating from its 2005 Gleneagles meeting — or whether it merely amounts to another bout of window-dressing.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper invited seven African countries to attend this year’s Group of Eight (G8) summit to be held in his country on Jun. 25-26. They are: South Africa, Malawi, Ethiopia, Senegal, Nigeria, Algeria and Egypt.

Dr Francis Ikome, director of the African and southern African programme at the Institute for Global Dialogue (IGD), is sceptical about Africa being represented at the G8. “Since NEPAD’s launch it has become a trend among the industrialised countries to invite African countries to summits like those of the G8.

“Many promises are usually made but the real delivery always falls far short of the promises. The important question here is if these countries will be able to make submissions. This is a meeting of industrialised, Western countries. I believe African countries have been invited for window-dressing purposes.”

The meeting includes an “outreach session” in which the seven African invitees will participate alongside Jamaica, Haiti and Columbia, three countries invited on the basis of Canada’s foreign policy objectives in the Americas.

Ikome cautions that, “African leaders make themselves objects of ridicule if they just engage in conversations on the sidelines of these kinds of meetings. A leader should not fly all the way to Canada just to speak in the corridors.” IGD is an international relations research institution based in Johannesburg, South Africa.

But Trudi Hartzenberg, executive director of the Trade Law Centre (TRALAC) for Southern Africa, thinks that meetings on the sideline can be beneficial to African countries. “One should not forget that important bilateral discussions often take place outside the formal meetings. It is during more informal gatherings that important deals can be struck and issues raised that can be taken forward.”

TRALAC, based near Cape Town, South Africa, is a not-for-profit organisation building trade law capacity in southern Africa.

Dr Mzukisi Qobo, programme head for emerging powers and global leadership challenges at the South African Institute for International Affairs (SAIIA), also adopts a milder position: “Canada is concerned that the momentum around African issues that was launched at the Gleneagles summit in Scotland in 2005 is waning.

“At Gleneagles 25 billion dollars was pledged to Africa, of which only about USD13 billion has materialised,” he adds. SAIIA is a non-governmental research institution in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Other promises at Gleneagles, which was attended by the leaders of Algeria, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania, included more support to Africa’s peacekeeping forces; and increased investment in education and combating killer diseases like HIV and AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.

There was also the vague suggestion to “one day” end the rich Western world’s protectionist trade practices; and debt cancellation worth 40 billion dollars was pledged to the poorest countries, including those in Africa. The G8’s European members also committed themselves to a foreign aid target of 0.56 percent of gross domestic product by 2010 and 0.7 percent by 2015.

“The seven African invitees have been chosen with great care because they all play important roles in Africa currently,” argues Qobo.

Meles Zenawi, prime minister of Ethiopia, has for some time been the darling of the Western world, notwithstanding human rights “challenges” in his country, according to Qobo. Ethiopia is regarded as one of the U.S.’s strongest allies in Africa, a relationship that is pursued due to its geographic proximity to the Middle East.

Algeria and Senegal are influential francophone countries while Nigeria and Egypt are significant regional powers in West and North Africa, respectively.

South Africa is regarded as the economic and political powerhouse of Africa and the driver of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). In addition Nigeria, Algeria, Egypt and Senegal were, with South Africa, the initiators of NEPAD.

Malawi, the smallest and poorest of the seven, is currently chairing the African Union.

Qobo continues: “There is an ongoing process in the Canadian foreign ministry to develop and maintain a strategy on Africa. There is concern about the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) engaging African countries. Africa has consolidated important relations with these countries and this bond is seen as a threat to Western countries.

“Canada wants to understand how it can meaningfully engage with Africa regarding issues around security, aid, trade and investment.”

Hartzenberg regards the fact that the invitation has been extended to such a diverse number of African countries as significant. “It often happens that South Africa is seen as the ‘spokescountry’ for the rest of Africa. But Africa is a diverse continent.

“Many of the smaller countries seldom get a chance to be highlighted on an international stage. The needs of a small country like Malawi are vastly different to that of Egypt, for example, and it has to put its own case forward.”

Hartzenberg argues that Western countries which, for the most part, have forsaken the pledges made at Gleneagles use the global recession as an easy excuse not to fulfil promises.

Ikome’s final criticism is that the G8 is losing its significance on the global stage: “It is being replaced by the Group of 20 (G20). It would be far better for African countries to be represented at G20 summits.”

Excerpt:

By Isolda Agazzi
GENEVA, May 20 2010 (IPS)

The global economic crisis highlighted the necessity of transforming global economic governance. But least developed countries (LDCs) have little voice in this process. It is time they are allowed a seat at the meetings of the Group of 20 industrialised and emerging economies.

Panellists at the first day of the UNCTAD public symposium. Credit: Patrick Bertshmann/UNCTAD

“This is not only a question of transparency, but also of inclusiveness and accountability. How to address these issues? Do we need new platforms or do we have to improve their participation in existing ones?” he asked at a session on LDCs and global governance held during the 2010 UNCTAD public symposium in Geneva on May10-11.

Mothae A. Maruping, ambassador of Lesotho to the United Nations in Geneva, pointed out that LDCs have been devastated by the economic crisis, contrary to the initial forecasts of the Bretton Woods institutions. The Bretton Woods institutions are the two international financial institutions called the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

LDC external trade has declined; remittances have dropped; official development assistance has been jeopardised; and foreign direct investment has slowed down or declined, with some countries even experiencing disinvestments, said Maruping.

Bhattacharya indicated that aid flows increased in 2008 – 2009 but remained below the level needed to reach the MDGs (millennium development goals). “In terms of its composition, if one takes out humanitarian aid there has not been a substantial increase. Also, aid goes to social sectors with little reaching productive sectors.”

Maruping agreed that poor countries won’t achieve the MDGs: “In the aftermath of the crisis, LDCs are experiencing fiscal imbalances and destabilised monetary policies. They have relapsed into unsustainable external indebtedness and widespread and deeper poverty.

The World Bank and the IMF have special programmes for LDCs, but these are bound to so many conditionalities that they are almost unaffordable, he argued. On the World Trade Organisation (WTO) side, the Doha Development Round has stalled.

Maruping pointed out that LDCs have called for an “early harvest” in the WTO negotiations: duty-free and quota-free market access; elimination of export subsidies in agriculture by developed countries; and quicker resolution of the cotton issue with special and differential treatment, aid for trade and an enhanced integrated framework for the LDCs.

But will they be heard? “LDCs have little or no say in the World Bank and the IMF. They have some say in the WTO, where the voice is based on membership and where there is an LDC consultative group. But they need stronger technical back-up, as well as a secretariat and lobbying strategies and activities,” Maruping demanded.

In the Bretton Woods institutions they should form consultative or pressure groups and have their own secretariat, technical back-up, a website and lobbying strategies, Maruping insisted.

Maruping lamented the fact that LDCs have “no voice” in either the Group of Eight (G8) or the Group of 20 (G20). The G8 represents industrialised countries while the G20 brings together “systemically important” industrialised and developing countries to discuss global economic issues.

Dr Dirk Willem te Velde, programme leader of the investment and growth programme at the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) in London, argued that, “there are new global economic issues being discussed in the G20 that have a huge impact on the LDCs. Where is the voice of LDCs?”

The ODI is a British think tank researching and providing policy advice for the achievement of sustainable livelihoods in developing countries.

He added that, “the G20 is likely to be with us for some time. But to establish itself as a forum, it needs to find ways to formally accommodate the voice of the 15 percent of the world’s GDP (gross domestic product) — and most of the countries of the world – that it does not represent.

“The LDCs should have a seat at the G20 table. They have to push for an analysis of how G20 policies are affecting them.”

According to te Velde the aid increase in 2008-2009 played a counter-cyclical role, meaning it alleviated some of the effects of the global crisis.

In the wake of the energy crisis, technology transfer to ameliorate climate change is also vital for LDCs.

“LDCs are mainly interested in pro-poor technologies that help them adapt to climate change, like water-saving and disease and pest-control,” argued Ahmed Abdel Latif, a former Egyptian diplomat that now works for the International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), a Geneva-based think tank.

But the issue of technology transfer is very complex, particularly because of intellectual property rights.

“The important increase in the patenting of clean energy technology is dominated by Japan, the U.S., Germany, Korea, Great Britain and France,” he noted. “Few patents are registered in low income countries. Also, in a survey most of the respondent companies had never entered into a licensing agreement with developing countries.”

Licensing agreements would allow developing countries to use technology owned by an intellectual property rights owner.

*This is a repeat of an article posted on May 13, 2010.

Excerpt:

The promotion of women’s rights at the global level should not be limited to treating the female population as a gender that is discriminated against and must be protected.

Franco Frattini Credit: Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Rather it should focus above all on the value of women as pro-active subjects, irreplaceable and effective vectors of development and peace. Thus, while there is an emergency agenda dictated by dramatically negative developments, there is also a positive agenda, which constitutes the best way of calling attention to the structure role already played by women socially, economically, and politically.

In many areas of the world – the African continent, for example – it is the women who are at the centre of the processes of production and who guarantee the minimal levels of food and social security, in addition to the concrete prospects for development and well-being for their families as well as entire communities.

This is the dimension that Italy has sought to encourage for years in the context of its own development initiatives, promoting women’s access to work and entrepreneurial activities, in part through microcredit and job- training programmes.

Women also play an important role in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and the pursuit of lasting peace, as recognised by resolution 1325 of the UN Security Council, approved in 2000, which called on member states to guarantee a greater presence of women at all levels of decision-making, particularly in crisis prevention, management, and resolution.

It was with a view to the centrality of women in these processes that an original initiative was recently launched by a group of solidarity associations: a call to award a “collective” Nobel Peace Prize in 2010 to all African women, who organise and fight tirelessly for peace and who sustain life even in the most tragic situations.

In fact, African women are increasingly the protagonists and driving force whether in daily life or in the social and political arenas: they constitute a network of informal economic activity and for decades they have been in the forefront of the creation and growth of thousands of small businesses. In addition, African women are making a growing contribution to the defence of health, especially in terms of HIV and malaria.

However, recognition of the role and potential of the female gender and its specific characteristics on different continents, should not make us lose sight of how much remains to be done on the other side of the equation: protection of the fundamental rights of women, and especially the right not to be the target of violence.

Resolution 1325 also recognises how women are the population hardest hit in armed conflicts. But unfortunately it is not only this: violence against women is a blight that convulses the world at every latitude, in peace and war, rich and poor alike, at home and away from home.

Italy is particularly active in this area as well. As President of the G8, for example, we organised on September 9-10 a conference specifically dedicated to violence against women. Italy has carried out numerous projects to call attention to this issue in many areas of the world, particularly the Balkans and the Mediterranean basin, as well as Afghanistan, Mozambique, and West Africa.

Among the numerous actions taken by our country in this context, there is one that Italy has been committed to since the mid-1980s, beginning with Somalia, and which has involved us recently at the United Nations: female genital mutilation. In addition to launching, together with the UN agencies, an international campaign to prevent this practice, last September, at the fringe of the 64th General Assembly, I presided over an initial meeting attended by cabinet ministers from countries which, like Italy, have espoused this cause. And on Nov. 24, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon invited me to be part of a newly established group of political leaders set on fighting violence against women.

It is issues like this, in which violence has cultural components, that demonstrate how crucial the media are in such an effort, through the grass- roots dissemination of information on the risks of certain practices, reaching people whom it would be unimaginable to reach even through targeted projects or prevention campaigns. Journalists thus have a significant responsibility to shun sensationalism and describe the facts with clarity and accuracy, avoiding stereotyping by nationality, culture, or religion. This responsibility extends to every form of violence perpetuated against women.

In addition to  this challenge, the media have an equally important opportunity to present and publicise concrete examples of the contributions women make daily to building a better society on a global level, a more human form of government that is more sensitive to people’s lives and their communities truly obeys the motto: “people first”.

The international seminar organised by IPS in Rome for November 26 and sponsored by the City of Rome and the Italian Foreign Ministry provides a valuable opportunity to reflect on an issue particularly dear to Italy: the close correlation between the Third Millennium Development Goal and the responsibility of the media.

It is for this reason that, among the conclusions reached by the G8 conference, we wanted to include an appeal to the media to carry out to the fullest their central role, such that they can, on the one hand, contribute to the elimination of denigrating social stereotypes and, on the other, promote with intelligence and persistence a greater understanding of the role played by women as protagonists in the advancement of progress in world communities.

*Franco Frattini is foreign minister of Italy.

By Evelyn Kiapi
KAMPALA, Oct 15 2009 (IPS)

The Millennium Goals cannot be achieved at the United Nations. The U.N. can create a platform for governments to make commitments but cannot force compliance by member states.

Girls to the front: but girls' primary school enrolment still lags behind that of boys. Credit: Manoocher Deghati/IPS

Only citizens and their elected representatives – at the national level – can hold governments to account for the promises to reduce poverty made in 2000 at the UN General Assembly in New York.

The U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and his predecessor Kofi Annan both repeatedly stated that the missing ingredient is political will.

As the annual Stand Up, Take Action campaign on the Millennium Development Goals kicks off around the world, Sylvia Mwichuli, deputy director of the U.N. Millennium Campaign (UNMC) in Africa spoke to IPS about the need to demand accountability in both North and South. Excerpts of the interview below.

IPS: What MDG has seen the most dramatic progress? SYLVIA MWICHULI: This is a general question which may hide the tremendous progress being made in individual countries. Different countries are scoring differently. Goals that may be met by one country may not be met by another and the reverse is also true.

Great strides are being made on gender empowerment. Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania, Nigeria, South Africa, Malawi and Zambia are on course to realise this goal.

Ghana and most of the North African states are on course to meet all and even surpass some of the targets.

IPS: Where has there been the most dramatic failure? SM: There are challenges in meeting Goal Three, gender equality and women’s empowerment, and Goal Five, improving maternal health.

Girls’ primary education enrolment still lags behind that of boys and their dropout rates widen as they go up the ladder of education.

African women still die in great numbers while giving birth. In fact, an African woman’s risk of dying from treatable or preventable complications of pregnancy and child birth is 1 in 22 compared to 1 in 7,300 in developed countries.

IPS: What are the major stumbling blocks towards the achievements of the MDGs? SM: The major stumbling block is failure of political will by both countries of the South and those of the North.

The developed countries – except a notable few – have not kept their end of the bargain on Goal 8 (develop a global partnership for development, including dealing with debt and creating a more open, and non-discriminatory trading and financial system).

With the exception of just 16 countries, Africa’s debts have not been cancelled as promised. The countries of the North have not eliminated trade barriers like tariffs on goods from Africa as promised.

And they haven’t increased overseas development assistance to the levels promised, while the quality of aid is still a source of concern.

Whereas African states dedicated themselves to creating favourable conditions in their countries, a look at their national action plans and budgetary allocations, shows a lack of commitment.

Many of them think of MDGs as yet another begging opportunity. MDGs aren’t about aid but (about) prioritisation and proper use of our own nationally-generated resources.

In fact, some countries do not need aid at all, they just need a caring, accountable and a democratic government. But all we see are local and international development funds draining into pockets of government officials, politicians, local and foreign private companies. This denies the poverty-stricken, the expectant mothers and the children an opportunity to have an education or to get medication.

Goals number 1 to 7 can only be achieved at the national and local levels and not from New York or London.

IPS: Besides MDG 3, many of the millennium goals are specifically tied to the situation of women. Goals on maternal health, on education, and ultimately on reducing poverty, which in Africa particularly has a woman’s face. How do government and civil society efforts to attain MDGs recognise the fact that reducing poverty is underpinned by women’s rights and empowerment? SM: Seventy per cent of world’s poor are women and children. The economic crisis that started in 2008 is expected to have the most devastating effects for women, who perform 66 percent of the world’s work but earn only 10 percent of the world’s income and own 1 percent of the world’s property.

It’s against this background that the MDGs 2, 3 and 5 (were designed). It is evident that eradicating poverty is a function of ensuring women rights, ensuring girls attain education and also that women occupy key decision making positions to influence policy.

Governments recognise that poverty has a female face but what is lacking is the political will.

IPS: What is Piga Debe? What successes have been achieved with Piga Debe for women’s rights? SM: Piga Debe is a Swahili word for making a loud noise. This is a campaign started to fast track MDGs 3 and 5 that relate to women’s health, gender equality and women’s empowerment.

These are the goals that face the most risk of not being met by 2015 even by countries like South Africa, Uganda, Ghana and Rwanda that have made real progress on MDG 3.

IPS: How has the framework of attaining MDGs helped strengthen development in East Africa? SM: Greater focus on universal primary education, poverty and women’s empowerment and gender equality.

For example Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda have greatly increased budgetary allotment to the education sector, to 20 percent which is way above the global target.

We are also seeing more national funds being devolved, like the Community Development Fund in Kenya. Forty-eight percent of seats in the Rwandan parliament are women.

All this has been as a result campaign initiatives like MDG Parliamentary caucuses set up in Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda.

(Read the full interview here)

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
PITTSBURGH, Sep 25 2009 (IPS)

World leaders at the two-day G20 Summit in the U.S. city of Pittsburgh agreed to work cooperatively to recover from the global economic crisis and create structural reforms with long-term growth as the goal.

U.S. President Barack Obama addresses the G20 on Friday in Pittsburgh. Credit: Eli Clifton/IPS

Catching most observers by surprise was the announcement that the G8 would now be supplanted by the G20, a more representative body of the world's most powerful countries but a far cry from the inclusive global governance called for by the world's poorest countries and development NGOs.

The G8 comprises Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Britain, Russia and the United States. The G20 adds Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey and the European Union.

"The G20 is more representative than the G8 but there is still no seat at the table for the poorest countries," said Oxfam senior policy adviser Max Lawson. "South Africa is the only African country included in this club. That means when the G20 talks about growth and stability, they are leaving the poorest countries in the cold."

The G20 leaders' decision to endorse a World Bank food initiative also helped keep the world's poorest countries in the spotlight – especially in the context of the global financial crisis.

"We see the urgency of addressing global hunger. Food prices in the last couple years have squeezed incomes. When you're a poor country, 60-80 percent of family income is spent on food," Michael Klosson, chief policy officer of Save the Children, told IPS. "It really is urgent that the world addressees this hunger crisis."

Although details remain to be finalised, the proposed World Bank trust fund would help distribute the food aid from the 20-billion-dollar food security initiative that G8 leaders committed to at their July summit.

NGOs have called attention to the aid commitment, demanding that donor countries ensure transparency and accountability in how food aid is distributed.

"We think this is a good idea and urge that it be implemented as soon as possible. The [World] Bank has a track record and mechanisms in place to ensure transparency and accountability," Klosson concluded.

A commitment to IMF reform was reported to be a sticking point for Obama, who spearheaded the initiative along with a number of the emerging economies, but the final communiqué contained an agreement to shift five percent of the IMF voting power in favour of developing countries at the expense of overrepresented wealthy countries.

It was alleged that this shift was opposed in the morning by the British and French delegations who objected to the reduction in voting power to which they – along with a number of western European countries – would be subjected.

The reform is likely to benefit China and perhaps one or two other emerging economies such as Brazil or India.

"It's important that China does get a fairer representation, but it's not just about countries like China. It's about poorer countries in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa," Oxfam economic justice press officer Jon Slater told IPS.

The recovery from the financial crisis was a hot topic at the summit as world leaders took stock of the efforts they had committed to undertake at the April G20 summit in London.

"We brought the global economy back from the brink, we laid the groundwork today for longtime prosperity as well," President Obama said at a press conference at the conclusion of the summit. "Still we know there is much further to go."

Obama reiterated his call for bankers to be compensated on their long-term performance instead of rewarding risky and aggressive practices for quick gains.

The G20 communiqué reflected this sentiment, saying that the leaders pledged to "raise capital standards, to implement strong international compensation standards aimed at ending practices that lead to excessive risk-taking, to improve the over-the-counter derivatives market and to create more powerful tools to hold large global firms to account for the risks they take."

In a commitment that was expected and enjoyed wide populist support, the leaders committed to limit guaranteed bonuses for executives and putting a stop to rewards for "risk-taking".

Environmental issues and global warming saw no major breakthroughs and most major commitments on the issue seem to be put off until the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December.

"We will spare no effort to reach agreement in Copenhagen through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations," read the communiqué.

Leaders also committed to cutting fossil fuel subsidies and promoting energy market transparency and stability.

Concerns before the summit had been raised about the possibility of a U.S.-China split in trade policy.

Earlier in the month, the U.S. imposed tariffs on Chinese tyres in a move that many were concerned could spill over into G20 negotiations and, in worst case scenarios, spark a trade war.

U.S.-Chinese relations seemed strong at the summit, where China walked away with what will probably be a significant improvement in its voting share at the IMF and further embedded itself into the international financial institutions and institutions for international economic diplomacy.

The member countries committed to "fight protectionism" and "[bring] the Doha Round to a successful conclusion in 2010."

The G20 will next meet in Canada in June 2010 and Korea in November 2010.

Excerpt:

By Sanjay Suri
PITTSBURGH, Sep 25 2009 (IPS)

Something that was perhaps only half-expected has happened in Pittsburgh: the G20 has moved on from being an event to becoming an institution.

Protesters have also descended on Pittsburgh demanding solutions to environmental and economic crises they say were created by the G20. Credit: whatleydude/flickr

A draft communiqué says the G20 will have "responsibility to the community of nations to assure the overall health of the global economy".

U.S. President Barack Obama is believed to have taken the lead in bringing more solidity to the G20. And in a symbolic indication of its new inclusiveness, the next G20 will be held in Seoul, Korea next year, following on from the summits in Washington, London and Pittsburgh.

The moves from the so-called emerging economies have delivered much of what they sought. And these have been firm moves – pressure as seen by some, but at the least, firm persuasion.

The emerging formed a group of five, the G5 (Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa) that took a collective stand to speak to the rich at the last G8 summit in L'Aquila in Italy. And earlier this month, the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India and China) made a collective presentation at the G20 finance ministers meeting in London for more representation within the International Monetary Fund (IMF) than the rich were bargaining for.

It was perhaps a matter of time before someone ended an arrangement of a sub-group contesting the bigger group within a coalition. Obama has.

Simultaneously, the G8 fizzles out as a group claiming clout. It has not been officially disbanded, but will be a security grouping now. What that role will imply has not been clarified as yet. But the focus is clearly the G20 now.

The end, practically, of the G8 is not necessarily a concession offered by the developed world. "The G8 faced a credibility crisis," John Samuel, international director of ActionAid tells IPS. "It produced a record of broken promises, made statements it did not follow up."

"And secondly, it celebrated the liberal new market which collapsed. It has become redundant, and it really has now only an ornamental position," he notes. The G8 has agreed to give way to the G20 "not out of choice but out of the compulsions of the economic crisis."

A step forward, an undoubtedly historic one at that, but not perhaps occasion for uncritical celebration.

"The question is whether we will now have a super-8 within the G20," says Samuel. "What matters is whether countries such as India and Brazil will be able to change the discourse within the G20. If the G20 becomes a handmaid of the G8, then it does not carry much possibility."

And a new success for major developing countries that a stronger G20 represents may be less romantic than it first seems. "A lot of the countries with G8 are less democratic than the G8 countries," says Samuel.

Saudi Arabia is an obvious instance. But even with India, says Samuel, there is insufficient consultation within parliament and with civil society. "It cannot be left to bureaucrats to negotiate the future of the world."

But few can deny that the change has brought to the major developing countries a historic opportunity to influence the way the world goes. And potentially, to speak also for the poor in nations outside of the G20 – a reminder, surely, is the fact that there may be more poor people within just India than in the rest of the world.

The G20 is believed to account for 90 percent of the world's economic output, and has two-thirds of the world population. There is a telling mismatch in those figures, high as they both seem, and the legitimacy of the G20 will depend substantially on how it addresses that gap.

A telling test will come early enough, as early as November, at a meeting of trade ministers in Geneva. The meeting follows a history of one set of G20 countries like India, China and Brazil at war with the G8 part of the G20 over subsidies and market access. The 20 will no doubt be considering, as will the rest outside of the 20, who will surrender what claims in this as yet fragile new alliance.

Excerpt:

By Sanjay Suri
LONDON, Sep 4 2009 (IPS)

Every one of these 'G' meetings becomes now an occasion for the developing countries – say the emerging economies – to turn that extra energy into a louder voice in the business of global decision-taking.

A day before the leaders of the wealthiest developed nations met at the last G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy in July, the G5 met with announcements of consolidated positions. They held together jointly, and therefore that much more firmly, against a particularly European push for some binding commitments on actions towards curbing climate change.

And now on the eve of the substantive part of the G20 finance ministers meeting in London Saturday, the BRIC nations came together to make a collective announcement that would both inform the formal meeting in advance of common positions, and pre-empt increased pressure from the developed – the G8 part of the G20.

For the record, the G8 are the U.S., Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia; the G5 are Brazil, India, China, South Africa and Mexico; and BRIC are Brazil, Russia, India and China. The remaining members of the G20 are Argentina, Australia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Turkey and the EU represented by its rotating presidency (currently Sweden).

Russia belongs to both the G8 and outside, China some say should really belong to a G2 alongside the U.S., to sit above the G8. These numbers are not that serious; certainly they are not formal. That one or two may move this side or that is just a fallout of what everyone calls these days 'the changing world order.'

Change has come outside of the U.S. too, and U.S. President Barack Obama is not the only one looking for change, even if that sort of push coming from others makes for smaller headlines. But the push is unmistakable – and change inevitable.

So the BRIC finance ministers did not just call for reform of the international financial institutions when they met in London Friday ahead of the finance ministers meeting proper. "The main governance problem, which severely undermines their legitimacy, is the unfair distribution of quotas, shares and voting power," the BRIC ministers said in a statement following their meeting. That they have said before, but on Friday they went further.

"We propose the setting of a target for that shift of the order of seven percent in the IMF and six percent in the World Bank Group so as to reach an equitable distribution of voting power between advanced and developing countries. This would lead the overall share of emerging market and developing countries in the IMF and World Bank to correspond roughly to their share in world GDP."

Six or seven percent may not sound like a lot. But the last time, three percent of votes shifted from rich to developing countries. Now they want the next shift to be twice as big. Push has not yet come to shove – the emerging economies are looking for change, not upheaval, for steps that will in time add up to a change that is certain to be revolutionary, but not looking for a dramatic revolution in the old ways.

The G8 governments have been dragging their feet since agreeing to reform of these institutions. At this G20 gathering, the pressure will be on for reform. U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner dropped in at the end of the BRIC ministers meeting to hear what the ministers had to say, and to reassure them the U.S. will back change. Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantega reported at the end of the meeting that Geithner agreed action to reform the international financial institutions, and to do so quickly.

And he agreed too, as the BRIC ministers demanded, that the next managing director of the IMF and the next president of the World Bank should be elected "irrespective of nationality or any geographical preference." And that the executive boards of these institutions give more representation to developing countries.

This was always a good argument, but now strength speaks. As Indian Finance Minister Pranab Mukherji said after the meeting, BRIC nations between them have a higher gross national income (GNI) now than does the U.S. Sure, that is still four big countries that just about surpass the U.S. standing alone – but the U.S. giant stands less tall above others now than it did before, and looks more fragile than the smaller economies.

"Emerging market economies have shown resilience and helped the world economy absorb the impact of the deterioration of trade, credit flows and demand," the BRIC ministers pointed out in their statement. "In many of them, growth is already back on track after a few quarters of recession or slowdown."

And with 80 billion dollars of their money now going into the international financial institutions, it does not seem likely they will be able to resist change for long along the lines that the emerging economies are pushing insistently for.

The BRIC ministers held on to earlier positions on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in taking action on climate change. But they acknowledged too that there is much that needs to be reformed beyond voting rights and the lot within financial institutions.

"Permanent, stable reforms must still be implemented on multiple fronts," they acknowledged. The need, they said, is to "change international practices, rules and governance structures to make the global economy more resilient to future crises." They have an interest in this, suffering as they did from a crisis not of their making.

Few expect the developing nations to secure all the reforms they want in a hurry. But few doubt, either, that the developing world has taken at least some steps towards that end as never before.

Excerpt:

By Sanjay Suri
LONDON, Sep 4 2009 (IPS)

The tests are coming thick and fast. After the G20 summit in Washington last year, the G20 in London in April, and the G8 in L'Aquila that was substantially a G20, the G20 finance ministers are meeting in London this Friday and Saturday ahead of the G20 gathering in Pittsburgh later this month.

Finance of course is what it is all about. And conflicting financial interests along the traditional divide between the developed and developing, now complicated by what are called the emerging economies – a little developed and a lot developing.

These now occupy an increasingly more formal in-between space. They are the G5 when the G-whatever meet, the club of Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC), or the club of India, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA), looking one way and another to solidify a new strength they found only the other day.

Through various ways of getting together they are looking like a new force in negotiating with the traditionally rich club, the G8 – if you count in Russia on that side as well.

But they are running the risk – and warnings over this are getting louder – also of a new rich-clubbing at the expense of their own poor, and the poor elsewhere that they could speak for; that they are instead going with the G8 part of the G20 (group of major industrialised and emerging nations) in maintaining the status quo to help large corporations.

"When the G20 meeting took place in London at the beginning of this year, there was a call for a radical new beginning," says John Hilary, chief executive of War on Want, a London-based independent group campaigning for development for the underprivileged. "The G20 business leaders themselves said we can't go back to business as usual. But the problem is that since then we've seen no real steps forward in trying to transform the global economy."

The G20 could be calling for change, while changing nothing. "We've heard language, we've heard calls for a new beginning, but every time there is a new proposal for something to change, they say we can't do that," Hilary told IPS.

"For example, recently we heard new calls for taxes on banks when they get involved in currency transactions, but immediately the governments say we can't do that. We've heard talk about trying to clamp down on bankers' bonuses, but again they say we don't want to do that," he says.

Underneath the apparent inclusiveness that comes with expanding the G8 to G20 – for at least some of the time – may lie an exclusion of the really poor, says Hilary.

"In June of this year, 192 member states of the U.N. came up with a plan to take away power from the existing institutions and to have a rethink of the global economy, and yet again all the rich countries of the world snubbed that meeting, they said they didn't want to be involved; instead they just want to go back to their cosy clubs at the G8 and the G20."

But clearly the talking cannot just go on and on. If only because decision time is coming closer by the day, with the climate change summit in December, and the agreement at the last G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy to conclude an international trade agreement by the end of next year.

Agreements on climate change, on trade, and the issue of protectionism within the context of reviving the global economy are expected to be dominant issues at the G20 finance ministers meeting, leading up to the G20 summit itself in the U.S. city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The moves among the developed countries, inevitably, are to push for access to markets abroad, while restricting access to their own markets, and energetically cutting down on the movement of people into their countries.

"In a number of EU countries, restrictions on migration have become tighter," says Dirk Willem te Velde, programme leader at the London-based Overseas Development Institute, an independent research institute. "I don't think that is the right way to go."

This is a form of protectionism against which developing countries will have to press hard at G20 meetings, he says. "For a country like India, for example, it is important to highlight that it is not good for India, but it is also not good for developed countries themselves."

A country like India, with vast numbers of skilled personnel, is particularly affected. "It's very important for India that developed countries are not returning to protectionism, whether it is trade protectionism or labour protectionism," te Velde told IPS. "India has a lot to offer to developed countries, whether it is skilled personnel, or exports, and in that respect it is very important that developed countries promise not to return to a protectionist world."

Doubts have been raised as to whether the developing countries within the G20 will push their case aggressively enough.

"The G20 is a bit better than the G8, but the problem is that the G20 still excludes 172 countries," says Hilary. "The other big problem is that the G20 has kept the same tune as the G8. If the G20 could change the tune, that would make it a great deal better. But the problem is they have also said they believe in free markets, they believe in increased trade liberalisation, they want to try to rush through the Doha round of the world trade talks.

"Well, all of these things are known to be part of the problem. So why is it that the G20 leaders, even the G20 leaders from developing countries, are saying that they see this as part of the solution."

The danger for the G20 could be that it endorses more of the same – and by very many more countries. The opportunity is for the emerging nations together to manage to break, or at least shake, traditional dominance. The time is fast approaching when everyone will have to show which it will be.

Excerpt:

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 12 2009 (IPS)

When U.S. President Barack Obama presides over a meeting of world leaders in the Security Council on Sep. 24, he will provide a high profile political platform for two of the most sensitive issues at the United Nations: nuclear non- proliferation and nuclear disarmament.

“This is the time for the Security Council to plan together a route to international security in a nuclear weapons-free world,” Jonathan Granoff, president of the Global Security Institute, told IPS.

“We cannot threaten each other with annihilation on Monday and work together sufficiently to meet our shared threats on Tuesday, not knowing whether we will be friends or foes on Wednesday,” he added.

Frida Berrigan, senior associate of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, says President Obama, in his historic Apr. 2009 speech in Prague, acknowledged the need for U.S. leadership and initiative on nuclear disarmament.

As the only nation to use nuclear weapons, the U.S. has a moral responsibility to act, Obama said, in the Czech capital.

“We cannot succeed in this endeavour alone, but we can lead it, we can start it,” Berrigan added.

Obama’s decision to chair a special meeting of the Security Council “is part of that commitment to lead efforts towards nuclear disarmament,” Berrigan told IPS.

Obama is expected to make his maiden appearance at the U.N. when he addresses the global summit on climate change on Sep. 22.

The next day he will address the opening of the high level segment of the 64th sessions of the General Assembly, in the company of Brazilian President Lula da Silva, French President Nicholas Sarkozy and Libyan leader Muammar el Qaddafi (who will also be visiting the U.N. for the first time).

The special session of the Security Council, which is to be chaired by Obama on Sep. 24, will also be attended by political leaders from the 14 other members states – including the other four permanent members of the Council, namely China, Britain, France and Russia.

The 10 non-permanent members in the Security Council, whose heads of state have been invited to participate, include Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia, Libya, Vietnam, Austria, Mexico, Japan, Turkey and Uganda.

A similar session of the Security Council – on the maintenance of international peace and security – was held in Jan. 1992 presided over by then British Prime Minister John Major.

But that meeting “came out with a self-serving statement making proliferation of nuclear weapons a breach of international peace and security and therefore justifying Security Council action, thus absolving the five permanent members – all nuclear weapon states – of any blame for nuclear weapon possession,” Jayantha Dhanapala, a former U.N. Under-Secretary- General for Disarmament Affairs, told IPS.

The Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Commission chaired by Hans Blix – on a suggestion by Dhanapala – had proposed a Global Summit on proliferation, disarmament and possible terrorist uses of WMD.

Dhanapala, one of the world’s foremost authorities on nuclear disarmament and currently president of Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, said the Security Council – as presently constituted – has a serious legitimacy deficit.

He said a credible Summit could only take place with the involvement of the 192-member General Assembly, and also the participation of those nuclear weapon states outside the Security Council.

“As importantly, the voices of civil society must be heard and so the Security Council must break with past practice and invite Nobel Peace Prize Laureates like Pugwash and others like Dr. Hans Blix to make presentations,” he added.

Granoff of the Global Security Institute said the upcoming special session will take place after several days of intense discussion regarding protecting the climate and finding new levels of cooperation to address a shared economic environment.

“In a world where bridges of cooperation must be built to address our shared environmental and economic interdependence, what place do the walls of fear and threat of nuclear weapons play?” he asked.

He said any progress on climate, sustainable development, and economic well being will come undone by the use of nuclear weapons.

“The threat of use will always be there as long as the weapons exist,” said Granoff, who is also co-chair of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Nuclear Non- Proliferation.

Steps need to be taken to lessen the threat on the road to elimination, he said.

These include entry into force of the test ban, strengthening verification of cuts and making them irreversible, and quickly coming down to sufficiently low numbers – to affirm that their only value is to prevent them from being used.

“We must build a security system based on the principle of zero nuclear weapons,” Granoff stressed.

That means promptly affirming that the first use of a nuclear weapon is crime against humanity and that even any retaliatory use would have to be aimed in such a manner as to not violate international humanitarian law – thus never be aimed at a city.

This small window of qualified legitimacy to make sure they are not used cannot be leveraged into a doctrine that justifies keeping the weapons, but must be a mere step toward achieving the goal of elimination, said Granoff.

Berrigan of the New America Foundation said she expects President Obama to champion the modest cuts that the U.S. and Russia have agreed upon so far; call for greater cooperation from other Security Council members; reach out in qualified ways to Iran and North Korea; and elaborate on how the work towards nuclear disarmament is not just sensible and overdue, but also contributes to U.S. national security.

“All of this work is worthy of the spotlight, but will need a lot of follow-up in order to be meaningful in its own right,” Berrigan said.

Everything cannot be achieved in a single meeting, but even in the realm of symbolism, this is an important shift towards engagement and away from the former Bush Administration’s disdainful treatment of the U.N., said Berrigan, who is also a columnist for Foreign Policy in Focus.

Peter Weiss, president of the Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP), told IPS: “Here’s what I think Obama will do: announce the U.S. support of the renewal of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START); ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT); and negotiation of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT).”

“And here’s what I think he should do, in addition: Announce that, at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference in May next year, the U.S. will propose an international conference for the purpose of beginning serious work on a convention outlawing the possession of nuclear weapons and criminalising their use.”

Without this second step, Weiss said, the first series of steps will not bring about the nuclear weapons free world which Obama spoke about in Prague.

Granoff said that at the closing session of the 1992 Security Council meeting then U.K. Prime Minister Major included in his statement elements pertinent today: “The members of the Council underline the need for all Member States to fulfil their obligations in relation to arms control and disarmament.”

Since then, he said, the obligation to achieve nuclear disarmament pursuant to Article VI of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and the mandate of the unanimous decision of the International Court of Justice remain substantially unfulfilled.

“It is time that the legal mechanisms of the U.N. Charter be followed in this regard,” Granoff stressed.

Amongst them, he pointed out, is Article 26 which would task the U.N. Military Staff Committee to submit plans for nuclear disarmament to the Members States. That Section – which requires “maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments – must now be invoked and include nuclear disarmament in its mandate.

This Military Staff Committee is described in Article 47 as including Chiefs of Staff of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

“It is high time that these military leaders be charged with fulfilling their disarmament duties,” he added.

Excerpt:

By IPS Correspondents
CAPE TOWN, Jul 20 2009 (IPS)

Health experts and scientists have accused the world's wealthiest countries of abandoning the goal of universal access to HIV prevention, care and treatment by 2010.

Kenyan nurse preparing ARVs for a patient in Kenya: drug shortages and interruption of treatment are just some of the negative consequences of a funding shortfall. Credit: John Nyaga/IRIN

Montaner, who is also director of the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, was sharply critical of the world's most powerful industrialised countries, who in 2005 committed to developing a comprehensive response to the AIDS pandemic that would achieve universal access to treatment by next year.

A joint report by UNAIDS and the Kaiser Family Foundation – a non-profit foundation focused on health issues – released earlier this month showed that more money was spent fighting HIV/AIDS in low- and middle-income countries in 2008 than ever before: $8.7 billion was committed, $7.7 billion was actually disbursed. But this was still barely half of the amount that UNAIDS estimates is needed.

The worldwide economic downturnn is expected to sharply affect funding for health. A World Bank report, titled "Averting a Human Crisis During the Global Downturn", predicted drug shortages and interrupted treatment regimes. According to the report, eastern and southern Africa will likely suffer most: this is both where the HIV epidemic is at its worst and where programmes to fight it are most heavily dependent on donors.

"Social services are likely to suffer as governments cut back on spending, currencies devalue, and external aid donors come under pressure to maintain existing levels of foreign assistance. The downturn has taken a wrecking ball to the growth and development gains of the world's poorest countries," said Joy Phumaphi, the World Bank's vice-president for human development, in the report.

"Earlier this month, another G8 Summit came and went. HIV/AIDS was indeed the elephant in the room," said Montaner. "In 2009, the eight most powerful economies in the world left HIV off their priority agenda. They departed with no progress report on HIV, and they even failed to renew their prior commitment to the goal of universal access to HIV prevention, care and treatment by 2010. This is totally unacceptable."

General secretary of the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), Vuyiseka Dubula, also challenged G8 leaders and African governments to follow up their commitments.

"We need (to take) global responsability for health and universal access now. G8 countries committed financial support towards achieving universal access by 2010. (They have) already broken their promises and African states are not meeting their targets," she said.

"African member states met in Abuja and declared commitment to fight HIV and clear targets on how they will fight HIV/TB and Malaria. We know that the whole world is facing economic challenges and we want to remind the world leaders that health is not in recession therefore economic recovery must include health recovery."

The biennial IAS conference runs from Jul. 19 to 22 in Cape Town, South Africa. Around 5,000 scientists, clinicians, community leaders and public health experts will consider how scientific advances can practically shape the global response to HIV/AIDS.

Excerpt:

By Miren Gutierrez and Ahmed Djoghlaf
BELLAGIO, Italy, Jul 17 2009 (IPS)

Declining amphibian populations, dwindling fish stocks, waning ocean biodiversity, loss of forests…All scientists acknowledge that the rate of species loss is greater now than at any time in human history.

Ahmed Djoghlaf Credit:

Ahmed Djoghlaf is one of the most well known global warriors against biodiversity loss. He is trying to make the most out of the International Year of Biodiversity next year, and of international meetings in the run-up to the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 10) in Nagoya in Japan in October 2010.

Executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) since 2003, he has also been assistant executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), coordinator of UNEP's division of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and general rapporteur of the preparatory committee of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), better known as the Rio Summit.

IPS: You said recently that "we receive increasingly strong signals of distress from the natural systems that provide the services that sustain our daily needs and livelihoods." What are those signals, and is anything being done to respond to them? Ahmed Djoghlaf: The last assessment of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) – done by 2,500 experts – demonstrated in 2007 that climate change is real, that it is happening now, and that we, human beings, are responsible for it. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment – in which more than 1,300 experts participated, launched in 2005 – demonstrated that the loss of biodiversity is real, and it is an unprecedented threat to the ecosystems. The current rate of extinction is a thousand times the natural rate. We are maybe reaching a turning point where we cannot reverse this crisis. We are experiencing the sixth global mass extinction of species, but the first human-caused mass extinction. Climate change is one of the main drivers of loss. The different studies concluded that, by 2010, we could achieve what the heads of state decided in 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, provided we undertook unprecedented efforts at all levels. Unfortunately, these unprecedented efforts have yet to be made. By 2010, surely, when the (United Nations) General Assembly in September 2010 meets, it will be difficult for any head of state to say that his or her country has achieved the promise. However, this will be a unique opportunity for the leaders of the world to produce a change to stop the silent tsunami of the loss of biodiversity.

Djoghlaf spoke with IPS during a meeting on agricultural biodiversity organised by Bioversity International – the largest international research organisation dedicated to conservation and use of agricultural biodiversity.

IPS: Biodiversity loss and climate change are intimately linked. However, the recent G8 forum on energy and climate in L'Aquila, Italy, produced a declaration that included no concrete commitments on how much air pollutant emissions should be cut and when. What is your reading of the meeting? Ahmed Djoghlaf: The declaration is important. Of course, long-term targets need to be set, as well as short-term targets. The leadership of the G8 should commit to a post-Kyoto agreement in Copenhagen (next December).

This has been the first time that these heads of state endorsed the biodiversity commitments contained in the Syracuse Charter on Biodiversity, issued during the G8 environment summit in April this year. The Syracuse declaration was a very strong statement to take leadership on biodiversity and to finalise the negotiation under the international regime by 2010 in Nayoga.

The climate change challenge is a technical and financial issue, but it is first an environmental issue. Tropical deforestation contributes to 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Tropical forests are disappearing at a rate of about 13 million hectares per year, together with biodiversity that has yet to be recorded. Oceans absorb 20 percent of emissions; however global warming weakens the capacity of the oceans for natural abortion of emissions.

IPS: In L'Aquila, developing nations argued that, before committing to any action, industrialised countries should first agree to a 40 percent reduction of emissions by 2020, related to 1990 levels. Most biodiversity wealth is located in the so-called South. What do you think the role of developing countries should be? AD: Indeed, countries like India or China have more biodiversity than all G8 countries put together. Therefore the dialogue between the G8 and its partners in the South, that is, those who are rich in technology and financial resources, and those who are rich in biodiversity, is essential for the three objectives of the Convention on Biodiversity (conservation of biological diversity, its sustainable use, and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of genetic resources).

The strong partnership between the North and the South that emerged from the Rio declaration (in 1992) is essential. It contained the basis for the links between rich countries and developing countries, and it should provide leadership and different responsibilities based on contributions and needs.

IPS: It should, but why wasn't a more substantial agreement reached at L'Aquila? AD: Because short-term interests are prevailing. If you think about the long- term targets, then all parties have all to win from an agreement: North, South, humanity will win. Short-term politics, short-sighted politicians are prevailing. We cannot afford to have this.

IPS: The position of developed countries – which urged developing nations to make a commitment to cut emissions by 2050 – and of developing countries stand far apart as the Copenhagen climate change conference approaches. What are your expectations for Copenhagen? How will this influence what happens in 2010, the International Year of Biodiversity? AD: Climate change and biodiversity loss are closely interlinked, and any agreement reached in Copenhagen will affect positively or negatively the biodiversity summit in 2010. The leaders of the world and the international community cannot afford to miss the Copenhagen opportunity to renew the efforts to attack climate change.

IPS: One in four mammals is at risk of disappearing, according to the red list of threatened species of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). But the 2010 biodiversity target is to significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. Is this still achievable? What would you consider 'significant'? AD: This is a major problem the international community will face in Nagoya, where about 8,000 people will assess the progress made to achieve the 2010 target. We are working on a major study, the Global Biodiversity Outlook, which will be released in 2010, based on national reports governments are supposed to send. It will offer a snapshot of the state of biodiversity. There will be scientific data on whether countries have achieved the target.

More important than pointing fingers is to draw lessons from the Johannesburg target (for 2002) and the Nagoya strategy post-2010. So, 'significant' compared to what? The 2002 baseline assessment report? We hope that (the Nagoya strategy post-2010) criteria are measurable, identifying mechanisms to achieve targets because it is important to take decisions at the national level that translate into strategies.

IPS: COP 10 will evaluate the status of the 2010 biodiversity target and discuss a new target. Do you expect to have good news about concrete biodiversity indicators? What has changed since COP 1 in 1994 in Nassau, Bahamas? AD: The convention is unique and complex, and it has taken some time to adopt. There are work programmes in all sectors, guidelines in cross-cutting areas. And now the time has come to implement the convention.

What is happening now in comparison with the Bahamas meeting is that parties are engaged in the implementing phase. Also in L'Aquila you had heads of state referring to the Convention on Biodiversity. This started with the G8 summit of Heiligendamm in 2007, and was followed up in the Hokkaido/Toyako summit. This commitment has taken some time to emerge.

Biodiversity is mainstreamed at the highest level. Next year we will make a case in New York, during the General Assembly in September, when we will talk exclusively about biodiversity. It has never happened before. This momentum will be translated in Nagoya into concrete actions to implement the convention.

For the first time also, the U.N. has devoted one year to biodiversity. At the end of 2010 all people on the planet will be aware of the challenge, committed, and a partner to change. This is a tremendous revolution.

*Miren Gutierrez is IPS Editor-in-Chief.

Excerpt:

By Stephen Leahy
BERLIN, Jul 13 2009 (IPS)

The G8’s failure to make meaningful commitments on climate last week pushes the world ever closer to global climate catastrophe, experts warn. Without commitments to take action, there is little comfort in G8 countries’ agreement to keep overall global warming below 2.0 degrees Celsius.

“If they took the 2.0-degree commitment seriously, it would imply a vigourous and immediate carbon emission reduction programme,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of Geosciences and International Affairs at Princeton University in the U.S.

“It would mean carbon emissions would have to peak by 2020 and decline. That’s a tall order but that’s what needs to happen to stabilise at around 2.0 degrees C,” Oppenheimer told IPS.

The Group of Eight of the world’s largest economies comprises Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Canada, Japan and the United States.

Climate experts stress that 2.0 degrees is not in any way a guarantee of safety. There are already significant impacts currently from climate change. However, from what scientists know today, risks increase markedly over 2.0 degrees of warming, Oppenheimer warned.

Global temperatures have already risen 0.8 C in the last hundred years and will reach 1.2 to 1.5 C based on emissions already in the atmosphere.

“The climate system is unpredictable. Two degrees is just a guideline,” Oppenheimer said.

There are many silent, unknown thresholds where changes will not be reversible and we won’t see the consequences until much later. “We’re flying blind…we have to act in a pretty cautious manner,” he said.

Political caution is all that the G8 meeting in L’Aquila, Italy delivered. G8 commitments to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050 have little significance without a far more important mid-term target of 2020, says Kim Carstensen, leader of the WWF Global Climate Initiative.

“We need an ambitious 2020 target of 40 percent reductions for the developed world,” Carstensen said in an interview from L’Aquila. “There has been no progress on the huge gap between what the science says is needed and what developed countries will commit to.”

Even the much-touted new U.S. climate change bill would only result in emissions of 5.0 to 6.0 percent below 1990 levels for the year 2020. And the bill’s passage is not a certainty. Japan’s latest commitment is 7.0 percent, the European Union has promised 20 percent, while Canada is not promising to do anything.

Remarkably, Canada, the U.S., China, India and the 13 other major greenhouse- gas emitting countries plus representatives of the European Union met just before the G8 to sort out the climate problem at the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate.

These countries represent 80 percent of global emissions and agreed to keep the temperature increase below 2.0 degrees C, but offered no commitments other than “support” for overall global reductions of 50 percent, with developed countries making 80 percent reductions by 2050.

After the G8, Canada promptly called such a target “aspirational”, with no need to change policy. And the U.S., along with other countries, fudged their commitment by insisting on leaving the door open to using different baseline years from which to measure their reductions.

All of this bodes ill for the final climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December.

If there is no 2020 emissions reduction target in Copenhagen, it indicates countries are not serious about tackling climate change, suggested Ged Davis, co-president of the Global Energy Assessment Council in Vienna.

“Without a 2020 target we can’t get the public debate about how to go forward,” Davis told IPS.

Talk of keeping warming under 2.0 degrees is also meaningless without that 2020 target and an outline of the policies on how to get there, he said.

China and India have said they will not agree to any 2020 target in Copenhagen. One of the reasons is the unresolved issue of how to address the fact that the bulk of the emissions in the atmosphere today have come from the rich, developed nations. Meanwhile the bulk of present and future emissions will come from China, India and the rest of the developing world.

These are extremely difficult negotiations, emotional and complex and we all need to play our part, he says. Copenhagen will not sort all this out because there are years of negotiations to come but “it is very important to get a strong outcome in Copenhagen”, Davis said.

“If we don’t have an agreed 2020 target and the paths forward, we could end up continuing to debate until the water rises around our necks,” he said.

Excerpt:

By Sanjay Suri
L'AQUILA, Italy, Jul 10 2009 (IPS)

As numbers go, and as expectations went, 20 billion dollars would be a fair bit for the G8 to produce to fight the food crisis and bring down hunger. Certainly, it was more than most expected.

Many members of civil society would have been happy enough with 15 billion dollars over four years – if only because they have learnt over time to expect relatively little. As it stands the G8 spoke of 20 billion dollars in three years.

Spoke, that is. And carefully, too. The G8 leaders (and another five from major developing countries, and Egypt) said in their declaration at the end of their three-day summit that they “welcomed commitments” by the countries meeting in L’Aquila, Italy “towards a goal of mobilising 20 billion dollars over three years…” Not a joint pledge, but a welcome step towards an ideal.

After some years of promises made and not kept, the G8 (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Canada, Japan and the United States) would seem right to lose a little faith in themselves. At least the language is more careful. Remember the G8 at Gleneagles in Scotland when that nice round figure of 50 billion dollars of aid one way or another was doing the rounds. The precise fraction of that which was for real has never quite been worked out.

And so civil society is not celebrating yet. “What we could say is that it is a belated step in the right direction,” Kumi Naidoo, global co-chair of the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP), told IPS. “However, we have to look at the details because the G8 are masters of spin.”

For example, Naidoo said, among the more recent ones, “the commitment of 30 billion dollars of food aid made in June 2008 has not yet been realised. So we want to see who’s putting up the money, when the money will be available, how the money will be available, before we can embrace it fully as a success.”

Italy, the host country, he said, has thought nothing of cutting aid by 500 million dollars. So who will pay more and who will even cut down what aid they were giving is less than clear. “We would like to hear from the Italian government if there has been any shift in their thinking as a result of the G8.” If that is in Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s thoughts at all, that is.

But more fundamentally than amounts declared as goals and those fractions delivered, Naidoo says the G8 must go beyond the business of producing numbers and simply wiping off its hands as a job well done. The G8 must think differently, he says. And recent times dictate why it must.

“Food price rises, fuel price rises, the financial crisis, the ongoing poverty and the ongoing climate crisis…they have all come together,” he said. “A good big crisis is a terrible thing to squander away – we should think of these crises as opportunity. The G8 is thinking of each of these as stand-alone problems rather than looking for ways to see how we can respond to these problems in an integrated, non-fragmented way.”

That kind of thinking is still some miles beyond the horizon. Right now civil society will have to live with watching that number space. And to count how much less money will be forthcoming than what it seems, or what is said.

Because even if the entire 20 billion were to come and get to the right people at the right time – among the bigger ‘even ifs’ of the world – it would still not be enough.

The G8 note in their declaration that “the number of people suffering from hunger and poverty now exceeds one billion.” And so 20 billion dollars, say for the moment all of it, still adds up to 20 dollars a hungry head over three years. That money does not buy a lot of food in any part of the world.

True, this is not an entirely fair numbers game either. The money could be used sensibly to promote agriculture rather than as traditional aid. But this is crisis money, and falls short of even the minimum demanded by the global meltdown.

“This money will not be sufficient to deal with the challenges of the food crisis across the world,” Otive Igbuzor, international head of campaigns at ActionAid, told IPS. “The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations has estimated that what is needed to deal with the challenges of the food crisis is 30 billion dollars every year.”

And what, again, when the G8 takes away more than it can give. Hunger is on the rise because the EU and the U.S. want biofuels, Igbuzor said. “Production of agro-fuel is increasing because of EU and U.S. subsidies, and the EU target for fuel from agro sources. There must be a stoppage of subsidies and targets on agro-fuel.” Twenty million hectares of fertile land in Africa, he said, has been given to corporations from Europe and the U.S., “and all of these are swelling the food crisis.”

So it’s not all quite adding up: not words with numbers, not claims with records, not aid with what is being taken.

Excerpt:

By Sanjay Suri
L'AQUILA, Italy, Jul 9 2009 (IPS)

The G8 summit is no climate change meeting, and not formally associated in any sense with the series of negotiating meetings leading up to the climate change conference in Copenhagen in December. But the outcome of a G8 sponsored forum on climate change should get environmentalists worried about any outcome in Copenhagen.

The Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate produced a declaration at the G8 summit in this Italian city Thursday. It was a declaration of words, not numbers. It included no commitments, no requirements for anyone on how much should be cut in terms of emissions and when. Because when they talked numbers, they failed to agree.

And the Major Economies Forum (MEF) is about as representative as you could get. It includes the G8 members (the U.S., Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia), the G5 major developing countries (China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa) plus Australia, Indonesia, South Korea and the EU. In short, every player in the thick of the conflict over negotiations.

And was there conflict. The developed nations pressed for those two sets of number targets that have been going the rounds: that developing countries make a quantitative commitment to cutting emissions by 2050, or commit to action necessary to limit temperature rise to less than two degrees this century.

Developing nations came up with a 2020 target. First, they argued, industrialised countries should agree to – and undertake – a 40 percent reduction by 2020, related to 1990 levels. The U.S. has pledged to aim for a 17 percent cut by 2020, relative to 2005 levels.

On the negotiating table those two positions turned out to be as far apart as the North and South Poles. Evidently, the climate is changing a good deal more than positions on climate change.

And so what was not agreed stood invisibly underlined in the agreement produced by the MEF. The most the document had was an acknowledgement of some principles that will inform negotiations – or a failure in negotiations.

A response to climate change, it was agreed, must “respect the priority of economic and social development of developing countries.” And the declaration secured the agreement of industrialised countries to the principle of shared but differentiated responsibilities. A celebration of that inclusion will be heard by some as a warning bell that this will now be used as ammunition in prolonged battles of words to resist commitments by developing countries.

The differences at the MEF, and these are certain to represent and inform differences at the climate talks proper, were over the degree of differentiation of responsibilities. The positions stood alarmingly far apart, when December is not that far off at all.

The agreement here was on “nationally appropriate mitigation actions” that would be subject to “applicable measurement, reporting and verification.” Who knows what numbers any given country considers appropriate. And if they fall short, never mind; not a word on what happens then.

Developing nations, it was agreed, “will promptly undertake actions whose projected effect on emissions represent a meaningful deviation from business as usual in the mid-term, in the context of sustainable development, supported by financing, technology and capacity building.”

The peaking of emissions, it was agreed, should take place “as soon as possible,” recognising that “the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries, bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities in developing countries.”

The 17 countries agreed that they “recognise the scientific view” that temperature rise should be less than two degrees, and that they will “identify a global goal” for “reducing global emissions by 2050.” The world waits, not very hopefully.

There is a logic to arguing that the emissions in the air leading to global warming and consequently climate change came heavily from industrialised countries – the rich ones that is. And that they must expect to pay for their sins. And that millions cannot be instructed under an international agreement to stay poor because the rich failed to do the right thing at the right time. But this might well turn out to be a good argument that produces a bad result.

Excerpt:

By Sanjay Suri
L'AQUILA, Italy, Jul 9 2009 (IPS)

Clear signs are emerging at the G8 summit here of progress towards concluding new terms for international trade.

Negotiations on an agreement, the Doha development round as it is called after the negotiations that were launched in the Qatari capital of Doha in 2001, have been floundering over fundamental disagreements largely between developed countries on the one hand and developing countries on the other.

Or, as seen at the summit here in Italy, between the likes of the G8, representing what is spoken of as the developed world (the members are the U.S., Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia) and the G5, a grouping of five major developing countries (China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa).

Inevitable, then, that a G8 plus G5 forum would be a good place to sort out remaining difficulties, since these would take political energy at the top, rather than armies of bureaucrats disagreeing over the placement of every molehill.

The industrialised nations have so far declined to give up subsidies to their agriculture, estimated by some to be as high as 350 billion dollars a year across North America, Japan and Europe. And developed nations have refused to open their markets as a result to agricultural goods from the West, on the grounds that they can be priced artificially low as a result of subsidies, and represent unfair competition consequently for poor farmers in developing countries.

Developing countries in turn maintain their own – far smaller – subsidies. They complain of constricted access to western markets for their own agricultural goods, partly as a result of these subsidies. And so they have refused to open their markets to industrial goods from the developed world as much as the west would like, and slap heavy tariffs on goods that are allowed in. The subsidies dispute is linked with the G8 demands for non-agricultural market access (NAMA).

The G8 summit is now considering a changed situation where headway appears possible. “We commit to reach a rapid, ambitious, balanced and comprehensive conclusion of the Doha Development Agenda,” the G8 said in a statement Wednesday, with G5 backing.

Something has changed, but it is too early yet in the business of putting in place the brick and mortar of a new agreement to say precisely what. Progress came before the G8 summit – this three-day gathering has sought only to give negotiations the political acceleration they so much need.

“The impasse has been broken,” India’s new trade minister Anand Sharma said a few weeks before the summit. He did not say precisely how, but it might indicate something that he said this, rather than his predecessor Kamal Nath, who was shifted to another portfolio after the Congress Party-led government was re-elected in May this year. Also, that in this new term the party is not dependent on the Left parties, who lost out heavily after a long innings of insistence against giving in to the demands of the developed countries.

The exit of the Left would make an obvious difference. But also, Kamal Nath had locked himself into an unending dispute with former European Union trade commissioner Peter Mandelson. There are now new faces doing the talking all round, and they are talking a new language of give and take.

Where the developing countries will give is expected to be their traditional insistence on a move towards the eventual end of subsidies to farmers in developed countries. It is by now clear that this simply will not happen, and not in any case in as tight a time frame as they have been demanding. A breakthrough could come on the back of a simple acceptance that the Western farmer needs looking after.

A declaration on trade that the G5 produced at the summit is strong on rhetoric. They insisted again that the Doha round is really the Doha development round – negotiators from the industrialised world are inclined to forget that middle name. “We are convinced that the successful conclusion of the Doha round on the basis of its development mandate will provide a major stimulus to the restoration of confidence in world markets and inhibit emerging protectionist trends, which are particularly damaging to developing countries.”

The G5 further declared: “The Doha Development Round must deliver real and improved market access to developing country products and services and also ensure meaningful results where the greatest distortions lie, eliminating export subsidies and bringing down the massive trade-distorting subsidies in developed countries.”

Speaking strictly, very strictly, it’s not the case that the G5 are saying one thing and doing another – they have left open, for example, how much these subsidies should be brought down. As well as the time frame. They will continue to declare adherence to these aims; the rest is a matter for legitimate negotiation. And to carry these out “within the context of a transparent and inclusive multilateral process.”

Some movement forward then, at last. As a result of changes: call it compromise, call it realism.

Excerpt: