13.07.2005

Mission accomplished

Thanks to their front men Bob Geldof and Bono, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown managed to capture or neutralise the Make Poverty History bandwagon. But there remains deep disenchantment, argues Eddie Ford

Following their Gleneagles summit, the G8 leaders issued a communiqué outlining all the various discussions, agreements and deals. Hence, on climate change we read that "globally, emissions must slow, peak and then decline, moving us towards a low-carbon economy", and that "urgent measures" are needed to "develop markets for clean energy technologies, to increase their availability in developing countries, and to help vulnerable communities adapt to the impact of climate change". With regards to the main 'water cooler' issue, the G8 agreed to "provide extra resources for Africa's peacekeeping forces so that they can better deter, prevent and resolve conflicts in Africa", to "give enhanced support for greater democracy, effective governance and transparency, and to help fight corruption and return stolen assets", and "to stimulate growth, to improve the investment climate and to make trade work for Africa, including by helping to build Africa's capacity to trade and working to mobilise the extra investment in infrastructure which is needed for business". More specifically, we are informed that the G8 leaders have "agreed to double aid for Africa by 2010", and that aid "for all the developing countries will increase, according to the OECD, by around $50 billion per year by 2010, of which at least $25 billion extra per year for Africa". Additionally, the G8 has decided that all of the debts owed by eligible heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) to the International Development Agency, the International Monetary Fund and the African Development Fund should be cancelled. The communiqué ventures the belief that "if implemented" these measures, not to mention all the other ones set out in the G8's "comprehensive" plan, "could" double the size of Africa's economy and trade by 2015, deliver increased domestic and foreign investment, lift tens of millions of people out of poverty every year, save millions of lives a year, and so on. However, the G8 leaders wistfully conclude, only "well-governed states" can deliver "peace and security", "economic growth and prosperity", and ensure "respect for human rights and the promotion of gender equality and the delivery of essential services" to their citizens. Therefore, seeing how "private enterprise is a prime engine of growth and development", the communiqué stresses the vital importance of "enhancing governance" and building up "the rule of law" - as only through the vigorous "promotion of a stable, efficient and harmonised legal business framework" will the developing nations be able to "attract more and broader private investment", which of course is the "basic condition for inclusive growth". Naturally, that well-known philanthropic organisation, the World Bank, should take "a leading role in supporting the partnership between the G8, other donors and Africa, helping to ensure that additional assistance is effectively coordinated". So should we be rejoicing at the outcome of the Gleneagles summit, eagerly anticipating the end of global inequality and world poverty? Have the G8 leaders done their little bit to make poverty history - hurrah for our Gordon and Tony? Well, this was certainly the opinion of (honorary) Sir Bob Geldof and Mr Bono. "Mission accomplished, frankly" - or, to be more precise, Geldof thought that the deal on aid was "10 out of 10", on debt "eight out of 10" and on trade a more vaguely defined "excellent result". As for his charity-mongering partner in sainthood, the never less than unbearable Bono, he was equally as ebullient about the G8 summit, stating: "If an Irish rock star is allowed to quote Winston Churchill, I would not say this is the end of extreme poverty, but it is the beginning of the end." The liberal, New Labour-supporting media were also very pleased with the results from Gleneagles - even if they were a little less effervescent than the Bob and Bono double act. The Guardian rated this year's G8 summit as possibly the best one ever, and notes that "credit" deserves to go to "the NGOs that battled to keep the issue of poverty in the headlines, as well as Mr Blair and Gordon Brown for dedicating the G8 presidency to the cause of Africa" (July 11). The latter sentiment was repeated, at some length, by über-liberal Will Hutton, who glowingly writes that "without Gordon Brown's drive, the G8 agreement on debt relief would never have been reached", believing that the G8 "commitments" are "cumulatively spectacular" - so much so, indeed, that "you have to rub your eyes in disbelief" at how "the politicians who dared, and so pulled off, what was once considered impossible" (The Observer July 10). Of course, the reality of Gleneagles is quite different to the hoopla we encountered above. Somewhat ironically in many ways, given Geldof's uncritical endorsement of the Gleneagles agreements, the Make Poverty History campaign itself is a lot more circumspect. For MPH, "the G8 have not met the challenge of trade justice, as clearly set out by Make Poverty History" - yes, "there is language in the communiqué on letting African countries set their own trade policies", MPH complains, "yet at the World Trade Organisation, they continue to force open developing country markets". Then, when it comes to debt relief, the G8 has "done no more than confirm the proposed deal by the G8 finance ministers, cancelling some of the debt owed by some countries", and overall the G8 debt deal "will provide less than $1 billion this year", which amounts to "the equivalent of no more than one dollar per person in the countries that are due to benefit". Rather, in the opinion of MPH, what is needed is a "$10 billion a year of debt cancellation to eradicate extreme poverty" (www.makepoverty-history.org/response.shtml). MPH's more sober assessment of Gleneagles is largely shared by Oxfam, Action Aid and War on Want. On July 5 the latter issued a press release showing that the money on the table at the G8 will provide just under five percent of debt relief and less than 20% of the aid needed to meet MPH's stated objectives. Worse still, according to War on Want, in place of the annual $125 billion in new money demanded by MPH if the G8 countries are to meet the United Nations aid target of 0.7% of gross national income, the G8 are offering just $25 billion for Africa - and much of it money already pledged. In place of the $45 billion which would be released by 100% cancellation of the poorest countries' debts, the G8 are offering just over $1 billion in cancelled debt service payments - which, as far as War on Want is concerned, is a fraction of what is required. Even more pernicious, according to the charity's press statement, is the fact that the countries in line for debt cancellation are required to have 'qualified' by virtue of meeting the conditions set by the HIPC process, which includes of course sweeping programmes of trade liberalisation and privatisation. These countries are then caught in a vicious, imperialist-drawn circle, as these are exactly the sort of programmes, or 'reforms', that help to generate poverty and inequality, thus undermining the possible positive potential of any debt cancellation schema. Unsurprisingly then, War on Want's overall verdict on Gleneagles is damning: "The G8 members of the WTO have responded to the MPH coalition's call for trade justice by hardening their positions against it. The EU and USA have launched a new assault on the industrial and services sectors of developing countries at the WTO, attempting to force open these 'emerging markets' for the benefit of their own corporations - even as they concede that this will lead to large-scale bankruptcies, mass unemployment and widespread poverty in the south. At the same time, the EU and USA have hardened their stance on eliminating the agricultural subsidies which undermine the livelihoods of farmers in the developing world. The UN has calculated that trade subsidies cost developing countries between $125 and $310 billion a year in lost sales and lower prices for their goods" (www.waronwant.org). As perceptive and damning as all this is, War on Want is trapped within the utopian world view of 'fair trade' - if only the rich countries and their large corporations would be a little more considerate. Yet capitalism and uneven development go hand in hand - each capital must strive for ever greater accumulation or die. 'Free' trade will never be 'fair' l