Oxfam #2

["Ian Murray" <seamus2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

OXFAM'S RESPONSE TO WALDEN BELLO
Angus Cleary*

Oxfam holds the work of Walden Bello in the highest regard. He has
played a central role in challenging the legitimacy of global
institutions
that place corporate profit and the self-interest of Northern
governments
before the imperative of poverty reduction. We also recognise the
enormous contribution made by Focus in mobilising support for change.
In his critique of the Oxfam campaign (see Focus on Trade #77),
Walden concludes by observing that 'it is only via debate and dialogue
among partners and allies that we can chart a solid path forward'. This
response is written in that spirit.

1. The Oxfam campaign starting point. In an earlier debate with Philippe
Legrain of the WTO, Walden Bello wrote: 'Trade can be good or bad for
national development --  it all depends on the rules that guide it.' We
share that view.

As our campaign report "Rigged Rules and Double Standards" makes
clear, we believe that trade has the potential to act as a powerful
force
for poverty reduction. We go on to argue that this potential is not
being
realised precisely because the rules are designed to benefit the
wealthy and marginalise the poor. We highlight the role of Northern
governments and transnational companies in creating a system of
world trade rules and institutions that systemically reinforce advantage
and disadvantage. And we set out a case for changing the rules. That
case does rest upon a proposition that some of our critics reject:
namely that international markets, like national markets, can be made to
work for the poor by challenging power relationships. At a global level
that means challenging the domination of current IMF-World Bank-WTO
prescriptions. At a national level, it means undertaking redistributive
reforms.

At no stage of the report do we argue for neo-liberal export-led growth
models, let alone for free-market prescriptions in developing countries.
In fact, we clearly argue that export growth under globalisation has
increased inequalities. Nor do we claim that export growth is a
substitute
for effective poverty-reduction strategies. It would clearly be absurd
to
claim that a country such as Brazil can harness trade to poverty
reduction in the absence of fundamental changes in the distribution of
assets and opportunities. It would be equally absurd to endorse export
models that generate ecological destruction. However, for reasons set
out in the report, we do believe that exports can play a role in
supporting
poverty-reduction strategies, both through employment generation, and
by creating wider conditions for economic growth.

2. Market access. Much of the Focus critique is based on a misreading
of the Oxfam campaign. In his opening paragraph, Walden claims that
the Oxfam campaign is 'a global campaign to promote wider access for
developing country products in northern markets'. This is wrong.

Market access is one theme among many that will be taken up. As our
report makes clear, the Oxfam campaign is aimed at challenging and
changing world trade rules in a wide range of areas. We are calling for
fundamental reforms of the TRIPs Agreement in the WTO. Along with
others, Oxfam has consistently challenged the abuse of corporate
power and the self-serving interests of Northern governments behind
that agreement. Like Focus, we also reject the case for using the WTO
to prise open markets for foreign investors, liberalise service markets,
or force a raft of new issues including competition and procurement
policy on to the WTO agenda. One of the major themes in the first year
of the campaign will be the crisis in international commodity markets,
where we are arguing for international mechanisms to stabilise prices at
more remunerative levels. One whole chapter of the report is spent
criticising IMF/World Bank loan conditionality aimed at imposing import
liberalisation on developing countries. And a major theme in the
campaign is action to prohibit any loan conditions requiring such
liberalisation.

That said, we make no apologies for attaching importance to improved
market access. Northern protectionism is at its most excessive and
arbitrary in precisely those areas such as textiles and agriculture
where
developing countries in general and the poor in particular stand to gain
most.  Liberalisation in this area has been glacial, massively skewing
the benefits of international trade towards the industrialised world. We
believe it is essential to highlight the issue of Northern
protectionism, not
as the primary or exclusive cause of poverty, but as one of the clearest
examples of how corrupt, and profoundly distorted against poor
economies, the international trading system is. Developing-country
governments are attempting to use trade negotiations to redress this
imbalance and we unreservedly support their efforts. We regard the
record of the Quad countries in areas such as the phasing out of the
Multi-Fibre Agreement and agricultural reform as indefensible. And the
Oxfam campaign will continue to attach a high priority to both areas.

3. Export-oriented agriculture. Focus cites with apparent approval a
Food First response to the Oxfam campaign report suggesting that we
favour 'the paradigm of export-oriented growth'. The presumption
appears to be that only monopolistic export agricultural interests stand
to benefit from access to Northern markets. Does this mean that the
industrialised world would be justified in prohibiting imports of rice
from
Vietnam and Thailand, tea from India, or sugar from Mozambique?
Surely the real issue is whether or not national governments adopt
policies that prevent monopolistic structures from emerging. We share
many of Food First's concerns about the current pattern of agricultural
export growth in developing countries. However, we reject simplistic
contrasts between 'cash crops' and 'food crops', and between
production for domestic and export markets. Indeed, we are of the view
that such dichotomies divert attention from the real issue of national
policies and the policies of international institutions that shape the
distribution of benefits from participation in markets. After all, the
same
anti-poor growth model that prevents the poor from benefiting from
exports is apparent in many domestic markets. These imbalances must
be addressed through national policies that promote employment and
food security in poor economies. What we do not share with Food First
is the assumption that the current model is unchangeable, or the
parallel
assumption that agricultural exports are inherently anti-poor.

4. An advocate for the Cairns Group. According to Focus, Oxfam is now
'a civil society advocate for the Cairns Group position'. This is wrong.
We categorically reject the Cairns Group approach to market
liberalisation. As we argue in some detail in the report, all developing
countries should retain the right to protect their food systems, not
just on
the grounds that food security and poverty reduction are imperatives in
their own right, but also because world markets are so heavily
distorted.
That is why we have joined others in calling for a 'Development Box'.
Achieving rules that respect the right of developing countries to
protect
agriculture is a major campaign priority, as our report clearly
specifies.

The Focus critique of Oxfam's position on agriculture raises an
important tactical question that goes to the heart of a wider dilemma
facing developing-country governments. That question is whether by
entering into negotiations on improved market access, developing
countries will be forced into an unequal bargain under which they will
be
obliged to open their own markets further in sectors such as
agriculture,
banking, services, and other sectors. The dangers are obvious and
they extend far beyond the WTO. However, surely the real challenge
here, as Focus suggests, is for Southern governments and civil society
to work together in restricting the scope and mandate of the WTO. A
campaign which exposes rich-country leaders as hypocrites and
double-dealers can only help in this regard. It will be much harder for
these rich-country leaders to demand a second phase of liberalisation
from poor countries if they have been exposed for keeping their own
markets firmly shut. Our campaign has been developed in this light.

5. Misrepresentation in the media. Commenting on a press report
issued following the campaign launch, Focus describes as 'perfectly
understandable' a Washington Post article labelling Oxfam as a
member of the free-market camp. On any balanced and objective
criteria, the article in question was a gross misrepresentation, as was
the highly selective use of quotations from Oxfam staff. On the same day
as the Washington Post article appeared, Oxfam was condemned by
the Herald Tribune for being anti-market, anti-free trade and anti-
globalisation. Another article described the campaign report as being
'radical Keynesian'.

Finally, Focus criticises Oxfam for branding 'a large sector of the
movement against corporate driven globalisation as "globaphobes"'. In
fact, we make clear that we are not referring to the significant and
important anti-globalisation and trade justice movements of which we
are part, but rather to assorted small political groupings, principally
in
industrialised countries, that are fundamentally opposed to trade with
developing countries. Some of these groupings are on the extreme
right, while others represent an extreme minority which favours autarky.

We have received many, many comments on the Trade Report over
the past few weeks. Some of these have been very challenging, but we
welcome the debate that it has generated. The forces we are up against
are hugely powerful, and it is only by working through our positions and
strategies together that we have any hope of bringing about real
change in the world. We hope that the debates that are taking place
now throughout our networks around the world will help to build a
stronger movement for social justice.

* Campaigns Manager, Oxfam Great Britain