Mother of Protest Meets Targets Uncle Sam

Leonor Briones, coordinator of Social Watch Asia and professor at the University of the Philippines was more concerned over the lack of involvement of the poor at large in the privatisation process. She pointed out that the ongoing privatisation was being actively pursued by the multilateral agencies with a message: either privatise or die. The global experience has proved that only a handful were the beneficiaries of the much debated privatisation, she said.

MUMBAI, JAN 17:  It’s being billed as the mother of all anti-globalisation fora. Speaker after speaker talked at length on the evils of privatisation being imposed by multilateral organisations, especially on the less-developed and underdeveloped countries.

The speakers were also apprehensive about the growth of “imperialist globalisation” which, they claimed, has led to integration of production chains with progressively higher degrees of exploitation. The speakers from the US, the Philippines, South Africa, Vietnam, Germany, India and other countries were unanimous in their conclusion that the poor have been the most affected lot, cutting across country barriers.

Even as globalisation is the enemy, a large number of participants from Pakistan sang the peace tune and shouted slogans for harmony in the region. The Peoples Peace Alliance was more active in driving home the point. Similarly, a large number of social and non-government organisations were also hopeful that the renewed peace initiative by the Prime Minister would work wonders in the days to come.

Curiously, the US invasion of Iraq was widely publicised and projected by various organisations.

Little was left to the imagination at the World Social Forum. Says one of the banners says: “Leave Iraq, Uncle Sam.”

The venue: the World Social Forum 2004 conclave-cum-exhibition, Mumbai. The topic: “Limits of Privatisation.” The timing of the meet coincides with a surging Indian economy, and in particular the “feel-good” factor being projected aggressively by the BJP-led government. The timing is also crucial especially when the US and the European Union have become aggressive in justifying subsidies provided to their farmers in particular, while imposing non-trade barriers on the developing countries.

Uncle Sam was the obvious target of speakers and participants as who alleged that the US-driven privatisation and liberalisation policies through multilateral agencies such as the World Bank and IMF were not only harmful but selective in nature. The speakers did not forget to point out that US president George Bush’s diktat in favour of promotion of privatisation and private sector in education and healthcare has been followed by the federal governments of various countries.

The speakers claimed that the privatisation regime has not left even social infrastructure, including health and education, which would further worsen the conditions of poor and the disadvantaged.

According to Nancy Alexander, founder and director of Citizens’ Network Essential Services, US, there are six ways in which the general agreement on trade in services of the World Trade Organisation jeopardises the universal provision of essential services.

Not only health care, education and water services are affected, but so are democratic processes.

Ms Alexander commented that liberalisation of services poses serious dangers of policy autonomy, development as well as the quality and access of services, especially for the poor. She opined that the millennium development goals of reducing the poverty by 2015 should not be a pretext for privatising essential services especially if the privatisation occurs without the consent of citizens and their elected officials.

Leonor Briones, coordinator of Social Watch Asia and professor at the University of the Philippines was more concerned over the lack of involvement of the poor at large in the privatisation process. She pointed out that the ongoing privatisation was being actively pursued by the multilateral agencies with a message: either privatise or die. The global experience has proved that only a handful were the beneficiaries of the much debated privatisation, she said.

The speakers were unanimous in recommending that governments must make the negotiating process transparent. Governments should put safeguards that enable them to measure negative social impacts from “liberalisation, specify a trigger level for applying safeguards” and respond with regulatory and subsidy actions that may not be WTO-consistent.

The speakers attacked the intervention of multilateral institutions and said that the latter’s interference ensures dismantling of a regulatory state, and of a state-determined welfare mechanism. It accentuates the exploitation of the working class and reduces its bargaining power with respect to capital, both multinational and national.

The international solidarity of the working capital class has to look at an alternative paradigm that leads to progressive increase in equality of nations, developing rights of people, participatory democracy and collective bargaining, the speakers summed up on a optimistic note.

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=50685