In May, civil society groups from north and south, gathered in Nairobi to discuss the impacts on the south of GATS and the forthcoming WTO negotiations in Cancun. Below is their declaration on GATS:

Civil society groups from Africa, Asia, Latin America, Europe, Canada and New Zealand met in Nairobi from 27 - 29 May 2003 to study, analyse and exchange views on the impact of neo-liberal globalisation specially on the south manifesting itself in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the forthcoming WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancun. WTO is not just about imports and exports of goods, but increasingly is encroaching on people’s democratic control over and access to resources and on governments’ abilities to regulate social and economic policies and formulate human development.

The GATS represents a powerful and totally unacceptable instrument that limits policy space and restricts popular access to services which are essential to people’s livelihoods and economic development. African and developing countries are being forced through GATS to adopt policies that have had negative impacts on people and communities.

GATS-type liberalisation in sectors such as water in South Africa and Ghana, electricity in Indonesia and California, public broadcasting services in New Zealand, rail in the UK and financial liberalization that caused the crisis in East and South-East Asia are real experiences that disprove the alleged benefits put forward by the proponents of neo-liberalism, i.e. IMF, World Bank, WTO, donor agencies and corporate interests.

We civil society organisations oppose GATS, existing commitments and attempts to adopt further commitments.

We therefore call upon developing governments to:

1. share all necessary information and documents, and work with their civil society to develop policies that meet the needs of their citizens.
   
2. to promote, protect and reclaim the southern policy space, to review, with a view to withdraw, current commitments and  therefore not to make any new commitments in current GATS negotiations. There is no evidence to prove that GATS will attract productive investment. On the contrary, the developing countries lose whatever little share they currently have.
   
3. to share relevant information among themselves and to work together in order to increase their negotiation capacity to avoid being bullied in multilateral and bi-lateral forums.

Further to this, we call upon northern governments to stop manipulating and abusing bilateral and multilateral processes.

We commit ourselves to continue building global solidarity in our common struggle against corporate-driven, northern imposed policy agendas. We also reaffirm our commitment to networking amongst ourselves in order to make sure that our governments protect the interests of their people.

Signatories:

Action Aid, Uganda, Alternative Information and Development Centre, South Africa; ARENA, New Zealand; Business Watch, Indonesia; Center for International Environmental Law, Switzerland; Consumer Information Network, Kenya; EcoNews Africa, Kenya; 11.11.11, Belgium; Equations, India; Food Rights Alliance, Uganda; Gender and Trade Network in Africa; Institute for Global Justice, Indonesia; Institute of Economic Affairs, Kenya; International Gender and Trade Network, Asia; Lawyers Environmental Action Team, Tanzania; MWENGO, Zimbabwe; Polaris Institute, Canada; REBRIP, Brazil; SEATINI, Uganda; SEATINI, Zimbabwe; SodNet, Kenya; Tanzania Gender and Networking Programme; Third World Network Africa, Ghana; Trade Watch, Kenya; and World Development Movement, UK.

From the:SEATINI Bulletin: Strengthening Africa in World Trade Volume no 6.
For more information and subscriptions, contact SEATINI, Takura House, 67-69 Union Avenue, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Tel: +263 4 792681, Ext. 276 & 341 Tel: +263 4 251648
Fax: +263 4 788078
Email: seatini.zw@undp.org
www.seatini.org

Senior representatives from over 50 non-governmental organizations working around the world recently attended an NGLS consultation on the crisis in multilateral governance and the challenges that face civil society. From this meeting, several strong voices emerged, offering both warnings and possibilities for reform of the UN system.

For years NGOs have argued that member states fail to deliver on the commitments they make through the UN system. This failure has exacerbated a North/South divide, which has been characterized by double standards, hypocrisy and incoherent and contradictory policies. Confidence in the UN is further undermined by the current crisis which finds these fault-lines widening in a geopolitical climate characterized by unilateralism, selective multilateralism and the ‘war against terrorism’. At the consultation, discussions focused on civil society’s ability to confront this crisis and to envisage reform of multilateral systems of the UN, the Bretton Woods Institutions and the World Trade Organization. Civil society advocates found it difficult to counter-balance these institutions in the face of national and international policy regimes that reinforce northern dominance and southern submission.

Several representatives of NGOs based in the global South stressed that UN processes have provided citizens an unparalleled opportunity to challenge their governments to prioritize social and economic progress. They saw the weakening of the UN system as having serious implications for organizations representing groups that are adversely affected by corporate globalization (women, youth, older persons, the poor).

The context within which global civil society confronts power politics has been most clearly illustrated in Iraq. Most representatives at the consultation wanted to support progressive movements in the US and to help combat the paranoia that is becoming entrenched in US society. It was acknowledged that the systemic problem of unilateralism will not disappear with a regime change in the US. Thus it is essential to integrate consideration of the looming economic crisis that may be associated with imperial over-expansion. Ironically one of the greatest foes of multilateralism was seen to come from within civil society itself. Participants in the consultation were concerned about the growing influence of corporate-funded think tanks, which have gained NGO status in the US and are becoming increasingly vocal in multilateral forums. Since these forums have been characterized by negotiation, it was seen as crucial to prevent unilateralism from becoming permanent policy.

The consultation also considered whether or not CSOs find the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) campaign a meaningful tool. The MDGs were seen to not be prescriptive about policies, which places them in a better light than prior global development ‘contracts’. However, it was argued that the MDGs lack the kind of precision inherent in economic goals and have been established without the existence of any mechanism in place to guarantee fulfillment of promises. The UN Development Programme (UNDP) is now targeting much of its campaign activity at the national level where the debate must centre on causes and consider what the MDGs mean in the national context. MDG campaign advocates at the consultation hoped to address weaknesses in the goals and tailor them so they can be achieved at the national level.

There was a perception among participants that the MDGs do not address root causes or basic needs. NGOs were also afraid that they could be co-opted or limited by MDG structures, as many donors seem to regard the MDGs as an easy catch-all formula for developmental success. Some suggested that the campaign could be used positively by organizations pursuing a ‘policy coherence’ agenda to ensure that Poverty Reduction Strategies are in line with the MDGs and to challenge northern governments to meet their side of a global partnership for development. However, several advocates stressed that countries should retain their right to set their own development agenda and that CSOs must continue to work on alternatives to address the systemic factors creating poverty.

The consultation was particularly concerned with the UN Secretary General’s appointment of a high-level panel to conduct a “sweeping assessment of interaction between the UN and civil society organizations, and recommendations for improvements.” The Coordinator of the Secretariat of the panel, John Clarke, and a panel member, Kumi Naidoo, Secretary-General of CIVICUS, discussed the background of the review and outcomes from the first meeting of the panel. The review emerges from the UN system’s inability to come to terms with the ‘political hot potato’ of the advocacy role that civil society has played in UN processes. Within the UN system there is a concession that the attention that CSOs have given to UN processes has been critical to the UN’s survival. The panel is developing consultation mechanisms including a widely distributed survey to canvass civil society perceptions of UN relations. Panel members will seek input at existing civil society gatherings as well as conduct a few key focus groups. Their draft report will be completed early in 2004 and submitted to the Secretary General by April for his review before presentation to the General Assembly in September 2004.

Many at the consultation were deeply skeptical of the review, given that several member states seek to limit civil society participation in UN processes. They cautioned that the review could be used to that end despite the good intentions of panel members. Mr. Clarke and Mr. Naidoo responded that there is indeed a risk in opening this up for analysis. Several participants held the opinion that if the review is not being properly resourced in terms of time and a series of specific consultations, then it is not worth pursuing. Overall there was considerable unease about the timing of this process coinciding with the emergence of overt attacks on the legitimacy of the UN.
No concrete set of short term or long-term strategies to cope with the crisis in global governance emerged from the heated discussions held at the consultation. Perhaps this demonstrates that civil society’s strength lies in its diversity of viewpoints rather than its ability to present a unified voice. It may in fact be this ‘cacophony’ that the powers that be find most challenging about the nature of CSO engagement in the multilateral system. We have thus far enjoyed a consultative or advisory place at some tables. We must now ask ourselves what it takes to be effective in fostering reform that delivers on the promises for economic and social development. Ultimately it is the responsibility of governments and civil society to reform the UN, the Bretton Woods Institutions and the World Trade Organization.

M. Felicity Daly is Project Officer for the International Council on Social Welfare.
Note: for further information about the consultation, check: www.unsystems.org/ngls/english/default.html