By Kumi Naidoo, CIVICUS Secretary General and chair of the Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP)
The G8 summit which ended on Friday, 8 July 2005, was a victory for civil society and a failure of leadership on the part of the political leaders of G8. The progress that was made in terms of aid and debt cancellation, even though it fell far short of the expectations of most of the world’s citizens who were observing these events closely, would probably not have been achieved had it not been for years of civil society mobilization around these issues. The coordinated efforts of the Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP), which was launched at the World Social Forum in Brazil in January 2005, started on 1 July with various forms of citizen mobilization in more than 50 countries around the world, with a particular focus o n the G8 countries putting unprecedented pressure on the G8 political leadership.
What was significant was the breadth of mobilization. On 2 July, we marched in Edinburgh with 250 000 people, from trade unions, religious organizations, Girl Guides, YMCA and YWCA members, cyclist clubs, NGOs, social movements, highly respected think tanks, such as the Focus on the Global South, and even parliamentarians and local government officials. Almost 100 countries, including representatives of 60 GCAP national coalitions were represented in the various civil society efforts to keep public pressure on the G8, with millions wearing a simple white band - the symbol of GCAP. The LIVE8 concerts, which also took the message of trade justice, debt cancellation and for more and better aid, reached an unprecedented global audience of 3 billio n people, raising global public awareness on these issues as has never been done before.. Some 30 million people sent text messages to urge G8 leaders to act with courage and compassion.
GCAP’s response to the outcome of the summit, which was partly over-shadowed by the London bombings as well as the continued virtually daily bombings in Iraq (though this was hardly covered by the mainstream media and the G8 leaders said nothing about it), was captured in one single, simple sentence: "The people have roared but the G8 has whispered".
GCAP noted that currently 50,000 people die unnecessarily each day. If the leaders actually implement their decisions in an urgent manner, we estimate that by 2010 this will fall to around 37,000. Those who have joined the world's largest movement to end poverty can be encouraged that their voice and efforts will ensure that millions more people will live in health and dignity, but they will not rest until all of these needless deaths are stopped. GCAP also noted that the promise to deliver by 2010 is like waiting 5 years before responding to the tsunami.
On trade, GCAP noted that despite constant calls from people worldwide for trade justice, it is desperately disappointing that the G8 leaders failed to act properly on this issue. This is particularly disappointing since trade justice is understood by governments and civil society alike as the key and sustainable path out of poverty for most poor countries. The only positive outcome on trade, in my mind, is the G8 leaders’ recognition that the current global trading system is unjust, unfair and must be changed. Their response was not to set a date for the scrapping of unfair subsidies, for example, that kills the livelihoods of millions of people in the developing world, but to agree to set a date for sometime in the future.
On debt, the deal announced is a small belated step in the right direction and though it is good that the principle of 100% cancellation has been recognised, much more needs to be in done with regard to:
• the number of countries that benefit from this deal. The current number is 18 countries,but debt campaigners have been pushing for at least 60 countries to benefit from such a deal.
• the amount of money. Bearing in mind the entire debt package on the table was in the region of $40 billion , and that the debt write-off for Iraq alone was $30 billion , there is uneven political will. Because there was real political will and political self-interest on the part of at least the governments of the UK, US, Japan and Italy, this was done painlessly and virtually within a month.
• eradicating conditionalities to allow developing countries to develop national strategies for development that suit their own specific circumstances.
One of GCAP’s founding goals is the aggressive attack on corruption and the promotion of transparent and accountable governance. In the run-up to the G8 summit, and during the summit itself, the corruption word came up repeatedly about Africa. There is no doubt that African governments need to do much more to eradicate corruption from the continent; GCAP in Africa and African civil society more generally have been working hard on this for several years. However, what should be made clear is that notwithstanding what the G8 leaders might believe, corruption is not the monopoly of either Africa, nor of the developing world in general. In fact, at least two current G8 leaders, French President Chirac and Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi, potentially face corruption-related charges when the immunity they currently enjoy is removed when they leave office. It is also worth remembering that the former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl faced corruption charges. In the last couple of years, the largest corruption in sheer dollar terms, which deprived many ordinar y hard working Americans and others, was seen in the United States and other rich countries of the world. The cases of ENRON, WORLDCOM and Parmalat, amongst a host of others, collapsed under the weight of massive corruption or had their senior executives brought before courts with many high profile convictions.
Basically, there are two types of corruption. The first is, petty corruption, such as a police officer trying to bribe citizens, which must be challenged and fought aggressively at the national and local level. The second is, mass scale corruption, which would not be possible without the collusion, indifference and sometimes active collaboration of rich country governments and their multinational corporations, without the consent or knowledge of their own citizens. Where does the money go that is siphoned-off from developing countries? Is it not in the banks of rich countries? Is it easy to repatriate these monies to the home country when these crimes are committed against the poorest of citizens? Absolutely not. Who sells the arms to developing country governments, which are not needed in the first place, taking valuable resour ces from fighting poverty? Companies from rich countries, with either the knowledge or encouragement of their governments, again without the consent or knowledge of decent citizens in the developed world. The biggest scale corruption is often associated with the extractive industries, such as oil and diamonds. How many developing country corporations come to mind in these sectors? Which are the companies that make their corrupt deals by over stating their reserves to manipulate share prices, and so on? Are they from developing countries? Clearly, they are not. Corruption is indefensible, both in rich and in poor countries. However, to talk about corruption without recognizing the active culpability of rich countries (almost always without the knowledge and consent of their own citizens) is dishonest, unproductive and will never lead to the critically important goal of GCAP and GCAP members and supporters such as Transparency International and the Partnership for Transparency Fund, where I have had the privilege of chairing the board over the last three years. As President Clinton said at the World Economic Forum in January 2005, many rich countries use corruption as a smokescreen, for inaction and to justify their low levels of commitment in supporting poor countries to move out of poverty.
GCAP will continue to pile on the pressure on all of our demands, including debt cancellation and challenging the structures of injustice, in the run-up to the Millennium Development Summit in September and the WTO meeting in December. Given the G8 leaders’ track record of broken promises, GCAP will also be closely monitoring their commitments. GCAP calls on citizens and civil society organisations around the world to get involved and join or initiate national coalitions. The white band will continue to be a symbol in the fight for justice against poverty.
In the past few days, much of the media coverage has focused on the difference of opinion expressed by GCAP and Bob Geldof. Geldof, and many others who supported him, and who worked tirelessly to pull off the LIVE8 concerts in a breathtakingly short space of time, played a critical role in helping to take these anti-poverty messages to a much larger audience than the resources of GCAP and other campaigners who have worked tirelessly for so long, would have allowed. The fact that LIVE8 organisers focused more on what was achieved rather than what was not, is their right. Just to be clear, it is not that many in GCAP do not recognize that this G8 summit has delivered more than previous G8 summits; it is not that many in GCAP do not recognize that the UK government drove the climate change and anti-poverty agenda more than any previous G8 presidencies.
However, had we come to the G8 Summit in Scotland to ask for charity, we would have been grateful for what was offered. But we came to demand justice: a just trading system that does not disadvantage poor countries and where every day that there is a delay, lives are being unnecessarily lost; with regard to aid, it is not about charity but about a 35 year old commitment of 0.7% made by rich countries who had recently relinquished their colonies after bloody struggles for independence. Africa, and the developing world generally, is not poor: it was impoverished by slavery and colonialism, and was kicked around like a political football during the cold war. This was about historical redress and about seeking justice. Debt cancellation is also about historical redress. The lenders in question knew they were lending to corrupt, unrepresentative leaders but they did not care during the cold war as this was all about political advantage. There is no need to punish a new generation of political leaders and citizens for the criminal relations that existed between the elites in rich and poor countries.
The struggle, of course, will continue. This struggle is not a sprint but a marathon and the voice of every citizen, however well known and rich, or however poor and anonymous, is needed if we are to create a more fair, just, peaceful and sustainable world for future generations. In the meantime, all the civil society organisations around the world, trade unions and faith-based organisations, NGOs and social movements, and many others, can take some comfort from the fact that we are uniting like never before, notwithstanding our rich diversity, to make poverty history while not ignoring the history of poverty.
Warmest regards,
Kumi Naidoo
Please send your comments and suggestions to e-mail kumi@civicus.org
