"Global Deal" Falters en Route to Earth Summit

“global deal” falters en route to earth summit

bo normander , foe denmark

The “Global Deal” faces severe difficulties as we move into the final approach to the Earth Summit beginning this August in Johannesburg. Although the US and NGOs generally find themselves in opposition, on this matter both sides are giving thumbs down.

global deal sliding off the agenda
The concept of a pact between developed and developing countries – a so-called Global Deal – has long been a key issue in Earth Summit preparations. The aim of the Global Deal is to commit developed countries to helping Third World nations by increasing aid and removing trade barriers and subsidies. In return, developing countries are obliged to meet certain standards of environmental protection, democracy and financial reform.

However, by this most recent third PrepCom in March (see article previous page), the Global Deal had almost completely slipped the agenda. As Daniel Mittler, coordinator of FoEI's Earth Summit campaign reports, “In New York there was hardly any discussion about a Global Deal. It seems that no countries – including those in the EU –want to fight for the idea. There is no momentum for a Global Deal now. Perhaps later, but then in a new form.”

In his speech at the third PrepCom, Jan Pronk, the Dutch environment minister and Kofi Annan's special envoy, simply declared the Global Deal dead. This may be interpreted as a provocation to breathe new life into the process, but the prognosis looks bleak.

adding “terror” appeal for bush
Recently, the Global Deal took on a new angle. When newly-elected Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen met with George Bush in March, he proposed that the “war against terror” be integrated into the Global Deal. Bush welcomed the proposal, even though he had earlier, in his well-known isolationist style, responded negatively to the Global Deal concept.

Now the questions are multiplying. How can the Global Deal be successful in Johannesburg? What if the US becomes part of it? What do governments of developing countries and NGOs actually think about the Global Deal?

massive critique
At the second World Social Forum in Porto Alegre earlier this year, the Norwegian NGO network ForUM hosted a very popular workshop on the Global Deal. John Eriksen of ForUM spoke very optimistically about the concept. However, the speakers who followed him slammed the Global Deal into the ground.

Indian scientist and activist Vandana Shiva is not interested in more Global Deals. “The Convention on Biodiversity gave us GMOs. What kind of Global Deal is that?” she asked. “GM products are dumped in the Third World and given as food aid when they can't be sold in the West. We don't need more of that kind of global deal. What we need is true commitment. The developed countries have to stop dumping goods, stop the theft of the poor's resources and stop forcing Third World countries to export all they've got.”

Walden Bello, leader of the Bangkok-based Focus on the Global South, was also very critical. “We do not need a Global Deal, but a stronger global movement – a peoples' struggle for more equity, justice and sustainable development,” he said.

According to Bello, “The three biggest obstacles for this and for achieving success in Johannesburg are the dominance of transnational corporations, the neoliberal, TNC-driven economic model, and finally the rules issued by the World Bank, WTO and IMF. We need to fight these institutions. A Global Deal will not do that.”

wary of neoliberal agenda
Shiva and Bello see the Global Deal paper as yet another opportunity for rich countries to place strict demands for trade liberalization on poor nations, and at the same time escape any commitments themselves – exactly as has happened through World Bank and IMF programmes.

Large NGOs such as FoEI, Via Campesina and the Third World Network are also pessimistic about a Global Deal. Daniel Mittler of FoEI says, “The most worrying aspect of the Global Deal is the apparent link to a neoliberal agenda. More free trade will not help developing countries or the environment."

"A Global Deal has to involve real intentions and real money,” says Mittler, “The debt of developing countries should be abolished. Northern countries should compensate for the ecological debt that they have to developing countries. We need clear rules for fair global trade. Developed countries should follow the UN aim of giving 0.7 percent of their GDP as development aid. If not, there should be ways of introducing sanctions.”

success or failure?
While most countries in the South have shown little interest in a Global Deal, a few seem positive. South Africa has shown genuine interest by putting forward the most detailed proposal on a Global Deal to date (see www.rio10.dk).

There is a long road to travel before any agreement on a Global Deal can be reached. Many observers predict that the concept will be washed away, or become so diluted that it will do more harm than good. If the Global Deal is to succeed, the EU will likely have to resume the lead and -- regardless of US willingness to join -- negotiate with countries in the South.