Globalization by Samir Amin

Al-Ahram Weekly, 20 - 26 April 2000
Issue No. 478

http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2000/478/in4.htm

Democratising globalisation

     By Samir Amin

                   The European Union and the Organisation of African
Unity (OAU) had
                   two different agendas prepared for the Africa-Europe
summit held in
                   Cairo on 3-4 April. The European agenda was almost
restricted to
                   political issues formulated in their usual wording --
"human rights", "good
                   governance" -- while the African agenda focused on
conditions for
                   relaunching meaningful development in the region --
including, of course,
                   the debt issue. The final communiqué shows how some
of the views of
                   the weaker partner have been watered down in order to
reach a formal
                   consensus.

     The summit was not considered the proper place to deal with the
crucial debt issue since
     the problem involves "other partners" -- the United States, that
is. But Africans were quick
     to point out that this position is hypocritical of Europe, as
Europeans have no less weight in
     the international institutions responsible (the International
Monetary Fund and the World
     Bank) than the US. Instead of ignoring their voting power within
the IMF and the WB,
     Europeans could express views different from those of Washington if
they felt strongly
     enough.

     Nonetheless, Africans were still able to impart some of their views
on the summit -- positive steps that were no doubt achieved thanks to
the fact that Africa, represented through the OAU, could speak with a
single voice. One has to recall here that the major European powers were
not favourable to a summit format focusing on an  "EU-OAU" meeting and
tried, rather, to impose the usual format of "Africa" being represented
by the "head of states and governments of Africa," the existence of the
OAU being forgotten.

The usual rhetoric on "globalisation" (never qualified as it should be)
reads through the final communiqué, but four aspects of globalisation
nevertheless made their way to the table. First, the principle of
differential treatment for developing countries. Second, the need for
Africa to industrialise. Third, the legitimacy of regulatory actions
aimed at stemming the flow of capital out of Africa. Fourth, the
fundamental need to relaunch basic social expenditures (education,
health, infrastructure) -- in itself an indirect critique of the
policies pursued in the frame of so-called structural adjustment.

     More important, perhaps, on political issues the communiqué has
adopted the African point of view that peace and security on the
continent remain the responsibility of the United Nations and the OAU.
This view directly conflicts with the decision adopted by NATO after the
Kosovo war at the end of April 1999, which expanded the
"responsibility" of the Western military alliance beyond Europe to
include Asia and Africa. This conflict in views was  clearly spelled out
by the African contingent.

     Will this document remain simply ink on paper? Or does it announce
the beginning of an evolution toward meaningful  cooperation between
Europe and Africa? The answer depends on how Europe and Africa choose to
move beyond the present neo-liberal concept of globalisation, which in
its turn assumes acceptance of US hegemony. Until now, the EU has not
questioned this pattern of globalisation and seems to accept its
consequences; for example, the double dilution of Europe's political
autonomy into NATO and the European common market into a globalised open
market.

     This choice leaves little room, if any, for meaningful Euro-African
cooperation. The alternative -- pluricentric, regulated globalisation --
makes possible the building of organised regions in Europe, Africa and
elsewhere that  empower economic development and social progress. The
only way forward is to build partnerships in a negotiated process aimed
at regulating globalisation to the benefit of all peoples. We are still
quite far from starting to move in that direction.


--

Mine Aysen Doyran
PhD Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222