Summit results III: Africa – Great disappointment and hypocrisy of the summit

It is really no surprise that the German government wants to sell the Heiligendamm summit as a great success. However it was a great disappointment as far as the Africa resolutions were concerned. After all the noise made about Africa, both prefatory and parallel to the topic, one might have expected more than the vague reiteration of the Gleneagles promises and the nebulous announcement that up to US$60bn might be donated for the struggle against HIV/ AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis at some as yet unspecified time.

Many NGOs – this time even the rock stars, in contrast to Gleneagles – are now outraged. However, the Heiligendamm summit merely continued an old tradition of dealing with Africa and development aid – issuing vague declarations of intent – an essential attribute of the G8 from the very beginning.

While there are some in the media who join the official chorus of summit success, the more serious people point out the damage that the G8 Africa policies cause. Whereas their Africa Declaration preaches good governance more than ever before, the G8 do not give the slightest care to fulfilling their own commitments. The so-called Africa Outreach, i.e. invitations to a side table extended to some of Africa’s leading politicians, prevailed as the apex of sanctimony and hypocrisy this year. It was in this context that the G8 received the new Nigerian president Umara Yar’Adua. He had just attained power through election fraud as confirmed by EU observers. After not one important head of state attended his inauguration, he was now able to appear in Heiligendamm as a representative of the “New Africa”. In the print edition of yesterday’s Financial Times, two great corporations praised this breakthrough: “Nigeria’s New President arrives. G8 Summit: Ready for Business“. Good business is always preferred to good governance.

Summit results II: Heiligendamm process – Small step but no substitute for global governance reform

The Heiligendamm process, for which the German government received the approval of it G8 partners — is a small step, but certainly no substitute for a democratic reform of the global governance system. Furthermore according to the world economic declaration, the G8 are to maintain a „new partnership“, a „new form of detailed cooperation“ and above all a “new form of topic-driven dialogue” in the next two years with the so-called Outreach 5 countries (O5), China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico. The German government proposed the OECD as platform – limited to the next two years. The OECD was originally greeted with scepticism, then finally accepted, once it was assured that it only pertained to “technical facilities”.

The topics of this Heiligendamm process are exclusively those that interest the North, resp. the G8: innovation and patent protection, freedom of investment, common responsibility for Africa (this conceals the intention of dragging the O5 into the OECD as donors) and finally the issue of who will contribute how much to reduction of CO2 emissions. Just before Heiligendamm, the O5 countries issued various signals that they wanted to improve co-ordination among each other in terms of stronger South-South co-ordination. However, it is currently unclear what the specific interest of the O5 in the new co-operation with the G8 is. Nonetheless it is remarkable that the joint declaration by the G8 Presidency and O5 is far more moderated in tone than the G8 original.

For the German government, the O5 approach was the “compromise” between the status quo and the earnest attempt to expand the G8 or even to replace it with a truly representative body. However, not only the „G8 partners“ — even the chancellor herself — wanted to maintain the anachronistic G8 construction. The arguments given miss the point (either that it is just a “small intimate circle” or that the G8 represents a “community of values" worth preserving). This is just a crutch that has been employed; a placebo that is miles from the global governance reform that belongs on the agenda.

G8 results I: The Summit Declaration ‘Growth and Responsibility in the World Economy’

Behind the screens of chatter about a “climate policy breakthrough” the German government published the summit declaration Growth and Responsibility in the World Economy. This corresponds largely to the prognoses published in this weblog and at wdev.eu since the first draft trickled through (>>> German G8 Politics on the Eve of Heiligendamm). Along with the chapter about energy security and climate protection, the declaration holds firmly to the hard economic interests of the G8 pursued against the rest of the world — growth and stability, investment freedom and conditions, promotion and protection of innovation and intellectual property.

Although the German government originally announced the actual focus of the summit to be new elements in world economic growth, even with a magnifying glass one won’t find anything new in this declaration. The G8 celebrate global economic growth and praise themselves for their respective economic policies. Whereas the G8 promise “to keep going”, the emerging countries are encouraged by every means to exert more exchange rate flexibility, reduce their foreign reserves or reduce imbalances. In the matter of financial market stability and in particular with regard to transparency and control of hedge funds, the German government was unable to impose more than had already been announced in the finance minister’s communiqué.

However, the declaration devoted even more attention to the G8 interest in “investment freedom” and increased promotion and protection of innovation and patents. The former also pertains to the “social dimension of globalisation”. Here, for the first time in a G8 document, some things are emphasised — from the OECD guidelines for multinational corporations to the Decent Work Agenda of the International Labour Organization (ILO) — but only just emphasised. There are no new practical initiatives for implementation. For the second point, the innovation issue, the G8 have adjourned to a new dialogue with the major emerging countries, also because meanwhile it has become clear that the latter are no longer prepared to accept the Northern agenda whereby more patent protection is supposed to mean more development. Here the G8 will need patience and commitment, like in other areas, even if after the document the “Heiligendamm Process” is only scheduled for the next two years.

Social Watch’s Basic Capability Index: G8 fails to meet responsibility for MDGs

According to the recent Basic Capabilities Index (BCI) published by Social Watch, at the current rate of progress universal access to a minimum set of social services will only be achieved in 2108 in Sub-Saharan Africa, a delay of almost a century with regards to the target date of 2015 set by the so-called Millennium Development Goals. Rich countries committed themselves to do their part in creating an enabling global economy and assisting poor countries for it to happen.

Unless the pace of progress is substantially speeded up, by 2015 the average level of social development in most of South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa will only have advanced to a very low level. All other regions of the world, except for Europe and North America, will still be far from achieving an acceptable level of social development.

Social Watch, an international network of more than 400 civil society organizations, launched this index on poverty and deprivation in coincidence with the G8 summit, which will bring together the leaders of the world’s most powerful countries in Heiligendamm from 6 to 8 June. “The world’s wealthiest countries have made very little progress in fulfilling their side of the agreement and allowing a majority of the world population to work their way out of poverty,” stressed Social Watch co-ordinator Roberto Bissio.

Most developing countries, including the poorest among them, continue to receive minimal foreign aid while struggling under the burden of foreign debt and confronting unfair trade conditions that keep them from rising out of poverty. In 2002, the developed nations reaffirmed the pledge they had made in 1970 to allocate 0.7% of their national income to official development aid (ODA). Nevertheless, current ODA spending falls far below this level. None of the G8 countries has fulfilled this commitment to date. The United States devotes 0.17% of its income to aiding developing countries, while Italy allocates 0.2%, Japan 0.25%, Canada 0.3%, Germany 0.36%, France 0.47% and the United Kingdom 0.52%.

The Social Watch figures show that half of the world’s countries score within the low, very low or critical categories of the basic capabilities index, and are unable to ensure coverage of minimum essential needs (health, education an others) for most of their population. The BCI is used to evaluate and compare situations of poverty at a national, provincial and local level, based on three basic indicators: the percentage of children who successfully complete the fifth grade, child mortality under five years of age, and the percentage of births attended by skilled health personnel.

G8 Africa policy: “Life or death lottery” for millions

The prospect of a positive outcome for millions of poor people around the world hung in the balance as it emerged that the G8 is in turmoil over negotiations on Africa. The German government is making eleventh hour amendments to the final summit text in a bid to secure agreement. This comes amid reports that several G8 countries, including Italy and Canada, are blocking progress on Africa negotiations in Heiligendamm. “With key countries playing spoilers on aid and HIV, the G8’s credibility is on the line. Unless there’s serious work done on the G8’s Africa Declaration, the summit will be over for the world’s poorest region before it’s even begun’, said Patrick Watt, ActionAid UK Policy Co-ordinator.

* HIV and Aids: The promise of universal access to HIV treatment made in 2005 remains in a critical condition, with some countries seeking to remove the few hard numbers on financing from the text.
* Aid: With the G8 falling short of their aid commitments by $8bn in 2006 alone, the G8 risks scuppering pledges on HIV, health and education. Germany and Italy urgently need to step up to the plate to get the G8 on track to double aid to Africa by 2010.

So far there is no agreement among G8 participants on three central aspects of the final communiqué – climate change, HIV/Aids and development aid.

Guest Comment: The dilemma of G-8 protest

By Jens Martens

One winner of the G-8 summit is already certain, before the helicopters of heads of state and government have landed: It is the movement of globalisation critics in Germany. In advance of the summit it reached unprecedented public mobilisation and media exposure. The hopes of attac activists that the G-8 summit would be a kind of “Niehans' therapy” for the globalisation critics have been fulfilled.

The other side of the coin: By virtue of their massive protest actions, the civil society groups gave the heads of state and government media attention that their press offices and media consultants could never have reached alone. When referring to the G-8 — even if critically — they give credence to the institutional standing of this exclusive club instead of delegitimising it. When they address volumes of demands such as „save the climate“, „cancel the debts“, „solve the problems of Africa“ to the G-8, then they reinforce the illusions of omnipotence and unintentionally help style seven men and a women as saviours, a role that neither can nor should play.

When the G-8 is so pushed to the centre of the globalisation debate, it is no wonder that even the demands for “democratisation” of the global governance system fixate on the G-8 as institution. However, the opening of the G-8 for a handful of regional powers (esp. the O5), repeatedly demanded, and photo opportunities with a few African heads of state do not make this “members only” club either more democratic or more representative. Meetings of the G8 sherpas and the German chancellor with hand-picked civil society representatives may raise the standing of the NGOs involved and convey to the public a greater readiness for discussion and openness, however they distract from the structural deficits in representativeness and transparency, more than overcoming these deficits.

Demanding that the G-8 be replaced by a new body where the South is assured equal representation and participation by civil society organisations is guaranteed is also superfluous. Such a body need not be invented: it is already there in the form of the ECOSOC, The UN Economic and Social Council which has been in existence for more than 60 years. Power politics has prevented this council from performing its duties. That is because the G-8 are a minority among its 54 members. (The Never-ending Story of ECOSOC Reform: L-27 as emerging alternative to G-8? >>> WDEV 5/Dec 2006). Hence it is no wonder thy have never seriously attempted to vitalise the council and equip it with authority. Only recently the governments in the UN General Assembly resolved to strengthen ECOSOC. Civil society organisations could remind governments of the resolutions when the council meets again. It convenes in Geneva four weeks after the Heiligendamm summit. Activism there is tedious and neither spectacular nor impressive for the media – but in the long-run perhaps "more permanent" than a mere colourful flash in the pan on the perimeter of Heiligendamm.

Jens Martens is co-publisher of WDEV and director of Global Policy Forum Europe in Bonn.

Signal before G8: Federal government announces increase in German development aid

As anticipated the German government announced before the G-8 summit was convened that it would significantly increase its development aid. As (nearly) all papers reported, development aid is to be increased by EUR 750 million each year until 2011. This is intended as fulfilment of its 2005 commitment to increase the German ODA quota from its current 0.36% to 0.51%. The federal government will finance this in part by means of so-called innovative financial instruments, e.g. auctioned CO2 emission rights Chancellor Merkel proposed. The latter is expected to generate EUR 350 million.

The announcements by Chancellor Merkel in Bild and by overseas development minister Wieczorek-Zeul to the Süddeutschen Zeitung are the first specific figures after a long series of generally similar declarations. To that extent it is the first substantive indication since the 2005 Gleneagles summit after it had appeared that the German government remained far behind on its promises. With the significant quantitative top-up of development aid, the need for qualitative improvement and reform becomes more obvious.

As praiseworthy as the German initiative certainly is, it is just as uncertain or even unlikely that the hoped for signal effect will occur and the other G-8 partners inspired to similar announcements at the Heiligendamm summit. Only this would really give the lie to the thesis of the "G-8's broken promises". It is clear that the new German ODA initiative does not diminish the other criticisms of German G-8 policy, primarily substantive in nature: unwillingness to accept reform of the summit structure, overemphasis on the private sector in Africa policy, The one-sided attitude toward innovation and investment protection of the North and the general habit of the G-8 to preach a lot but to do little to clean its own stables. For a critical analysis of the German G-8 policy from this perspective, see the recent article by Rainer Falk and Barbara Unmüßig (>>> German G8 Politics on the Eve of Heiligendamm).

Overture in Rostock: Two faces of a demonstration

(1) Gothenburg in Rostock
The procedure is familiar. A block of "autonomous anarchists" breaks away from the demonstration march and the ritual begins. Fire bombs and stones go flying, automobiles burn and plate glass windows shatter. What happened in Rostock yesterday has its historical parallels in the disturbances on the periphery of the 2001 EU summit in Gothenburg. It was just as little about content then as on Saturday. What was so surprising to everyone – both the police and the organizers of the large demonstration, was the large number of autonomous anarchists and their brutality. Even the fire brigade did not want to take chances while doing their job.

In the morning, the demonstration’s organizers, who wanted a large, loud, colourful peaceful demonstration, radically condemned the conduct of the autonomous anarchists. They also expressed their understanding for the police, who had largely complied with what had been agreed. On the other hand, the question remains whether there are no alternatives against the "criminals" (as the police call them) to the massive deployment of water cannon and tear gas under which even the peaceful demonstrators necessarily had to suffer.

(2) Problematic concept: “Choreography of Resistance”
Whether the concept christened “Choreography of Resistance” is really the last word is also doubtful. In any case it failed to the extent there was any hope of actually involving the entire spectrum of "the movement" in the protest. This hope has proven to be an illusion. It is truly naive if some now believe, they can "convince" the “autonomous anarchists” to refrain from attacks against the police.

Now a new and open discussion is necessary about how to deal with the “fringe” of the movement, resp. with those non-political forces, whose most important function consists in convergent interaction with the other side. After the events in Rostock, many tend again toward the view that it is impossible to bring everyone together. Rather they also see the responsibility of the movement in the exercising the strength to assert clear boundaries.

(3) Colourful carnival, but fewer attending than expected
Especially those who wanted a peaceful demonstration before the G-8 meeting —such as the supporters of the Jubilee movement recognisable through the numerous large, red balloons with the demand for cancellation of illegitimate debts – may see themselves robbed of part of the fruits. It was truly one of the most imaginative and colourful solidarity demonstrations in the past years. Had there not been the ritual riots on the edges and in central Rostock; that would have been the deepest impression too.

Then it would also not have been so noticeable that the total number of demonstrators - whether the 30,000, according to police estimates or up to 80,000, as the organisers estimated - remained significantly lower than announced. One can certainly not talk any longer about “unprecedented mobilisation” here. Perhaps many potential demonstrators were influenced by fear of violent outbreaks. But since the figure 100,000 seems to have been established everywhere, testifies to the media significance and harmony potential which the movement criticising globalisation has meanwhile reached. Greater circumspection and intensive substantive efforts are needed to maintain this even after the Rostock events.

(4) Rostock and Genoa versus Gleneagles?
The interpretation and artificial contrast of different protest cultures — such as „here the militant spirit of Genoa and Rostock and there the tame demonstrators of Gleneagles and the rock stars who swallow the G-8 propaganda" — as espoused by Walden Bello from Focus on the Global South at the closing meeting, is not very helpful. On the contrary: one can only hope that the actions of the coming week, above all the Alternative Summit from 5-7 June and the large concert of the action Your Voice against Poverty on 7 June will correct the disappointing overture.