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