Jim Cason
30 September 2002
Washington — A South African unionist protesting the privatization of electricity, a Cameroonian development expert protesting an oil pipeline and a Tanzanian activist protesting plans to allow private companies to buy public water delivery systems were among the people marching in Washington against the World Bank and IMF in late September.
"We don't want privatization. We want water to belong to the public. We want electricity to belong to the public. We want health care to belong to the public," declared South African Anti-Privatization Forum activist Bangali Liguthilu in a speech from a pick up truck that led a march of many thousands through the center of Washington, DC. "When governments privatize, the poor don't get access."
As activists flanked by police in riot helmets marched past the building where the U.S. Treasury is located, he added "Down with NEPAD. Away with Thabo Mbeki. Away with Obasanjo. Away with George Bush." Liguthilu was one of more than a dozen different representatives of African organizations participating in and speaking at rallies and forums here in Washington.
The failures of World Bank and IMF policies in Africa have become a centerpiece of protests by anti-corporate globalization activists. Signs and T-shirts protesting water privatization in Ghana, criticizing Coca Cola for refusing to provide HIV/AIDS medicines for its workers in Africa and questioning large mining projects in Nigeria could be seen scattered through the crowds of protestors gathered in front of the World Bank on Saturday evening.
To get a clearer perspective on why Africans participated in these protests, AllAfrica's Jim Cason spoke this week with Demba Moussa Dembele of the Forum for African Alternatives in Senegal, with Asume Isaac Osuoka of Environment Rights Action in Nigeria and with Carola Kinasha of the Tanzania Gender Network Program. Below are excerpts from those conversations.
Demba Moussa Dembele. You are director of the Forum for African Alternatives. Can you tell us a little about this organization?
The Forum is dedicated to challenging the neo-liberal agenda in Africa and to proposing alternative policies. We have been involved in these activities for a long time. Almost three years ago, in December 2000, we organized a conference on debt cancelation in Senegal. I was the co-ordinator of that conference.
That conference organized a big march in Dakar in which over five thousand people participated. Since then we have had other marches in Africa - in Nigeria, in Ghana. In South Africa a few weeks ago, during the World Summit on Sustainable Development,we organized a big march that overshadowed the official march sponsored by the government.
What is your work now in Senegal?
I am doing research on economic globalization and training for other activist non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The training is not only for Senegalese NGOs, but for NGOS throughout the West Africa sub-region: Mali, Guinea, Sierra Leone, the Gambia and so forth.
You said in one speech here this week that you thought the World Bank should just get out of Africa. It has done enough damage. But the World Bank people query whether Africans really want to cut off the more than $3 billion in money the bank sends to Africa?
But the World Bank money going to Africa is not helping Africa. Poverty has never been as high, as acute, as since the World Bank and IMF came to our continent. They themselves recognize that they have failed, that their policies have led to much poverty. But they call this collateral damage! They have destroyed industries in Senegal, in Zambia, in Tanzania, in Burkina Faso, in Uganda, in Nigeria and Mauritania. Everywhere they go they have the same kind of policies: trade liberalization, investment liberalization, privatization. The policies have failed.
They talk about aid, but the aid is conditional on governments implementing destructive social and economic policies. Right now most of our states [in Africa] are not functional. They have been destroyed by the World Bank and IMF. The civil services have been almost eliminated in many countries, because of World Bank and IMF imposed conditionalities.
But the World Bank also provides, for instance, a billion dollars for HIV/AIDS, along with money for water and roads. Are you saying Africa does not want that money?
This so called aid is not aid. It is a loan, like any other loan. And, for instance, some countries are excluded from the loans for HIV/AIDS because their income per capita is high according to the World Bank. Or they are in arrears [they are behind on repayments] to the World Bank, on outstanding loans.
Even some of the most affected countries are excluded. South Africa is excluded because their per capita income is too high. The Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zambia are excluded because they have arrears . So it (the promise of big money) is just propaganda.
World Bank spokespeople say they are changing their lending goals, moving toward a greater emphasis on poverty reduction. They say they are focusing on the Millennium Development Goals and particularly on water, education and health. I find it hard to believe that Africa is still saying that it is better not to have this money than to have it?
When they tell you that they are focusing on the Millennium Development Goals, that they are putting new emphasis on water, education and health, they are telling you only one part of the story. What they are not telling you is that each of these loans has strings attached to it.
Take the example of Tanzania. To get debt relief from the World Bank, Tanzania was told it has to privatize its water delivery system. The World Bank told Tanzania it would provide a loan to upgrade the water system, thus making it more attractive to foreign investors. So Tanzania has incurred a debt to the World Bank to upgrade its water delivery system so that it can be sold to foreign investors. So what is the outcome? To increase Tanzania's dependency on the World Bank and at the same time sell this vital infrastructure, water, to foreign companies. This is what the World Bank is doing.
They say focus on water, but at the same time they tell us privatize. We have to liberalize more. We have to open our economies. We have to remove subsidies. (In other words) they take more than they give.
But if this money is so harmful, why do African governments keep coming to these meetings and asking for more money?
Because, they say, they have no choice. These institutions are very powerful. They represent and are backed by the most powerful nations.
These institutions are so powerful, our elected officials feel they have no choice (but to negotiate). But the results are damaging.
Take Senegal. When it deals with the World Bank it has no power. But if African countries dealt with the World Bank collectively, they would have a more powerful voice. The World Bank doesn't like that. They treat debt, for instance, on a case by case basis. So let's get together and speak with one voice, and then they will listen.
But African countries have gotten together and formed NEPAD. The World Bank says they are working with NEPAD. And the South African Finance Minister Trevor Manuel comes to Washington and says he wants the World Bank to fund NEPAD. These are African governments working together and they are asking for money.
But we, as representatives of African civil society, are against NEPAD. For two reasons. First civil society has not been consulted. The NEPAD leaders went to the G-7 leaders, twice, to present NEPAD, without talking to their own people. Second, NEPAD is a neo-liberal program. It endorses all IMF and World Bank policies. It accepts World Trade Organization policies and all these bilateral agreements that we think are detrimental to African economic and social development. So NEPAD, in a way, is just an African version of what we call the global neo-liberal agenda. And the African social forum, most African social movements are fighting against that agenda.
Asume Isaac Osuoka. Can you tell us about Environment Rights Action?
Be the first to Write a Comment!
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
