Letter to Members of the Committee from
Margaret Turner, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
I attended the WTO meeting in Cancún
from 10 to 15 September as a member of a delegation from the Women's
Coalition for Economic Justice and as a representative of the
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. On the two
days before this meeting I attended the International Women's
Forum in downtown Cancún. You have probably already received
a copy of the Political Declaration which came out of this forum
and which I enclose now.[79]
It was circulated to all government delegations in Cancún
and Patricia Hewitt said she would distribute it when I personally
handed her a copy on 12 September.
I draw your attention to the insistence of women
that increasing liberalisation cannot be separated from the increasing
violence and loss of human rights that women and others are now
suffering in many parts of the world. These links are not generally
made in discussion about trade issues. I urge you to give them
full consideration.
I also put down some questions relating to globalisation
for your consideration.
These three questions were put to the Human
Rights panel in Cancún. (Mary Robinson had stated that
the human rights instruments were in place to check the ill effects
of liberalisation.) The answers given by the panellists were not
satisfactory.
1. Are the mechanisms in place to ensure
that Human Rights are considered in trade negotiations?
2. Is it possible to increase liberalisation
without also increasing the power of the TNCs?
3. In what way do Human Rights instruments
apply to the TNCs?
The following two questions were put to the
UK Government delegation at briefing sessions for NGOs.
4. Why are countries in Africa urged by the
world financial institutions to do what the African women call
"food swap"? eg Uganda should export grain to Kenya
and Kenya should export grain to Uganda. Answer: "Trade is
good even if it is the same commodity that is being traded".
To me this did not make sense but the Ugandan woman who told me
about it knew well why it made sense to economics "experts"
and to her government under dictated trade policies. Instead of
using her grain either to feed her own family or to exchange it
for other commodities that they need she is expected to earn cash
some of which will be used to pay off her country's "debt".
No account is taken of the extra time and labour that she is putting
in to the marketing process. Her family suffers as a consequence.
5. Should not our government exert control
over human rights transgressions committed by one of our own TNCs
in another country eg Shell in the Delta region of Nigeria? Answer:
"No! That is the responsibility of the Nigerian government."
I do not doubt that this answer is correct under present international
law but the Nigerian government is unlikely to risk the portion
of the revenue that comes to it from oil extraction by taking
issue with the oil companies. So the question now is "Who
will stand up for the Delta women whose land is polluted and who
suffer violence when they protest?" (The men have already
left the area as there is no employment for them.)
This question is also one that I would like
to be answered
6. Why did a farmer from Korea, a country
considered by our government to be one of the successes of globalisation,
publicly stab himself in an act described by his people as honourable:
"an act of self-immolation to oppose oppression"? This
farmer had formerly been prosperous like others from his country
but had been impoverished as a result of liberalisation. Is this
not an indication that what is seen as "success" by
those making decisions at one end of the trade liberalisation
process, is viewed very differently by the vast majority at the
other end who are not consulted?
Once again I urge you to study these questions
and the enclosed Political Declaration.
Margaret Turner
(Co-ordinator for WILPF Global Economic Justice
Committee)
22 October 2003
79 Not printed. Copy placed in the Library. Back
| 
