The collapse of the trade talks at the Fifth World Trade Organization meeting in Cancun, Mexico, has focused on the unwillingness of the European Union and the US to practice what they preach.

     The deadlock, mainly over market access and the removal of trade-distorting agricultural policies, focused attention on the lack of concern for the plight of millions of people throughout Africa and delegates from the poor nations marched in protest of alleged bullying by wealthy countries.

     Whereas African countries deserve congratulations for remaining steadfast in their quest for agricultural liberalization, the same spirit is needed to resist the influence of foreign aid from developed nations — a practice which has long compromised Africa's ability to negotiate and develop.

     "What we in Africa are saying is that we want to compete in the global market. But the EU and the US keep rejecting this. The continent must not succumb to the arm-twisting and blackmailing which has characterized WTO negotiations in the past," observed ISIL member Thompson Ayodele of the Institute of Public Policy Analysis in Lagos, Nigeria — one of many ISIL members in attendance at this event.

     "Tell your colleagues in both the Press and the Non Governmental Organizations that the trade talks have collapsed!" Kenya's Trade and Industry Minister Mukhisa Kituyi, said.

     The jubilation that followed was both confusing and shocking. Some journalists, members of the NGO and government delegations, cheered.

     But why should people cheer when trade talks fail? Trade is essentially an exchange of items where a willing seller and willing buyer reach an agreement and everybody goes home happy. Unfortunately, many at the WTO meeting erroneously viewed trade as a zero-sum game.

     A few wealthy farmers in the United States, the European Union and Japan have held virtually millions of small-scale farmers in poor countries to ransom by defending domestic agricultural subsidies that have seriously distorted world trade in agricultural products.

     On the other hand, poor countries and multinational NGOs have been on the forefront in arguing for cheap access to medicines for the poor. It is ironic that people should call for cheap access to medicines, and at the same time be denied access to "cheap foods" from the developed countries.

     The groups, consisting mostly of college students from rich nations, urged the poor to "close their markets until such time they have developed."

     Totally ignoring the abilities of the African countries to creatively solve their own problems, developed nations have nurtured a culture of dependency.

     Wealthy nations prefer giving aid to poor countries instead of providing them an opportunity to trade. 

     Under the banner of "working for free and fair trade," the United Kingdom Department for International Development pledged £50 million to help the developing countries trade out of poverty.

     International Development Secretary Valerie Amos announced an aid package meant to help poorer countries create more jobs, increase exports and reap benefits from the multilateral trading system. Can this really facilitate effective trade driven by producer incentives?

     In the 40 years since most African countries attained independence from colonial rule, there seems to be no sunset clause for aid to African governments. This has had a compromising effect on trade negotiations. Supporting African countries to facilitate trade is tantamount to subsidizing trade in Africa. If subsidies are bad outside Africa, they are equally bad inside Africa.

     The African Union complained in a press release: "It is our view that the conduct of these negotiations should be open and transparent and the final outcome should be pegged on the need to meet the Doha mandate which placed the needs and interests of developing countries at the heart of the WTO program."

     The lack of transparency at the trade talks stems from this basic donor dependency.

     African countries should ask themselves why rich countries prefer sending aid rather than opening markets for their goods. The mentality that trade will kill the poor is a notion that has been perpetuated by wealthy NGOs who prefer to trap the poor in poverty.

     Arguing for aid to Africa and opposing trade liberalization in both the wealthy and the poor nations is to argue for economic stagnation. People should argue for more open trade that will reduce conflict in Africa, and simultaneously create wealth.

     One cannot seek prosperity and at the same time argue that "Africa is not for sale" as was argued by some protesters.

     The World Trade Organization must rethink its role as a trade facilitator as opposed to acting as a trade chess-board. It does not help the poor to divide the world into consumers and producers. Each has something to trade and must be given an opportunity.

James Shikwati is ISIL's Rep for Kenya and Director of the Inter Region Economic Network (IREN Kenya).

To donate to IREN s work please contact the Director james@irenkenya.org for details.
www.irenkenya.org

US members may make tax-deductible donations to ISIL for this project.

See ISIL pamphlet "The Disaster of Foreign Aid Programs" which addresses the practice of western countries giving aid while banning trade. Written by ISIL Director Ken Schoolland (a former economist with the US International Trade Commission) and trade advisor to the White House). www.isil.org/resources/lit/disaster-foreign-aid.html