"It Is Imperative to Have a New Economic Order!"

​​Professor Badawiyyah, you are part of "The Syrian anti-globalization group" and you have been working on criticizing the nations of the G8 that are currently holding their summit in Heiligendamm in Germany. What are your comments?

Nahid Badawiyyah: We basically object the premise that eight rich nations are attempting, especially after the collapse of the Socialist camp, to re-design the world in such a way as to serve their own interests. Our other objection is that this group in unregulated, in the sense that it does not appear to be subject toNahid Badawiyyah is a member of "Anti-Globalization Movement in Syria". Ibrahim Obaha is the writer of a book entitled "Morocco Attak: Confronting Liberalism." Lutz Rogler is a researcher in the "Center of Modern Orientalist Studies" in Berlin and is a specialist on Arab issues. any law and we regard the whole organization as an outlaw body operating beyond the statutes of the United Nations. This group meets without consulting its own people nor does it consult any other nation for that matter and makes crucial decisions at the expense of the nations of the Third World.

Professor Obaha, you have joined the international anti-globalization group "Attac", and the problems of the African continent appear to be the single largest challenge that faces the G8. How do you regard, as Moroccans and Africans, this summit?

Ibrahim Obaha: This question addresses our principle concerns whether as Moroccans or Africans because the G8 for many years has been sponsoring an advertising campaign that depicts itself as if it were trying to solve the problems of the African continent. The reality is just the reverse; these nations are the cause of the problems of the African continent.

In what way are they the cause of problems?

​​Obaha: If we take for example the trade agreements that France or the European Union has set up with Morocco or with other African nations or the agreements the United States has set up with Morocco – all these agreements do not serve the interests of the developing nations and often end up destroying their economic web; then comes the G8 declaring that it wants to lift up African nations from poverty.

What has changed in these past years is that the G8 has revised its anti-poverty language but the discourse serves, in reality, the same old interests that these nations have with the African continent leaving the problems as they are, unresolved. The principle problem which anchors our criticism is that the G8 has taken on itself to decide what is best in the name of the African nations.

Dr. Rogler, how do you evaluate these criticisms considering that there are those who say that not everything that is issued by the G8 is bad and that it is not all bleak as some declare that it is?

Lutz Rogler: Frankly, I agree with my two colleagues here on many of their critical remarks but I believe that there is another view in Germany regarding this summit. The G8 is no longer an economic summit in the pure sense; it is now an arena where other very important problems are discussed, problems that concern the world as a whole.

​​I mention, for example, climate change or pollution which are truly global problems and I see that their discussion on the level of the G8 is very relevant. At the same time we see that this group is not completely homogeneous, there are obvious disagreements between the positions of some of its members, for example, between the United States and the European nations, especially Germany. The summit also represents an opportunity to criticize and protest which contributes to increasing the consciousness of global problems.

There are those who say that these nations are responsible for environmental pollution and therefore it is better that they should come up with the solution instead of transferring the matter to other international bodies such as the United Nations, what do you think?

Rogler: Personally I think it is relevant that international organizations such as the United Nations should be included as a principle player in these issues because as an international body it functions more democratically than the G8 which no one has nominated to look into these issues. Instead, it pushed itself to the forefront without an international mandate. But considering that these nations are the biggest contributors to environmental pollution, it does no harm, in fact it is probably an imperative, that they should discuss the matter and find a solution for it.

Professor Obaha, how do you reconcile between your Arab demands and between those of Attac which are mostly European in nature?

Obaha: First of all, Attac is not a European organization; it aims to put forward the demands of third world nations; the Moroccan Attac and even those anti-globalization groups in Syria are involved in another International movement that demands the cancellation of third world debt.

Second, the demands of the developing world are well known and are mainly related to freeing itself from the debilitating problems that has plagued it for centuries. The main demand, in my opinion, is democracy. Our nations cannot overcome their own problems without giving our peoples the right to self determination. When we talk about that right we mean rights in all its facets whether they be political, social or economic.

It is from here that we oppose the G8 because we do not want any body, whether that be an existing dictatorship in our countries or even those so-called Western democracies that make decisions by proxy. The question posed in the Arab region and even in the African continent is a question that relates to development and what basis should it be constructed upon.

​​Will it depend on internal markets, how would it define its relationship with other nations? We do not ask the G8 to lower the debt interest, we are looking for a real solution to our problems and that solution would only be feasible through the cancellation of the agreements these G8 nations had signed with our countries which essentially are colonial in nature.

Would that include the Mediterranean European agreement?

Obaha: Yes, even the Mediterranean European agreement is one set up for the benefit of Europe only. This opinion is not mine personally but has been reached by some European institutions that have stated that the trajectory of such cooperation and the way the agreement is set up would inevitably destroy the economic web for the south of the Mediterranean. In Morocco right now thousands of workers are laid off annually due to that agreement with Europe.

Dr. Rogler there are voices that are raised in Africa today that say that the responsibility for the problems of the poor nations do not only fall on the shoulders of the large nations only but on its intellectual elite as well. As a German intellectual, do you agree with this analysis?

Roger: Yes, I do agree because intellectuals have the responsibility to raise and disseminate consciousness about global problems, consciousness about the strong inter-connectedness of all humanity's problems including the problems of the Third World. I also believe, on the other hand, that the intellectuals in the richer world have become aware of that equation and are active at the moment.

​​This is what we are noticing in Germany as the papers publish daily sections on the G8 and its risks. I read today that the German Chancellor had announced that her government will increase financial aid to the poor nations with what would amount to 750 million Euro and I consider this a kind of triumph resulting from the pressure on the part of public opinion on politicians and European governments in general.

So do you believe that increasing aid would help solve the problems of the poorer nations?

Rogler: Of course not. It does represent a solution to some of the more immediate problems. I do believe that an increase in financial aid is not enough to solve structural problems in world economy and I do see the need to re-design a new economic world order.

Prof. Badawiyyah, some activists in Attac have begun the initiative to propose something along an international Marshall Plan as a base solution to very difficult problems that are facing the developing world; in your opinion, would that be a realistic proposition?

Badawiyyah: The Marshall Plan was proposed sixty years ago in order to fortify Europe against the emerging Soviet Union and therefore as a plan it had an anti-nation agenda. I think the world is in need, from an economic perspective, for a plan that would break the current monopoly.

These G8 nations are manipulating the world to the interests of its private and multinational corporations. In response to such policy some nations in east Asia and South America have established regional organizations to break these monopolies which I regard as positive but not sufficient.

Dr. Rogler, what is your opinion of "International Marshall Plan" especially as it has been suggested by some anti-Europeans?

Rogler: I do not think that financial aid is enough to restructure and set up an economic world order because the problems are larger and deeper than suggesting a comprehensive plan for investment. The problem is not financial only and the plan could help in solving some of the problems but it will not solve all the problems.

The forum was conducted by Ahmad Hissou

© Deutsche Welle/Qantara.de 2007

Translated from the Arabic by Mona Zaki

Qantara.de

Franz Alt
West Africa Is Dying - Europe Is Sleeping
Locust plagues, poverty and million environmental refugees in Africa: An efficient European Marshall Plan would help Africa out of its current misery. Proceeding in this way would simply be a matter of European self-respect, argues Franz Alt

Analysis Kadhim Habib
Globalization and the Fears of the Islamic World
The exiled Iraqi politician and economist, Kadhim Habib, analyses the political and social background of the globalization debate and explains the globalization trauma that the Muslim world, in particular the Arab world, suffers from

Dossier
Globalisation
Does globalization create opportunities, especially for developing countries, or is it rather an existential threat to traditional economic and social structures? In our dossier, we provide some answers, balancing opposing views