‘What is free may not be fair’
MALAYSIAN Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has articulated the core sentiments of the developing world in what is likely to go down as the defining phrase in the long-drawn debate between the rich North and the poor South over what is fair in trading freely. In a speech to corporate chief executives on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Corporation summit, the retiring Malaysian prime minister has called for fair rather than free trade as, according to him, “fair trade can be free, but free trade can be unfair.” He has also very rightly pointed out that the poorer countries could not agree to the agenda at the failed WTO talks in Cancun because “it was not our agenda”. Indeed, at Cancun, the talks failed mainly because the rich countries were asking for a free-for-all for themselves in the developing countries while, at the same time, wanting to continue to protect their own markets, in their own countries as well as in the international trading place, with all kinds of barriers and subsidies. This is a recipe for increasing the economic dependence of the poorer countries on the richer ones, by means of which the former can exploit the latter for their own global economic interest and more often than not against the interest of the poorer countries.
This has been happening over the last many decades, and this exploitative process has been sustained and carried forward by an unholy alliance of multinationals and the multilateral organizations. With a touch of sarcasm, Dr Mahathir Mohamad said the poorer countries were ready to be exploited but they would want to be fairly exploited. What perhaps he meant is that these countries are ready to open up their markets to rich countries and their multinationals and also have an open mind on the structural reforms being suggested by the World Bank and the IMF, but all that they want in return is a guarantee that in the process of globalization, they are not left holding an empty sack. They also want to benefit from the globalization process which has immense potential for the entire world irrespective of the level of development of a particular country — if only the process is pursued with an eye on the economic and political sovereignty and interests of the poor countries.
This is easier said than done, however, because when market forces determine the global trade and mobility of world economic resources, only a well thought out, universally acceptable, regulatory framework, more judicious than the present regulatory laws of the WTO, can guarantee such a world economic order. While one can empathize with what the Malaysian leader has said about what is fair and what is not in the context of free trade, it is not possible to agree with him fully on the matter of poorer countries’ right to protect their “little businesses until they can compete with the giants” or that the developing countries be allowed to take pride in their national industries, even if they are producing match-sticks and cigarettes rather than automobiles and aircraft. This is the prescription that multilateral organizations like the World Bank and the IMF had proffered to developing countries in the 1950s and 1960s, forcing them to establish industries having no comparative advantage by providing these industries high tariff protection.
These industries have now become a liability for the economies of many poorer countries, draining their incomes and also, at the same time, circumscribing their export potential. No country, poor or rich, should be allowed to protect domestic industries which are not based on some local comparative advantage, even with the availability of cheaper manpower. Another point which should be kept in mind while reforming the world economic order is the threat to indigenous industries from relatively rich regional countries which may in fact be far too poor in comparison with the rich North, but have the potential to outsell local products of another country by flooding the market of that country with items at dumping prices. This is a serious threat that countries like Pakistan today face from products coming from countries like China and India. This matter should be tackled at the regional level rather than allowing the WTO to handle it because each region has its own peculiarities and can understand them and resolve them better and more realistically than those sitting on judgment at the WTO with their perspectives coloured by broader global issues and concerns.
State of our population
THE State of the World Population, 2003, report launched recently focuses on the adolescents, who constitute an important segment of any country’s population. According to the UNFPA’s report, there are 1.2 billion people between the ages of 10 and 19 worldwide and 87 per cent of them live in the Third World. Growing up in a world that is changing rapidly, these youth face complex social, economic, cultural and health problems which have a profound impact on their future, and consequently on the future of their countries. The UNFPA lays special emphasis on gender equality and the rights to education and health. These rights include access to reproductive and sexual health information and services appropriate to their age, capacities and circumstances.
Where does Pakistan stand in this context? Given the high birth rate in the country, nearly a third of its population comprises adolescents. When they are neglected, as has been the tradition here, it has dire consequences for the entire society and its future. This apathy is most conspicuous in the education and health sectors, although the tables in the UNFPA report show a gross primary enrolment rate of 93 and 54 per cent for boys and girls respectively, the column for “proportion reaching grade 5” is conspicuously blank. The sudden drop in secondary enrolment betrays the country’s failure to provide even basic education to our children. Can Pakistan ever hope to progress when the bulk of its population remains illiterate? High quality education to a small elite group is no recompense for keeping the majority in ignorance.
Failure in the education sector has a grave implication for the health of the adolescents as well. Ignorance is the biggest enemy of physical, mental and emotional well-being of a person. The state’s failure to educate the youth explains the poor achievement of Pakistan’s population programme. Some of the figures quoted in the report are shocking. After more than four decades of an official family planning programme, the population growth rate is 2.4 per cent per annum which is much higher than the average for the less developed states. This offers very little hope for the future. Small wonder that the UNFPA predicts more than a doubling of Pakistan’s population by the year 2050.
At this rate the country will never achieve development and progress. A key factor in this dismal scenario is the gender discrimination which casts its long shadow on Pakistan’s socio-economic progress. In every sector of national life, women are not at par with men as they are not provided equal opportunities. When carried too far, this approach is damaging to national progress, for women constitute nearly half of the total population. What is needed is a concerted policy of providing health care and education equitably to girls and boys. There is also the need to raise the status of women so that there is no compulsion for families to produce a male child, which is an important determinant of family size in Pakistan.