European Social Forum 2004
European Social Forum 2004
Privatisation for Aid: The Third World's deadly compromise.
Public services are about rights, rights to dignity and rights to participate.
With more people attending than either of the plenaries on at the same time and two speakers receiving standing ovations, the War on Want seminar Privatisation for Aid: The Third World's deadly compromise was exceptional. The seminar touched on many of the issues in their new report: Profiting from Poverty: Privatisation consultants, DFID and public services. The speakers including George Monbiot, Wendy Caird and Berenice Celeyta were all outstanding.
This is poignant and terrifying stuff: we learnt that our contributions in Aid are being given to the right-wing think-tank the Adam Smith institute, that international organisations supportive of Colombian peoples’ anti-privatisation struggles are being targeted by the Colombian military. No-one could have left this seminar without a firm commitment to fighting travesty of enforced privatisation.
The speeches blew the lies about debt relief, aid and PFI’s out of the water. Exposing the true meaning of conditionality, the seminar showed that the only winners in this game are MNCs and rich governments.
The opening speaker, Mark Serwotka, from PCS UK, laid out crucial questions as to why our government is championing privatisation across the world. The disaster that privatisation has been in the UK is well-known. Why then do we see fit to promote it as a means of poverty reduction when the truth is it leads to higher service costs, non-accountable companies and more often than not a poorer service? Even if privatisation had been a success over here, what right do we have to impose any economic model on any other country?
The most emotive of the speakers was unquestionably Berenice Celeyta, director of the human rights department of SINTREMCALI (A Municipal Workers Union in Colombia). President Uribe's commitment to a neo-liberal agenda, means the UK and US donate vast amounts of money in military aid. Money that is used to systematically assassinate and persecute trade unionists. Over the last few years, SINTREMCALI has been subjected to a terrifying attack on the rights of its members and leaders: eight have been assassinated, three exiled, several abducted, and two arrested.
Colombia has seen the sale of all its basic public services as well as its vast natural resources in gold, coal and petrol. Privatisation is always introduced in strategic areas, those richest in natural resources, places where the land is richest and the people are poorest. This ‘possession paradox’ is a paradox only in that foreign companies are pilfering the possessions of the poor.
“The first lie we have to uncover is that privatisation brings development. In Colombia it brings death.”
Last month spine-chilling top-secret intelligence documents were uncovered listing high profile unionists including Berenice as assassination targets. Known as 'Operation Dragon' the documents also list international aid agencies including UNISON, Justice for Colombia, The Colombia Solidarity Campaign and War on Want as high risk organisations.
It is impossible for us to begin to understand the tragedy that is Colombia today. Uribe and MNC’s may be fighting for their profits but these people are struggling for their lives. Berenice closed by quoting friend of hers who was assassinated, “It is better to die for something than live for nothing.”
The standing ovation that Berenice received is a small testament to the bravery and strength of this woman and of all those who fight for their basic rights in Colombia.
Girish Sant from the Indian NGO Prayas uncovered some of the biggest lies, and folly of the privatisation debate. India is one of the largest borrowers of World Bank funds, with over 500 loans she is indebted by $53 billion. Poverty has only increased in the 50 years since India started borrowing.
Quick and clear the story is disgusting. In Orissa, one of the poorest states in India, less than 50 per cent of the population have electricity. When in 1997, following yet another failed dam project by the World Bank, the Orissa government requested that the left-over funds be used to install electricity, the Bank agreed so long as certain conditionalities were adhered to.
The first was that all the existing electricity companies had to privatise, then in order to make the companies attractive to foreign business the cost of electricity had to be increased by 15 per cent a year over the next decade. Then, in order to be able to privatise, Orissa had to restructure its capacity at a cost of $70 million. In 2000, the first independent review took place. By this time in typical World Bank style of one size fits all, over 50 per cent of Indian states had implemented the Orissa programme.
The independent review found that there had been huge losses and no improvement in efficiency. That in order to get the power sector of India back on track half a billion dollars will be needed. The overall result of not giving Orissa the loan it initially asked for there was a 4fold debt increase and a loss of energy output.
Wendy Caird of Public Services International (PSI), made the case against privatisation clearly and strongly. Neo-Liberalism is an economic fashion, it is not and never will be a science. The question as to why privatisation exists is simple, there are vast profits to be made out of the privatisation of basic services. 90 per cent of water is still publicly owned and multi-national’s can salivate over the potential profits in this 'liquid gold'.
Privatisation of basic services doesn't work because of the reasons above. The private sector exists to make money. Private companies are not accountable to the people but to shareholders. Trans-national companies have no borders, no affinity with certain countries, there is nothing to stop them running away when the going gets tough as they frequently do.
We must challenge the orthodox which says it is too expensive to improve public services, countless failures many resulting in deaths show that privatisation in social and monetary terms is always more expensive. We must challenge the priorities in financing. Money it seems can be found for wars but not for hospitals.
We must make 2005 the year in which we mobilise people against this devastation. Importantly we must have positive alternatives. It is no good identifying the problems
if we can't offer solutions. We must accept that many publicly run services in poor countries are weak and corrupt and produce new models where the people, the community contribute to the decision making processes.
The final speaker, George Monbiot, recounted us with horror stories about what is happening in South Africa today. The residents of Phiri, Soweto – some of the poorest people in the world - are having pre-paid water meters installed in their homes. These meters were abandoned in the UK as being too harsh on the poor. The meters are a response to the political flak the council receives about the number of evictions and riots that occur in these deprived areas as people fail to afford their rising water bills. Could you if your household income was a measly £90 a month, shared amongst up to 20 people?
This is not the first time these meters have been installed in South Africa. When they were brought into Madabele in Kwa-Zulu Natal, the people turned to the only water they could afford. The water came from the ditches and the local sewer systems, instantly 200 people died from cholera and the experiment was abandoned.
Other than empathy for the South African people what role do we have to play? It seems rather a big one. As early as 1996, the UK government had already introduced a PFI. Following such successes as the Coventry hospital saga where a £30 million renovation project was turned into the demolition of two hospitals to build one, at a cost of £350 million, just so private companies would agree to get involved, the PFI strategy was transferred to South Africa.
Last year DFID, our UK aid agency gave the Adam Smith Institute £6 million of tax-payers money in order to fund PFI projects throughout the developing world. In a world where 800 million people are malnourished, £430,000 of the money given to the Adam Smith Institute was spent on a pop video convincing the people of Tanzania that privatisation is a good thing.
It beggars belief, our foreign aid from our tax money is being used to destroy the lives of the poor. When confronted DFID have no answers. Monbiot finished on a rallying cry. We must take action over this issue which is as big as the Iraq war, and will certainly kill more. We must take to the streets, we need direct action on a very big scale. We must take away the platform of those who make these decisions.
Monbiot received the second standing ovation.
Jo Kuper
Privatisation for Aid: The Third World's deadly compromise.
Public services are about rights, rights to dignity and rights to participate.
With more people attending than either of the plenaries on at the same time and two speakers receiving standing ovations, the War on Want seminar Privatisation for Aid: The Third World's deadly compromise was exceptional. The seminar touched on many of the issues in their new report: Profiting from Poverty: Privatisation consultants, DFID and public services. The speakers including George Monbiot, Wendy Caird and Berenice Celeyta were all outstanding.
This is poignant and terrifying stuff: we learnt that our contributions in Aid are being given to the right-wing think-tank the Adam Smith institute, that international organisations supportive of Colombian peoples’ anti-privatisation struggles are being targeted by the Colombian military. No-one could have left this seminar without a firm commitment to fighting travesty of enforced privatisation.
The speeches blew the lies about debt relief, aid and PFI’s out of the water. Exposing the true meaning of conditionality, the seminar showed that the only winners in this game are MNCs and rich governments.
The opening speaker, Mark Serwotka, from PCS UK, laid out crucial questions as to why our government is championing privatisation across the world. The disaster that privatisation has been in the UK is well-known. Why then do we see fit to promote it as a means of poverty reduction when the truth is it leads to higher service costs, non-accountable companies and more often than not a poorer service? Even if privatisation had been a success over here, what right do we have to impose any economic model on any other country?
The most emotive of the speakers was unquestionably Berenice Celeyta, director of the human rights department of SINTREMCALI (A Municipal Workers Union in Colombia). President Uribe's commitment to a neo-liberal agenda, means the UK and US donate vast amounts of money in military aid. Money that is used to systematically assassinate and persecute trade unionists. Over the last few years, SINTREMCALI has been subjected to a terrifying attack on the rights of its members and leaders: eight have been assassinated, three exiled, several abducted, and two arrested.
Colombia has seen the sale of all its basic public services as well as its vast natural resources in gold, coal and petrol. Privatisation is always introduced in strategic areas, those richest in natural resources, places where the land is richest and the people are poorest. This ‘possession paradox’ is a paradox only in that foreign companies are pilfering the possessions of the poor.
“The first lie we have to uncover is that privatisation brings development. In Colombia it brings death.”
Last month spine-chilling top-secret intelligence documents were uncovered listing high profile unionists including Berenice as assassination targets. Known as 'Operation Dragon' the documents also list international aid agencies including UNISON, Justice for Colombia, The Colombia Solidarity Campaign and War on Want as high risk organisations.
It is impossible for us to begin to understand the tragedy that is Colombia today. Uribe and MNC’s may be fighting for their profits but these people are struggling for their lives. Berenice closed by quoting friend of hers who was assassinated, “It is better to die for something than live for nothing.”
The standing ovation that Berenice received is a small testament to the bravery and strength of this woman and of all those who fight for their basic rights in Colombia.
Girish Sant from the Indian NGO Prayas uncovered some of the biggest lies, and folly of the privatisation debate. India is one of the largest borrowers of World Bank funds, with over 500 loans she is indebted by $53 billion. Poverty has only increased in the 50 years since India started borrowing.
Quick and clear the story is disgusting. In Orissa, one of the poorest states in India, less than 50 per cent of the population have electricity. When in 1997, following yet another failed dam project by the World Bank, the Orissa government requested that the left-over funds be used to install electricity, the Bank agreed so long as certain conditionalities were adhered to.
The first was that all the existing electricity companies had to privatise, then in order to make the companies attractive to foreign business the cost of electricity had to be increased by 15 per cent a year over the next decade. Then, in order to be able to privatise, Orissa had to restructure its capacity at a cost of $70 million. In 2000, the first independent review took place. By this time in typical World Bank style of one size fits all, over 50 per cent of Indian states had implemented the Orissa programme.
The independent review found that there had been huge losses and no improvement in efficiency. That in order to get the power sector of India back on track half a billion dollars will be needed. The overall result of not giving Orissa the loan it initially asked for there was a 4fold debt increase and a loss of energy output.
Wendy Caird of Public Services International (PSI), made the case against privatisation clearly and strongly. Neo-Liberalism is an economic fashion, it is not and never will be a science. The question as to why privatisation exists is simple, there are vast profits to be made out of the privatisation of basic services. 90 per cent of water is still publicly owned and multi-national’s can salivate over the potential profits in this 'liquid gold'.
Privatisation of basic services doesn't work because of the reasons above. The private sector exists to make money. Private companies are not accountable to the people but to shareholders. Trans-national companies have no borders, no affinity with certain countries, there is nothing to stop them running away when the going gets tough as they frequently do.
We must challenge the orthodox which says it is too expensive to improve public services, countless failures many resulting in deaths show that privatisation in social and monetary terms is always more expensive. We must challenge the priorities in financing. Money it seems can be found for wars but not for hospitals.
We must make 2005 the year in which we mobilise people against this devastation. Importantly we must have positive alternatives. It is no good identifying the problems
if we can't offer solutions. We must accept that many publicly run services in poor countries are weak and corrupt and produce new models where the people, the community contribute to the decision making processes.
The final speaker, George Monbiot, recounted us with horror stories about what is happening in South Africa today. The residents of Phiri, Soweto – some of the poorest people in the world - are having pre-paid water meters installed in their homes. These meters were abandoned in the UK as being too harsh on the poor. The meters are a response to the political flak the council receives about the number of evictions and riots that occur in these deprived areas as people fail to afford their rising water bills. Could you if your household income was a measly £90 a month, shared amongst up to 20 people?
This is not the first time these meters have been installed in South Africa. When they were brought into Madabele in Kwa-Zulu Natal, the people turned to the only water they could afford. The water came from the ditches and the local sewer systems, instantly 200 people died from cholera and the experiment was abandoned.
Other than empathy for the South African people what role do we have to play? It seems rather a big one. As early as 1996, the UK government had already introduced a PFI. Following such successes as the Coventry hospital saga where a £30 million renovation project was turned into the demolition of two hospitals to build one, at a cost of £350 million, just so private companies would agree to get involved, the PFI strategy was transferred to South Africa.
Last year DFID, our UK aid agency gave the Adam Smith Institute £6 million of tax-payers money in order to fund PFI projects throughout the developing world. In a world where 800 million people are malnourished, £430,000 of the money given to the Adam Smith Institute was spent on a pop video convincing the people of Tanzania that privatisation is a good thing.
It beggars belief, our foreign aid from our tax money is being used to destroy the lives of the poor. When confronted DFID have no answers. Monbiot finished on a rallying cry. We must take action over this issue which is as big as the Iraq war, and will certainly kill more. We must take to the streets, we need direct action on a very big scale. We must take away the platform of those who make these decisions.
Monbiot received the second standing ovation.
Jo Kuper
posted by Jo Kuper at 4:19 PM
<< Home