Remarks by Phil Bloomer, Head of Make Trade Fair Campaign, Oxfam International 2004 Commitment to Development Index: Defining Global Leadership Wednesday, April 28, 2004 Well, first, I really congratulate the Center for this very important index. From a perspective of Oxfam, there's a myriad of measures of developing countries' progress in their current state, and yet there are far fewer measures of how much contribution the industrialized countries are actually making to that progress. The Millennium Development Goals set out by all the rich countries, the OECD club of industrialized countries, are very clear on what they want to see as outcomes between now and 2015. And so I think this is a very important tool for them to look at just how much they are properly contributing to those goals which they've set for themselves for developing countries' improvements. From our perspective, what's critical is that the industrialized countries, the rich countries of this world, commit themselves to a form of globalization which is genuinely going to help the poor as well as the rich. And the current model is so often doing the reverse of that, actually generating far greater levels of inequality in the world. What we need are the means by which there can be a level of redistribution, but also a removal of the kind of rules that actually prevent and hinder developing countries from being able to advance. That's not to say, of course, that developing countries don't have the primary responsibility for their own destiny. One area of those rules is, of course, trade rules. And I would say that, hopefully, the United States will be able to improve still further on its current performance in the Index because of the--and thanks to--the World Trade Organization's ruling only two days ago on cotton, which should be able to remove one of the most pernicious elements of trade rules which allow the European Union and the United States to essentially support highly inefficient farmers, high-cost farmers in their own countries, artificially create enormous surpluses which cannot be consumed in their own countries and then have to be dumped on world markets, depressing prices for low-cost producers in developing countries who are, after all, only asking for a fair price for the product that they produce and a fair return on their labors. We have a situation in cotton where just 25,000 farmers in the United States are receiving $4 billion of taxpayers money every year to produce cotton which is essentially surplus and is then dumped on world markets, lowering the price for poor farmers in, for instance, West Africa. At the same time, there are 10 million farmers in West Africa, many of them living on $1 a day, that produce cotton at a far lower price--and often a higher-quality cotton--and found themselves, at least until recently, basically having to abandon their crops because they could not even begin to provide the three meals on the For transcripts of other speakers’ remarks, visit www.cgdev.org table and were taking their sons and daughters out of school through the lack of return on their cotton crops. Now, from my perspective, there can be a real double win here in the same way as General Wesley Clark talks about. There's billions going from the U.S. taxpayers into corporate welfare. That money, that's a policy choice that the U.S. government has made. There's a real opportunity to shift that money from corporate welfare into public welfare. At the same time, that same choice would help literally millions of some of the poorest people on this planet to make the kind of livelihood that they require from trade, and therefore also achieve the Millennium Development Goals which the United States, along with all the other industrialized countries, have committed to. Just a small point in terms of the Index. We're all allowed to make a little niggling point. I'd just say that I think it's an excellent index and the--to go to technology, which I know a member from the IMF will speak about, but it's very important, I think, that there is a reward here for countries which are really involved in technology transfer--technology is so vital to international competitiveness--to the technology transfer and the investment in research and development. But I would suggest that there has to be some penalty placed on those countries which are pursuing the imposition of intellectual property rules which go beyond the World Trade Organization's rules--and that's particularly the United States at the moment--in developing countries. The kind of implications of that are what we've seen in terms of people's access to cheap genetic medicines, which is going to get worse unless those rules are changed; but also, as Bhagwati has said, there is a real danger that these rules become little more than a royalty collection operation for the rich countries from poor countries. So there's an issue there, I think. Finally, I'd just like to say that on security I think it's really important that the Index has rewarded support of United Nations operations for global security in particular because in these times it's so important that the multilateral system for the maintenance of international peace and security is upheld through the United Nations. Thank you. For transcripts of other speakers’ remarks, visit www.cgdev.org