Apparently R. Zoellick, the US Trade representative is in the country (South Africa) next week. The US is responsible along with its co-perpetrators, the EU, of the worst form of structural violence on the most vulnerable Africans, the subsistence/peasant/ small /commercial farmers. The US continues to pursue policies of disarm and bomb, where they disarm our tariffs by demanding reductions, and then bomb our countries with cheap subsidized imports. While Africa is afflicted with various natural challenges, the structural manner in which our food sovereignty is compromised is unacceptable and defies common sense. Our leaders need to wake up to the fact that a modicum of food security is required and that we cannot just prostitute all our productive resources to the export market. This fact is NOT suitably captured in NEPAD or any of the other benevolent initiatives that the rich North promotes so that their constituencies can feel good about themselves.

Zoellik's visit is not just coincidental, it comes at a time when South Africa is pursuing a regional trade agreement with the US, soon after the collapse of the WTO Cancun Ministerial and at a time when the inequalities between rich countries and poor countries are greatest. South Africa has only recently woken up to the fact that the rich North does not believe in the entitlement of "South Africa" to a fair trading system and have sold out our Ministry of Trade and Industry by not abiding by commitments and promises made during negotiations (mainly that we would not get a raw deal). The Minister took a bold step when moving away from the position of Friend of the Chair of the WTO in Cancun (a pseudonym of bully's side-kick) and sided with the Group of 21 Countries. This is a far cry from the Ministries active involvement as Friend of the Chair in Seattle and Doha and adequate reasons for this change of heart have not been given.

Yet to critical experts it is apparent that despite all the niceties, we Africans continue to get a raw deal. There is only so much that could be done within the WTO before it would have become apparent that the Ministry even lacks nationalism/Pan Africanism in the trade negotiations (some have argued that this has already occurred). Furthermore, civil society, to my knowledge, has not been adequately consulted on the US - South African Customs Union (SACU) Free Trade Area Agreement. Despite this, principles of negotiations have already been agreed to and phase 2 of negotiations are to commence. If the outcome is anything like the EU-South Africa Free Trade Agreement then we can expect further job losses and market take-overs by foreign firms. However, Zoellick is here to kick start the disaster that is the WTO so that what little policy flexibility we have can be removed! Whatever cannot be achieved at the multilateral WTO level will be relegated to the regional and bilateral levels where US and EU might can be brought to bear at the expense of African food sovereignty, development and well overdue industrialization.

Zoellick of course must come with his bag of tricks. He will probably remind us of how grateful we must be for AGOA and its extension. AGOA like many trinkets that were brought to this shore by the Dutch East India Company, crack upon closer inspection. It allows African firms duty free market access to the US provided that no American firm complains about the loss of its market share. South African pear canners have been dealt a nasty blow by having their supposed benefits under AGOA terminated. So the real message of AGOA is we will give you room to develop but that development can be taken away on a whim (or what essentially amounts to a whim). The US with its typical Orwellian doublespeak says that it will not accord benefits under AGOA to those states that do not meet its human rights and democracy requirements. Their concern does not extend to the Ministers that they force, bully and coerce into making agreements which have not been the subject of consultations or discussions with domestic stakeholders, which is an important part of democracy.

One of the key issues that lead to the failure of Cancun was the European Union, who insisted on the inclusion of the "New Issues" / "Singapore Issues" (Investment, Competition, Trade Facilitation and Transparency in Government Procurement). Developing countries secured an agreement that these issues will only be discussed if there was "explicit consensus" from the members of the WTO. Much like the Dispute Settlement Body in it's opportunistic search for the "ordinary meaning" of words (by window shopping in various dictionaries to get the meaning they want), the Europeans tried to fudge the meaning of explicit consensus in the face of clear opposition to the New Issues by developing countries. The Financial Times, after Cancun, reported that the inclusion of the New Issues was to poke France in the eye for its intransigence on agriculture, and had very little to do with the need for regulation on these issues (South proponents of the New Issues take note!). The US on the other hand does not share an interest in the New Issues simply because they believe that they have most of the elements for corporate domination of the south in the General Agreement on Trade in Services. We can however look forward to the inclusion of the New Issues under the Economic Partnership Agreements that the EU is steamrolling through with other African states.

Zoellik needs to be reminded that his antics are well known, and while he may be on a state visit he is not welcome. We are not interested in a "New Round" at the WTO and we no longer want our ministers sworn at by US trade officials, not given notices of meetings or not even chairs to sit on during WTO meetings when they have to attend sessions for over 10 hours. We have had enough of this US arrogance and we should let its minions know.

* Riaz Tayob BA Llb Llm is a researcher at the Southern and East African Trade Information and Negotiations Institute (SEATINI). The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of SEATINI.