The last summer has seen a surge in immigration to mainland Europe form some African countries. While European leaders are attempting to stop the wave, Tope Akinwande points to the hypocrisy of massive farm subsidies received by European farmers and the trade policies that make it impossible for African agriculture sectors to survive.

Like their other fellow members of the human race, Africans have migrated since the dawn of history. They have moved in response to demographic, economic, political and related factors [1]. In recent times, there has been a spotlight on African immigration to European countries. As the legal requirements for entry into Europe become stricter and more cumbersome and as opportunities of a decent livelihood shrinks in sub-Saharan Africa, its people have resorted to desperate means in order to gain access to what is generally considered to be the “Promised Land” for many Africans outside Europe. This has been ever more apparent in west Africa, where young people travel through deserts, stow away in ships, and employ all sorts of means in order to reach Europe.

How did this situation arise? In the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, Africa’s future looked bright. It was the post-independence “self-determination” era laden with all sorts of opportunities; almost all of the agricultural-based African economies could meet the needs of its people. An average African had no cause to risk their life by travelling in a desperate fashion to Europe when their basic needs could be met in their country of origin.

Africans who ventured to Europe for further studies were in a hurry to return to their countries of origin as prestigious and lucrative jobs with all the accompanying benefits awaited them. Afterwards, they only travelled to the western world for business and leisure. The few African students who stayed back in Europe were considered as failures who could not find their feet back home.

However, things have taken a dramatic turn for the worse. Africans and especially west Africans - probably because of the coastal closeness to Europe - are the new “Boat People” fleeing abject poverty occasioned by lack of opportunities in their countries of origin. They are constantly in the international spotlight either being rescued by European coast guards, attended to by tourists or having their bloated bodies occasionally washed to the shores.

In the summer of 2006 – summer is said to be the preferred travel time as the sea is supposedly calmer - it was almost a daily occurrence to see demeaning images of tired and hopelessly-looking African men and women rescued by European coast guards after risking their lives to get to the Spanish Canary Islands. They used make-shift boats to negotiate the treacherous waves of the Mediterranean Sea with the aim of escaping poverty back home [2].

According to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), and the United Nations Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, over 27,000 illegal immigrants have turned up in 2006 on the Spanish Canary Island off the west African coast.

While the rescued sojourners are considered to be “fortunate” to have stepped onto the shores of Europe despite the excruciating difficulties awaiting them, many Africans are not lucky enough to be intercepted mid-sea by coast guards. They perish with their desperate dreams. So far in 2006, the Spanish coast guard has accounted for 500 bodies found in the ocean around the Canaries.

Origin of the problem

Compared to the 1960s and early 1970s, Africa’s growth performance in the 80s and 90s has been very bad. The 1980s have been described as a “lost decade” [3], while the children of that era and the 1990s have been famously tagged the “wasted generation” by the Nigerian Nobel Laureate, Wole Soyinka.

Despite the strong belief held by many Africa analysts that the economic woes of Africa are rooted in its “largely documented history” of colonialism which culminated in a façade called “independence” and the Cold War which institutionalised despotism, kleptocracy, and big-man politics, the Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP) imposed by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), have made it impossible for African countries to meet the basic needs of their people.

Introduced in the 1970s to galvanise the economies of African countries, following the decline in the prices of agricultural products, SAP came with tough conditionalities such as privatisation, wage freezes, privatisation, elimination of price controls and lifting of trade barriers.

Instead of encouraging economic development, SAPs created a new phenomenon of Heavily Indebted Poor Countries who could not meet the basic needs of their people.

In its 22 June 2006 edition, The Economist in its characteristic sanctimonious manner posited that “rich countries have been generous lately, with extra aid and debt relief, giving many struggling economies a breath of air. By the end of last year, 29 countries, 25 of them in Africa, had had their debt burden eased…” The magazine goes on to wonder if “…Africa, often dubbed the hopeless continent, (is) finally taking off?” [4] For once, a magazine that has carelessly dubbed Africa as a “Hopeless Continent” conceded that “Africa itself deserves the credit for the upswing “of its economy in the past year” [5].

Like most of its counterparts in the international media, what “The Economist” failed to acknowledge is that the dividends of the so-called debt relief are easily drowned by one phenomenon - the international trade policies of the “generous” industrial nations it was talking about. The debt relief issue is like giving something out with the left hand and taking it back with the right hand.

In March 2005, the British government, who has been in the forefront of the Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPCI), published a detailed report of the £1.7bn it gave to agricultural companies as subsidies. At the same time, the US -though planning to reduce its subsidies to American farmers by 5 percent – gave about $9bn [6].

How on earth would African farmers compete with their European and American counterparts on the world food market? Would African governments whose national budgets are sometimes smaller than the subsidies western farmers receive be able to subsidise their farmers to “even the scores”? They will have to face incessant unrest at home while the rest of their citizens “hit the road” or set off for European coasts.

Oumar Hamadoun Dicko, Foreign Affairs Minister of Mali, could not have been more precise on the causes of the recent wave of immigration of west Africans: “Immigration is going to continue unless we address fundamental issues like the unequal terms of trade,” he says. “African farmers can’t compete and are out of world markets,” he concludes in a recent interview with United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs [7]. He surely knows what he is talking about since Mali’s cotton farmers have been greatly affected by the subsidies enjoyed by their western counterparts.

According to the Malian Foreign Affairs Ministry, 4 million, or over a third of Mali’s 11.7 million people are currently out of the country [8]. It is noteworthy that the majority of these Malian emigrants are from Kayes, the main cotton-producing area of the country. They have had to leave their cotton farms to try their luck in Europe.

Monies remitted by this large Malian Diaspora have been vital in meeting the needs that the government has been unable to meet. Many Malians in the Diaspora are building schools, dispensaries, and other amenities in their regions. The Malian Ministry of Foreign Affairs concedes that annual Malian Diaspora remittance exceeds 200 million US Dollars, which is more than half of the country’s export earnings.

While a lot of talks have been going on about agricultural subsidies as the main international trade policies that have hampered trade and development in Africa, it is interesting to know that there are many other types of subsidies such as “fishing subsidies” that have not made life easier for developing countries.

Recently, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) accused Japan of paying the highest subsidies to its national fishing industry at $US2-billion dollars. The report also indicated that the 15-member European Union, China, and the United States are leading underwriters [9]. These governments give their farmers and fishing companies subsidies in the form of grants, loans and loan guarantees, equity infusions, tax preferences, and price or income support.

Thiaroye-Sur-Mer is a fishing town a few kilometres from Dakar, the capital of Senegal. A few years ago and up till the end of 2005, one could see hundreds of fishermen - both young and old - selling fish to locals and large-scale buyers from Dakar and elsewhere. Today, Thiaroye-Sur-Mer has almost become a ghost town as almost all the younger fishermen have all taken to the seas; this time not to fish but to try their luck in Spain’s Canary Islands. They sold their means of livelihood (boats, fishing nets, etc) and bought a one-way ticket on a boat to a supposed better future in Europe.

Like many sub-Saharan African countries, Senegal has been going through an excruciating SAP that has completely destroyed its economy. Its main source of income – groundnut - is no longer well-priced on the international market as many substitutes have been derived. Senegal’s fishing industry is losing its momentum as the country has been inundated with subsidised food, including fish from Europe and Asia, making it impossible for local fishermen to sell their wares at a decent rate and meet the basic needs of their families. The only way for these young Senegalese fishermen to survive and meet the needs of their families is by trying their luck in Europe. This has become a way of life in a country where monies remitted by the Senegalese Diaspora sometimes accounts for 90 percent of income in many households.

Which way forward?

With the recent wave of immigration to the Spanish Canary Island, European governments, led by Spain, have been trying to curb the immigration of Africans who are willing to risk their lives to reach Europe at all costs.

The incidents of September and October 2005 where Spanish coast guards opened fire on ill-equipped boats full of African immigrants led to the adoption of the “Rabat Declaration” on 11 July 2006 by 57 European and African countries. The Declaration enjoined the 57 signatory countries to set up an action plan that will get to the core of the problem.

In September 2006, the European Union promised to provide Mali with US$542 million over five years to control the emigration of its citizens. Mali is expected to use the money to start various projects aimed at discouraging young people from emigrating.

International NGOs are also trying to encourage young Africans to stay back in their countries. For example, the Spanish Red Cross has embarked on an awareness campaign in Senegal to demystify the notion of success attached to emigration. They are emphasizing the harsh realities.

African celebrities have also thrown themselves into the fray. One of the most successful African singers, Senegalese Youssou N’Dour is lending his notoriety and voice to the anti-emigration campaign. In collaboration with IOM and other well-known Senegalese musicians, he has recorded a single titled “Emigration” where he enjoined the youth not to abandon their country. One thing missing in this beautiful and groovy record is that Youssou N’Dour forgot to suggest alternatives to Senegalese and African youth.

Can these initiatives work? Since all the aforementioned initiatives, there have been cases of African boat people arriving in Spain and as recent as September 2006 in Malta, thus exasperating the government of the tiny country that has just joined the European Union.

As one route is being blocked, Africans perfect their “travelling techniques”.On 20 November 2006 Europa Press Agency reported how 1,293 west Africans, braving a very harsh winter, arrived in Spain’ s Canary island with many of them using well-built fishing vessels. They also travelled with enough provisions (food, winter clothing, etc. ) to see them through their journey of death. Interestingly, some immigrants devise or go back to the old routes, probably thinking that immigration authorities’ would have shifted focus away from them.

Conclusion

As I had indicated earlier on, there are a lot of initiatives to curb illegal immigration with the latest one being the first Ministerial Conference on Migration and Development between EU and the entire African continent slated for 22 and 23 November 2006. One of the expected outcomes of the Conference was the establishment of a framework for a joint collaboration between Europe and Africa to curb illegal immigration. The framework will consider major causes of immigration such as economic integration and development.

When one considers the impact of the remittances made by African immigrants - both legal and illegal - to their national economies and how it is being sadly flaunted and praised as an alternative to foreign earnings, it is not foolhardy to wonder if African politicians are really sincere and keen on curbing the flow of their citizens to the west. Why should they bother when the emigration of their citizens “relieves” them of the headache of sourcing funds to embark on development projects such as building of schools, hospitals, roads, etc. ? If they genuinely work towards stopping them from emigrating, what alternatives do they have for farmers who cannot sell their produce? Have they got any alternatives for young graduates and school leavers they are churned out in millions into joblessness and despair?

It is noteworthy that while African politicians are silently grateful for the “subsidies” they get from their citizens in the Diaspora, western politicians are not keen on stopping the subsidies they give to their citizens as their national interest and particularly political survival in their respective countries depends on keeping their farmers and citizens happy.

As long as this political deadlock is not broken, the west and Europe in particular, should be prepared to receive more and more people.

• Tope Akinwande is a Desk Officer at the West Africa Department of TEARFUND, a leading UK relief and development NGO working in partnership with Christian agencies and churches in over 70 countries to tackle the causes and effects of poverty. His views do not necessarily reflect those of TEARFUND.

• Please send comments to or comment at www.pambazuka.org

References:

(1) ADEPOJU, Aderanti (2005): “Creating a Borderless West Africa: Constraints and Prospects for Intra-Regional Migration”. UNESCO, Paris, p12

(2) Ibis
(3) OSHIKOYA, Temitope & MLAMBO, Kupukile (1999): in “The African Economy: Policy, Institutions and the Future”. (Ed) Steve Kayizzi-Muyerwa. Routledge, London and New York, p33
(4) The Economist (22 June 2006): “Africa’s Economy: A glimmer of Light at Last?” London, p24
(5) Ibis
(6) The Guardian (23 March 2005): Editorial. London, p8
(7) See www.irinnews.org for full interview
(8) Ibis
(9) See www.wwf.org for full report

Trade justice or injustice has been on the international agenda like never before. Academics and activists are campaigning for just trade and even rich countries are giving the impression that they're willing to address injustices in the global system. Tope Akinwande looks at what the reality is for West African cotton farmers.

“While 70% of the population of Africa work in agriculture, only a few percent do so in rich countries. Yet rich countries support their agriculture to the tune of a staggering $279 billion a year. That's over ten times current aid to Africa. That's a sum comparable to the income of the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. Market barriers keep out developing countries that have a natural advantage in producing agricultural goods. Average tariff between rich countries are only 3%, but can rise to over 200% in the US for fruits and nuts, or to 300% in the EU for meat..." - Hilary Benn, UK Secretary of State for International Development, in “How Can we get trade justice", a speech delivered at the London School of Economics, 29 June 2005.

During the 2005 "Global Week for Action" organised to campaign against trade injustice, I saw a sculpture by Jens Galschiot, a controversial Danish Sculptor. Titled the "Survival of the Fattest", the bronze sculpture depicted a very skinny man - with protruding rib cages - carrying fat and well-fed Justitia, the western goddess of Justice, on his bent back. Justitia had a scale in her right hand and her long pole in her left hand on which it was inscribed: "I'm sitting on the back of a man - He is sinking under the burden - I would do anything to help him - Except stepping down from his back.”

Some people might genuinely wonder how there could be injustice in trade between two consenting people or sovereign countries who have goods to sell or exchange with one another. Since trade is not meant to be a "donor-recipient" relationship but one in which a country has something to sell to another to meet the needs of its populace, one could wonder why there would be injustice or why a country could not move onto another buyer if they do not get a good deal somewhere. If trade, - as it has been simply defined by the Cambridge International Dictionary - is “the activity of buying and selling, or exchanging, goods and/or services between people or countries", why should there be injustice?

One of the most contentious issues in international politics and trade in recent times has been the issue of trade (in) justice. Like never before, there have been systematic mobilisations for trade justice towards countries, particularly Africa. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs), world leaders, academics and activists around the world are leading the campaign to ensure fair trade. In the UK, the Justice Movement, an umbrella campaign organisation of over 70 NGOs are campaigning and lobbying the UK government in various forms to ensure trade justice - not free trade - with compassionate rules to benefit poor people and the environment. [1]

In the face of these campaigns, richer countries have also given the impression of a willingness to redress the seeming "trade injustice" through different negotiations known as "Rounds" and named after the places where they have been initiated. Hence there have been Tokyo, Uruguay and Doha Rounds. Apart from these “Rounds”, rich countries are apparently doing everything humanly possible (international development aid, SAP turned PRSP, MDGs, AGOA…) to eradicate (the less pretentious ones use the word “alleviate”) poverty in poor countries like Mali and Burkina Faso.

However, the reality is something else. The reality of international trade - like any other form of activities with vested interests to protect - is that there have been some trading practices that are deemed unfair. The most prominent of these “sharp practices” is the provision of subsidies to western farmers by their governments. These subsidies encourage farmers to produce irrespective of the situation of the market and the "beauty" of it all is that they are sure of a minimal income.

There are different types of agricultural subsidies. While some are directly linked to the level of production others such as subsidies for water irrigation are indirectly linked. There are also subsidies such as export subsides which are used to promote exports of agricultural products. The surplus production is put on the world market which could force a decrease in price as there is high availability of a particular commodity. This process of flooding the market with excess production and inducing a price decrease is what has been happening for years in the international agricultural trade sector. Developed countries led by the European Union (EU) and US highly subsidise their agriculture allowing their farmers and related industries to sell their products at a lower rate than the cost of production. [3]

In 2001/02, the US, Chinese, Spanish and Greek governments subsidised their cotton producers to over $6 billion dollars. US farmers alone are said to receive almost $4 billion in subsidies. US and European subsidies to domestic producers continue to impose enormous costs on poor countries. The welfare costs of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) have been well over the development aid given to all sub-Saharan Africa.

In "Cultivating Poverty: The Impact of US Cotton Subsidies in Africa", Oxfam argues that the rock-bottom cotton price can be blamed directly on enormous subsidies paid to US cotton farmers as they are first among equals in the harvesting of subsidies. These subsidies are destroying livelihoods in Africa and other developing countries with rural communities being the worst-hit. [4]

Killing Burkina Faso and Mali Softly

The cost of cotton production in west and central Africa is very low compared to other cotton-producing countries. African cotton farmers could compete with their counterparts from developed countries if they were not enjoying the massive subsidies of their governments. This has been succinctly expressed by a West African minister who said that his country was “happy to compete with US farmers but not with the US Treasury". [5] Sahel countries like Burkina Faso and Mali have a comparative "advantage" [6] in the production of cotton and the rapid increase in their productivity has shown that they could make considerable developmental gains over time.

In the 1990s, the World Bank encouraged Mali to cultivate cotton since that was its comparative advantage. The West African country threw all its energy and meagre resources into cotton production, rapidly becoming the second largest cotton producer in Africa ahead of Egypt. Despite this Malian "success story", it could not sell its production at good rates as American producers with lower comparative advantage enjoyed a record harvest.

The only plausible reason for this bumper harvest of cotton by American farmers was the subsidies they received. It is said that 25,000 American cotton producers received $USD13.9 billion between 1999 and 2005 which represents a subsidy rate of 89.5%. [7] Annually, this represents about $USD 3.2 billion of subsidies for American cotton producers, plus $USD1.6 billion in export aid. [8]

These subsidies had a disastrous effect on the Malian economy as its cotton farmers could not compete with their American counterparts. Indeed Mali lost the equivalent of 1.7% of GDP and 8% of export earnings. These losses are bigger than the $USD 37.7 million Mali received from USAID in 2001. It is on record that the Malian finance minister at the time made this disturbing statement: “The money that those countries put into agricultural subsidies is five times what they give as development assistance. And we've always said to rich countries, 'you are hypocrites'. You tell us to play the rules of open market at the same time you subsidise your farmers and kill our farmers.” [9]

Burkina Faso is one of the poorest countries in the world. Though it has significant reserves of gold, its almost non-existing industrial base has left its mining in the hands of dubious businessmen. Cotton is the mainstay for 90% of Burkinabes.

According to a study carried out by WHO in Burkina Faso, the expansion of cotton farming painted a positive future for development in the country. However, continuous subvention of western farmers has made it impossible for Burkinabe farmers to compete in the international market. Like many countries in the Sahel, Burkina Faso cannot prepare adequately for the food crises it experiences. It is perpetually locked in a vicious cycle of international aid.

This dire situation made President Blaise Compaore of Burkina Faso, a rather shrewd talker and “great friend of the West” to cry out recently in frustration that: “Several central and west African countries are victims of injustice by the US and EU. These countries subsidise their agricultural producers, ignoring the rules of WTO. Such practices are undermining the fragile national economies of countries that depend on cotton.” [10]

This situation is not peculiar to these two countries. It is the same for many African countries whose economies are mainly agricultural-based.

When signing the US Farm Bill in May 2002, President George Bush made a very revealing statement about his choices concerning international agricultural trade: “I told the people, I said if you give me a chance to be President, we are not going to treat our agricultural industry as a secondary citizen when it comes to opening markets. And I mean that...The farm bill is important legislation...It will promote farmer independence, and preserve the farm way of life. It helps America's farmers and therefore it helps America.” [11]

How else would one want world leaders to show where their interest lies on the issue of trade (in) justice? This agricultural bill that sharply increased subsidies and protections for US producers, was passed while the “international community” was pushing for a Doha Round of trade talks that would deal with agriculture.

Since the "international community" led by the US is aware of the predicament of African countries such as Burkina Faso and Mali, why do they continue to subsidise their domestic farmers? Why can't the US stop subsidising its farmers and allow poor countries like Mali to earn decent income and stop “pan-handling” year-in-year-out for development aid? Why are the rich countries advocating free trade and open markets in developing countries while European and US subsidies to their farmers are destroying markets for vulnerable farmers in sub-Saharan Africa?

The answer easily lies in the "national interest" of western countries. Much as the notion of 'national interest' is a shifting one, it reveals the true behaviour of powerful world leaders. It also guards us against two popular misconceptions about the determination of a state's foreign policy - the motives of leaders and ideological preferences.

While political leaders will cast their policies in ideological terms (free trade, democracy, human rights, justice, etc.) they are inevitably confronted by what is desirable and what is possible. There is no room for moral or ethical concerns, prejudice, political philosophy or individual preference in the determination of foreign policy because actions are constrained by the interest of the state and its power to enforce it. The 'national interest' which ought to be the sole pursuit of political leadership, is always defined in terms of strategic and economic capability.

Conclusion

In international politics, no government worth its salt will toy with its national interest, whatever it happens to be at any given time. It is “sacrosanct” to the survival of the nation.

In light of this basic reality, The EU and US will continue to protect their farmers as long as it is politically expedient. This is not an issue of justice or injustice. It is simply the survival of their states (and the political ambitions of its leaders) that require protecting their 'national interests' of which subsidies to domestic farmers is part of. If that cannot be achieved, then these leaders could be considered incompetent or forced to leave.

The onus is for governments at the receiving ends of these “sharp” trade practices to raise their games and find a strong negotiation platform. It is not going to be easy as we have seen with Brazil and the WTO saga. It is either these countries and those who are campaigning along with them for fair trade to find a way of putting fat Justitia down for a serious negotiation or carry her on their bent backs for a long time to come. Nothing can be more certain that Justitia will not want to get off the back of the skinny man as long as it is possible. Who would except where compassion for others surpasses passion for self?

* Tope Akinwande is a Desk Officer at the West Africa Department of TEARFUND, a leading UK relief and development NGO working in partnership with Christian agencies and churches in over 70 countries to tackle the causes and effects of poverty.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

References

1 See,

3. Nigel Grimwade, “International Trade Policy - A Contemporary Analysis”, Routledge, London, 1996

4 OXFAM, “Cultivating Poverty: The Impact of US Cotton Subsidies in Africa”. See http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/trade/downloads/bp30-cotton.pdf

5. See (2)

6. Comparative advantage is what a country can produce with less cost at less time and effort above other countries.

7. See http://www.lwf-humanrights.org/issues.php

8. Ibid

9. See 4

10. Ibid

11. See, http//www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020806-4.html-45