tomorrow's world - BY Mwalimu Julius K. Nyerere

Mr. Chairman; Your Excellencies; Ladies and Gentlemen.

We live in a divided world. Until now the division which has received most attention has been the East-West division. This division is basically a European division, and the two so-called World Wars were basically European wars; but Europe is such an important region of the world that European wars spread throughout the globe and profoundly affect all countries. Therefore, although the East West division is so European that until very recently it could be symbolised by a wall in Berlin, it is rightly regarded as a world division. And because of Europe's power and history it is a very dangerous division. For this reason alone I would welcome the current signs that this East West division and confrontation is coming to an end.

But I want to welcome the likely end to the East West division in particular because it could bring into better focus a more fundamental and more truly world division. That is the economic division between North and South, and the near monopoly of international economic, political, and military power possessed by the North.

The Economic North is rich, industrialised and powerful. It is organised -in the Group of Seven, in O.E.C.D, in the European Community and so on. Its members have the veto in the United Nations Security Council; only China from the South does so, and that is a historical accident arising from the second world war. Countries of the North control the I.M.F. , the World Bank, and other powerful international institutions where the vote is determined by wealth .
The countries of the South, on the other hand, all have in common underdevelopment, powerlessness to influence the world economy, and -with few exceptions -poverty.

While largely dependent on commodity prices, the countries of the South cannot determine them or - individually even greatly influence them; these prices are set in the North. With economies which are highly import dependent for both capital goods and basic inputs, they cannot determine the prices of those goods either; these too are set in the North. The prices of both what they sell and what they buy are set in the North.
While needing to obtain capital for development, the South is exporting capital because of interest rates and international exchange rates set in the North. And even in this age when military power has largely been replaced by economic power as a means of domination, the countries of the South are subject to invasion, Northern financed and
controlled subversion and rebellion, and constant threats to their sovereign integrity. I only have to mention Vietnam, Grenada, Libya, Nicaragua, Angola, Cuba, The Comoros and Panama to illustrate that point. Can anyone imagine any nation of the South invading Luxemburg, or bombing the White House to kill its occupant, or planning the assassination of a European President, or financing the equivalent of the Contras?

But this is a division of Power. And as the English writer put it :

Whatever happens we have got
the Maxim Gun, and they have not .

This dominance in all fields is now maintained and protected through the workings of the international economic structures and practices; these evolved or were designed in the North to meet its own interests and needs, and the North therefore fiercely protects them. But these structures and practices also help to perpetuate the underdevelopment of the South and its offshoots -Poverty, Ignorance, Malnutrition and Disease.

Now, ten years before we enter the 21st century, for hundreds of millions of individuals in the South hunger is a living reality, and basic education and health care are beyond reach. While the developed North talks in terms of the new 'post-industrial era', in the underdeveloped South even the industrial era has, for the most part, hardly
begun. For in the South -and especially in Africa -the basic communications and social structure, which is the foundation of high productivity as well as scientific advance, is sparce or completely lacking, and capital needed to overcome these handicaps is missing.

A nation so divided within itself is recognised as being highly unstable. For it is unjust, and in the end
the conflict between the haves and have--nots means that it. can be maintained only by force. In the world of today also, the injustice of the North-South division means instability which can in the long run be maintained only by force.

Need for Structural Change .

I am suggesting that the inequalities, the injustices, and the sheer long term unviability of the present international economic order, require that big changes are made. Further, it seems to me that these changes are urgent, and needed for the sake of all nations and all peoples, North and South, currently prosperous or currently poor. Objectively, all have the same interest in securing changes which will move the world towards a more equitable and just framework within which countries and peoples inter-relate economically, politically, and socially.

No country, or group of countries can alone introduce the necessary changes; it can only be done through and with North-South agreement. Despite its current attempts to bring in a new international economic order of its own liking through the Uruguay Round negotiations, the North alone cannot bring order to the world. For genuine order is a product of justice; no system imposed for the benefit of a few can be either viable or stable in the long term.

Yet because the first and greatest victims of the iniquitous present disorder are the developing countries, they should be the most conscious of the need for fundamental change. And because to them it is the more urgent, they have a special responsibility to work for change despite their apparent powerlessness.

And change leading towards an end to poverty is now possible. The world has the resources and the knowledge to eliminate malnutrition and hunger, preventable disease, ignorance, and hopelessness. There is no excuse for the indignity of absolute poverty existing in 'tomorrow's world' .

The issue, in any case, is not whether to change. but whether mankind endeavours to seize control of the
process and determine the direction in which change takes us. From moment to moment the world is being changed
through advances in Science and Technology, and through organisation backed by power. This process is inexorable , unstoppable, and now extremely rapid.

At present the process of change is taking place largely through what are called 'the blind forces of the market' .The continuation of this mode of change is the prevailing orthodoxy in the North, and is being deliberately -and to a considerable extent successfully -spread to the South. Hindrances to it raised by national governments or humanitarian agencies are generally condemned. Indeed, economic and political - and sometimes even military - power is wielded against small nations which do seek to control or channel the impact of inevitable change in the interests of their own people.

The alternative is still there. It is for the nations and peoples of the world to work together to try to find or devise some mechanisms -however imperfect -through which the needs of people take priority over the techniques of making money by the exploitation of knowledge or exhaustible resources.

Science and Technology

Thus, for example: discoveries and developments in science and technology could allow some basic problems
facing the world's growing population to be tackled. They could -now or in the near future -allow us to harness the sun and the wind and the tides of the oceans to replace the energy now obtained through cutting trees, burning coal or oil, or producing nuclear wastes which will pollute the earth for centuries to come. Science and technology could be used to develop affordable scientific techniques so that the Third World's women are relieved of some of their burdens, while at the same time increasing their productivity and the quality of their lives. But the market is not likely to promote such research; for it is not quickly or directly profitable.

Reliance on market forces means that developments in science and technology are being concentrated in areas which increase the wealth and power advantage of the dominant North over the poor South. And the more research and investment the North does, the more it can afford to do; its initial advantage is compounded for its benefit in `the world of tomorrow'.

Until recently two traditions have slightly handicapped this head-start. First, it was customary for scientific advances to be open to access and use by all other scientists. Secondly, governments were able to use local instruments of control over national investment and thus influence the direction of scientific development within their own countries,
Both these traditions, however, are under attack. Scientific knowledge is being increasingly privatised in the North, and drawn out of the public domain; this gives immense advantage to those 'first in the field' -i.e., the North. Even seeds collected without charge from the South are subjected to research and then patented -and sold to the South.
And through the demands being made under the TRIPs and TRIMS and Services sections of the Uruguay Round, the North is seeking to destroy the already limited power of the developing countries to promote their own development of Science and Technology, or to influence its direction. Further, as these demands are resisted by South negotiators working together, the USA. puts bilateral pressure on the capitals, making acceptance of their demands about intellectual property rights a condition of other economic relations. Thailand as well as Brazil, India, and South Korea are among the countries which have experienced such direct pressures up to now. By such actions the North is attempting to impose on the South - not to negotiate - a `world of tomorrow'.

Capital Transfer versus Development

The main need of the South is development -the fight against poverty and dependency. For all aspects of such activity, capital is required -for Science and Technology, for environmentally sound growth measures, for education, communications, and for productive investments. And poor countries, by definition, are short of capital; to supplement their own growth and development efforts it is usual for them to import capital in one way or another. They were doing so during the 1960s and 1970s.

Yet during the 1980s, this pattern has changed; now it is the poor South which transfers massive amounts of capital to the rich North. This has happened through various mechanisms. Thus, for example, the adverse movements in terms of trade between primary commodities and manufactured goods has meant immense loss to the majority of countries in the South, which rely heavily on the export of primary commodities for their export earnings. One estimate gives a loss for Sub-Saharan Africa of 42 billion US. Dollars between 1980 and 1987! This is money lost by the poorest countries of the world.

Not concealed through the workings of `market determined prices' are transfers during the 1980s from South to North through debt-servicing. Including both long term and short term debt, World Bank figures show a net transfer of 164- billion US Dollars in the five years 1984--1988. The amount of this transfer in anyone year is not determined solely by the amount which the countries of the South have borrowed in the past. For as Northern countries try to fight their domestic inflation by raising Interest Rates, they increase the debt servicing obligations of the indebted countries. For everyone percentage increase in Interest Rates, the debt service obligations of the 17 most indebted countries goes up by 5 billion U.S. Dollars.

And thirdly, instability among the exchange rates of Northern currencies which are used as international media of exchange has caused great losses to the developing countries, with the importance of this factor varying according to their trading and debt patterns. Visiting Indonesia in November 1989, I was told that the country had. in the previous twelve months, made a net loss of one and a half billion U.S. dollars as a result of international exchange rate instabilities.

All these transfers from South to North are carried out through the workings of systems and institutions. Questions of morality are consequently not applicable for systems and institutions are impersonal and cannot commit any sin. Completely honest people can therefore live with, and even participate in, these massive robberies by the rich
from the poor without as much as a suspicion that they are doing anything wrong, and indeed while being upset and concerned about the persistence of poverty and injustice in the world.

Yet the immorality is there, in the injustices and the thefts of value from the poor. A bearable and sustainable world of tomorrow demands an end to this sin by changing the systems and institutions which act as the instruments of robbery.

International Structures and Trends

The Bretton Woods institutions and GATT are prominent among the international instruments used in
support of these iniquitous capital transfers from poor to rich, or to place further handicaps on the efforts of the developing countries to overcome their poverty.

Thus, for example, the Bretton Woods Institutions, intended according to their initially declared purposes to promote stability and growing prosperity in the world, are themselves now net recipients of capital transfers from the South. Further, -from the viewpoint of the South -they appear to have become effective Northern instruments of control over developing countries, as dominant voting power is used for political and ideological purposes.

GATT has a different kind of institutional structure, but in practice it too is used to serve the rich and developed. Its declared purpose is to promote `free trade' and `liberalisation', in accordance with the economic theory of comparative advantage. I do not challenge that theory --applied among equals. But if I am put in a Boxing Ring with a Mohammed Ali, and both of us are told that we must play according to the rules of the game, the result will be murder, not a boxing match.

This reality has been grudgingly acknowledged by GATT since the introduction of Part IV in 1965-66. Yet through the GATT, as well as the I.M.F. and bilaterally, the North continues to- preach free trade and liberalisation as the answer to all economic problems of the Third World. Their adoption is always part of I.M.F. Structural Adjustment Agreements. Meanwhile, in Textiles and other areas where the countries of the South might conceivably compete on equal terms with the North, the North insists on the operation of the Multi-Fibre Agreement, or enforces so-called 'Voluntary Agreements'. And where the South obviously cannot compete -as in Services -the North seeks to insist on the application of the disciplines of the GATT.

There do exist a large number of other organisations involving representatives from both North and South (including many outside the U.N. system). In particular, there are many specialised agencies and Regional organisations within the U.N. System which really do support development and work to improve the conditions of the poor; the recent ECA paper on an African Alternative Framework is just one of many such examples. These too are influencing the shape of the future. In general, however, such international institutions are among those which have no direct power or major influence on the workings of the world order, and to which the more powerful among the developed countries give low priority in representation, in resources, and in political support.

But whatever the organisations or institutions, the countries of the North are always well organised in North-South discussions; they consult, coordinate, and to a large extent work in unity when carrying on any international negotiations which include the countries of the South. Disputes among themselves are nearly always settled beforehand.

Unfortunately, the countries of the South are much slower in acting upon the imperatives of solidarity. This is not strange. There are many more of them; they have less well trained and experienced negotiators; and they are not serviced by a common efficient technical service; as a result the basic interests they have in common often get overlaid by the pressures of their separate different but urgent needs. Even if they can overcome these obstacles, moves towards unity -or even united action -in the South can carry a very high price. To give just one example: countries which are heavily indebted -and desperate for foreign exchange to keep their economies moving -come under immense financial pressure if they seek to work with other debtor countries to secure a more just basis for dealing with the common debt problem.

The World of Tomorrow: The Outlook for the South

What then of tomorrow?
Quite clearly the South will be living in a quite different political and technological environment by the
year 2000- and beyond. We have reason to hope that the East West conflict will not preoccupy the minds of leaders and ordinary people in the North; it may not -and certainly should not -use such a large proportion of the world's resources for armaments. But the transfer of attention or a sizeable proportion of those resources to the needs of development in the South is not automatic. on the contrary, at least in the near future it appears likely that any exportable capital from the North-West will be concentrated on what are regarded as the investment opportunities in the North East. It may even happen that the present flows from North to South will be further reduced, while those from South to North are maintained or continue to grow.

Further, the European Community will by 1992 have become a free trade area -a huge economic block even more powerful than at present. The American/Canadian Agreement may also have increased the combined economic power of that area. And Japan appears likely to have increased its already awesome productive competitiveness and trade
surplus. If Comecon survives the current turmoil, that area too may become a more efficient and powerful economic unit. With such developments in the North. the relative power of the South will be still further reduced unless its countries achieve greater economic unity among themselves.

In addition to such political changes. scientific and technological developments in the North will have strengthened the present trend towards a structural reduction in the demand for the South's primary commodity exports. Also, the much greater capacity of the developed countries to invest in science and technology is likely to lead to developments in bio-technology and genetic engineering which will increase their capacity in the fields of agriculture. Eventually the high subsidies which Northern countries at present give to their farmers may prove to be an unnecessary aspect of keeping these farmers in business; the demand of the South that free market competition be extended to agricultural products might then be acceded to! Why keep out cheap crops from the South by expensive subsidies when you can keep them out by an unassailable advantage built on your exclusive control of patented agricultural seeds and procedures?

Thus, all forecasts based on an analysis of recent experience and current trends make it clear that the outlook for the South is very unpromising if the present structures. practices. and policies relating to the world economy continue unchanged. For Africa in particular -as a whole the least developed part of the South -the most optimistic expert forecasts suggest only variations around economic stagnation. forecasts for Latin America are not much more encouraging, although some parts of Asia are expected to continue economic growth; a few countries have already reached the point when -it- they can evade the traps being set in the Uruguay Round -they may be able to move forward in a self-sustaining manner .

The Way Forward to Greater Justice

If this depressing and life-threatening outlook is to be converted into development and hope, the automatic inequity and injustice of the existing international arrangements has to be changed into a system which serves the requirements of equity and justice. Some system of jointly worked out laws, conventions, -call them what you will -must replace the current international law of the Jungle in which the weakest goes inevitably to the wall.

There has to be a serious revival of internationalism, where the equal worth of every individual human being is recognised as well as the equal sovereign rights of large and small, rich and poor nations.

There has to be a willingness of the North to sit down with the countries of the South and discuss the problems of development without threats or patronage.

There has to be a reform of international economic structures so that they can, and do, address the real problems of humanity --that is, underdevelopment, poverty, and threats to the environment .

There has to be a recognition that international cooperation does not mean uniformity -of culture, of religion, of ideology, or of political structures.

International discussions on particular problems - be they debt or the environment or the drug menace -have to be conducted within the framework of a world commitment to abolish absolute poverty.

Such changes of approach and policy among the decision makers in the North will not be achieved easily or within the next year or two. But until such changes are made, the basic problems of the South will not be tackled; all that will happen is the periodic and temporary alleviation of heart-rending tragedies. Underdevelopment will continue. The famine victim will again be kept alive for an existence of malnutrition and insecurity until the next famine.

Yet all of the many current North-South discussions in different fora take place within the framework of maintaining and sustaining the current economic imbalance and preventing it from leading to a complete breakdown.

There are no North South discussions about how to create a more just International Economic Order; nor are there discussions about dealing with the world's debt problems, the narcotics problem, or even the environment, on a basis which gives priority to meeting human needs rather than human greeds. Demands for any such meetings are rejected by the powerful countries of the North.

Mr. Chairman: if. the countries of the South were completely powerless and helpless, the outlook for the world of tomorrow would be bleak indeed. But I do not believe they are helpless. The South cannot change the direction
in which the world is moving without the cooperation of the North. But its countries can, if they have courage and determination, do something to strengthen themselves economically and thus to make the decision makers of the North more willing to have a constructive dialogue.

The countries of the South must work to overcome their internal management inefficiencies and inequities. This is incredibly difficult in circumstances of great poverty and stagnant or declining resources, but some improvement can certainly be made. Few deny that heroic attempts are under way in most South countries.

But this will not be enough, Simultaneously -and indeed as part of that process -the countries of the South can, and I believe must, deliberately organise themselves so as to build national self-reliance and collective self-reliance, They have to maximise the use of their own resources for their own development and the benefit of their own people. And they must act on the basis of solidarity in all international negotiations.

In saying this I am not -nor shall be -calling for the South to refuse to work with the North when it is in the common interest. I am not making an absurd call for xenophobic self-sufficiency. I am simply saying that the South can, and must, overcome its widespread sense of hopelessness and reduce its current dependence upon the North --particularly the North West. Through dependence upon their own people, and organised cooperation among their own peoples, the countries of- the South can develop along lines appropriate to their own cultures and histories and circumstances.

Developing on the basis of national and collective self-reliance will not be easy. The countries of the South may have to take actions, as Governments and Peoples, which annoy or anger powerful nations in the world. And they
will have to overcome immense obstacles which stand in the way of South South cooperation -things such as the traditional trading and cooperation patterns, existing transport and communications links, and their ignorance of one another. Nor will they be helped by the existence within the South of elites which benefit from the present structures just as much as do the countries of the North!

But the alternative to deliberate, concerted, and continued efforts by the countries of the South is disaster for the South. I believe it is therefore, in the long run, also disaster for the world as. a whole. For human survival on the planet is incompatible with reckless exploitation of the world's resources, regardless of whether this happens as a result of poverty or as a method of maintaining and expanding existing lifestyles of affluence. Equally important: peace and security on a single and closely integrated planet is incompatible with continuous and institutionalised injustice .

Finally Mr. Chairman, let me say this. In the North there are millions of people who are sympathetic to the struggles of the poor in the South. Dedicated and often voluntary service is given to the cause of development; famine relief is donated generously by millions of ordinary people. There are people and organisations in the North who campaign for a new international economic order, more just and equitable than the disorder under which we all at present suffer. These things I know and highly appreciate. I realise also that individuals and Non-Governmental Organisations in the North -and even some members of Governments in the North -often feel as helpless as we in the South in relation to the great forces which now use and benefit from the present international structures.

But I was asked to talk about the world of tomorrow, as I see it evolving. And that is, unfortunately, a question of power relations today and into the immediate future. I hope those power relations will change; I see an urgent need to make them change. And I believe they can be changed. Even powerful systems such as that under which we now suffer are made by human beings and can be changed by human beings. We all have to intensify our efforts, not allow ourselves to be discouraged by the immensity and complexity of the task.

The responsibility for making the world of tomorrow a better place for the countries of the South lies in the South, and with the peoples in the South. But the South is part of this small planet. Science and Technology -and the activities of the Transnationals -are globalizing world relationships. The peoples of both North and South therefore have a common duty to shape a world system which enables future generations of mankind to live together in harmony in a just and less divided world.