US/Africa: Trade Wars, 1/2, 06/10/03

US/Africa: Trade Wars, 1/2, 06/10/03

AFRICA ACTION Africa Policy E-Journal June 10, 2003 (030610)

Zimbabwe: Statements on Crisis (Reposted from sources cited below)

This posting contains an open letter to President Robert Mugabe from progressive African American leaders released by Africa Action and TransAfrica Forum on June 3, and a pastoral appeal from the All Africa Conference of Churches released on June 6. Another E- journal posting sent out today contains a press release and brief excerpts from the most recent Human Rights Watch report on the escalating crisis and deteriorating human rights situation in Zimbabwe.

On June 6, Bill Fletcher, Jr., President of TransAfrica Forum, issued another statement "Why We Spoke Out on Zimbabwe," available at: why_we_spoke_zim060603.shtml [type URL on one line]

For a statement earlier this year from civil society groups in Zimbabwe, see

For a 2002 statement on Zimbabwe from Africa Action, see interview with mayor of Harare, June 4, 2003 "Africa Leaders Must 'Rescue' Zimbabwe"

For current news see and

+++++++++++++++++end summary/introduction+++++++++++++++++++++++

Open Letter to Robert Mugabe

Press Release


Contact: Salih Booker (202) 546-7961 at Africa Action Bill Fletcher, Jr. (202) 223-1960 at TransAfrica Forum

African American Letter to Robert Mugabe Condemns Political Repression in Zimbabwe

Black Trade Union Officials, Africa Advocacy Groups and Church organizations call for African diplomatic intervention and an unconditional dialogue among Zimbabweans to create a transition to democratic rights for all.

Tuesday, June 3, 2003 (Washington, DC) - Progressive leaders among leading African American organizations, trade unions, church and advocacy groups today released an open letter to Zimbabwean President, Robert Mugabe, to oppose the political repression underway in that country.

Highlighting long historical ties to the independence movements of Zimbabwe, the signators described the current crackdown on political opposition as, "in complete contradiction of the values and principles that were both the foundation of your liberation struggle and of our solidarity with that struggle."

The letter to Mugabe follows a process over the past several months where progressive African Americans have held a series of meetings with representatives of the Zimbabwean government and of Zimbabwean civil society both here in the U.S. and in Zimbabwe. The group concluded that it is time that African American progressives make a public statement on the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe that so negatively affects the people of that proud country with whom the signatories have stood in solidarity for many decades.

Africa Action executive director, Salih Booker, said today that "We have a responsibility to our brothers and sisters in Zimbabwe to state clearly where we stand. And we stand for human rights and against the repression of the Mugabe regime directed against Zimbabwe's African majority."

The full text of the letter is below.

- - - -

Open Letter to Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe

3 June, 2003

Dear President Mugabe,

We are writing today to implore you to seek a peaceful and just solution to your country's escalating national crisis. Those signed below are Americans of Africa descent - many of them representing major organizations of civil society in the United States - who have worked for decades to support the liberation movements of Africa and the governments that followed independence which promoted and protected the interests of all of their nation's people. We form part of an honorable tradition of progressive solidarity with the struggles for decolonization, and against apartheid and imperialism in Africa.

We have strong historical ties to the liberation movements in Zimbabwe, which included material and political support, as well as opposition to U.S. government policies that supported white minority rule. In independent Zimbabwe we have sought to maintain progressive ties with the political party and government that arose from the freedom struggle. At the same time our progressive ties have grown with institutions of civil society, especially the labor movement, women's organizations, faith communities, human rights organizations, students, the independent media and progressive intellectuals. In Zimbabwe today, all of our relations and our deep empathy and understanding of events there require that we stand in solidarity with those feeling the pain and suffering caused by the abuse of their rights, violence and intolerance, economic deprivation and hunger, and landlessness and discrimination.

We do not need to recount here the details of the increasing intolerant, repressive and violent policies of your government over the past 3 years, nor the devastating consequences of those policies. The use of repressive legislation does not, in our respectful view, render such actions justifiable or moral, because of their presumed "legality". We represent a long tradition of opposition to unjust laws. We have previously expressed to your representative in Washington, DC, our humanitarian concerns about the impact of the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Zimbabwe as well as that of the famine triggered by the recent southern African drought and exacerbated by the economic policies and food distribution practices of your government. We have shared our concerns that land redistribution in Zimbabwe be used to fight the poverty of the majority and not to promote the narrow interests of another minority. But most of all, we have communicated clearly that we view the political repression underway in Zimbabwe as intolerable and in complete contradiction of the values and principles that were both the foundation of your liberation struggle and of our solidarity with that struggle.

Today, Mr. President we call upon yourself and those among the ruling party who truly value democracy, and wish to protect the future of all of Zimbabwe's citizens to take extraordinary steps to end your country's political crisis and place it upon a path toward peace. We ask that you initiate an unconditional dialogue with the political opposition in Zimbabwe and representatives of civil society aimed at ending this impasse. We call upon you to seek the diplomatic intervention of appropriately concerned African states and institutions, particularly South Africa and Nigeria, and SADC and the African Union, to assist in the mediation of Zimbabwe's civil conflict.

Mr. President, the non-violent civil disobedience that is growing in your country - such as that which took place on Mother's day in Bulawayo - is increasingly met with police brutality and excessive force. Such trends in the abuse of human rights are not only unacceptable, they are threats to your country's stability and they are undermining the economic and political development your people desire and deserve. We believe that a peaceful solution is possible for Zimbabwe if you find a way to work with others in and outside of your government to create an effective process for a transition to a more broadly supported government upholding the democratic rights of all.

Sincerely yours in struggle,

William Lucy, President, Coalition of Black Trade Unionists Willie Baker, Executive Vice President, Coalition of Black Trade Unionists Salih Booker, Executive Director, Africa Action Bill Fletcher, Jr., President, TransAfrica Forum Horace G. Dawson Jr., Director Ralph J. Bunche International Affairs Center, Howard University Patricia Ann Ford, Executive Vice President, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Julianne Malveaux, TransAfrica Forum Board Member Rev Justus Y. Reeves, Executive Director Missions Ministry, Progressive National Baptist Convention Coordinating Committee, Black Radical Congress

- END-


All Africa Conference of Churches

June 6, 2003

[distributed by For additional information please contact Melaku Kifle of the All Africa Conference of Churches (

Messages of solidarity may be sent to AACC: "Melaku Kifle"< Catholic Bishops: "Archbishop Pius Ncube" <>, Zimbabwe Council of Churches:"Denson Mafinyane" <> the Evangelical Fellowhip c/o ZCC.]

To: AACC Member Churches


Dear friends,

The All Africa Conference of Churches has prayerfully been monitoring the political, social and economic developments in Zimbabwe as it often does with other African countries in crisis situations. It is with heartfelt concerns for the people and churches in Zimbabwe that we are sending this appeal to you.

Zimbabweans are experiencing a rapidly crashing economy marked by hyper inflation at 270% which is likely to reach 500% by end of year. With Zimbabwe bank notes in short supply, there is less money in circulation to keep the informal sector going. A critical fuel and electricity shortages have together forced the closing down of businesses, resulting in loss of jobs. Fuel prices have risen by 600% since February. Foreign export earnings are crippled and fuel supplied by Libya and China is being paid for with hundreds of thousands of hectares of land in barter trade. Drought-related famine that has hit the region has hastened the dwindling of the national food stocks.

The immediate impact of land reforms on commercial and food crop production has been the devastation of the agricultural sector. Out of a national population of 12 million people, 7 million are surviving on international food aid. Health service delivery is limping towards a halt while the high rate of HIV/AIDS has heightened the miseries of this situation. There is a huge migration of skilled and semi-skilled workers from the country, both a result of economic hardships and erosion of public confidence.

Human rights abuses are wide-spread; law and order have become greatly weakened in a very short space of time while corruption has become endemic. People are deeply frustrated and angered by what they see as poor governance. Support for political opposition front has been growing and has been met with a heavy show of force by the government.

The call for a national stay-away from work this week supported by peaceful street demonstrations was met with a threat from government to crush any street demonstration. There has been a huge show of armed military and police presence throughout all the cities since the weekend and along the roads ensuring a severe clampdown on any gatherings of more than two or three people in urban public areas since Monday. Government declared that stay-aways and demonstrations are illegal but the opposition contended that the people have a right to express themselves peacefully.

Meanwhile Zimbabwean church leaders have over the past month been trying to convince the major political protagonists that mediated talks are essential in order to find a way forward. The three national church bodies - Zimbabwe Council of Churches, Zimbabwe Catholic Bishops Conference, and the Evangelical Fellowship of Zimbabwe - on Sunday June 1 issued a call for restrained action on the part of both protestors and government forces so that violence does not overtake peaceful options.

Churches within Zimbabwe are working from two approaches . The first has been to insist that those in positions of authority have the responsibility to listen to the genuine grievances of the people, in the spirit of service-leadership . Human rights abuses must be stopped and impunity must not be tolerated. The militarisation of youth must be stopped. The rule of law and order must be restored to the legitimate constitutional arms of the state. Legislation that oppresses freedom of expression must be repealed. Control of food, medical aid and other basic necessities of life must be depoliticised. A serious effort must be made to fight corruption and those who are found guilty must be brought to book. Violence as a means of curbing opposition or as a means of opposing government, must be stopped.

Secondly, is the urgent need for dialogue, and to offer non-partisan assistance for dialogue. This dialogue is needed at all levels in society. Divisions in society have been cultivated between ethnic and language groups, races, urban and rural dwellers, youth and adults, and adherents of different political parties, even between past and present. All of these divisions will need to be healed at personal, structural and systemic levels. It will require a healing of memories as well as a new definition of the Zimbabwean identity. Hence dialogue is a nation-wide task and requires everyone's input.

We appeal to our member churches to lobby their governments to support mediated dialogue between the government and representatives of the main opposition party. Although all problems cannot be solved by political parties, a political solution is an essential starting point.

Trusting in the promise contained in 2nd Chronicles 7:14, we ask your prayers for the present situation:

(i) for God's protection so that more lives will not be lost, that lives and property will not be destroyed, and that actions taken by both sides will not create an atmosphere in which dialogue becomes even more difficult.

(ii) for God's blessing upon the efforts of all peace-loving people within Zimbabwe and within the circle of support around Zimbabwe including those in churches, civil society and government who are trying to find ways to bring the troubles to an end and reunite the nation.

(iii) for the long-term development of Zimbabwe: that the people will find common identity, will seek reconciliation, and will build a peaceful nation that honours the sovereignty of God.

We wish all of you abundant blessings

Melaku Kifle

AACC Interim General Secretary

Cc Zimbabwe Council of Churches
Zimbabwe Catholic Bishops Conference Evangelical Fellowship of Zimbabwe

+++++++++++++++++++++Document Profile+++++++++++++++++++++

AFRICA ACTION Africa Policy E-Journal June 29, 2003 (030629)

US/Africa: Trade Wars, 2 (Reposted from sources cited below)

As President Bush prepares for his trip to Africa from July 7-11, trade is high on the agenda. The official speeches during the trip are sure to tout the mutual benefits of trade, as host countries hope to gain additional access to U.S. markets. At the same time, however, U.S. and African agendas are diametrically opposed on most issues being considered by the World Trade Organization which will hold its summit in Cancun, Mexico in September.

This set of two e-journal postings focuses on key trade issues, by highlighting recent African statements as well as analyses from the Third World Network, a group that closely monitors global negotiations on these issues. In order to cover a range of issues, the e-mail version of these postings contains brief excerpts only (as non-technical as possible) from a variety of documents. More details can be found in the archived version of the postings (goto and in links to other websites.

Trade issues will also be among topics covered at a July 2 Briefing for White House Press Corps and other media "Heart of Darkness: The Truth about Africa Policy under the Bush Administration" []

Another posting for today contains (1) a speech by Mali President Amadou Toumani Toure, (2) a report by TWN Africa on the most recent African trade ministers' declaration. Below are excerpts from analyses on several other topics, including genetically modified food, patenting of life forms, and opposition to opening new negotiations on a WTO investment treaty,

+++++++++++++++++end summary/introduction+++++++++++++++++++++++

(3) Genetically Modified Food and African Trade

In the leadup to his Africa visit, President Bush has repeatredly attacked European countries for promoting hunger in Africa by discouraning African access to genetically modified food products (GMO) exported by the United States. Even apart from issues of safety and damage to local seed varieties, however, a new empirical study distributed by Third World Network - Africa discounts the claims of GMO agriculture proponents that their products contribute to increased food supplies.

The study by Aaron deGrass, entitled "Genetically Modified Crops and Sustainable Poverty Alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Assessment of Current Evidence," evaluated GM cotton, sweet potatoes, and maize, in terms of their effectiveness and environmental sustainability under African conditions, particularly in Kenya and South Africa. He concludes that in these cases promotion of these crops is based not on evidence but on marketing by the leading producer Monsanto and its allies. See

For additional background on the U.S. trade challenge to Europe on genetically modified crops, see the Global Trade Watch report at On GM crops and hunger, see gmcrops.shtml [type URL on one line]


(4) Patenting of Life Forms

African countries have taken the lead in arguing against the application of intellectual property rights to patenting life forms, and proposed alternate measures to protect rights to traditional knowledge and biological diversity. The Third World Network Info Service summarized new developments in the debate.

The full paper, distributed on June 11) is available on the website of the Third World Network ( Key excerpts on the African position are included here.

TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) Council Debates Patents on Life, Traditional Knowledge and Article 27.3(b)

By Martin Khor, Third World Network Geneva, 6 June 2003

The World Trade Organisation's TRIPS Council on 4-5 June debated proposals on the three interconnected issues of the review of article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS agreement (dealing with biological materials), traditional knowledge and folklore, and the relationship between TRIPS and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)....

The Africa Group reiterated its position that the TRIPS Agreement should be amended to prohibit patents on all life forms, as such patents are contrary to the moral and cultural norms of many societies. It also stressed that the requirement to protect plant varieties should not in any way undermine but support Members' rights to public goals such as food security and poverty elimination. There is thus no basis to require Members to adopt inappropriate regimes for plant varieties protection.

It proposed that the WTO adopt a Decision on Traditional Knowledge which would establish a WTO Committee on traditional knowledge and genetic resources to oversee the protection of traditional knowledge and enforcement of rights of WTO Members.

The Group expressed concern that the review of TRIPS Article 27.3b has not been finalized and that the deadline of December 2002 set at Doha had passed. Protection of genetic resources and traditional knowledge will not be effective unless international mechanisms are established within the TRIPS framework. Other means, such as access contracts and data bases for patent examination, can only be supplementary to such international mechanisms which must contain an obligation on members collectively and individually to prohibit and prevent misappropriation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge.

"Patents on life forms are unethical and the TRIPS Agreement should prohibit them through modifying the requirement to provide for patents on micro-organisms and on non-biological and microbiological processes for the production of plants and animals. Such patents are contrary to the moral and cultural norms of many societies in Members of the WTO." ...

On possible areas of agreement, the Group wishes that delegations confirm a common understanding on the following:

* Members have the right and freedom to determine and adopt appropriate regimes in satisfying the requirement to protect plant varieties by effective sui generis systems. Such regimes may draw upon the ITPGR, the CBD, UPOV 1978 and the Africa Model Legislation on protecting local communities, farmers and breeders and the Regulation of Access to biological resources. Systems of protection should address local realities and needs. The Africa Model Legislation and Regulation of Access is one example of a sui generis system which was developed to protect the rights and knowledge of farmers, indigenous peoples and local communities, in a manner suiting the circumstances of Africa.

* The non-commercial use of plant varieties and the system of seed saving and exchange as well as selling among farmers, are rights and exceptions that should be ensured as matters of important public policy to ensure food security and preserve the integrity of rural or local communities.

While the legitimate rights of commercial plant breeders should be protected, these should be balanced against the needs of farmers and local communities. Any sui generis system should enable Members to retain their right to adopt and develop measures that encourage and promote the traditions of their farming communities and indigenous peoples in innovating and developing new plant varieties and enhancing biodiversity. ,,,

* Traditional knowledge and inventions of local communities should be protected. It is important to develop international mechanisms ensuring equity in the use of genetic resources and traditional knowledge through appropriate international arrangements to supplement domestic laws and measures.

* Genetic resources and traditional knowledge should be documented to assist searches and examining novelty and inventive step.


On areas of disagreement, the Africa Group proposes the following:

* Patenting life forms: The Group maintains its reservations about patenting any life forms. It proposes that "Article 27.3(b) be revised to prohibit patents on plants, animals, micro-organisms, essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals, and non-biological and microbiological processes for the production of plants or animals." ...

* Misappropriation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge: Such misappropriation has taken the form of obtaining patents in developed countries inconsistent with the will of the communities and countries that have sovereignty over the resources.

The Group paper noted efforts such as developing access contracts and databases for patent offices (used to examine patent claims for novelty, inventiveness and usefulness) that are being undertaken in WIPO but considered them inadequate as these do not amount to effective international mechanisms. ,,,

Where any invention is derived from traditional knowledge or based on in situ genetic resources of any member, then no intellectual property rights shall be granted in any member unless CBD requirements have been fully complied with. Members shall require in their laws that any IPRs granted in breach of this Decision shall be cancelled forthwith. No IPRs shall be granted without recognition of the traditional knowledge involved. ...


TWN Info Service on WTO Issues (June 03/5) 13 June 2003

NGOs Voice Opposition to WTO Investment Negotiations

by Kanaga Raja, Geneva 10 June 2003

A new global investment agreement proposed for negotiations at the WTO could inflict lasting damage on the livelihoods of poor people in developing countries, says a new report by the UK-based development agency ActionAid.

In its report "Unlimited Companies" released here Tuesday, ActionAid said that an investment agreement at the WTO would carry huge risks for the world's poorest people and called on the EU to drop its insistence on such an agreement.

[The ActionAid report is available on the ActionAid website at:]

It also recommended that in the run-up to the Cancun Ministerial, developed countries should not attempt to persuade developing countries to trade off their interests with regards to investment in the hope of gaining in other areas such as agriculture.

Instead of a WTO investment agreement, the international community should support the establishment of a binding international regulatory framework on multinational corporations, outside the WTO, that will strengthen the ability of developing countries to manage foreign investment to benefit the poor.

The ActionAid report was released just as the WTO Working Group on the Relationship between Trade and Investment (WGTI) is holding its final meeting here on 10-12 June before the 5th Ministerial in Cancun.

At a press briefing on 10 June, three other other non-governmental organizations Third World Network, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and the International Union of Foodworkers joined ActionAid in calling for a stop to efforts and pressures towards a WTO investment agreement.

According to the NGOs, the WTO members have been divided in their views on virtually every issue that has been discussed at the WGTI. They said that it was clear that no consensus exists on if or how to approach the issue of whether to begin negotiations on investment.

Steve Porter, lead attorney for CIEL, said, "At the beginning of the final scheduled meeting of the WGTI, we are of the view that in moving towards Cancun, there does not appear to be any consensus, let alone an explicit consensus, on how to move forward on investment negotiations at the WTO."

Peter Rossman of the International Union of Foodworkers, representing 12 million workers in 142 countries, said that in the international labour movement there is a divergence of views on the inclusion of an investment agreement at the WTO but a consensus exists that the current proposals within the current framework at the WTO must be opposed.

Rossman explained that many global trade unions under the Global Unions Group, had taken a joint position that investment agreements should exclude provisions on expropriation and national treatment as they limit the scope to pursue development strategies. "The current proposals at WTO fall far short. As things stand, we cannot support trade ministers in Cancun giving a green light to commencement of negotiations on investment at the WTO."

Goh Chien Yen of the Malaysia-based Third World Network said that NGOs around the world have been voicing their demand that negotiations on investment not begin in the WTO. He said that at the discussions in the WGTI, it was clear that there has not been agreement among the WTO members, nor has the "clarification of issues" mandated at Doha been adequately carried out.

This lack of agreement applies to all the issues, including on scope and definition of investment; whether the non-discrimination principle should apply in investment, development considerations; and how disputes should be settled.

Since this is the final meeting of the WGTI before Cancun, it is important to recognise that there is a lack of convergence of views on these different elements of a potential investment agreement and that insufficient work has been done on the implications for developing countries.

He highlighted a divergence of opinion even on the most crucial issues of scope and definition. Some developed countries have been asking for a very broad definition that includes not only FDI but also portfolio investment, whereas the developing countries have been demanding that the definition be kept narrow. Given the experience of developing countries with financial instability, a very broad definition of foreign investment could lead to financial difficulties in these economies.

Many countries have questioned whether the WTO is an appropriate forum for an investment agreement. They have argued that the application of the WTO principles of national treatment and MFN may be useful for trade in goods, but is inappropriate and should not be extended to investment which is a different entity altogether.

He pointed out another area of disagreement: some countries like India, Pakistan, Kenya, and China have proposed that the discussions should cover the obligations of foreign investors and their home governments, but this has been rejected by developed countries on the basis that this is not part of the clarification process.

Given the present state of disagreements, there is simply no basis for a decision to be taken by explicit consensus in Cancun to start negotiations on a prospective investment agreement" Goh maintained.

John Hilary of ActionAid, the author of "Unlimited Companies", said that the report is based on new case studies from a range of countries around the world, including Uganda, Haiti, Thailand, Mozambique, South Africa, India and Brazil.

He said foreign investment can be a powerful force for good, citing clothing factories in Bangladesh, China, Cambodia and Lesotho where investment has created meaningful developmental change by providing jobs, particularly for poor women.

On the other side however, Hilary said, "we are equally struck from research around the world of examples where foreign investment had not been a force for development or a force for good."

The ActionAid report says that the case studies examined demonstrate that foreign investment can also cause great damage to the rights and livelihoods of vulnerable communities, for example, in Brazil, Uganda, Haiti, Thailand and India.

In Thailand, a Udon Thani concession to mine potash in a 85,000 hectare area that was granted to a Canadian-based company Asia Pacific Resources has raised fears among villagers and experts over the local environment (the mine is expected to generate about 20 million tonnes of salt waste) and on the rice crop on which 32,000 people depend.

In Plachimada, in Kerala state, India, a Coca-Cola bottling plant was set up in 1998. Coca-Cola's average extraction of 350,000 litres of water per day from its new deep wells has severely depleted the local communities' water table, leaving villagers with acute water shortages and environmental contamination, the report points out.

In Brazil, meanwhile, 90% of the corn seed market has been taken over by 4 multinationals, with 60% of the market controlled by Monsanto alone. Similarly, in its dairy sector, Nestle and Parmalat control more than 50% of the market in the late 1990s. In Minas Gerais state, prices fell by 50% and 70,000 poor producers had to stop supplying the largest companies between 1996 and 2002.

Hilary said that these examples are "on top of what we already know of the economic risks of foreign investment particularly where you have local producers who are exposed to competition from far greater multinationals."

"At the macroeconomic level, if China is taken out of the equation, over half of all foreign investment to developing countries is not 'greenfield' investment i.e. most productive new plants, but are in the form of mergers and acquisitions."

"We believe that the multilateral investment agreement that is proposed by the EU, Japan, Korea and others threatens developing countries, particularly the poorest communities in those countries, because it risks having further liberalization of investment in the same way we have seen in the damaging case studies in the report."

Hilary highlighted two threats arising from this agreement. Firstly, it threatens to open up the sensitive sectors of the economy that have been deliberately kept closed such as agriculture in Thailand, India and Ethiopia, and particularly in terms of food security.

The second threat comes in areas that are already open to foreign investment because the policies that developing countries use to maximize the development benefits of investment could well come under attack, as has been seen in services liberalisation under the GATS.

Pro-development policies taken by developing countries such as joint venture requirements or equity caps on investors coming into the country as well as performance requirements can come under thereat at the WTO.

The ActionAid report reiterates that one lesson from the GATS negotiations is that developing countries can indeed be pressurised to open up new markets to foreign investors, even when it is not in their interest to do so.

Another lesson from the GATS is that even though key WTO members may try to protect key development policies by registering them as limitations to their liberalization commitments, those policies are targeted for removal by other countries in negotiations at the WTO.

Developing countries have had their key development policies targeted for removal by other countries in the current round of GATS negotiations, including joint venture requirements and equity caps in countries such as Indonesia, Pakistan, and Thailand, among others.

The report also counters the EU claim that an investment agreement at the WTO will be in the best interests of developing countries. This claim does not stand up to examination, as the proposed agreement will not increase investment flows; the WTO principle of non-discrimination or national treatment is not development friendly; developing countries will be overburdened with another set of complex negotiations on top of the Doha work programme; and the proposed agreement does not address the needs of poor communities.

+++++++++++++++++++++Document Profile+++++++++++++++++++++

Date distributed (ymed): 030629 Region: Continent-Wide Issue Areas: +economy/development+ +US policy focus+


Message-Id: <> From: "Africa Action" <> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:17:45 -0500 Subject: US/Africa: Trade Wars, 1/2

Editor: Ali B. Ali-Dinar

Previous Menu Home Page What's New Search Country Specific