WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/MIN(03)/15
12 September 2003
(03-4790)
MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE
Fifth Session
Cancún, 10 - 14 September 2003Original:  French
COMMUNICATION FROM THE PRESIDENT OF SENEGAL
The following communication, dated 11 September 2003, has been received from the
Permanent Mission of Senegal to the Office of the United Nations and the World Trade Organization
in Geneva.
_______________
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Senegal to the United Nations Office at Geneva
and the World Trade Organization presents its compliments to the WTO Secretariat and has the
honour to transmit herewith, for circulation, a statement by H.E. Mr Abdoulaye Wade, President of
the Republic of Senegal, on the occasion of th e 5th Session of the WTO Ministerial Conference.
_______________WT/MIN(03)/15
Page 2
AFRICA DOES NOT INTEND TO BE AN ADJUSTMENT VARIABLE
Contribution by H.E. Mr Abdoulaye Wade,
President of Senegal
At its meeting in Evian, the G8 focussed its discussions on security, financial and monetary
issues which will certainly have an impact on the talks going on within the World Trade Organization.
Concerns about security issues and terrorism are entertained by the economic prospects of
developing countries which the current crisis does not herald as brilliant and the diverse conditions of
developing countries, among which those emerging constitute the exception, next to others confronted
with relative impoverishment, as is the case in Africa.  All eyes are thus turned to Cancún where thediscussions on the effects of agricultural subsidies may be concluded.
Actually, while WTO succeeded, during the various rounds that mark its history, to promote a
certain global growth, one cannot but admit that its policy aimed at liberalizing trade in agricultural
products has completely failed after over fifteen years.  The situation can thus be summarized asfollows:  rich countries spend over a billion dollars a day on various subsidies to their agricultural
sectors, even though this subsidy increase is contrary to WTO philosophy.  Moreover, agricultural
trade has not made much progress and, contrary to the hopes expressed by the UN and FAO,
malnutrition has not subsided but has instead worsened in a certain number of countries.
I have often asked whether the poverty that we are just discovering in our countries, after
forty years of international development, has existed from the onset, in which case everyone made a
wrong diagnosis, or whether it was generated by this same policy.  I still have not found the answer to
this question, and to many others that I keep asking these days.  I am convinced that agricultural
subsidies which ruin lots of farmers in the Third World, are among the key factors of ourimpoverishment since they destroy all our efforts and deprive us of the only income (emanating from
trade) that could have changed our conditions, particularly those of the poorest strata - farmers - by
the fruit of our own labour.  They thus constitute a serious obstacle to the real development of the
economies of poor or developing countries and are, through the rural-urban migration they generate,
the main cause of the existence of shantytowns around major cities.  This did not prevent a Minister
from one of these developed countries to posit, either because of cynicism or ignorance, that this
distress sale is justified since, in the final analysis, it helps to feed the victims of these practices at alow price.
The International Community should be aware of the fact that the fate of 45 per cent of the
inhabitants of the planet depend on these agricultural talks.  Unfortunately, some of the major actors
in these discussions do not share these concerns.  The solutions are not that easy since, when onethinks about it, the issue basically boils down to a conflict of interest between farmers of the most
developed countries, whose aim is to be able to export their production surplus to the Third World at
low costs.  Consequently, it is sad to observe a rather simple equation:  for a few million surplus tons
produced by tens of millions of producers in developed countries, one would like to be given the right
to provoke the slump of the prices of agricultura l raw materials on which over two billion poor human
beings depend for a living.
The discussion among rich countries is limited to trying to put into an appropriate "box" -
Orange, Blue or Green - the aid that each intends to distribute to its producers and which is tolerated,
prohibited or authorized, depending on the colour.
The success of this three card trick depends on the more or less favourable characteristics of
each economy, as well as on the capacity demonstrated at global level, and coalitions that one was
able to rally or complicities that were built up.  As an old French saying goes "give me sickle pod, I
will give you rhubarb".WT/MIN(03)/15
Page 3
At the G8 meeting in Evian, four West African countries which had just contacted the WTO
to denounce western subsidies to cotton production which ruin their economies, had requested me to
defend their case.  I acquiesced and submitted a case file after my intervention.  Actually WTO
proposes nothing more than a mechanism for the (hypothetical) limitation of the negative effects ofthese subsidies ... but made no mention of an automa tic financial compensation for the loss of income.
In reality, everything is going on as if Mexico and the United States are confronting each
other on a theme that could be worded as follows:  "we accept immigrants from your country, but you
will open up your agricultural products market to our surplus production".
Let us give another illustration of WTO's failure:  the Europe/United States disagreement on
the marketing loan which, according to the Institut e for Agriculture and Trade Policy, leads to the
dumping of American exports, namely 44 per cent for wheat, 33 per cent for corn and 57 per cent for
cotton.
It is highly paradoxical that in these litigations opposing giants, African countries are being
increasingly approached by each of the camps in conflict.  As is the case with a certain number of
international debates at the UN, most of these major agricultural countries consider our continent as
the adjustment variable of decisions to be taken, which we are certainly not prepared to accept.
It is worth noting that President Chirac who is currently striving like Sisyphus to put an end to
the injustice by proposing a pertinent mechanism, has been a precursor in this regard.  He calls for an
improved access of our products to high-purchasing power markets in the Northern hemisphere as
well as the prohibition of the use of export assistance for certain products heading for Africa.
However, the United States and the Cairns Group have made it clear that they are opposed to the
proposal.
In the face of all these distressing controversies, we are of the view that our continent should
make its voice heard rather than content itself with accepting a few generally illusory benefits in
exchange for its agreement.
It is fortunate that a growing number of countries and intellectuals are interested in our tragic
situation, defend our cause and try to analyze the origins and mechanisms of these disruptions.
For this reason, the 8 Member States of the West African Economic and Monetary Union
(UEMOA) have, for the first time, forwarded thei r common position to the WTO Secretariat, through
Senegal.
This proposal hinges on two main issues:
- Convince developed countries to effectively liberalize their agricultural policies in
order to improve the internal and external competitiveness of agricultural products
which are of interest to developed and least-developed countries, particularly forproducts with high added value (reduce domestic support and export subsidies).
- Strive to strengthen and improve exemptions granted to developing and least-
developed countries.  This is expected to bridge the inequality gap between developed
and developing countries, in respect of the economy, finance, technology andsustainable development and could be materialized through the institution of a
"development box".
Our countries need to increase their agricultura l potential, which is an essential and prime
factor of economic development.WT/MIN(03)/15
Page 4
I hope that this position would be that of the African Union.
It is actually for this reason that I have decided to provide Senegal with an agricultural
orientation law which will be considered by Parliament in the Fall.  The said law aims to ensure thatthis sector plays a central role in our economic development.
In the preamble of this law, we state that Senegal's goal is to reach "a level of agricultural
production that would enable it to guarantee its food so vereignty", in the medium term.  In this regard,
we are simply emulating France which fixed itself the same objectives in its 1960 and 1962
agricultural orientation laws, and embracing President George W. Bush's thinking when he declares:
"We are a blessed nation, because we can produce our own food and, as a result, we feel safe.  Anation is safer when it is capable of feeding its population".
All these issues are so crucial to our countrie s, and to others around the world, that I would
like, as an extension of the UEMOA proposition, to make the following three proposals:
- Admit that WTO does not have a suitable agricultural model and it would be
judicious to ultimately abandon an agricultural agreement which would be nothing
but an additional act of hypocrisy.  It is better not to have a new agreement at all than
to conclude an unsuitable one.
The only wise decision would be to reduce all subsidies from 20 to 10 per cent, regardless of
the "boxes" in which they are classified and the justifications that determine their creation.
- Try to understand why the WTO model has failed.  A certain number of American
and European economists have started working on these issues.  They believe that theeconometric models which the WTO uses for its projections and proposals (and on
which the Harbinson compromise was based) are not applicable to the agricultural
sector for various reasons, which the economists often recall.
- Call for efforts to further bridge the gap between WTO, IMF and the World Bank.
Nothing is more distressing for leaders of a country beset by basic economic
difficulties, than to prepare reforms consistent with WTO directives and then haveproblems to convince the IMF and World Bank to accept them.  The latter do not, in
principle, authorize the poorest countries to resort to tools that were used, in the past,
by countries that have become rich today.
It is unfair to request us to adapt to an unfair situation that was created by our developed
partners.  Rather, it is for them to adapt to a "free and fair" trade.
We fervently hope that henceforth, Africa and other regions around the world, will cease to be
consenting victims of unfair economic policies which are unsuited to their situation, but will instead
contribute in an exemplary manner, to radically change the agricultural economic thinking and thepolicies that derive from it.
This does not however exempt us from initiating our own efforts to pull ourselves out of the
difficulties generated by the weight of our inheritance, of our traditions and the agrarian structures
they engender, correcting the strategic errors of inappropriate nationalizations undertaken just afterindependence and getting rid of bad habits consisting in requesting our old protectors to provide us
with support and resources that can be found in our own countries.
We should henceforth emerge on the global scene, not only through our courage but by the
force and specificity of our thinking.WT/MIN(03)/15
Page 5
We are interested in all ongoing deliberations on trade, but I hope that economists and
researchers of developing countries would take a more active part in them.  For this reason, I intend to
convene in Dakar, every three years, a "Davos agri cultural forum" or rather a "Dakar agricultural
forum" which will be conducted and sustained in its reflection by the Dakar School, in cooperationwith others outside those of the Western ultra-liberal economists.
We will then strive to contribute in building a global economy which will no longer be a set
of abstract principles, ignoring men and women in flesh and blood, that the weak will be compelled to
implement and the strong will violate to suit their purpose.  To build a global economy, it is not
contrary to Reason to depart from concrete economies and the legitimate individual will of countries
to take advantage of common organizations, rather th an abstract theorems that pay no heed to reality.
__________