Alberto Castagnola , Cecilia Chiovini

in Peuples/Popoli/Peoples/Pueblos, n. 5 (november 1984)

Discussing in the national executive of the League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples the reasons that had prompted us to organise the conference on the rights of peoples and cooperation, we started from the question of whether the League, projected to support the rights of peoples, did not need to follow the evolution of the history of peoples, from oppressed to liberated peoples, having before it the whole issue of building a national economy removed from the economic domination of former colonising countries and capable of raising the standard of living of populations. In giving an affirmative answer, it also attributed to this task its own political value, that is, that of a reflection on all the problems of the countries of recent and old independence, a process that is certainly not predictable and painless, but an inevitable point of arrival in the history of the peoples who today, on the other hand, are questioning themselves on the second phase, the decisive one for the affirmation of the more overall values of independence, that is, the one that allows the effective autonomy of a people, its ability to present itself on the world stage as the bearer of its own values, measured not on the aggressive and hegemonic character of its image, but on the levels of civilisation of its populations.
When we talk about levels of civilisation, we are not just referring to qualitative aspects (illiteracy, infant mortality, etc., which are important aspects), but to the way in which those levels of civilisation are achieved and thus what kind of relationship has been established between the state and civil society on the difficult road to industrialisation in developing countries.
This political moment was acutely grasped during the conference phase, with the presence at the proceedings not only of cooperation experts, non-governmental organisations, study organisations, all considered insiders, but also of numerous representatives of foreign organisations, trade unions, left-wing political parties, liberation and solidarity movements with Third World countries, international institutions, the university world, as well as almost all of the Lega’s organisations present in the country. We intended to start from very precise political assumptions, that is, to seek in the character of the League, in its political line, in its ways of operating, the cultural and political motivations with respect to the way it relates to the issue of cooperation, in an analysis of the effectiveness of the rights of peoples outlined in the Algiers Charter.
Did Senese’s report and the numerous written communications presented, the round table and the group work, respond positively to the certainly not easy task of comparing such diverse experiences and sensibilities at the conference? We advance an affirmative answer, even though the conference in a way channelled a debate, representing an important moment of reflection, which will have to continue in the months to come.
The objective we had set ourselves was to examine the aspects characterising cooperation and therefore what priorities of economic choices, what kind of interventions, how they are carried out, i.e. who the subjects and objects of cooperation are, and finally what cultural models they are inspired by, what processes determine the level of material, cultural conditions etc.
It cannot be said enough that the industrialisation of the Third World, whether public or private, does not necessarily produce the forces necessary for its transformation and its orientation for the benefit of the peoples. Much depends on who the objects and subjects of the cooperation are, what objectives are to be pursued and the way in which it operates.
That is to say, the very protagonism of peoples is not just a political slogan or a utopia, but an ongoing reality that must also be exploited to find solutions to the problems of all (North and South together). This is the reason why we spoke of a re-reading of the Algiers Charter, starting with Articles 1 and 2 (right of each people to exist, respect for national and cultural identity); it was therefore a question of examining which logics are still predominant in cooperation relations.
There is a North that tends to reproduce new models of economic and cultural neo-colonialism and a South caught in the constraints of the logic of the division of the world into blocs and in the extreme difficulty of ‘weighing’ in the various economic centres and on the various economic issues (Monetary Fund, prices of raw materials, etc.). Quite rightly in the Algiers Charter, in Articles 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, there is a reaffirmation of the assumptions of “cooperation as a mutual interest and not of only one party”.
Forese, in his report on this subject, very pointedly noted that cooperation, in the way it was practised, aggravated the problem of the Global South. The new international economic order is not around the corner. Other paths must be taken, starting from the assumption that development must be specific, different from country to country, a progressive liberation of man from primordial needs and a capacity to control nature.
A new perspective is posed by ‘self-centred’ development. First of all, food self-sufficiency must be ensured, and the condition of the assisted must be overcome: the fabric and collective identity, the self-recognition of the collective subject must be reconstructed. This then certainly means talking about interventions, but also taking into account that it is still the human element that must guide the instruments. And it is here that cooperation meets with the rights of peoples, with the Algiers Declaration.
Let us take some of the significant articles in this context and see the theoretical and practical consequences of the Charter’s assumptions. When Article 1 refers to the right of a people to exist, the first fact that emerges is that the right to feed itself, to be placed in a condition to live not as an assisted, not as an outcast, as a parasite, is the primary meaning of this existence. A totally dependent people tends to disappear as a people, tends not to exist.
But even Article 2, which reaffirms the right to one’s own national and cultural identity, suggests that the provision, the imposition of technologies that disrupt the way of life, the culture, the value system of the people being invested in, is in the direction of the progressive destruction of the collective consciousness itself.
This is the emblematic case of the erroneous impact of aid interventions towards women, which has led to an undoubted diminution of their social status for African women as a consequence of their reverting to Western industrialisation models that have dispossessed traditional female agricultural labour, as Cinzia Giudici rightly pointed out in her communication.
Article 11 (the right to autonomously choose one’s own economic-social system) evokes not only examples of subjects-peoples subjected to the devastation of imperialism imposed by capitalist logic, but also other equally devastating ruptures, such as those produced by the invasion of Afghanistan justified by the need to overthrow a ‘culture’, the Afghan one, described by the invaders as ‘archaic and backward’.
And the references can multiply: article 13, defence of language; article 14, defence of artistic and historical riches (and here it must be said that the disruption of mental habits imposed by ‘information-education’ practices constitutes an example of great cultural violence); Article 17, which reaffirms the democratic principle and calls for the practice of decision-making with the participation of all stakeholders (and how many times instead cooperation appears to be functional to the few and ultimately to the maintenance of dictatorial regimes, up to the case of development aid destined for Ethiopia converted into weapons used to crush the struggle of the Eritrean people who claim their own self-determination).

It is more difficult to draw a picture of the indications that emerged in the course of the work, not least because, if the underlying objective of the initiative was to question the real contribution made by international development aid, the very complexity of the problem made it impossible to come up with organic conclusions in the short space of a few hours of discussion. However, the participants’ sensitivity to the problem emerged very clearly, and the documentary material distributed certainly added to analyses and debates that had already been underway for some time, especially among the organisations directly involved in technical cooperation. It is however possible, taking into account in particular the results obtained within the framework of the working groups, to recall some of the more in-depth or underlined aspects, both in relation to the type of ‘development’ pursued, and to the limits and errors of certain international cooperation experiences. Indeed, the first of the groups, which had to examine in depth the inspirational criteria and contents of the cooperation policies currently being implemented, sought first and foremost to trace a conceptual framework of cooperation by answering the question: what cooperation for what development?
In essence, the participants in the debate once again rejected the hypothesis of a development based on the pure and simple export of the industrialised countries’ development models, which have as their yardstick the increase in gross national product without any concern for the destination of the new wealth produced, the distribution of which is entrusted to the spontaneous mechanisms of the market. Perplexities have been expressed about the effectiveness of the Brandt report’s proposal for a more massive transfer of resources from the more developed countries to the developing countries; about the interdependence that exists between the two groups of countries; and about the rich countries’ alleged interest in promoting the development of poor countries as a condition for restoring their own economies. This hypothesis in fact, as a whole, turned out to be too optimistic and the industrialised countries showed no interest in the real development of Third World countries, persisting in their prevailing traditional exploitative behaviour. On the other hand, the hypothesis of an endogenous development model based on the priority satisfaction of needs met general approval among the participants. Interestingly, despite time constraints, an effort was made to precisely define this development model in order to avoid the risks of an autarkic or reductive conception of development. This model of development must be:
1) based on the satisfaction of man’s basic needs (of the whole man and of all men); the needs are the natural ones, but also the spiritual, political-cultural, etc. needs.
2) endogenous, i.e. corresponding to the needs arising from cultural specificity that must arise from within and receive critically selected inputs from outside. One develops, one is not developed.
3) autonomous, relying on one’s own strengths, using one’s own resources first and making one’s own decisions according to one’s reality, one’s need.
4) ecological, in harmony with the environment and nature with the intention of making good use of them and leaving them intact for future generations.
5) capable of structural transformation.
According to the participants, this development model has as its backbone a category that is both political and moral, the defence of people and peoples. In this sense, the fight against hunger is the priority of cooperation priorities, as a defence of the fundamental right to life.
Instead, the hypothesis of a specific intervention to save a defined number of people (two, three, or five million) in a defined time (one year) by setting up an ad hoc body (High Commission) was unanimously rejected. This hypothesis, which corresponds to a paternalistic cultural approach, cannot escape the logic of massive food aid, with serious consequences for local agriculture, disrupts the structures in charge of cooperation and creates a gap between extraordinary and structural intervention.
The members of the group, therefore, expressed the hope that interventions related to the fight against hunger would be brought back within the structures of cooperation and implemented through integrated projects that are both conjunctural and structural at the same time.
Also based on the results of the debate that took place within the first group, some evaluations can already be reported, regarding individual instruments of interventions carried out within the framework of international cooperation. the participants, for example, stated that, based on their experience, gifts prove to be more congenial to the model outlined above than aid credits. Such credits, in fact, on the one hand aggravate the debt situation of developing countries, and on the other hand are used together with financial credits as incentives for Italian commercial penetration in Third World countries. While recognising the great importance for Italy of promoting its exports, it is believed that ad hoc instruments must be provided for this purpose and that cooperation must under no circumstances be conditioned by our country’s trade needs.
For one particular type of export, that of arms, the working group called for an explicit and strict ban when it affects cooperation funds in any way and to any extent. Particular attention was paid to the problem of indebtedness, because of the dimensions it has assumed and the dangers it represents for the international financial system. Indeed, the need to solve this problem creates the risk that resources earmarked for cooperation are instead used to solve the problem of indebtedness of a limited number of less poor countries, reducing or drying up aid flows to the poorest countries.
The other two working groups, which had chosen interventions in the productive sectors, with particular regard to the agricultural sector, and initiatives in the social field as their themes for discussion, highlighted a series of aspects from the activities carried out to date in the field of international cooperation that constituted, at the same time, critical evaluations of past experiences and indications of the transformations underway and the new objectives to be achieved. Following the order of the concluding documents drafted by the rapporteurs of the working groups, some general considerations on the nature of the interventions can be recalled here. In particular, it can be considered that they are undergoing a substantial transformation in the direction of an active and responsible participation of rural communities, both on the part of the countries concerned and the organisations; this trend is also present in Italy, as far as the initiatives implemented in the Sahel are concerned.
In perspective, micro- and macro-projects should be combined, with the active collaboration of the villages, with a view to self-centred development, while integrated projects (e.g. agronomic, zootechnical, health) should be multiplied. Furthermore, according to the participants, it must always be borne in mind that a good knowledge of the agrarian situation (knowledge of soils, means of production, climate, etc.) is not widespread in both the North and the South; this makes it necessary to design interventions on the spot and on the basis of extensive and in-depth investigations, which in turn require radical changes in the criteria and methods of project financing.
However, the most significant shortcomings are to be found upstream, in research activities, university centres, etc., which should therefore be modified and strengthened in order to make a greater contribution to the fight against underdevelopment.
Similar considerations were repeatedly made about the role of experts, especially those working in agricultural cooperation. Certain cultural shortcomings of ‘specialists’ have been highlighted (a direct consequence of the inefficiency of training structures), which in many cases have a tendency to export cultural weaknesses to underdeveloped countries, the difficulty at the level of individual experts in breaking the chain of public lies and private truths so widespread in the sector, the rarity of intervention experiences that have truly valorised the ‘knowledge’ of the local farming world, making the external expert play an essential role in identifying problems and their possible solutions, but a secondary and non-dominant role in the decision-making and implementation phases of interventions.
Finally, of particular importance were the references to the mechanisms for evaluating the results of the interventions, not only at the end of each intervention, but also and especially during the implementation phase and after years to highlight the long-term effects.
In addition to these more important elements, the reports on the work of the groups also highlighted instrumental, partial, but not insignificant objectives: to increase training opportunities for experts and young trainers; to provide operationally for the preparation of a set of social and health indicators to be adopted as components of the evaluation of what the cooperative macro-projects (production, economy, etc.) modify or condition the development model of the countries, in the sense of “autonomy” or “dependence”; build a “bank” of critical reports on socio-health cooperation projects, which would represent a common fund for voluntary organisations and the MFA to be used for training and for the construction of “real” profiles of the countries with which they cooperate; include in these “critical and evaluative reports” what could be requested from the “commissioners”, so as to also have the opinion of those who have “received”; include in the cooperation, in order to be effective with respect to autonomy, not only what concerns primary needs, but also the advanced areas of research; promote a comparison of experiences, of intervention and evaluation, with the NGOs of other countries; encourage a very intensive enlargement of the strategy of “commands” for MFA experts, so as to favour the creation of a pool of effectively available and competent resources; public bodies, both national and international, should multiply their efforts to “capitalise” and draw every possible advantage of knowledge from the experiences acquired so far, especially by small bodies. Finally, it should be mentioned that the participants in the groups repeatedly emphasised two crucial problems: information and controls. Basically, the importance of information was reiterated, both in industrialised and developing countries, with particular reference to South-South information that is not dependent on the media in the North. As far as controls are concerned, it was suggested, on the model of what has already been done in other countries, such as Canada, that basic structures be set up to control the activities carried out by the public bodies responsible for cooperation.
In conclusion, the conference certainly represented a “high” moment in the reflection on the current situation in underdeveloped countries, not so much for the originality of the aspects highlighted, but as an initial phase of reflection, in some cases in the form of constructive self-criticism, on the problems encountered on the concrete and operational level of cooperation. The background documentation that circulated during the meeting should be a further stimulus to the analysis and review of experiences.
However, one certainly cannot declare oneself completely satisfied, as some topics deserved much more in-depth study, while new strategies and innovative methods of intervention still remained too undefined. On the other hand, it is certain that the conference constituted an opportunity, a stimulus, perhaps a provocation, to open a debate, to question criteria and tools, to search for new, more effective ways of tackling new and old but still dramatic problems of underdeveloped peoples.