|
media briefing
6 november 2001
world trade talks
wto tells civil society: come to sunny
qatar
The World Trade Organisation will be
holding its fourth Ministerial Conference in
Doha, the capital of gulf state Qatar, from
Friday 9 to Tuesday 13th November. The talks
will see attempts by both the United States
and European Union to launch a "new round" of
trade negotiations, to extend the remit and
powers of the WTO. The last attempt to do
this, in Seattle in 1999, collapsed in the
face of determined opposition from developing
countries and civil society. It is clear that
one reason why Doha has been selected as the
venue for the talks was to discourage
protestors from attending.
But Friends of the Earth International
will be present throughout the talks, and our
experts will be available for comment and
analysis in both Doha and London.
what is the wto?
The last "Uruguay Round" of trade
negotiations led to the formation of the WTO
in 1995. The previous General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was an agreement
between contracting parties and served as a
negotiating forum. By contrast, the WTO is a
recognised international body with 'members',
which is responsible for monitoring and
enforcing the World Trade Agreement (WTA)
which sets out the legal basis for trade
policy. By 2001, the WTO's membership stood
at 142 countries.
The WTO is responsible for administering
the WTA and subsidiary agreements. According
to the WTO Secretariat, it has three main
objectives:
• "...to help trade flow as freely as
possible,
• to achieve further liberalisation
gradually through negotiation, and
• to set up an impartial means of settling
disputes".
The WTO has no official mandate to protect
the environment, fight poverty or to provide
sustainable development.
the fourth ministerial
The WTO's highest decision-making body is the
Ministerial Meeting which takes place
approximately every two years.
Both the United States and the European
Union are hoping that this Ministerial will
succeed where Seattle failed, by launching a
new comprehensive round of trade
liberalisation negotiations (although
important differences remain between the two
blocs on a range of subjects).
In addition, WTO members are already
mandated to renegotiate and review a number
of existing agreements (this is known as the
"built-in agenda"). This agenda includes
ongoing talks on both agriculture and
services.
issues: who wants what
The EU:
A comprehensive 'new round'
is once again being promoted by the EU, with
the support of other countries including
Japan, Korea, Switzerland and Norway. The EU
wants a comprehensive round to include new
issues such investment, competition,
government procurement, trade facilitation
and the environment.
Another reason why the EU wants
negotiations to be comprehensive is its
position on agriculture. The EU will resist
calls for substantial reductions in subsidy
support to this sector, because it wishes to
defend the grotesquely expensive and
environmentally damaging Common Agricultural
Policy. If the EU makes any concessions on
agriculture (which it may be prepared to do
since the CAP will require radical reform to
cope with EU enlargement), it will seek to
ensure that it gains advantages in other
areas - such as support for the inclusion and
prioritisation of new issues such as
investment and the environment.
The US:
The US favours a new round
but remains undecided as regards which new
issues should be brought within the remit of
the WTO. This change of emphasis originated
during the run-up to the Genoa G8 Summit and
Climate Change talks in Bonn in July 2001.
The US agreed to support the EU's call for a
new trade round (and not to block moves to
include investment) in order to smooth
transatlantic relationships, following the
US's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol and its
announcement of plans to develop a missile
defense system (‘son of star wars'). More
lately, the US has been more vociferous in
favour of a new round, citing further
trade liberalisation as a means to tackle
global recession.
Other Major Developed Countries:
Japan is in favour of a new round and wishes
to bring new issues - such as investment -
into the WTO. Canada, New Zealand and
Australia are all members of the Cairns Group
- a collection of developed and developing
agricultural exporting countries that favour
further trade liberalisation (particularly in
this sector) and are generally in favour of a
new round with the inclusion of new issues.
However, they reject the EU's proposal on the
environment.
Developing Countries:
Developing
countries, on the other hand, have a
different list of issues they want addressed
in Qatar. In general, they are opposed to the
EU's ‘new issues'. Instead they want their
commitments to existing agreements reviewed.
Many developing countries have insisted that
an ‘implementation agenda' is an essential
precondition to any new round of talks. They
argue that these implementation issues should
also address the fact that poor countries
have simply not enjoyed the supposed
benefits expected of ‘free trade'.
The Draft Ministerial Declaration for
the 4th Ministerial:
The Chair of the
General Council and Secretariat of the WTO
have
produced a draft Ministerial Declaration,
supposedly a neutral negotiating text based
on all members positions and proposals. This
declaration will then be further negotiated
and agreed (or otherwise) at the Ministerial.
In the run up to the Ministerial, two drafts
have been published (late September and late
October). The first continued to prioritise
developed country positions, but largely
excluded the environment. Developing
countries were generally unhappy with the
text because it did not give adequate
consideration to implementation issues.
The second draft has been even more
contentious. It effectively initiates
negotiations on all the new issues -
including competition,
investment, transparency in government
procurement and trade facilitation (but again
largely excludes the environment). Developing
country interests have once again been
marginalised.
what will happen?
There is now the possibility that Governments
will not be able to agree a negotiating
agenda at Qatar given the increasingly
polarised positions of developed and
developing nations. The scene is undoubtedly
set for Seattle Mark II.
However, developing countries are under
intense pressure from developed countries not
to reject the latest declaration. Governments
may decide that they simply cannot afford a
second failure after the debacle at Seattle,
and they may also come under pressure to make
"progress" as a response to the events of
11th September.
At this stage, it is virtually impossible
to predict what might eventually be proposed.
For example, a limited round - say confined
to
market access and industrial tariffs - would
almost certainly be opposed by developing
countries and by the EU (who would then have
fewer bargaining ‘chips' to play off against
any concessions in agriculture).
what should happen?
Much of the rhetoric from Northern country
politicians and bureaucrats promoting a new
trade round is bogus. There is no equality
between rich and developing countries over
trade rules. For example, developing
countries are commonly required by
international financial institutions to open
their domestic markets to foreign
competition, for example in the agriculture
sector. But both the European Union and the
United States maintain vast subsidy systems
for their own agricultural producers (most of
which goes to large-scale intensive farming)
as well as barriers to imports from
developing countries. Total agricultural
subsidy in the EU and US every year is
greater than the annual GDP of the whole of
Africa!
The free trade rhetoric of Northern
countries over the last twenty years,
together with the conditions for assistance
set by international institutions such as the
IMF and World Bank, have resulted in gross
increases in inequality between and within
countries, the destruction of local
agriculture and other forms of production in
developing countries, and widespread
environmental damage. Until the US, EU and
other rich countries in the developed world
acknowledge this failure, there is little
hope of real progress.
What is needed is fair and sustainable
trade, that benefits everybody and allows
countries to set and maintain proper minimum
social and environmental standards nationally
and internationally. There is nothing in the
record or remit of the WTO to suggest that
the organisation is capable of producing such
an outcome.
Friends of the Earth is calling for:
• a block on plans to expand the scope and
power of the WTO;
• a full evaluation of the impact of
existing trade rules on sustainable
development; and
• a fundamental revision of the regulations
governing world trade in
order to promote sustainability (For example
trade rules should allow a
proper role for local, national and
international developmental,
environmental and social laws and
regulations).
Contacts
In Doha:
Tony Juniper (FOE EWNI) 07712 843207
(mobile)
Bertram Zagema (FOE Netherlands:
Milieudefensie) 0031-6-29593877
Alexandra Wandel (Friends of the Earth
Europe) 0049-172-748 39 53
Vice Yu (FOE Iinternational) WTO Project
Officer 0041-79-2375626
In London:
Ronnie Hall 01243 602756
07967 017281 (mobile)
Tim Rice 0207 566 1603
Ian Willmore (FOE Press) 0207 566 1649
07787 641 344 (mobile)
|
