16.11.2001
. Greenpeace statement on Doha
outcome
Doha, 14 November 2001
WTO meeting fails the
world
As trade liberalisation talks ground to a close, the
Greenpeace
flagship Rainbow Warrior set sail from offshore the
World Trade Organisation
(WTO) meeting site in Doha, Qatar.
Greenpeace activists inside the
meeting unfurled banners
calling for a fundamental transformation of trade
rules. The
meeting has concluded with a declaration that falls short
of
ambitions declared at the start of negotiations and also
disappoints
hopes for protection of communities and the
environment.
"This meeting has failed to produce a vision for
sustainable
development and the protection of the environment"
said
Greenpeace International Political Director Remi Parmentier,
speaking
from the meeting site. "The WTO has two crises of
confidence: Opposition from
the outside world to this trade
liberalisation agenda, and an internal crisis
of dissent among
WTO member countries."
Parmentier called for an
international conference to revise
the relationship between the WTO,
International Monetary Fund,
World Bank and environmental
protection.
This meeting ran into overtime and concluded only in the
last
possible hours of discussion. The agreement on environment
offers
very little progress in defending environmental
protections against trade
concerns.
"Every step of progress on the environment is countered
by
contradictory language or harmful measures" said Greenpeace
Canada
campaigns director Jo Dufay, on board the Rainbow
Warrior. "They have agreed
to study the relationship between
trade rules and the environment, but also
said that WTO rules
won't change." Dufay was in Doha for the trade
meeting.
The agreement on areas for further trade liberalisation
was
finalised today after a grueling round-the-clock negotiating
session.
Apart from the environment, major differences on
investment, 'dumping',
agriculture and market access for
textiles stalled the talks for days.
Developing nations
claimed their needs had not been addressed by the
rich
countries, and that unfair pressure was being exerted.
In the
end, liberalisation of investment measures was not
resolved, with agreement
only that this may undergo further
negotiations at the next Ministerial
meeting, two years from
now.
Earlier agreement on drug patent
issues offers some relief to
earlier WTO agreements. "The whole issue of
medicines and the
patenting of life should never have been subject to
horse-
trading in the first place," Parmentier commented.
"They are
have come up with a balance of misery, where
everyone is unhappy, especially
developing nations. This is no
way to run the world," Dufay
concluded.
16.11.2001
.
Drug Makers Now Say Doha TRIPs Pact Does Not
Diminish Protection of IP
Rights
International Trade Daily
Friday, November 16,
2001 ISSN 1533-1350 News
WTO
Drug Makers Now Say Doha TRIPs Pact
Does Not Diminish
Protection of IP Rights
Despite earlier statements
of concern, two leading pharmaceutical
organizations said Nov. 14 that the
World Trade Organization's
ministerial declaration on intellectual property
rights and public
health does not alter the WTO's current legal
protections.
"There is nothing in this declaration that undermines or
diminishes
the intellectual property rights that pharmaceutical
companies
have," Alan F. Holmer, president of the Pharmaceutical
Research
and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) told BNA in an
interview.
He added that the ministerial declaration, which was
provisionally
agreed to Nov. 12 in Doha, Qatar, did not make a
"substantive
change" to the WTO's existing Agreement on
Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPs).
Meanwhile, the International Federation of
Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA) said in a separate
statement
Nov. 14 that it "welcomes the outcome" of the negotiations
on
TRIPs.
"Earlier drafts of the declaration reflected certain
negative elements
of the debate," Dr. Harvey F. Bale, director general of
IFPMA, said.
"However, the final text maintains the current legal provisions
of
TRIPS."
Previously, Dr. Bale said Nov. 12 that the declaration on
TRIPS and
public health was "ambiguous," and that he was "not sure this is
a
clarification [of the TRIPs Agreement]."
Yet the IFPMA said in its
Nov. 14 statement that the declaration
reflects "a balanced interest [in]
encourag[ing] innovation in new
drug therapies and vaccines, while seeking to
promote improved
access to medicines."
"The Doha declaration ...
recognizes that patents, trademarks and
trade secrets are essential to the
growth of the global economy
and vital to the improvement in the lives of
people in the developed
and developing world," Dr. Bale added.
Both
organizations also emphasized that the declaration was, in
Holmer's words, a
"political statement, not a legally binding
document."
'Existing
Rights and Obligations.'
Overall, Holmer argued that the declaration does
not "alter the
existing rights and obligations" of WTO member countries
under
the TRIPs agreement.
However, pharmaceutical companies had
earlier sought to have a
more explicit statement along those lines included
in the
declaration. The United States and Switzerland pushed to
add
language that said the declaration "does not add or diminish
the
rights and obligations of Members provided in the
TRIPs
agreement."
Nevertheless, Holmer highlighted two other
provisions of the
declaration.
First, he noted that the fourth
paragraph of the declaration, which
stipulates that the TRIPs agreement "does
not ... prevent Members
from taking measures to protect public health," also
includes the
phrase "reiterating our commitment to the TRIPs
agreement."
Holmer argued that this language reinforces Article 8 of the
existing
TRIPs agreement, which says "Members may ... adopt
measures
necessary to protect public health," and does not constitute
the
"public health exception" to TRIPs that countries such as India
and
Brazil sought.
In addition, Holmer told BNA that India and Brazil
initially wanted
stronger language in the fourth paragraph, including the
phrase
"ensure access to medicines for all," rather than "promote
access,"
as the final text reads.
Secondly, Holmer said that his group believes
that paragraph 5(b)
of the declaration, which stipulates that WTO members
have "the
right to grant compulsory licenses," is limited by the inclusion
of
the phrase "while maintaining our commitments in the TRIPs
agreement"
in paragraph 5.
Article 31 of TRIPs already spells out conditions for
when a WTO
member can issue a compulsory license, he added, and
the
inclusion of the phrase "while maintaining our commitments in
the
TRIPs agreement" holds members to the provisions of Article
31.
Overall, countries such as Brazil will not be able to do
anything
regarding patented medications that they were unable to do
before
Doha, Holmer said.
He also argued that the ministerial
declaration will not lead to any
scaling back in pharmaceutical research
budgets.
By Chris Rugaber
Copyright © 2001 by The Bureau of
National Affairs, Inc.,
Washington
D.C.
**********************************
In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for
research and
educational purposes.
16.11.2001
.
WTO to negotiate on animal welfare in new
trade
talks
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
[mai] WTO: Agriculture Outcome
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:40:20 -0500
(EST)
From: David Bowles <dbowles@rspca.org.uk>
Organization:
RSPCA <http://www.rspca.co.uk/>
To: <adhoc-L@undp.org>, el al
<>
For Immediate Release
WTO to negotiate on animal
welfare in new trade talks
The Royal Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals
(RSPCA) today, November 14th, welcomed the Doha WTO
Agreement on
Trade as a step forward for farm animal welfare.
The
agreed agricultural text, which will feed into a new 'round'
of international
trade talks, gives the green light to
negotiators to discuss 'non-trade
concerns' in agriculture, which
includes animal welfare, an issue that the
European Union (EU)
has consistently raised as being important to its
farmers,
citizens, legislators and producers. The Doha text also
allows
discussions of solutions such as mandatory labeling
and
compensation payments to farmers for the extra costs of higher
welfare
standards.
The EU has some of the highest farming welfare standards in
the
world, such as a prohibition on the use of the veal crate, a
phase out
of the battery cage and sows stalls for pregnant pigs.
However, higher
standards increase the costs of production. A
recent RSPCA report on the egg
trade, Hard boiled reality showed
that these costs would enable farmers still
using intensive
farming methods in other countries to undercut European
farmers
unless solutions are found.
David Bowles, Head of RSPCA
International, said "The decision is
a good one for animal welfare, farmers
and consumers at a time
when safer, healthier food produced to humane
standards is being
demanded by the public. It should be possible to improve
farm
animal welfare without becoming uncompetitive in the global
market.
The Doha text is a recognition that important concerns
such as animal
welfare, rural development and the environment
should be respected when
considering future trade
liberalisation."
The fact that negotiators
will also discuss how to phase-out
export subsidies is also to be welcomed.
Export subsidies can
promote animal cruelty, either directly by encouraging
live
transportation of animals from Europe, or indirectly by
encouraging
over-production. Earlier this month, the European
Parliament voted to stop
export subsidies for the transport of
live animals and Germany proposed a
similar measure.
For further information contact:
Chris Fisher in Doha
+974 539 3076
David Bowles +44 (0) 7714 717884
16.11.2001
.
Champagne in Doha
-------- Original Message
--------
Subject: Champagne in Doha
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:44:27
-0000
From: "openDemocracy" <openDemocracy@opendemocracy.net>
To:
<chris.keene@which.net>
As the
WTO hails a Doha agreement that 'removes the stain of Seattle', and
the
Taliban flee Kabul, we extend issue 10 of http://www.opendemocracy.net/ to
look
at the new costs, and hopes, for globalisation.
Inequality is
shaped like a champagne glass. Former World Bank economist
Robert Wade,
assesses the claims of the new world economy, in an initial
response to our
interviews with Maria Cattaui and Peter Sutherland.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/forum/document_details.asp?CatID=99&DocID=832
Marlies
Glasius, from the Netherlands, maps the emerging global civil
society and
argues that it needs an inclusive 'global dialogue'.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/forum/document_details.asp?CatID=99&DocID=834
Barry
Coates, in Doha for the World Development Movement, delivers a
blow-by-blow
critique of the WTO agreement.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/forum/document_details.asp?CatID=99&DocID=836
Robert
McChesney insists that media corporations endanger democracy, in
a
highly
charged response to Benjamin Compaine.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/Forum/document_details.asp?CatID=5&DocID=835
Paul
Rogers surveys the military situation as the Taliban retreat, and
questions
whether the war is really ending.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/forum/document_details.asp?CatID=103&DocID=830
Global
issues with local features - immigration, asylum, security -
dominated this
week's Australian election. Does the conservative victory
presage a world
trend? Peter Browne reports.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/forum/document_details.asp?CatID=18&DocID=833
Hold
power to account! Put your questions to Maria Cattaui,
Peter
Sutherland
and Shirley Williams by emailing them to
james.hamilton@openDemocracy.net
How
should we feel about globalisation now? See the gathering debate at
http://www.opendemocracy.net/forum/debate_home.asp?CatID=99&DebateID=177
16.11.2001
.
NYTimes Catch 22 for world poor
November 16,
2001
New York Times Business
A Catch-22 on Drugs for the World's
Poor
By CELIA W. DUGGER
EW DELHI, Nov. 15 - The good news for the
world's poorest countries is that
they emerged from this week's global trade
talks in Doha, Qatar, with the
right to make low- cost generic knock-offs of
medicines patented by
multinational pharmaceutical corporations.
The
bad news is that many of these nations, home to millions of people
afflicted
with AIDS and other epidemic diseases, do not have factories
capable of
producing these medicines. Nor does the deal reached this week
explicitly
allow them to import such drugs from the handful of developing
countries that
have thriving generic drug industries, like India and Brazil.
While the
declaration accepted this week by the more than 140 countries
participating
in the talks recognized in principle that the 1994 world
treaty on
intellectual property should be interpreted "to promote access to
medicines
for all," it did not give the most disadvantaged nations the tools
to do
so.
Indeed, the declaration explicitly acknowledged this problem, and
called for
further negotiations to come up with a solution by the end of next
year for
countries "with insufficient or no manufacturing capacities in
the
pharmaceutical sector."
"This is the core of the issue," said
Yasuhiro Suzuki, an executive director
with the World Health Organization in
Geneva.
Brazil Welcomes Global Move on Drug Patents (November 16,
2001)
The question that negotiators grappled with was how to make vital
drugs
affordable for the poorest people on earth - and it remains
incompletely
unanswered.
News of the agreement in Doha has only begun
to reach the major Indian drug
manufacturers, who hope to begin selling their
products in countries like
Rwanda and Gambia that completely lack a
pharmaceutical industry. Wednesday
was Diwali, a national holiday in India,
and newspapers did not publish
today.
But drug makers in India who
have seen the two-page declaration called it a
step in the right direction
that nonetheless falls far short of opening up
new markets for them in
Africa, Asia and Latin America.
"The benefits of this Doha declaration
will be more for domestic sales than
for export sales," said Nichal Israni,
president of the 450-member Indian
Drug Manufacturers Association, based in
Bombay.
Under current Indian law, which recognizes patents on ways to
make drugs but
not the drugs themselves, manufacturers are able to produce
and sell
medicines here at a tiny fraction of the prices charged in the
United
States. In some cases, though, the generic makers have been blocked
from
selling their wares in other developing countries that have
Western-style
patent laws.
The new declaration means that Indian
companies will probably be able to go
on making and selling copycat drugs
even after 2005, the deadline for India
to bring its patent laws into
accordance with the 1994 treaty on
intellectual property, which recognizes
20-year patents on most inventions,
including drugs.
Under the new
agreement, countries will have the right to issue what are
known as
"compulsory licenses," which effectively require a patent-holding
company to
share its invention with a rival. The agreement gives countries
"the freedom
to determine the grounds upon which such licenses are granted,"
particularly
for public health crises like AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and
other
epidemics.
Bimal Raizada, senior vice president of Ranbaxy Laboratories
Ltd., India's
largest pharmaceutical company, with $502 million in sales last
year,
sounded distinctly underwhelmed by the outcome of the Doha talks. He
called
the agreement "a limited opportunity which will be
country-specific."
Like others in India's drug industry, he pointed to
the American debate over
whether to issue a compulsory license for Cipro,
Bayer's treatment for
anthrax, as a demonstration that even wealthy Americans
sometimes have to
worry about a drug's availability and price. Mr. Raizada
noted that Bayer's
steeply discounted price to the United States of 95 cents
a tablet for Cipro
was still much higher than the cost of the Indian version
- 17 cents a pill.
Mr. Raizada and others predicted today that
multinational drug companies
would fiercely resist any move to allow generic
drug makers like Ranbaxy and
Cipla in India to export copycat drugs. "They
have to protect these prices
and fight for them," Mr. Raizada
said.
Mr. Suzuki, the W.H.O. executive director for health technology
and
pharamaceuticals, who attended the Doha talks this week, said the
drug
giants saw enticing growth potential in emerging markets like India,
Brazil
and China, and they did not want generic manufacturers to rob them of
the
chance for profit.
"If they can't establish markets in these
countries, there will be no future
potential for expansion," he
said.
Trade experts say the big pharmaceutical companies have formidable
influence
on the issue of drug exports. "Oh, yes, they're powerful," said
Veena Jha,
the coordinator on trade issues for the United Nations Conference
on Trade
and Development. "Most of the resistance has come from companies in
the
United States, Switzerland and some European Union
countries."
Even if poor countries prevail and cross-border trade in
copycat generic
drugs is allowed, though, the market for many such medicines,
especially the
antiviral "cocktails" for AIDS patients, is likely to be
restricted by an
obstacle that may be just as daunting as patent-related
import restrictions.
Even the rock-bottom prices charged by generic
manufacturers like Aurobindo
of India are still far out of reach for most
people in African nations
ravaged by AIDS, said Venkat Kamalakar, Aurobindo's
general manager for
international operations.
According to Doctors
Without Borders, Aurobindo offers some of the world's
lowest prices, yet Mr.
Kamalakar said they were not low enough to solve the
problem of
access.
"Where is the money for poor countries to buy these medicines?"
he asked.
"Who will finance all this?"
17.11.2001
.
Qatar reveals impact of Sept 11 on trade battle
ZNet Commentary
Qatar reveals impact of Sept 11 on
trade battle
by Judy Rebick
After years of battle, the pro-corporate
globalization forces have won a victory in Qatar. Maude Barlow in an internet
radio report from Qatar www.canadians.org says NGOs on the ground at the World
Trade Organization (WTO) talks "are devastated."
The WTO, you will
remember, was the target of the first huge anti-corporate globalization action
in Seattle a couple of years ago. The demonstration combined with the resistance
of developing countries to the WTO agenda scuttled that round of talks and gave
new power and visibility to protesters. Now the talks are back on.
The
United States and other rich countries are using the "war on terrorism" to bully
and bribe poor countries into supporting the WTO agenda, which will expand
corporate power and increase the gap between rich and poor.
The
monumental events of September 11 and its aftermath have had an impact in both
strengthening the position of the rich countries and weakening the
anti-corporate globalization forces, especially in North America.
In a
polarizing climate of fear where any critical viewpoint faces immediate and
vicious attack, the times are very tough for any movement for social change. But
the danger is greatest for the anti-globalization movement both because it has
been the most visible and effective movement for change and because its strength
lies in an uneasy coalition of diverse forces.
The institutional part of
the movement, including unions and large NGOs, seems to be taking a step back
from mobilization. Unsure about the support of their members in the case of
unions and worried about government or public backlash to their funding in the
case of the NGOs, these groups have become more cautious. The more radical wing
of the movement, on the other hand, seems to see any significant change in
tactics as a retreat.
On November 17 in Ottawa, there will be a
mobilization that on the surface looks like previous mobilizations in Quebec
City and Windsor before it. A local group, Global Democracy, is organizing and
expects "thousands." Plans are afoot for creative confrontation, like the teddy
bear catapult in Quebec City. There is a long list of activities including a
teach-in organized by the Council of Canadians and featuring anti-globalization
stars like Susan George.
What's missing is the support of most
institutional groups. In Seattle, Quebec City, Windsor and Genoa, there were
differences between the different wings of the movement but both institutional
and radical groups mobilized.
In Ottawa, there is no sign that the unions
and big NGOs except for the Council are mobilizing. Part of the problem is the
short notice of the meeting that makes it more difficult for unions to organize.
. But there is little doubt that the impact of September 11 has deepened already
existing divisions in the movement.
According to David Robbins, a young
anti-corporate activist now working for the Council of Canadians, "Mainstream
groups are being careful, which seems to mean not doing things." He adds, "there
is still a class war out there and we are the only side expected to stop
fighting."
The main march on the morning of November 17 will be
non-violent according to the Global Democracy web site www.flora.org/gdo . But
on the day before and the afternoon after the march, groups who do not promise
non-violence will be organizing actions.
The reality of the
anti-globalization movement is that there are groups who adhere to what they
call "diversity of tactics." Most of these groups do not use violence themselves
but they will not condemn or stop others who choose to use violent
tactics.
The problem with the "diversity of tactics" argument is that a
tiny group who wants to throw stones at cops can put thousands of people into
danger who have not chosen to be in danger. In Quebec City and Genoa, organizers
created a safe or Green zone, as they are doing in Ottawa, but when police
violence escalated no one was safe.
The radical wing of the movement
sees enforcing demonstration rules as authoritarian and simply will not accept
it. They also reject arguments that the heightened level of polarization and
potential for repression creates a new reality post September 11 where promising
non-violence is even more important.
Young people I've talked to who
support non-violence say they cannot insist upon it because they would exclude
an important part of the movement. The problem here is that a much larger group
is de facto excluded because they can't afford to risk arrest, violence or a
backlash in their membership.
After September 11, an anti-war,
anti-corporate movement could be reaching out to many immigrants and refugees
who understand very well the price of this war but the cost of participating in
a protest that may turn violent is too high for them. Women's groups, who in
Ottawa tried to establish rules for non-violence, have also been excluded by the
rejection of such an agreement.
So many of these groups are voting with
their feet. Neither wing of the movement can be effective without the other. The
radical wing has created the energy, dynamism and attracted the youth that has
put the anti-corporate movement back on the map after the failure of the old
left. The institutional wing provides resources, continuity, credibility,
establishment contacts and a broader base.
Each group thinks they are
justified in their disagreements with the other. But the cost of allowing
disagreements to turn into permanent splits is too high. This is what happened
in the workers' movement during World War I.
We are still suffering the
consequences of the split between the radical Communists and the moderate social
democrats. The events of September 11 raise the urgent necessity for dialogue,
discussion and compromise in the anti-globalization movement. Nothing is more
important.
--> If you pass this comment along
to others -- periodically but not repeatedly -- please explain that Commentaries
are a premium sent to Sustainer Donors of Z/ZNet and that to learn more folks
can consult ZNet at http://www.zmag.org
17.11.2001
.
Drug Makers Now Say Doha TRIPs Pact Does Not
Diminish Protection of IP
Rights
Yes one can say that the Countries already had this power
under TRIPS; the
issue was they were pressured with retaliation if they dared
to exercise it.
I think Doha means that world politics is clear that the US,
etc. can't
pressure TW countries that break a patent for heath
reasons.
Phil
============================================
Prof.
Philip L. Bereano
Department of Technical Communication
Box
352195
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
Phone: (206)
543-9037
Fax: (206) 543-8858
-----Original
Message-----
From: Olivier Hoedeman [mailto:paxaran@antenna.nl]
Sent:
Friday, November 16, 2001 3:59 AM
To: stopwtoround@yahoogroups.com
Subject:
[StopWTORound] Drug Makers Now Say Doha TRIPs Pact Does Not
Diminish
Protection of IP Rights
International Trade Daily
Friday,
November 16, 2001 ISSN 1533-1350 News
WTO
Drug Makers Now Say Doha
TRIPs Pact Does Not Diminish
Protection of IP Rights
Despite earlier
statements of concern, two leading pharmaceutical
organizations said Nov. 14
that the World Trade Organization's
ministerial declaration on intellectual
property rights and public
health does not alter the WTO's current legal
protections.
17.11.2001
.
WTO tries to shut down <gatt.org> critical
site
From:
RTMark Bulletin <ann0074@rtmark.com>
November 15,
2001
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WTO ATTACKS WEBSITE, REAPS HUNDREDS OF
OTHERS
As it meets in Qatar, WTO attempts to shut down
critical
website;
group counters with site-stealing
software
Contacts: Jonathan Prince (mailto:jonathan@killyourtv.com)
Jean-Guy Carrier (mailto:jean-guy.carrier@wto.org)
Verio (mailto:copyright@verio.net)
The Yes Men (mailto:info@theyesmen.org)
Software:
http://www.theyesmen.org/yesiwill/
http://yesiwill.plagiarist.org/
http://detritus.net/projects/yesiwill/
Last
Friday, Jonathan Prince, who owns the Gatt.org domain,
received a
call
from Verio, Gatt.org's upstream provider. The World Trade
Organization had
just asked Verio to shut down the domain for
copyright violations, and Verio
told Prince that it would do
just that
if nothing was changed by November
13--the last day of the Doha
Ministerial, as it would happen. An official
email followed
(http://rtmark.com/verio.html).
(Last-minute
update: Verio's shutdown is currently expected sometime
after noon EST
today--watch software sites above for updates.)
"It's the war," says
Prince. "Bush has popularized zero-tolerance, and
it's open season on dissent
of any kind. So just when they're meeting
in Doha, the WTO has decided to
divert attention from its problems by
attacking a website."
"Or maybe
they really do want to make it so that protest has as little
place on the web
as it does in Qatar," adds Prince.
Oddly enough, the WTO has been aware
of the parody website since
before the 1999 Ministerial in Seattle, when it
issued a public
statement claiming the site misled visitors
(http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres99_e/pr151_e.htm).
Two
weeks ago, the WTO issued another release
(http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news01_e/gattdotorg_e.htm),
this
one claiming that Gatt.org was harvesting e-mails, an
allegation
reprinted as fact in some newspaper articles
(http://rtmark.com/pressgat.html).
While
it may be puzzling why the WTO chose to issue a second press
release about
Gatt.org two years later, it is even more surprising
that they are now taking
concrete steps to stop the critical site.
In statements made just last week
to the French daily newspaper
Liberation and to others, WTO spokesperson
Jean-Guy Carrier stated
that "It's not our job to use legal means against
people. We
appreciate dissidence and honest criticism."
Why the sudden
change of attitude?
"They got nervous, it's only human," said Elaine
Peabody, a
spokesperson for The Yes Men (http://www.theyesmen.org/), the
group
that maintains the Gatt.org website. "The WTO remembers what
happened
the last time they had one of these meetings [in Seattle].
They felt
like tackling something they knew they could handle--and a
satirical
website fit the bill."
BATTLE HEATS UP
But the WTO
could well have stepped on a hornets' nest. To counter
the attack, the
Yes Men have are releasing today a piece of
open-source "parodyware" (http://theyesmen.org/yesiwill/) that
will
"forever make this kind of censorship obsolete," according to
Peabody.
"Using this software, it takes five minutes to set up a
convincing,
personalized, evolving parody of the WTO.org website, or any
other
website of your choice," said Peabody, who helped to develop
the
program. "All you need is a place to put it--say,
WTOO.org,
WorldTradeOrg.com, whatever."
The software, called "Yes I
Will!", automatically duplicates websites
as needed, changing words and
images as the user desires--with results
that can be very telling. The WTO
site can be made to speak of
"consumers" and "companies" rather than
"citizens" and "countries."
Unleashed on the CNN.com website, the software
can simplify the
reporting even further by referring to Bush as "Leader," and
the war
in Afghanistan as one between "Good" and "Evil"; a Time.com
article
linked from the site then discusses "The Poor Way of War". The
parody
site updates itself automatically as the target website
changes.
"The idea is to insure that even if they shut down our
website,
hundreds of others will continue our work of translation,"
said
Peabody. "The more they try to fight it, the funnier they're going
to
look."
"Such heavy-handed tactics work as poorly in cyberspace as
they do on
the geopolitical stage," said Cooper Kharms, another Yes Man.
"At
least Gatt.org was transparent: you could tell what it was by
reading
a line or two. These other sites may not be so
obvious."
Prince thinks the software, while interesting, is not a
solution.
"With their attack on Gatt.org, an unelected,
unaccountable
organization is running roughshod over the USA Bill of Rights,"
said
Prince. "But every day they violate people's rights in the
Third
World, or enable corporations to do so. This time it's just closer
to
home."
For more on the legal basis of the WTO's attack, see
also
http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=15296&group=webcast
RTMark's
primary goal is to publicize corporate subversion of the
democratic process.
To this end it acts as a clearinghouse for
anti-corporate
projects.
17.11.2001
. Snapshots from Doha by Walden Bello
SNAPSHOTS FROM DOHA
By Walden Bello
Standing on both sides
of the entrance to the huge Al Dafna Hall at the Sheraton, the protesters
carried a common sign that read "No Voice at the WTO," calling attention to the
lack of transparency, democracy, and civil society input in the decision-making
processes of the organization. Once over 5000 had filed in, the demonstrators
started chanting "What do we want? Democracy!" An effort by Jose Bove, the
famous French anti-McDonalds activist, to lead the demonstrators into the hall
was initially countered by Qatari security forces. A few moments later, however,
they were allowed in. Fulfilling a pledge made at an open session earlier in the
day by the Crown Prince, none of the activists was arrested or detained.
Superparanoia is the only word that can describe the state of mind of
the US security force in Doha. As delegates began to arrive, the US Trade
Representative's office moved to get US NGO representatives billeted at the Ritz
Carlton with the government people. One of them was Anuradha Mittal, executive
director of food First. When they found out that Anuradha was a citizen of
India, they "freaked out," she said. They prevented her from riding on the same
bus from the hotel to the conference site, refused her access to US official
briefings, and did not provide her with a security phone and a gas mask, which
they were distributing to other members of the American entourage.
Much
fewer NGO representatives are in Doha compared to Seattle, according to a report
in the Peninsula, a Doha newspaper.
Here is an excerpt from the article:
"While the numbers of NGO representatives and mediapersons covering the
4th ministerial meeting of the WTO in Doha pales in comparison to those at the
1999 conference in Seattle, the number of delegates has more or less remained
the same, said an official yesterday.
"As against the expected
attendance of 4500 announced earlier by the organizers, about 3800 people are in
Doha to attend the conference.
"Briefing the media ahead of the
meeting's formal inauguration, WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell said the largest
delegation of 159 has come from Japan. This is followed by the French (75),
Canada (62), Indonesia (60), United States (51), and India (48).
"The
European Union has a presence of 508 delegates, including about 50
representatives of the European Commission. Apart from the delegations of the
142 member countries, 28 observers and 48 international organizations are
represented in Doha. Rockwell said the number of delegates attending the
conference is 2,641. There are 388 representatives of the non-governmental
organizations and 808 media persons. He said the Seattle conference was covered
by about 2700 journalists and 650 NGOs had sent in nearly 1300 representatives.
"
________________
14 November
2001
Who forgot to put development in the development round?
The World Development Movement condemned the Declaration agreed by the
WTO Ministerial meeting in Doha, Qatar today as "a disaster for the world's
poor."
Barry Coates, Director of the World Development Movement said:
"This is a massive defeat for poor people around the world. The much hyped
development round is empty of development. This massive extension of the WTO is
both reckless and dangerous. It will further undermine the WTO's legitimacy. The
cost of current trade agreements is already being counted in people's lives.
Developing countries do not have the capacity or the wish to negotiate these new
agreements."
The Declaration agrees to launch new trade agreements on
the environment, industrial tariffs, Implementation, intellectual property
rights, subsidies and countervailing duties, regional trade agreements, dispute
settlement and the environment, in addition to the ongoing negotiations on
agriculture and services. All this would be negotiated as a package by the
beginning of 2005.
Barry Coates said: "This is an impossible workload
even for the larger middle income countries, let alone the world's poorest
countries. It is a recipe for their further marginalisation."
In
addition there was a fudge on the deeply contentious issues of investment,
competition policy, transparency in government procurement and trade
facilitation. Pre-negotiations will start, but any decision to launch full
negotiations will need explicit consensus on the specifics at the next
Ministerial meeting in two years time.
"The deeply unfair process before
Doha meant that almost the whole of the Ministerial conference was devoted to
issues of interest to the rich countries. The concept of a development round was
completely sidelined. The poorest countries in the world, such as Mozambique,
were forced to spend their time negotiating on investment agreements and
intellectual property rights, instead of improving their access to developed
countries' markets. "
"In mounting huge pressure for their own agenda,
the UK and the EU played Russian Roulette with the trading system in Doha,
pushing the meeting to the brink of collapse in order to start negotiations on
investment and competition policy, agreements that developing countries said are
largely in the interests of the rich world's multinationals. They failed. The
tragedy was that the issues of vital importance to the world's poor didn't get a
look in."
The US and EU repeatedly stated that failure to agree a
comprehensive new round was not a problem for them as they could continue their
agenda through bilateral trade agreements. This is not an option for developing
countries. As Iddi Simba, Trade Minister for Tanzania and chair of the LDC's
said on Monday (12 Nov): "We need the multilateral trade system far more than
the rich countries. But we cannot agree to a deal that will cost people their
lives."
Barry Coates today said: "The EU and US have exploited the
vulnerability of poor countries in order to force their agenda on them. Even
where it appears that developing countries may benefit, the Declaration is so
riddled with holes and get-out clauses that the gains are likely to be illusory.
"
"The world desperately needed an opportunity to fix the broken
promises from the last round of negotiations. Tony Blair has called for an end
to the "hypocrisy" of the richest nations protecting their markets from the
exports of the poorest while claiming to be concerned for the world's poor. The
British Government and the EU have played a shameless role in taking this
hypocrisy to new heights."
Coates continued: "This deal would not have
happened without the abuse of the negotiations that has seen countries
threatened and bullied. There have been secret talks and countries locked out of
meetings. As a result, the demands of developing countries were marginalised or
just downright ignored from the very beginning."
Developing countries
were well organised, strong in their positions and supported by WDM and other
NGOs in Doha. But they were forced to react to the agenda of the rich countries
and put under unacceptable pressure.
At the last minute a text was
produced containing almost everything the US and EU wanted. Coates said: "After
two sleepless nights, under massive pressure from the EU and with a number of
countries delegations having gone home, delegates were forced to make a decision
that would effect the lives of billions of people. The EU and US have been
playing playing Russian Roulette. This is no way to run a multilateral trade
system."
ENDS
CONTACT
Barry Coates in Doha on +44 7702 236 418 (UK mobile) or 5392710
(Qatari mobile)
Dave Timms (WDM Press Officer) in Doha on +44 7711 875 345
(UK mobile)
_____________________
Poor win few gains at world
trade meeting /15.11.01
Heralded by
Patricia Hewitt, the UK's Trade Secretary, as a sign of 'the determination of
the world's community to fight terror with trade as well as arms,' World Trade
Organisation (WTO) talks in the Gulf state of Qatar ended on Wednesday with
meager gains for poor countries.
The five-day meeting, which brought
together trade ministers from the WTO's 142 member nations, was extended to a
sixth day as negotiators failed to reach agreement on the launch of a new round
of talks on global trade. India blocked proposals put forward by the European
Union for discussions on four new trade deals at the last moment. However, the
final declaration still commits all members of the WTO to start talks on these
issues in two years time, something many poor countries were opposed to.
'Poor countries have come away from Qatar with a fistful of crumbs but
they're yet to have any significant slice of the WTO's cake,' said Mark Curtis,
Christian Aid's head of policy. 'It is deeply disappointing to see how countries
with the might of India are reduced to blocking tactics and have few of their
own proposals given serious consideration by wealthy nations.'
Mr Curtis
was also critical of the UK government for supporting both the launch of a new
round and the four new issues. He said 'The UK has played a shameful role in the
face of opposition from the WTO's poorest member states.'
There were
some specific successes which should prove beneficial to poor people. On the key
issues of health and patent rights, the meeting accepted the view of developing
countries that nothing in a WTO agreement on trade-related intellectual property
rights 'should prevent members from taking measures to protect public health'.
Developing countries want the freedom to import low-cost medicines to treat the
HIV/AIDS pandemic and other killer diseases such as TB and malaria. But 20-year
patents on medicines price them out of the reach of the poor.
Poor
countries also made headway on the scrapping of export subsidies. It is common
practice for the governments of wealthy countries, especially those in Europe,
to pay a subsidy to exporters of food, making it cheaper than local produce in
poor countries. However, a commitment to 'reductions of, with a view to phasing
out' export subsidies is tempered in the final declaration by the phrase
'without prejudging the outcome of negotiations.'
'The events of the
past few days underline the importance of a fundamental change in the rules
governing global trade,' added Mark Curtis. 'At the moment it's like Manchester
boys FC playing Manchester United. Poor people in the developing world are being
forced into direct competition with big companies from rich countries and the
meeting in Doha has achieved very little that will help them compete on equal
terms.
_________________
Developing countries
face uphill struggle after Doha
Trade
Justice Parade, 3 November
The Catholic Aid
Agency CAFOD says the final declaration of the WTO Summit in Doha places a heavy
negotiating burden on developing countries. They will struggle to build on its
positive words and to avoid pitfalls in new and complex areas.
The stage
is set for a re-run of the Uruguay Round, repeating its outcome of unfair and
unbalanced agreements that have damaged the prospects of numerous developing
countries.
CAFOD's Head of Public Policy, George Gelber, says,
"Developing countries now have to negotiate on a huge number of complex issues.
They have repeatedly said that that they neither want nor have the capacity to
discuss its four "new issues", especially investment and competition.
"Their one safeguard is the last minute ruling of the conference chair
that any country can block negotiations on any one of the new issues when all
the member countries meet again in two years' time. But developing countries,
especially the smaller ones, have repeatedly been bought off or threatened when
they have opposed the US or the EU line."
CAFOD has been calling for a
new approach on trade, making trade rules that work for the poor, rather than
being decided purely on the basis of narrow economic self-interest and
commercial lobbying. Doha has failed to achieve this. The world's richest
nations resisted every concession to developing countries in the text,
especially on agricultural export subsidies, textiles and patented drugs.
Nevertheless there have been achievements for developing countries. They
have faced down the US and big pharmaceutical corporations to ensure that public
health needs come before patent protection. They have won some improved special
treatment for poor countries within the WTO rules.
On agriculture, there
is also some good news - pressure on the EU to reduce their subsidies, which
lead to the dumping of food on world markets, and strong language on the need
for special treatment of poor countries which should lead to any future
agreement acknowledging the crucial social role of agriculture in developing
countries.
Doha marks the start of negotiations, not the end. The
inclusion of twelve huge issues in the declaration means that the talks will
take longer than the scheduled three years. It is far too early to talk of a
'development round'. If trade rules are to be changed to benefit the world's
poor, the Doha declaration's many references to development will need to be
converted from pious hopes into action. To date, the WTO's track record on this
is lamentable.
Much will depend on the developing countries
consolidating their newfound strength, and the North learning to listen more,
and bully and preach a good deal less.
Contact Patrick Nicholson who
returned today from Doha on 020 7 326 5559, 07867 908 720 or
pnicholson@cafod.org.uk
____________________
REVISED MINISTERIAL DRAFT DECLARATION: STILL HARMFUL TO INTERESTS OF
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
By Walden Bello and Aileen Kwa
The revised draft ministerial
declaration issued in the afternoon of November 13 continues to highly
detrimental to the interests of developing countries.
The new text, as
many have already pointed out, continues to relegated to the margins the
developing countries' demand that implementation issues should serve as the core
work agenda of the WTO in the next few years. This text affirms the loud
complaints in Doha by developing country representatives that their voice no
longer counts in the WTO.
Likewise the text continues to place at centre
stage the developed countries' desire to initiate a process that would lead to
negotiations on the so-called "new issues" of investment, competition policy,
government procurement, and trade facilitation. The text explicitly calls for
the immediate initiation of negotiations on government procurement and on trade
facilitation. While there appears to be some dilution in the language on
investment and competition policy, in fact the text sets in motion activities by
the working groups on investment and competition policy that are calculated to
give momentum to the adoption of a decision to launch negotiations in these
areas during the Fifth Session of the Ministerial.
The revised text also
ignores the proposal for a "development box" to be added to the Agreement on
Agriculture that many developing countries have pushed for in Doha to promote
food security and development.
Focus further notes with disapproval the
revised text's dropping of the phrase that the ILO is the "appropriate forum"
for dialogue on trade and labor issues. The new formulation leaves the door open
for the WTO to expand its jurisdiction to an area where it does not belong.
It is alleged that the compromise language relating to countries'
concern about public health is a step forward, but as some observers have
pointed out, the so-called compromise will still leave unchanged the language of
the TRIPs agreement, and this will serve as the basis for future legal
challenges to countries that override patents for public health purposes.
In sum, there are minimal changes to this version of the ministerial
declaration. Its adoption will constitute a setback for developing countries in
the WTO.
* Focus on the Global South, Bangkok, Thailand
17.11.2001
. U.S. Industry Leaders Have Mixed Views
About a New
Round of WTO Trade Talks
THE WALL STREET
JOURNAL
November 16, 2001
Economy
U.S. Industry Leaders
Have Mixed Views About a New Round of
WTO Trade Talks
By ROBERT GUY
MATTHEWS, TIMOTHY AEPPEL and
JEFFREY BALL Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET
JOURNAL
Although it will be years before a new round of world
trade
negotiations reach their conclusion, U.S. industrial leaders
reacted
swiftly, with some welcoming the chance for a more equal
global
playing field and others saying it will hurt domestic
producers.
Steelmakers were outraged and textile makers were pleased
but
cautious following news that the 142 nations of the World
Trade
Organization finally agreed to a new round of trade talks,
scheduled
to wrap up in 2005. Pharmaceutical companies tried to put the
best
spin on the development, saying the short-term impact won't
be
significant, but worrying about major long-term consequences.
Auto
makers welcomed the opportunity to sell more goods abroad,
as did the trade
association representing major manufacturers.
The U.S. steel industry's
greatest concern is an agreement to
renegotiate antidumping laws, which have
become the industry's
strongest weapon in its continuing fight to keep out
low-priced
foreign steel, and say they will pressure Congress to
prevent
watering down those laws. "We are very concerned that [U.S.
Trade
Representative Robert] Zoellick has put our trade laws on the
discussion
block, particularly with all the support we have had in
Congress on both the
House and Senate side," said Daniel
DiMicco, chief executive officer and
chairman of Nucor Corp., the
country's No. 2 steelmaker, behind USX-U.S.
Steel Group. "Trade
laws shouldn't be weakened." To help press the industry's
case,
Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers of America
union,
is calling on support from auto workers, machinists
and
electricians unions, who he said risk job loss if existing
antidumping
laws are relaxed. "We will put together a grass-roots
education program for
members of Congress," he said.
Also concerning the industry is whether
the administration's
agreement to renegotiate antidumping laws signals less
intent by
the Bush administration to enact in January, as expected,
a
stringent law that would severely limit the number of imports
entering
the country. Some industry executives remain confident in
the
administration's efforts. "Ultimately for the industry's long-term
success we
are dependent on a healthy economy and we have to
put some faith and trust in
our officials to achieve a balancing act,"
says Robert S. Miller, newly
appointed chief executive officer of
Bethlehem Steel Corp., the third-largest
steelmaker, which recently
filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code.
While steelmakers opposed the trade agenda, steel
importers and
consumers applauded it. Dave Phelps, president of the
American
Institute for International Steel, a lobbying group that
represents
steel importers, said negotiating the laws would be beneficial in
the
long run by rewarding the best steelmakers, no matter which
country
makes the steel. Likewise, the U.S. auto industry, as
major consumers of
steel, said that any change in antidumping
laws making foreign steel less
expensive could help push down the
price of domestic steel.
More
important, the auto industry welcomes tariff reductions and
more-open trade
policies as a means to sell more cars abroad.
"Ultimately, the outcome will
be more-liberal trade," says Charles
Uthus, vice president of the Automotive
Trade Policy Council, a
Washington-based group that represents General Motors
Corp.,
Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG on
international-trade
issues.
U.S. auto makers are particularly
interested in seeing reduced
tariffs in China, a potentially huge market for
cars and trucks from
Detroit's producers. The U.S. auto industry is cheering
China's
inclusion in the WTO, but wants to see how China handles
specific
pressure to reduce its trade barriers as the talks progress.
"That
will be a challenge going forward," says William Kelly, director
of
international governmental affairs for Ford. In 2000, Ford sold
about
6.5 million vehicles in developed countries world-wide, and
about
800,000 in developing countries.
Many smaller developing nations
also are on the U.S. auto
industry's wish list. Malaysia, for instance,
imposes tariffs on some
imported vehicles of as much as three times the
vehicle's price,
and its government has set up a program to nurture
the
development of the Proton, a small car built by a
Malaysian
company.
"America's manufacturers still face some very high
trade barriers
overseas," says Frank Vargo, trade expert for the
National
Association of Manufacturers, a Washington-based industry
group.
He cites the example of "machinery," a vast trade category
that
includes everything from power turbines to printing machines.
The
official tariffs on U.S.-made machinery sold in South America
and
Southeast Asia average over 30%, although many developing
countries
actually assess lower tariffs, averaging about 15% to
20%. "But that's still
very much higher than ours," says Mr. Vargo.
The corresponding U.S. tariffs
on imports of such products is 1.2%.
The manufacturers group wants the
U.S. to keep this in mind when
it negotiates. One common method in past talks
was to forge
agreements calling for uniform percentage decreases, such
as
50% cuts, in official tariffs. In the case of machinery, however,
that
might mean developing countries merely cutting their official
tariffs
to match the informal rate, while the U.S. tariffs are already so
low
that they are virtually nothing. The organization is pushing for
a
provision that would allow agreements to lower industrial tariffs
to
zero across the board in sectors, such as medical equipment,
that
broadly agree to do so.
U.S. textile interests were pleased but
cautious about the
agreement and plan to meet with U.S. negotiators to see
what
specific direction the talks will take. Carlos Moore, executive
vice
president of the American Textile Manufacturers Institute
in
Washington, said he wants clearer language on antidumping
issues and
what the term "special treatment" exactly means for
developing
countries.
On the service side, the insurance industry hopes in this new
round
to expand on the gains it made in a 1997 trade pact relating
to
banking, securities and insurance markets. "If they offered us
60%
ownership before, we want to take it to 100%," said Brad
Smith,
managing director of international relations for the
American
Council of Life Insurers. "If they taxed us differently, we want
it
ironed out."
U.S. insurers see huge growth opportunities in Asia,
especially
China. "It's a market that eventually will be the largest in the
world,"
said Alice Schroeder, an insurance analyst at Morgan Stanley.
John
Savercool, with the American Insurance Association,
representing
property-casualty insurers, said the demographics of
certain "target
countries," such as India with its emerging middle
class, were particularly
attractive to insurers looking to sell
retirement products. But he said
limits on foreign ownership and
outdated regulatory bodies prevented U.S.
firms from capitalizing
on the growth of those markets. "In India, foreign
ownership is
capped at 26%," Mr. Savercool noted.
Issues at
Hand
The 10-page declaration adopted by ministers at the World
Trade
Organization meeting agrees to negotiations among the
organization's
142 members. It sets a deadline of Jan. 1, 2005 for
completing the talks
covering the following issues:
Agriculture: Cuts in tariffs, reductions
of export subsidies "with a
view to phasing out" substantial reductions in
trade-distorting
domestic subsidies.
Services: Increasing access for
banking, insurance and other
companies and increasing opportunities for
people to work in other
countries.
Nonagricultural goods: Reducing and
eliminating tariffs and other
barriers, particularly on products that are
important to developing
countries.
WTO rules: Subsidies for goods like
steel and textiles and when
"anti-dumping" duties can be imposed on them,
improvements to
the system for settling disputes.
Environment: The
relationship between WTO rules and international
environmental treaties,
reducing or eliminating tariffs on
environmental goods and services,
fisheries subsidies.
Other issues: Include investment, competition
policy, transparency
in government procurement and customs procedures, all of
which
could be subject to negotiations in two years, if all
governments
agree.
Source: Associated Press
The other major
industry disappointed with WTO talks, aside from
steel, was pharmaceuticals,
which opposed wording in the
declaration that affirmed the rights of
developing countries to buy
less-expensive, generic versions of patented
drugs when needed to
address public-health problems.
Even so, drug
executives and lobbyists argued that they hadn't lost
much. The drug
companies said that the declaration, a political
statement, didn't change
world trade agreements regarding patent
rights.
-- Christopher Oster
and Dan Morse contributed to this
article.
**********************************
In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for
research and
educational purposes.
19.11.2001
. The situation on Singapore issues:
questions
Hi
Below is some questions about the situation
on Singapore issues. I will be
glad if someone has some ideas about answers
to these questions.
About Singapore issues it is now agreed "that
negotiations will take place
after the Fifth Session... on the basis of a
decision to be taken, by
explicit consensus, at that Session on modalities of
negotiations".
All negotiations "shall be concluded not later than 1
January 2005." (under
the "single undertaking": so there is one year
for official negotiations)
(Here "The Fifth Session of the Ministerial
Conference will... provide any
necessary political guidance, and take
decisions as necessary")
Questions about these commitments
:
1. a) If negotiations "will take place after the
Fifth Session... on the
basis of a decision to be taken, by explicit
consensus, at that Session on
modalities of negotiations", what does
the word "after" mean here ?
(and in what sense is it bound to commitment
that all negotiations "shall be
concluded not later than 1 January 2005"
?)
b) And what does it mean if we commit to have a consensus after 2
years on
something, the content of which we do not yet know
?
2. a) Is Lamy correct when he says about Singapore
issues now that "there
is a clear commitment to launch such negotiations at a
certain date" ?
3. Does not this Lamy´s estimation
contradict with the announcement of the
Chair of Doha ministerial
:
"In my view this would give each Member the right to take a position
on
modalities that would prevent negotiations from proceeding after
the
Fifth Session of the Minsterial Conference until that Member is
prepared to
join in an explicit consensus." ?
4. Does
not this ("in my view") mean that between Lamy and the Chair of
Doha
ministerial there is no consensus about what was the consensus to which
the
Doha ministerial declaration bases itself ?
5. a) And does it
mean that there is no consensus between Mike Moore and the
chair of the WTO
ministerial about what is the WTO consensus ?
b) Who is more authorized
to interpret the WTO ministerial declaration, the
Chair of the ministerial
(in the conclusion of the ministerial), or Mike
Moore ?
(According to
the WTO website, the Chairman´s explanation "together with all
the other
statements made at the closing plenary session, will appear in the
record of
the meeting".)
6. Can there be about WTO ministerial
declarations (based on consensus),
afterwards some legal juridical
interpretation which could be valid, if
there is no consensus about that
interpretation ?
(at least there can be no dispute settlement about the
interpretation of the
ministerial declaration ? )
7.
a) Even if countries could have made a commitment that each of them
is
ready to agree after 2 years on some proposal on some "modalities
of
negotiations" (to start negotiations), still :
how could any
country know beforehand that all other countries are
committed to agree
to the same proposal on "modalities of negotiations" ?
(as they do not
yet even know those proposals, about what they are committed
"to take a
decision by consensus" ? )
b) As there can be several proposals on
"modalities of negotiations", to
which of those proposals the countries have
committed to agree ?
(so that they could be committed to launch
negotiations all on basis of
those same "modalities of negotiations" of
that same proposal ?)
8. What will be needed to prevent that the
same reasons, which made the
developing countries to accept in Doha the
confusing wording on Singapore
issues, can make them to accept also the
negotiations of these Singapore
issues also in the fifth ministerial
?
9. a) When LDCs, Africa, and ACP opposed still in 12.11.
and 13.11. even
the softer wordings on Singapore issues´ negotiations, what
made them in a
last minute to accept the strong wording "we agree that
negotiations will
take place after the Fifth Session of the Ministerial
Conference" ?
b) Did these developing countries need some other issues to
be negotiated so
badly that they were afraid not to get these other
negotiations, if they do
not accept some commitment on Singapore issues
?
c) Or are the Cotonou agreement, development aid and threat in
bilateral
relations with the EU or US so important for many of these
developing
countries, that they were afraid that the EU will leave the
agreement, US
will leave the aid etc., if developing countries do not
accept agenda on
Singapore issues ?
(WTO website says : "Agreement
was reached on 14 November after all-night
consultations on remaining
disagreements.
Meanwhile ministers agreed to grant the European Union a
waiver from its
non-discrimination obligations, in order to enable it give
preferential
tariff concessions to the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP)
countries
that are former colonies of its member states.
Agreement on this
also required intensive consultations because of concerns
raised by some
developing countries that are not ACP members").
10. a)
When Africa and LDC-countries left India to fight quite alone with
the text,
did they know that India can do this for them, and that something
like
chairman´s annoncement will come ?
b) What they think now about their
possibilities to get the Singapore issues
out from the single undertaking and
would they be ready to leave the single
undertaking if that would be only way
to leave the Singapore issues out ?
(I think still that the EU and US are
likely to accept other agreements even
if they do not get WTO agreements on
Singapore issues.)
11. a) As developing countries have
accepted that in a fifth session there
is "a decision to be taken, by
explicit consensus... on modalities of
negotiations" on Singapore issues, are
developing countries ready to develop
on these "modalities of negotiations"
their own proposals to oppose the
proposals of the EU and US
?
There begins now "clarification of: scope and definition;
transparency;
non-discrimination; modalities for pre-establishment
commitments based on a
GATS-type, positive list approach; development
provisions; exceptions and
balance-of-payments safeguards; consultation and
the settlement of
disputes between Members" etc..
b) What would
prevent developing countries from making about these same
titles totally
different proposals to oppose EU´s proposals ?
(the titles of
the elements are as such not bound by the declaration to any
specific
contents ?)
c) If such developing countries´ proposals would
be made in co-operation
with UN organs and if they would get also the support
of world´s NGOs
to oppose EU´s proposals, is it not possible that they can be
able to
prevent EU´s proposals from getting explicit consensus
?
12. a) As in Harbinson´s draft, the "modalities of
negotiations" were one
of the elements to be clarified by the work before the
fifth ministerial,
why are the "modalities of negotiations" now removed from
the elements to be
clarified by the working groups ?
b) As in
the Fifth Session a decision is "to be taken, by explicit
consensus, at that
Session on modalities of negotiations", from where does
then come the
proposals of those "modalities of negotiations" (as they will
not now
be clarified by the working groups) ?
c) Does there now exist (by
the EU or Japan) some proposals on modalities
of negotiations, and are all
countries allowed now to make proposals on the
modalities of negotiations on
these issues for the fifth ministerial
conference ?
Ville-Veikko
Hirvelä
WTO-campaign of the Finnish NGOs
17.11.2001
. Caroline
Lucas: Globalisation spells disaster for
poor
Apologies for
cross-posting
Doha spells disaster for
development
Anti-globalisation protestors are accused of having no
positive agenda
of their own. But there is an
environmental alternative to
globalisation, which can protect and raise
living standards in both north and
south
The globalisation debate - Observer special
Caroline
Lucas
Sunday November 18, 2001
The Observer
To hear the EU, the
British Government and the WTO congratulating
themselves on getting a new WTO
Trade Round started, and
even calling it - with breathtaking hypocrisy - a
"Development Round",
you could be forgiven for thinking this must have been
some
kind of victory for the poor. In reality, nothing could be further
from
the truth. Doha spells disaster for poor people.
As a member of
the European Parliament's official delegation, I
travelled to the World Trade
talks in Doha last week. It was a quiet
event - the very opposite of the
blanket coverage of its previous 1999
debacle, the "Battle of Seattle."
Skulking in a small state,
allowing hardly any protestors and being knocked
off the news agenda by
the war, it must have seemed like the good old days to
the
trade officials - meeting away from demonstrations and massive
press
interest to further open up markets to the benefit of
corporations
and at the price of ever rising global inequality.
But the absence of
mass protests in Doha does not signal any let up in
the campaign against
corporate globalisation. To the
contrary, major public demonstrations took
place in towns and cities
around the world in the run-up to the meeting, and
over 100
NGOs from both North and South - those lucky enough to get one of
the
very limited number of visas on offer - were present and
active in
Doha.
Michael Jacobs in his article last week warned that
anti-globalisation
cannot help the developing world. That depends on how
you
define globalisation. Those of us whose campaign is against
economic
globalisation - the ever tighter integration of
national
economies into one giant global economy - are convinced that
resistance
can and will help the developing world. Indeed
Southern
activists have been in the vanguard of such activities. Last week,
for
example, hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers joined
a
demonstration in Delhi specifically to protest about current WTO
rules.
They know that if they are forced to open their agricultural
markets to
the rich North - according to the principles of free trade
that
Jacobs so applauds - their livelihoods will be
devastated.
Developing country delegates at the WTO Ministerial also knew
about the
havoc open markets can wreak. Rather than agreeing to
immediate
negotiations on further industrial tariff reductions, for
example, as
demanded by the EU and US, they called for a prior
study to be undertaken on
the effects of such tariff reductions on local
industries and jobs. Their
request was ignored, and as a
result, they face further decimation of their
economies. In Senegal, for
example, previous commitments to open their
markets by
cutting industrial tariffs by almost half has led to the loss of
one
third of all manufacturing jobs. The same story is repeated
throughout
the poorer countries.
Indeed, more than 80 countries now have per capita
incomes lower than
they were a decade or more ago, and as the United
Nations
Development Programme points out, it is often those countries which
are
highly "integrated" into the global economy that are
becoming more
marginal. Even the IMF admits that "in recent decades,
nearly one fifth of
the population has regressed - arguably
one of the greatest economic failures
of the twentieth century."
Michael Jacobs challenges critics of the WTO
to come up with a new
system of Trade and Investment rules designed to
prioritise
poverty reduction. The Green Party, whose supporters he later
lambasts
as "simplistic anti-capitalists", has done precisely that.
In
a report, Time to Replace Globalisation, launched to coincide with
Doha last
week, we detail a set of alternative trade rules which
are designed to
replace the WTO's programme of ever more open markets in
ever more ruthless
competition with each other, with a
post-globalisation alternative in order
to achieve genuine
sustainability. These rules would strengthen democratic
control of
trade,
stimulating industries and services that benefit local
communities, and
rediversifying local and national
economies.
According to this new model, over time there would be a
gradual
transition away from dependence on international export
markets
(with every country trying to compete with each other, leading to
a
downward spiral of social and environmental standards) towards
the
provision of as many goods and services as feasible and appropriate
locally
and nationally. Developing countries would be given
significant support to
help them with this transition.
For example, the WTO's current rules
require that imported and locally
produced goods be treated equally. Thus,
under WTO rules,
it is unlawful for governments to favour, or otherwise
promote, domestic
products above imported goods. Under our alternative
rules,
domestic products would be given priority where their
production
increases local employment with decent wages. Over
time,
quantitative controls on exports or imports through tariffs, quotas
or
bans would be permitted to this end.
Today's rules also prohibit
discrimination between products because of
concerns about the damaging or
unethical processes that
have been used to produce or harvest them. Under the
rules of
relocalisation, members would be permitted and encouraged to
make
distinctions between products on this basis in order to further the
aims
of sustainable development.
Perhaps most vital for developing
countries are the rules governing
agriculture. According to WTO rules,
adequate protective barriers
to foster domestic farming and subsidies to
support poorer farmers are
not generally allowed. Under our alternative
rules, protective
barriers could be introduced to enable countries to reach
maximum
self-sufficiency in food, where feasible.
Such policies have
been branded as 'protectionist' - but we would be
willing to accept such a
label, if it is understood that what we
want to protect are efficient
national policies of cost internalization,
health and safety standards, and a
reasonable minimum
standard of living for citizens, both North and
South.
Historically, these benefits have come from national policies, not
from
global economic integration. Protecting these hard-won social
gains
from blind standards-lowering competition in the global market is
what we are
interested in - not, as some would caricature it,
the protection of some
inefficient entrepreneur who wants to grow
mangoes in Manchester.
A
growing movement, North and South, has the courage to suggest that
more than
one economic system is possible. We have
shown that alternatives do exist,
and trade rules can be rewritten to
support them. In the interests of wider
equity and security, it is
vital that they are.
· Caroline Lucas is a
Green member of the European Parliament
representing South-East
England.
Useful link
http://www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk/
CLucas@europarl.eu.int
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers
Limited 2001
--
Chris Keene,
Coordinator, Anti-Globalisation Network
90 The Parkway, Canvey Island, Essex
SS8 0AE, England
Tel 01268 682820 Fax 01268
514164
18.11.2001
. Rich Country
Protectionism Puts WTO on the Slow Track
Rich Country Protectionism
Puts WTO on the Slow Track
By Mark
Weisbrot
"Free trade"
ideologues scoffed at the Teamsters and turtles that converged on Seattle two
years ago, protesting the WTO's disregard for the environment and labor. The WTO
was the last best hope for the world's poor, they said.
But the
rules of the WTO are, by any honest accounting, a net loss for the developing
countries of the world. In fact, that is one of the main reasons for the lack of
progress at the ministerial meeting just concluded in Doha, Qatar: these
countries are beginning to defend their interests.
It is
ironic but fitting that one of the major sore points between North and South was
disagreement over "intellectual property rights." A compromise was reached at
Doha, but it will by no means resolve this contentious issue. The WTO has
presented itself as an organization dedicated to "free trade," yet its rules on
intellectual property -- for example, patents -- constitute the most costly and
dangerous form of protectionism in the world.
If we add
up the cost of this protectionism to developing countries, it runs into the tens
of billions of dollars annually -- perhaps even more. Even if the United States,
Europe, Japan, and other rich countries were to open up their markets beyond
anyone's expectations to developing countries' exports, it would not make up for
their losses due to foreign intellectual property claims.
A growing
number of prominent economists have begun to see this protectionism as unfair,
and inconsistent with the free trade agenda that most of the profession
supports. These economists include Joseph Stiglitz, winner of this year's Nobel
Prize; Columbia University's Jagdesh Bhagwati; and senior economists from the
World Bank.
From an
economic point of view, monopolies created by patents or copyrights are
analytically the same as the distortions created by tariffs or import quotas.
The main difference is that patent monopolies raise the price of the protected
product by many times more than a typical tariff. So it is only natural that
economists would oppose rules that extend these government restrictions on
international competition, especially in an organization supposedly dedicated to
spreading the benefits of "free trade."
On the
other side are trade officials from the United States, Switzerland, Japan, and
other nations that are home to major players in the pharmaceutical industry.
Much to their shame, these officials have sought to limit as much as possible
the right of developing countries to increase access to essential medicines
through generic competition.
The
life-and-death consequences of this protectionism have become clear in the last
few years, as it became known that the anti-AIDS drugs that keep people alive in
the US for $10,000 a year are available in generic form for less than $350. In
the last three years, the US government and pharmaceutical companies have three
times been forced by international embarrassment to abandon attempts to keep
these generic drugs from people in developing countries -- some 36 million of
whom have HIV or AIDS.
The most
recent instance was a case at the WTO itself. In January the Clinton
administration challenged Brazil's laws dealing with the manufacture and import
of generic AIDS drugs. These laws formed an important part of Brazil's
remarkably successful AIDS treatment program, which has cut by half the number
of AIDS-related deaths there in recent years. The Brazilian government stood
firm, and Washington dropped its case in June.
The
compromise at Doha did not change the WTO's legal language on pharmaceuticals,
but offered a political declaration that is thought to make it easier for
developing countries to use generic drugs for health emergencies. But there is
no saving a structure that is rotten at its foundations. Even if we were to fix
TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), there is still
TRIMS (Trade Related Investment Measures) and the GATS (General Agreement on
Trade in Services). All of this alphabet soup has the same basic function: to
limit the development options available to representative governments, and
subordinate the needs of developing countries to those of transnational
corporations and banks.
It has
become a truism that the WTO must go forward, because the poor and the weak need
a "rules- based system" for international commerce. But that depends on the
rules. There may be a way to make expanding international trade and investment
serve the needs of humanity, but it will not be found within the World Trade
Organization.
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for
Economic and Policy Research (www.cepr.net
<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/My%20Documents/www.cepr.net>
), in Washington, DC.
18.11.2001
. WTO= "We Take
Over"
strongarm tactics behind the scenes; but it sounds as
though we made them
struggle for every one of their victories, not like in
earlier
meetings.
Phil
============================================
Prof.
Philip L. Bereano
Department of Technical Communication
Box
352195
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
Phone: (206)
543-9037
Fax: (206) 543-8858
-----Original
Message-----
From: biotech_activists@iatp.org
[mailto:biotech_activists@iatp.org]
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 6:59
AM
To: phil@uwtc.washington.edu
Subject:
Devinder Sharma-WTO: We Take Over
Biotech Activists (biotech_activists@iatp.org)
Posted: 11/17/2001 By
dhunt@gencen.org
============================================================
>From
----------
Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin),
http://www.ngin.org.uk/
---
WTO Doha
Ministerial
"We Take Over"
By Devinder Sharma
The day the
World Trade Organisation (WTO) came into existence, on
January 1, 1995, the
Indian Express had carried a pocket cartoon on
its front page. It showed two
people walking amidst high rise
buildings with huge billboards for popular
multinational brands like
Pepsi Cola, Coke, Philips, and McDonalds. The
cartoon depicted one of
the person walking down the street, asking: "What
does WTO stand for?"
The other man replied: "We Take Over".
The
'explicit' way the QUAD countries -- the United States, the
European Union,
Canada and Japan -- bludgeoned their way into gains on
virtually every issue
on the agenda at the fourth WTO Ministerial,
which ended at Doha recently,
the world is certainly up for sale. The
greatest tragedy of Doha is that the
world's richest economies, which
invariably swear in the name of democracy,
used all 'undemocratic'
norms and arms to force a 'consensus' down the throat
of developing
countries. In the bargain, the autocratic process of takeover
of the
global economy puts at risk millions of people, especially women
and
children, without basic rights and opportunities, and hoping
against
hope.
Such was the urgency to bypass the WTO rules, repeatedly
made since
1999, that the developed countries were not even remotely
concerned at
considering, let alone agreeing and first implementing these
before
launching a new round. Pushing aggressively on new issues
on
investment, competition policy, government procurement and
trade
facilitation, the agenda was redefined, even if in a limited way
for
now, to ensure that the economic takeover of the developing world
is
complete in the years to come. To achieve this, the QUAD group
followed
in earnest the principle of 'divide-and-rule', something that
the colonial
masters had so successfully used and abused. After all,
it was not long ago
that the Sun never set on the British Empire. No
wonder, the economic
re-colonisation through the WTO paradigm ensures
that the Sun never sets on
the multinational companies !
Ever since the Uruguay Round was launched,
developing countries have
become accustomed to arm-twisting and
high-handedness that comes in
the name of trade and investment. Doha
Ministerial was no exception.
But what surprised the world, including the
civil society, was the
defiant and valiant stand taken by the India. In fact,
India's
Commerce Minister, Mr Murlisaran Maran, would have alone led to
the
failure of the Doha Ministerial if it was not for the last
minute
'intervention' from the Prime Minister's Office in New Delhi. That
was
clever politics and not trade and economics. On the other hand, it
was
purely Mr Maran's strong conviction that the 'WTO is a
necessary
evil', that he fought like a true soldier. He defied the
global
community by refusing to submit to unjust demands and pressures
only
to relent at the final nerve-rattling moment and that too under
strict
orders from his General.
For the other developing countries,
which could muster enough
political courage to stand up to 'undemocratic'
pressures, it was
difficult to hold on to the final whistle. One by one they
deserted
India. Among these were Egypt, Malaysia, Tanzania and
finally
Pakistan. Interestingly, the US Commerce Secretary, Grant
Aldonis,
reportedly offered to lower the restrictions on the import of
bed
sheets and pillowcases from Pakistan in return for its signing
the
draft text. In addition, he also indicated US willingness to lift
a
1998 quota on cotton yarn, even though the WTO had in April ruled
that
the US quota on Pakistan's cotton yarn exports was illegal.
As to
why no concessions were made on textile trade, the Wall Street
Journal
reports that in a recent letter to the US President George
Bush, 31 members
of the Congress, including four Republicans, had
stated that "the U.S. should
make no further concessions in textiles
and apparel in future trade
agreements". As for America's antidumping
rules, which protect domestic
industries -- such as steel -- from
foreign products, Senate Finance
Committee Chairman Max Baucus, was
quoted as saying: "Why would we agree to
this? What do we gain?" This
is true not only for textiles. In fact,
everything that has been
negotiated and renegotiated at the successive WTO
meetings, without
exception, has been to the advantage of the rich trading
countries.
For the developing countries, all the WTO leaves behind are
promises
and promises galore.
Much is being made out about the
'concessions' wrested by developing
countries on agriculture and medicines
for public health. In fact, Mr
Maran too defends 'the decision to yield some
ground on environment to
gain substantially in agriculture'. What has been
incorporated now in
the final agreed text is nothing new but a mere
reiteration of what
has been spelled in the Agreement on Agriculture. By
agreeing to "a
phase out of agricultural subsidies", and to "take into
account the
development needs, including food security and rural development"
is
like dangling a carrot before the developing countries. In
reality,
agricultural subsidies in the QUAD countries are on an upswing.
The
richest trading block -- Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and
Development (OECD) -- provide a phenomenal support of US $ One
billion
a day for agriculture. The US, under its new Farm Bill that is
pending
before Congress, has already promised its farmers an additional US
$
170 billion in the next ten years.
Developing countries, and also
the civil society groups espousing the
cause of the farming communities in
the South, are behaving like an
ostrich by refusing to read the writing on
the wall. The mere mention
of 'food security' is no safeguard against heavily
subsidised food
imports given the fact that developing countries, including
India,
have opened up their trade barriers by lifting the
quantitative
restrictions whereas the massive subsidies in the west keeping
on
mounting. Unless the removal of quantitative restrictions is linked
to
the removal of agricultural subsidies in the west, food security
in
developing countries cannot be ensured.
Equally damaging is the
'landmark' declaration on TRIPs and Public
Health. To think that the decision
to allow the production of cheaper
generic drugs to meet any health crisis,
is 'historic', is to ignore
the ground realities. It is here that even the
civil society groups
have fumbled. The sordid episode of the HIV/AIDS drugs
that were
requisitioned by South Africa from India and which resulted in
the
drug companies filing a court case against TRIPs infringement, is
in
reality a wrong case study. Why the Indian drug company was able
to
supply cheap generic version of the medicine was because India
still
does not have in place the new patent regime, on the lines of
TRIPs.
Once the patent laws are amended to conform to the TRIPs
Agreement,
Indian companies will be forbidden from producing any cheaper
version
of generic drugs. And once the production of generic drugs
stops,
where from will cheaper drugs be procured?
And still, we are
being unabashedly told that international trade can
play a major role in the
promotion of economic development and the
alleviation of poverty. We are
being told that the WTO recognises the
need for all our peoples to benefit
from the increased opportunities
and welfare gains that the multilateral
trading system generates. What
it does not tells us is that global trade is
being aggressively
pursued by the rich industrialised countries to garner
more economic
benefits from the poor and marginalised societies. The new
trade
paradigm will eventually further the economic divide between the
North
and the South. It will not only usurp democratic traditions in
the
name of trade and sustainable development as Doha has
conclusively
shown but lead to denial of human rights as well as economic
and
political freedom. Perhaps the underprivileged part of the world
has
to learn from what independent India's first Prime
Minister,
Jawaharlal Nehru, once said: "Freedom is in peril, defend it with
all
your might". #
(Devinder Sharma is a New Delhi-based food and
trade policy analyst.
His contact address is: dsharma@ndf.vsnl.net.in
)
18.11.2001
. Aftinet ;WTO Doha Meeting
Outcome
WTO Doha Meeting Outcome: US and EU twist arms
to get
compromise but negotiations on "new issues" delayed until
2003.
The WTO meeting in Doha, Qatar had to be extended for a
day of
marathon negotiations in order to reach compromises on
deep
disagreements between the US and EU and developing
country
governments. Both developing country governments and civil
society
observers outside the meeting condemned the bullying tactics
and
threats on aid and debt relief which were made in order to
secure
agreement . It is clear that WTO processes remain dominated by
the
most powerful economic players and calls for democratic change
have
been ignored.
There are three documents: a
general Ministerial Declaration, and
specific declarations on Trade in
Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS)
and Public Health, and on
Implementation issues . This brief
preliminary analysis mainly deals
with the first two of these. The
documents are available at
http://www.ictsd.orgcolor="/#0000FF">http://www.ictsd.org>
<http://www.ictsd.orgcolor="/#0000FF">http://www.ictsd.org>>
The
main positive outcomes are that negotiations on new issues have
been
delayed for two years, and that there is a clear statement
on
the
rights of governments to over ride the intellectual property
rights
of
pharmaceutical companies in order to provide cheap
medicines and
protect public health. But many other issues raised by
both
developing
countries and social movements have not been
addressed.
Developing country governments strongly opposed
negotiations on the
new issues of investment, competition policy and
government
procurement. The compromise was that these issues remain on
the WTO
agenda for discussion , but negotiations will not take place on
any
of
them until after the next Ministerial Meeting in 2003,
" on the
basis
of a decision to be taken by explicit consensus".
This means that the
WTO objective of a completely "new round " of
negotiations now has
not been achieved . This gives time for both
developing country
governments and social movements to further campaign
against these
issues.
However, negotiations will
proceed on the existing agreements: on
Trade in Services (GATS) on
Agriculture and on TRIPS. There will also
be negotiations for further
tariff reductions on goods. These are the
main elements of what the WTO
will probably still call a "new round."
Developing
country governments held out for a clear statement in the
TRIPs and
public Health Declaration that the existing
agreement
does
not and shall not prevent governments from "taking
measures to
protect
public health and to promote access to medicines
for all". These
measures can include the production of cheap generic
medicines. There
are no specific commitments on the issues of the
patenting of life
forms, biological diversity and the protection of
traditional
knowledge of indigenous people and farmers: these remain to
be
considered as part of ongoing discussions on the TRIPs
agreement.
Developing countries secured some general
commitments that
negotiations on agriculture would recognise their
specific needs for
food security and rural development. There is also a
commitment to
"reductions, with a view to phasing out" all forms of
export
subsidies
on agriculture. Export subsidies are used by
the EU to reduce the
prices of their food exports which can then
undercut prices for local
farmers. This wording was a compromise
after the EU resisted a
commitment to total elimination of export
subsidies.
One of the worst compromises was reached on
environmental issues.
There will be negotiations on the relationship
between WTO agreement
and Multilateral Environment Agreements. But the
outcomes will only
apply to governments which are parties to the
environment agreements.
Some commentators see this as a disincentive
for governments to sign
environment agreements. There is also a general
commitment to reduce
or eliminate barriers to trade in environmental
services, without
definition of what these are. Again some fear that
this will include
water services and dangerous waste products. If
these services are
treated only as traded goods, public ownership or
regulation of by
governments them could be open to challenge as
barriers to trade.
There is no date for completion of these
negotiations, but a report
will go to the next Ministerial Meeting in
2003.
The proposals put by unions for consideration of
labour rights issues
have been ignored. The brief paragraph on
core labour standards only
makes note of work being done by the
International Labour
Organisation
(ILO) on the social dimension of
globalisation.
The WTO has not addressed most of the issues
raised by both social
movements and developing country governments at
Seattle two years
ago.
It remains dominated by the governments of
the most powerful
economies, influenced by transnational
corporations. Some of the
worst proposals have been delayed, and
there is an important gain on
TRIPS and public health. But we still
have a long struggle in front
of
us to achieve a trade framework
based on open and democratic
processes, equity and social justice for
the poor, human and labour
rights and protection of the
environment.
20.11.2001
. U.S. Industry Groups Plan
Strategies For Tariff
Reduction in New WTO
Round
International Trade Daily
Tuesday, November 20,
2001 ISSN 1533-1350 News
WTO
U.S. Industry Groups Plan Strategies
For Tariff Reduction in New
WTO Round
Business groups are mapping out
strategies for achieving broad
reductions in industrial tariffs under the new
round of World Trade
Organization negotiations launched Nov. 14 in Doha,
Qatar, even
though language in the WTO's ministerial declaration fell short
of
their aims.
Groups such as the National Foreign Trade Council,
which
represents over 500 U.S. companies involved in international
trade,
and the National Association of Manufacturers, which counts
14,000
members, opposed language in early drafts of the
declaration that referred to
"less than full reciprocity in reduction
commitments," which could allow
developing countries to agree to
lesser tariff cuts than their developed
counterparts. Nevertheless,
the language was included in the final
declaration.
Representatives of both groups said they will press
ahead
regardless. The NFTC announced an initiative in March 2001
to
eliminate all industrial tariffs under the auspices of the WTO,
while
the NAM launched an Industrial Tariff Working Group Oct. 8 with
the
goal of spurring talks on "zero-for-zero" agreements to
eliminate tariffs in
specific sectors.
Frank Vargo, NAM's vice president for international
economic
affairs, told BNA Nov. 19 that "we can work around" the
reciprocity
language, and argued that it wasn't "all that relevant"
to
negotiations on zero-for-zero initiatives, which are
generally
voluntary, he said.
Chris Padilla, director of international
trade for Eastman Kodak and
chair of the NFTC's tariff committee, also
downplayed the "less
than full reciprocity" language, despite his group's
earlier opposition.
"We think we can work with it," he told reporters
during a Nov. 16
luncheon discussion. Padilla noted that similar language has
been
found in previous agreements as far back as 1979 under the
General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the precursor of the WTO,
yet zero-for-zero
negotiations and other tariff reduction talks have
taken place during
subsequent negotiating rounds.
"We've called for the ... comprehensive
elimination of [industrial]
tariffs in the new round," he said. "We think
that the text that we've
got will allow us to pursue that initiative as well
as sectoral zero-for-
zero [negotiations]."
An example of a
zero-for-zero initiative is the WTO's Information
Technology Agreement. Under
the ITA, reached in 1996, 41
countries have agreed to eliminate import
tariffs on approximately
180 information technology products.
The
ministerial declaration agreed to at Doha calls for "negotiations
which shall
aim ... to reduce or as appropriate eliminate tariffs" in
the industrial
sector, by "modalities" to be decided.
Leverage for Tariff
Reductions
Regardless of which modality or "modalities" are chosen,
business
representatives cited several factors that will work in favor of
broad
industrial tariff cuts in the upcoming round of WTO
talks.
First, the proliferation of bilateral and multilateral free
trade
agreements may be used as leverage, Padilla said. He noted that
in
the next decade or so, "most of the world" will begin to
participate in FTAs,
such as the Free Trade Area of the America,
scheduled to be concluded in
2005, which will comprise the 34
democracies of North and South America, or
the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Free Trade Area, which is
now
expected to include China within the next 10 years, among
others.
Countries such as India, Pakistan, and many in sub-Saharan
Africa
will become increasingly isolated, Padilla said. If they attempt
to
block industrial tariff reduction in the WTO, "we'll go around
them,
under them, through them, every which way, through regional
free
trade agreements."
In addition, developing countries will want to
negotiate on U.S. tariff
peaks, Mary Irace, the NFTC's vice president for
trade and export
finance, said. This will give the United States additional
leverage to
push for tariff reductions, she said.
Common Cause With
China?
Padilla also noted that China, which will officially join the
WTO
Dec. 11, may be an ally in the push for reducing industrial
tariffs.
"Seems to me we could make common cause with China" on
market
access issues, he said, citing their growing industrial base.
"We shouldn't
assume they'll just jump into bed with India on the
subject of
tariffs."
Meanwhile, Vargo of the NAM said that his organization's
Industrial
Tariff Working Group is continuing to coordinate
international
discussions among manufacturers in particular sectors on
zero-for-
zero tariff eliminations. Once the producers agree, they can
then
urge the WTO negotiators for their countries to pursue such
an
agreement.
"The toy and medical equipment industries are ready to
go right
now," Maureen Smith, international vice president of the
American
Forest & Paper Association and chairperson of the Working
Group
said in a Nov. 14 press release.
By Chris
Rugaber
Copyright © 2001 by The Bureau of National Affairs,
Inc.,
Washington D.C.
**********************************
In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the
included information for research and
educational purposes.
20.11.2001
.
U.S. Companies Broadly Back WTO Pledge To Begin New
Trade Talks, but
Labor Critical
International Trade Daily
Tuesday,
November 20, 2001 ISSN 1533-1350 News
WTO
U.S. Companies Broadly
Back WTO Pledge To Begin New Trade
Talks, but Labor Critical
U.S.
companies have broadly come out in support of the decision
taken by member
countries of the World Trade Organization earlier
in November to begin a new
round of global trade negotiations early
next year aimed at further
liberalizing world trade in a wide range of
goods and services.
But
U.S. labor unions, led by the AFL-CIO, predictably called the
decision--taken
at a meeting of WTO trade ministers in Doha,
Qatar, Nov. 9-14--potentially
harmful for U.S. workers and promised
to work to defeat the effort to write
new trade rules.
President Bush said in a written statement Nov. 14 that
launching
new trade talks has the potential to expand prosperity
and
development throughout the world and to revitalize the
global
economy.
"Today's action advances the United States' agenda to
liberalize
world trade--something that will benefit all Americans," Bush
said.
"By promoting open trade, we expand export markets and
create
high-paying jobs for American workers and farmers, while
providing
more choices and lower prices for goods and services for
American
families."
But John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, said
that the WTO
negotiations were likely to have the opposite
effect.
"Until the global community acknowledges the inevitable impact
on
workers of unchecked global competition," he said, "we will
continue to
see a world made more unstable by growing inequality
and weak democracies.
Unfortunately, the new round at the WTO
falls far short of addressing this
urgent issue."
Sweeney said that the agreement in Doha to open
negotiations on
the existing WTO antidumping and subsidies agreements,
in
particular, will likely lead to the weakening of U.S. trade
laws--
"leaving American workers vulnerable to unfair trade
practices."
Sen. Max S. Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate
Finance
Committee, also criticized the Bush administration for agreeing
in
Doha to put U.S. trade laws on the table.
"Let's be absolutely
clear on this point," Baucus said on the
Senate floor Nov. 14. "Our trading
partners have only one goal here:
to weaken our trade laws. That is something
the administration
should not tolerate--and that Congress will not
tolerate."
Baucus said he plans to hold a series of oversight hearings on
the
negotiations.
U.S. companies like Rochester, N.Y.-based Eastman
Kodak Co.,
however, said that the decision by WTO member countries
in
Doha, setting the parameters of new trade talks, holds the promise
of
real benefits for the corporate bottom line.
Kodak Sees Brighter Trade
Picture
Christopher A. Padilla, director of international trade relations
for
Kodak, said that the company will be seeking free trade in the
new
negotiations in everything from digital cameras to
black-and-white
film, with the aim of reducing tariffs costs totally nearly
$200 million
a year.
He said that Kodak also welcomes the decision in
Doha to discuss
measures that could reduce customs delays. "We will seek
ways
to cut bureaucratic red tape on more than $5 billion in
Kodak
products that cross international borders each year," he
said.
U.S. agricultural interests, meanwhile, were virtually unanimous
in
their praise for the decision in Doha.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley
(R-Iowa), ranking Republican on the
Senate Finance Committee, said that the
mandate developed in
Doha for new agricultural trade negotiations represents
a
"tremendous win" for U.S. farmers, ranchers, and
agricultural
producers--a commitment to substantially reduce
trade-distorting
domestic support and eventually to phase out export
subsidies.
"The outcome of this conference is very good news,"Grassley
said.
The American Farm Bureau Federation said that his
organization
will use the upcoming WTO negotiations--set to last three
years--to
end European export subsidies and reduce
trade-distorting
domestic support that puts U.S. producers at a competitive
global
disadvantage.
"As a result of today's commitment to commence
worldwide
negotiations," AFBF President Bob Stallman said in a
written
statement released Nov. 14, "we can begin to tackle the barriers
to
trade that block our entry into foreign markets and create
unfair
advantages for our competitors."
U.S. manufacturers also saw
promise in the Doha agreement,
particularly in the area of increased market
access for U.S.
products overseas.
"Nobody got everything they wanted
in Doha," said Franklin J.
Vargo, vice president for international economic
affairs at the
National Association of Manufacturers, "but everybody got
enough."
Vargo said that NAM was particularly pleased that the
negotiations
will enable industrial tariffs to be brought down to zero in
those
sectors where agreement is reached to do so (see related report
in
this section).
"Years of deadlock have finally been broken and
vital international
negotiations can now move forward," Vargo said. "We're
won the
free-trade argument with the rest of the world. Now we just need
to
stop arguing with ourselves, pass [trade promotion authority], and
get
down to business."
By Gary G. Yerkey
Copyright © 2001 by The
Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.,
Washington
D.C.
**********************************
In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for
research and
educational purposes.
20.11.2001
.
Trade Officials Assess Outcome Of WTO's Doha
Ministerial
Meeting
International Trade Daily
Tuesday, November 20,
2001 ISSN 1533-1350 Lead Report
WTO
Trade Officials Assess
Outcome Of WTO's Doha Ministerial
Meeting
GENEVA--With weary trade
officials returning home and clearing
the cobwebs out of their heads after
six days of marathon
negotiations at the World Trade Organization's
successful
ministerial conference in Doha, Qatar, the debate has begun
in
earnest as to who deserves the kudos and which countries "won"
or
"lost" the most--from the decision to launch a new trade round
under the
heading of the Doha Development Agenda.
Undoubtedly the biggest winner
from the Nov. 9-14 meeting was
the host country. Tiny Qatar initially put
forward its offer to host the
event during the WTO's riot-scarred 1999
Seattle ministerial
conference and tenaciously clung on even in the face of
mounting
pressure from the United States and others to move the meeting
to
a new location in the wake of security concerns arising from the
Sept.
11 terror attacks. Warnings from Qatar that relocation would
be seen as a
slap in the face to the Arab world eventually led to a
political (and some
would claim irresponsible) decision by
Washington to attend the ministerial,
with other WTO members
dutifully falling in line.
U.S security
demands, which included the establishment of a
tightly sealed perimeter
around the conference site and delegation
hotels, special transportation and
evacuation plans for the U.S.
trade delegation, and the frisking of reporters
attending USTR
briefings, contributed to the initial grim atmosphere in
Doha.
However, with the exception of a few incidents which escaped
the
view of the 800-some media representatives in attendance,
the
conference went off relatively smoothly.
For Qatar, the grand
prize not only includes the "Doha" brand
attached to the new trade round but
also the boost its fledgling
convention and tourism industry will receive
from successfully
hosting the WTO meeting.
Good Will for United
States
Perhaps the other big winner from the meeting is the
United
States, at least in terms of its reputation on the international
stage.
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick's decision to reach
a
deal on the contentious ministerial declaration concerning
intellectual
property (TRIPS) and public health early on in the
ministerial meeting as
well as his bold move to agree on the
inclusion of antidumping and
countervailing rules within the new
round not only built good will for the
United States but also allowed
the Zoellick to play the role of mediator when
the meeting faltered
in the early hours of Nov. 14 over a feud between the
European
Union and India over the mandate for future negotiations
on
investment, competition policy and the environment.
"I think
Zoellick really stood out at the meeting," declared Sergio
Marchi, Canada's
Geneva-based ambassador to the WTO. "After
tarnishing its image in Seattle,
the United States regained its
mantle for leadership on the multilateral
trade agenda."
"I don't think the launch would have been possible
without
American leadership," Marchi added.
Even where Zoellick and
his team of negotiators were obliged to
make concessions, the USTR can answer
his critics in
Washington rightly claiming that he has upheld the integrity
of
existing rules under TRIPS and the WTO's antidumping
and
subsidy/countervailing agreements which were adopted at the end
of the
1986-94 Uruguay Round.
The declaration on TRIPS and public health, aimed
at placating
concerns about the impact of patent protection on the
availability of
essential medicines in poorer countries, is a political
statement
which "reiterates" and "maintains" the commitments of
WTO
members under the TRIPS agreement, although many trade
diplomats agree
that the initiation of any WTO dispute proceedings
against a developing
country involving patent protection for
medicines will now be political
suicide in the wake of the
declaration.
Antidumping, Subsidy
Rules
On antidumping and subsidy/countervailing rules, the
Doha
mandate calls for negotiations aimed at "clarifying and
improving"
the WTO agreements in these two sectors "while preserving
the
basic concepts, principles and effectiveness of these Agreements
and
their instruments...."
The United States will undoubtedly interpret
"instruments" as
referring to U.S. trade defense measures, some of which have
been
found to violate WTO rules by the organization's dispute
panels.
In addition, the tide on the antidumping and countervailing
debate is
likely to turn in favor of the United States during the
negotiations
thanks to the accession of China into the WTO on Dec.
11.
With barriers to Chinese exports falling around the world,
WTO
members faced with a flood of imported Chinese toys, shoes,
electronic
and other items will probably want greater leeway to use
trade defense
measures to protect their beleaguered local
manufacturers.
Some
countries which sought WTO negotiations on antidumping
and countervailing
measures to counter what they viewed as
excessive use of such instruments by
the United States for
protectionist purposes are already having second
thoughts.
Officials from India, which has become one of the biggest users
of
antidumping measures in recent years, thanks to a flood of
cheap
Chinese imports, have said they will take an open mind in
the
negotiations.
Japan's recent run-in with Beijing over its
safeguard measures on
imported scallions, shiitake mushrooms, and tatami
floor mats--a
move which prompted Chinese retaliatory tariffs on
Japanese
automobiles, cell phones and air conditioners--has Tokyo
thinking
again about weakening WTO disciplines on trade
defense
measures.
"Perhaps Japan will be coming into the negotiations
on a very
different angle," one Japanese trade diplomat admitted to
BNA.
"We could end up defending the same sort of interests as the
United
States has because of China."
Zoellick's concessions on the TRIPS/public
health and
antidumping/countervailing issues were the basis for the later
deals
on agriculture, investment and the environment which were
necessary
to forge the balanced outcome which all WTO members
could accept. "If
antidumping hadn't come in, we might not have
had the balance for the rest,"
noted Marchi in reference to the
support negotiations on antidumping and
countervailing rules have
received from the large majority of the WTO's
membership. "If we
didn't have the TRIPS declaration in the bag, the
situation might
have soured. In the end it might have come down to a battle
of
agriculture versus the environment which would have doomed the
meeting
to failure."
The 18-member Cairns Group of agricultural exporting
nations
insisted on maintaining language in a draft ministerial
declaration
circulated Oct. 27 which, among other things, called for
the
eventual phase-out of export subsidies for agriculture as one of
the
goals for the continued negotiations on farm trade within the
new
round.
The EU insisted that such language was unacceptable but
made it
known that it was willing to negotiate provided that others
showed
more leeway in regards to its demands that investment,
competition
and the environment be put on the Doha round agenda.
EU Virtually Alone
on Environment Issues
The environment was perhaps the toughest nut to
crack. With the
exclusion of future EU members in Eastern Europe, Brussels
was
almost alone in insisting that trade and environment issues such
as
the relationship between WTO rules and specific trade
obligations under
existing multilateral environment agreements be
brought onto the negotiating
agenda.
The United States eventually came to the EU's aid, an example
of
where the personal friendship between Zoellick and EU
trade
commissioner Pascal Lamy paid dividends, by urging Cairns
Group
skeptics such as Australia, Brazil and Canada to agree to
the
limited environment mandate despite skepticism that such talks
could
result in "green protectionism" against certain agricultural
products and
other exports.
U.S. backing also helped convince developing countries to
agree to
the environment talks despite similar skepticism.
Similar
diplomatic skills were needed on the issues of investment
and competition
policy, two of the four so-called "Singapore"
issues (the others are trade
facilitation and transparency in
government procurements) which have been the
subject of WTO
working groups since the trade body's 1996 Singapore
ministerial
meeting. Developing countries led by India agreed to two
additional
years of study on the Singapore issues but refused
language
backed by the EU stating that a decision would be taken at
the
WTO's fifth ministerial in 2003 on the "modalities for
negotiations"
in these sectors, implying that they would automatically be
added
to the Doha round talks at that time.
India held out the
longest, insisting that the ministerial declaration
should make it clear that
any decision to launch negotiations on
the Singapore issues should be taken
on a consensus basis in
effect, giving any WTO member the right to veto such
negotiations.
In the end, Zoellick joined Qatari trade minister and
conference
chairman Youssef Kamal, WTO director-general Mike Moore
and
others in drafting a separate chairman's statement stating that
any
WTO member has the right to take a position on modalities that
would
prevent negotiations from proceeding after the fifth ministerial
conference,
due in late 2003, until that member is prepared to join
in an explicit
consensus.
The statement was enough to placate India as well as the
EU,
which got enough political cover on the Singapore issues as well
as
the environment to concede on the "phase-out" language for
farm export
subsidies, albeit with the provision that such language
would not "prejudge"
the agriculture negotiations.
"The European Union didn't get everything
it wanted," Marchi noted.
"But it got enough of what it wanted on the
environment and the
Singapore issues to say that it has an ambitious
round."
Developing Countries Fare Well
Other than the United
States, others who came out well from the
Doha meeting included a number of
developing countries, in
particular Cairns Group member Brazil and the
African Group of
WTO members.
Brazil achieved its two main objectives
in the Doha meeting;
adoption of the ministerial declaration on TRIPS and
public health,
for which it had successfully mobilized public opinion in its
favor;
and adoption of a firm mandate for the continued negotiations
on
agriculture, which, in addition to the phase-out of export
subsidies,
also calls for substantial improvements in market access for
farm
exports and substantial reductions in trade-distorting
domestic
support.
One question mark still hanging over the agriculture
negotiations
concerns the expiration of the "peace clause" regulating
the
application of WTO subsidy rules to agricultural products. Under
the
peace clause, which is due to expire at the end of 2003, export
subsidies and
domestic support payments that are in conformity
with the WTO's Agreement on
Agriculture cannot be challenged as
illegal subsidies through WTO dispute
settlement proceedings.
The Doha round is scheduled to end by Jan. 1,
2005 a hopelessly
optimistic deadline according to some officials but Brazil
and other
Cairns Group militants such as Argentina have threatened
to
initiate dispute cases against the farm subsidy programs of the EU
and
others if the agriculture negotiations fail to show sufficient
progress by
the time the peace clause expires.
The Doha ministerial declaration,
however, gives WTO members
until the fifth ministerial conference to submit
their comprehensive
draft schedules of market access offers, in effect the
starting point
for the hard bargaining and tradeoffs which will make or break
the
agriculture talks. "I think the general expectation is that if
the
agriculture talks are on track and that a reasonable agreement is
in
sight by the time the peace clause expires, then people will
refrain
from bringing any dispute cases," said the Japanese trade
diplomat.
"The issue (of the peace clause) wasn't really discussed in
Doha,"
added Marchi. "I think we will have to cross that bridge when
we
get to it."
Africa Drives on TRIPS
As for the African Group
of countries, they were not only a driving
force in successfully securing the
ministerial declaration on TRIPS
and public health a real life or death issue
in some African
countries, where the spread of AIDS has reached pandemic
levels
but they also pressured ministers into approving a waiver from
WTO
rules for the Conotu agreement, which provides Europe's ex-
colonies in
Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific regions continued
favorable access to the
EU's market for their exports. The request
for a waiver had been hung up over
resistance from Latin American
banana producers to provisions in the
agreement related to the
EU's controversial banana import system.
"The
African Group and other developing countries also secured a
separate
ministerial decision on addressing the concerns of
developing countries in
implementing existing WTO agreements as
well as extensive language in the
Doha ministerial declaration
related to technical cooperation and capacity
building, special and
differential treatment for developing countries, and
improving market
access for exports from least developed
countries.
The willingness of the WTO's wealthier members to open
their
wallets and finance the technical cooperation and capacity
building
needs of developing countries is seen as critical in ensuring
their
support for any future negotiations on new issues such as
investment
and competition policy. "
"My duty is to ensure that ministers are held
accountable for their
words at Doha," WTO director-general Mike Moore
declared Nov.
19, noting that the texts on investment and competition policy
in
the Doha ministerial declaration both refer to the need for
enhanced
support for technical assistance and capacity building so
that
developing countries can better evaluate the implications of
closer
multilateral cooperation in these two sectors on their
development
objectives.
If such assistance is not forthcoming, Moore
warned, the WTO's
fifth ministerial conference "will face some real
problems."
By Daniel Pruzin
Copyright © 2001 by The Bureau of
National Affairs, Inc.,
Washington
D.C.
**********************************
In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for
research and
educational purposes.
20.11.2001
.
Railtrack non profit
I have had this suggestion for
publicising the dangers of GATS from a
member of the Green Party of England
and Wales, but I am not sure of the
legal situation.
Does
anyone know what difference the GATS would make? Does it take us
any
further along the road to corporate domination than the EU
already
does?
And does anyone have any comments on how the suggested
not-for-profit
trust would be affected by GATS and EU law?
Chris
Keene
Dear Chris,
I have tried to find an article about Railtrack,
that I
thought was in Sat or Fri Guardian, but could not find it.
However, i
thought it was a great opportunity to comment on the dangers of
GATS
etc: It basically said that Steven Byers may not have the power to
turn
Railtrack into a not-for-profit company, as European companies
could
challenge the government in court about not offering them a chance
to
buy the broke enterprise. This is of course a brilliant opportunity
to
show how GATS and free-trade dogma take all power away from
national
governments.....
As a beside: I feel that the not-for-profit
status is a
preferred legal form than nationalisation, which does indeed
have
serious drawbacks. I work for a community recycling company,which
is
not for profit. But we still have to tender to government contracts
for
the Mid Devon kerbside collection. This keeps us on our toes, but
also
means that councils are less likely to be held ransom by
either
companies or unions. Having said that, there is the possiblility
that
(in this field) big bully waste companies can lobby local
authorities
more successfully, now that there is more money to be made in the
waste
processing sector, and do the not-for-profit sector out of a job.
In
West Devon a combined effort by Bristol, North- and Mid Devon
community
recycling groups got beaten to it by a French waste company.
But my
main point is: shouldn't we as a party champion not-for-profit
private
sector solutions, rather than nationalisation (as I've read in some
of
our material on the railways)? YoursBert
20.11.2001
.
REMINDER S2B network meeting, please reply now.
REMINDER!
PLEASE REPLY NOW.
OUR WORLD IS NOT FOR SALE!
INVITATION TO POST
DOHA EUROPEAN CO-ORDINATION MEETING:
SEATTLE TO BRUSSELS NETWORK - Taking
action against corporate
globalisation
Brussels, Monday and Tuesday,
10-11 December 2001
The Seattle to Brussels (S2B) Network is a
pan-European NGO network
campaigning to promote a sustainable, democratic and
accountable system
of trade that benefits all. Our network includes
development,
environment, human rights, women's and farmers organisations as
well as
research institutes. The S2B network has formed in the aftermath
of
Seattle to challenge the European Union's corporate-driven agenda
of
continued global trade and investment liberalisation, to stop a
new
round of trade talks and to rollback the power and authority of the
WTO.
S2B has also developed as a response to the increasing need for
European
co-ordination among NGOs.
WHY WE NEED TO MEET NOW
After
the WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha and the European push for
the launch
of a comprehensive new trade round and shortly before the
next EU Summit in
Laeken we want to meet again to
* Increasingly engage in co-ordinated
campaign activities with broad
participation that target: corporate lobby
groups/TNCs, EU and national
institutions, including parliaments and the
media.
* Ensure that the network activities are co-ordinated with those
of
other global networks and reflect the concerns of Southern
groups.
* Develop a profile and visibility by expanding the
capacity of the
network to engage in diverse activities including
grassroots
campaigning, education and outreach, advocacy, research,
monitoring,
media work and mass mobilisation
* Maintain
transparent and democratic ways of working together.
WHEN: Monday 10
November 2001, 2 p.m.until Tuesday 11 November 5-6 p.m.
WHERE: Exact venue:
still to be announced
Please note that on 10 November in the morning the
global Our world is
not for sale coalitions aim to have a MEETING with the
European
Commission on trade issues as well as a press event. This will be
open
to interested S2B participants. Should you wish to
participate in the
meeting with the European Commission, please let me know.
(see
registration form below)
Proposed AGENDA ITEMS for the S2B
meeting:
***************************************
(a detailed agenda will
be circulated later)
Block I: Information
exchange
*************************
* Update on the current state of
affairs after the Doha Ministerial and
from the WTO international meeting, by
Raoul Jennar, Oxfam Solidarity;
* Introduction round about the
various activities in different
countries on WTO and corporate globalisation
issues (all)
* Review of follow up actions from Hassocks. Short
introduction by
Alexandra from Friends of the Earth Europe
Block
II: Strategies
*****************
* General discussions on how to rollback
the new round and follow up
ongoing negotiations.
* What is the best
way to raise pressure for political change, on who do
we focus our
attention (governments, corporate lobby groups..)
European activity
planning
KEY WTO issues:
* The Singapore issues - intro by Erik
Wesselius, CEO
* Services - GATS threats to our democracies (speakers to
be confirmed)
- intro about current state of affairs by Peter Fuchs
(general info)
and particularly European positions in education (Jess or Guy,
People
and Planet), health (NN), water and environmental services
(Agnes
Bertrand), energy (Alexandra Wandel, FoEE), domestic regulation
and
development aspects (Clare Joy, WDM),
-
European campaign strategies in relation to services
negotiations, Clare Joy,
WDM
- corporate lobbying in the GATS negotiations. The European
Services
Forum as a potential campaign target of S2B, by Erik Wesselius and
Adam
Maanit, CEO
* Agriculture, (outline still to be prepared by
CPE/Gerard)
(Breakout sessions possible)
* A way forward: The
World Summit for Sustainable Development: A reply
from S2B?, lead A SEED, CEO
and Alexandra Wandel, FoEE
Block IIII: * Improving co-ordination at
the European
level
**********************************************
including discussion
about
- strengthening of the network, review of planned future
activities,
upcoming events, communication via email, webpage, mapping
at the
European level, next meeting etc.
- discussion on the internal
functioning of the coalition (what is the
best way to strengthen, broaden our
work and our network?)
Please still send in your feedback on the
agenda!!!!!!!!!!
PARTICIPANTS:
So far subscribers of the
SOS-WTO-EU email listserver are invited. PLEASE
reach out to other groups in
your countries that are also supporters of
the WTO Shrink or Sink statement
and pass on the invitation to them.
ACTIVITIES AROUND THIS
MEETING
This meeting coincides with activities around the EU summit,
an
international WTO NGO strategy meeting, the P7 summit and more. For
more
information see http://eu.ngoforum.be/
Please find
below a registration form (PLEASE send in right away) and a
draft agenda
(please send back your feedback). You will receive more
practical information
once we receive your registration.
S2B meetings are usually organised by
different active groups in the
network and have so far been organised by
groups including Oxfam
Solidarity, Observatoire de la Mondialisation,
Corporate Europe
Observatory, World Development Movement, People and Planet
and Friends
of the Earth. This time Friends of the Earth Europe has offered
to
provide some basic logistical support for the meeting and to draft
the
agenda with your input.
We look forward to seeing you in
Brussels,
S2B European networking meeting,
Brussels, 10-11
December 2001
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Registration
Form
Please send to <alexandra.wandel@foeeurope.org>
Name
:
Organisation:
Address:
Tel:
Fax:
Email:
Website:
I
would like to introduce the following subjects in our
European
meeting:
I propose the following additional agenda
items:
I would like to participate in the meeting with the European
Commission:
Please reserve lunch for me at my own costs
Vegetarian
: Non vegetarian
:
I need a letter of invitations with the following passport
details:
Fax number of the Belgian consulate in my
country:
Participants are kindly requested to organise their own
accommodation in
Brussels and to inform themselves about other events prior
and after the
Laeken Summit (eungoforum.be) which they would like to attend.
See http:
//eu.ngoforum.be
After your registration you will receive
more practical details
(accommodation).
alexandra wandel
trade and
sustainability co-ordinator - europe & middle east
friends of the earth
europe (FoEE)
29, rue blanche - B-1060 brussels -
belgium
fon:+32-2-54201-85 - fax:+32-2-53755-96
e-mail: alexandra.wandel@foeeurope.org
http://www.foeeurope.org/trade/about.htm
20.11.2001
.
REMINDER S2B network meeting, please reply now.
REMINDER! PLEASE
REPLY NOW.
OUR WORLD IS NOT FOR SALE!
INVITATION TO POST DOHA
EUROPEAN CO-ORDINATION MEETING:
SEATTLE TO BRUSSELS NETWORK - Taking action
against corporate
globalisation
Brussels, Monday and Tuesday, 10-11
December 2001
The Seattle to Brussels (S2B) Network is a pan-European
NGO network
campaigning to promote a sustainable, democratic and accountable
system
of trade that benefits all. Our network includes
development,
environment, human rights, women's and farmers organisations as
well as
research institutes. The S2B network has formed in the aftermath
of
Seattle to challenge the European Union's corporate-driven agenda
of
continued global trade and investment liberalisation, to stop a
new
round of trade talks and to rollback the power and authority of the
WTO.
S2B has also developed as a response to the increasing need for
European
co-ordination among NGOs.
WHY WE NEED TO MEET NOW
After
the WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha and the European push for
the launch
of a comprehensive new trade round and shortly before the
next EU Summit in
Laeken we want to meet again to
* Increasingly engage in co-ordinated
campaign activities with broad
participation that target: corporate lobby
groups/TNCs, EU and national
institutions, including parliaments and the
media.
* Ensure that the network activities are co-ordinated with those
of
other global networks and reflect the concerns of Southern
groups.
* Develop a profile and visibility by expanding the
capacity of the
network to engage in diverse activities including
grassroots
campaigning, education and outreach, advocacy, research,
monitoring,
media work and mass mobilisation
* Maintain
transparent and democratic ways of working together.
WHEN: Monday 10
November 2001, 2 p.m.until Tuesday 11 November 5-6 p.m.
WHERE: Exact venue:
still to be announced
Please note that on 10 November in the morning the
global Our world is
not for sale coalitions aim to have a MEETING with the
European
Commission on trade issues as well as a press event. This will be
open
to interested S2B participants. Should you wish to
participate in the
meeting with the European Commission, please let me know.
(see
registration form below)
Proposed AGENDA ITEMS for the S2B
meeting:
***************************************
(a detailed agenda will
be circulated later)
Block I: Information
exchange
*************************
* Update on the current state of
affairs after the Doha Ministerial and
from the WTO international meeting, by
Raoul Jennar, Oxfam Solidarity;
* Introduction round about the
various activities in different
countries on WTO and corporate globalisation
issues (all)
* Review of follow up actions from Hassocks. Short
introduction by
Alexandra from Friends of the Earth Europe
Block
II: Strategies
*****************
* General discussions on how to rollback
the new round and follow up
ongoing negotiations.
* What is the best
way to raise pressure for political change, on who do
we focus our
attention (governments, corporate lobby groups..)
European activity
planning
KEY WTO issues:
* The Singapore issues - intro by Erik
Wesselius, CEO
* Services - GATS threats to our democracies (speakers to
be confirmed)
- intro about current state of affairs by Peter Fuchs
(general info)
and particularly European positions in education (Jess or Guy,
People
and Planet), health (NN), water and environmental services
(Agnes
Bertrand), energy (Alexandra Wandel, FoEE), domestic regulation
and
development aspects (Clare Joy, WDM),
-
European campaign strategies in relation to services
negotiations, Clare Joy,
WDM
- corporate lobbying in the GATS negotiations. The European
Services
Forum as a potential campaign target of S2B, by Erik Wesselius and
Adam
Maanit, CEO
* Agriculture, (outline still to be prepared by
CPE/Gerard)
(Breakout sessions possible)
* A way forward: The
World Summit for Sustainable Development: A reply
from S2B?, lead A SEED, CEO
and Alexandra Wandel, FoEE
Block IIII: * Improving co-ordination at
the European
level
**********************************************
including discussion
about
- strengthening of the network, review of planned future
activities,
upcoming events, communication via email, webpage, mapping
at the
European level, next meeting etc.
- discussion on the internal
functioning of the coalition (what is the
best way to strengthen, broaden our
work and our network?)
Please still send in your feedback on the
agenda!!!!!!!!!!
PARTICIPANTS:
So far subscribers of the
SOS-WTO-EU email listserver are invited. PLEASE
reach out to other groups in
your countries that are also supporters of
the WTO Shrink or Sink statement
and pass on the invitation to them.
ACTIVITIES AROUND THIS
MEETING
This meeting coincides with activities around the EU summit,
an
international WTO NGO strategy meeting, the P7 summit and more. For
more
information see http://eu.ngoforum.be
Please find below a registration form (PLEASE send
in right away) and a
draft agenda (please send back your feedback). You will
receive more
practical information once we receive your
registration.
S2B meetings are usually organised by different active
groups in the
network and have so far been organised by groups including
Oxfam
Solidarity, Observatoire de la Mondialisation, Corporate
Europe
Observatory, World Development Movement, People and Planet and
Friends
of the Earth. This time Friends of the Earth Europe has offered
to
provide some basic logistical support for the meeting and to draft
the
agenda with your input.
We look forward to seeing you in
Brussels,
S2B European networking meeting,
Brussels, 10-11
December 2001
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Registration
Form
Please send to <alexandra.wandel@foeeurope.org>
Name
:
Organisation:
Address:
Tel:
Fax:
Email:
Website:
I
would like to introduce the following subjects in our
European
meeting:
I propose the following additional agenda
items:
I would like to participate in the meeting with the European
Commission:
Please reserve lunch for me at my own costs
Vegetarian
: Non vegetarian
:
I need a letter of invitations with the following passport
details:
Fax number of the Belgian consulate in my
country:
Participants are kindly requested to organise their own
accommodation in
Brussels and to inform themselves about other events prior
and after the
Laeken Summit (eungoforum.be) which they would like to attend.
See http:
//eu.ngoforum.be
After your registration you will receive
more practical details
(accommodation).
alexandra wandel
trade and
sustainability co-ordinator - europe & middle east
friends of the earth
europe (FoEE)
29, rue blanche - B-1060 brussels -
belgium
fon:+32-2-54201-85 - fax:+32-2-53755-96
e-mail: alexandra.wandel@foeeurope.org
http://www.foeeurope.org/trade/about.htm
20.11.2001
.
Cotonou waiver and Singapore issues
Hi
For those of us
who were not in Doha, I find it quite clarifying that
regarding the Singapore
issues and two Cotonou waivers, it was written in
Bridges on 16.11.2001
(see http://www.ictsd.org/) as
follows :
"The two waiver agreements are said to have removed a major
logjam in the
Doha negotiations as the 78 ACP countries (56 of which are
Members of the
WTO) had previously threatened to oppose any new trade
negotiations --
especially on Singapore issues, environment and labour - -
unless the EC
waiver request was approved at the Ministerial
Conference.
In contrast, the Philippines -- initially supported by
Thailand, Ecuador,
Costa Rica, Honduras, Panama and others -- had objected to
discussing the
waiver, saying the issue was totally unrelated to the wider
Doha agenda.
However, even thought the issue is technically and formally
delinked from
the Ministerial package, the failure of WTO Members to reach an
agreement at
last week's meeting of the WTO Council for Trade in Goods (CTG)
in Geneva
had effectively pushed the waiver issue to the
Conference.
However, it was unclear to the very last moment whether the
Philippines and
Thailand would block the Cotonou waiver request due to
objections raised by
the countries over the EC's preferential treatment of
canned tuna imports
from the ACP within the Cotonou framework. However,
according to Filipino
official Edsel Custodio, these countries had never
threatened to disapprove
the waiver although "the EU gave the impression that
we had" - referring to
corresponding rumours prior to the reached
agreement."
As the waivers will however end in 2006 and 2008, it might be
possible that
they will not give anymore in 2005 so much power for the EU to
blackmail the
ACP to accept the agreements on Singapore issues ?
ACP
can now enjoy the waivers for 2 years but after that they should see
that it
would be very short help for anything, and not to let themselves to
become
blackmailed in 2003 in fifth ministerial´s decision on
Singapore
negotiations.
Ville-Veikko Hirvelä
WTO-campaign of the
Finnish NGOs
Below is the whole Bridges article :
EC-ACP Cotonou
Waiver Finally Granted
On the sidelines of the WTO Ministerial
Conference, WTO Members on 14
November finally granted a waiver to EC
allowing it to give preferential
market access for the African, Caribbean and
Pacific (ACP) Group of
Countries, the last waiver under the Lome Convention
which will be replaced
by Free Trade Agreements between the EC and ACP
countries in 2008 under the
Cotonou Agreement (see BRIDGES Weekly, 9 October
2001).
The waiver also covers EC-ACP banana trade with the additional
provision
that third parties, such as Latin and Central American banana
exporting
countries, have the right to request arbitration prior to future EC
banana
tariffs going into effect on 1 January 2006. In addition, the
approved
waiver will be suspended if the EC fails to perpetuate the current
market
access for non-ACP banana imports. "The ACP can accept this price for
the
waiver and zero-tariff treatment on bananas," an ACP spokesperson
stated.
In addition, a second waiver on the compatibility of the
transitional EC
banana regime beginning 1 January 2002 [as agreed in the
bilateral
Understandings between the EC and Ecuador and the US, respectively,
in order
to settle the ongoing banana dispute (see BRIDGES Weekly, 9 October
2001)
has only been granted until the end of 2005. Thereafter, a tariff
only
import regime will be implemented. (click here for the texts of
the
waivers).
The early expiry date of the second waiver, as well as
the EC's commitment
to phase out its import quotas on bananas and replace
them with tariffs by
2006, were the key factors that finally won over a
number of Latin American
banana-exporting countries, such as Colombia, Costa
Rica, Ecuador, Honduras
and Panama. These countries had originally objected
to the waiver until the
EC demonstrated good faith efforts in implementing
its revised banana
regime, which allocates a separate banana tariff quota of
750,000 tons
exclusively for ACP countries.
The two waiver agreements
are said to have removed a major logjam in the
Doha negotiations as the 78
ACP countries (56 of which are Members of the
WTO) had previously threatened
to oppose any new trade negotiations --
especially on Singapore issues,
environment and labour - - unless the EC
waiver request was approved at the
Ministerial Conference. In contrast, the
Philippines -- initially supported
by Thailand, Ecuador, Costa Rica,
Honduras, Panama and others -- had objected
to discussing the waiver, saying
the issue was totally unrelated to the wider
Doha agenda. However, even
thought the issue is technically and formally
delinked from the Ministerial
package, the failure of WTO Members to reach an
agreement at last week's
meeting of the WTO Council for Trade in Goods (CTG)
in Geneva had
effectively pushed the waiver issue to the
Conference.
However, it was unclear to the very last moment whether the
Philippines and
Thailand would block the Cotonou waiver request due to
objections raised by
the countries over the EC's preferential treatment of
canned tuna imports
from the ACP within the Cotonou framework. However,
according to Filipino
official Edsel Custodio, these countries had never
threatened to disapprove
the waiver although "the EU gave the impression that
we had" - referring to
corresponding rumours prior to the reached
agreement.
"Deal Struck On EU Waivers As Latin Americans Drop Banana
Demands," INSIDE
US TRADE, 14 November 2001; "Global Trade Deal Near After
All- Night Talks
In Doha," FT, 14 November 2001; "ACP Countries Issue A
Common Position On
Doha Ministerial," SUNS, 6 November 2001; "ACP Countries
Push For Approval
Of EU Banana Waivers At Doha," INSIDE US TRADE, 12 November
2001; ICTSD
Internal Files.
Maan ystävät ry | Jordens vänner i
Finland
Eatnama ustibat | Friends of the Earth Finland
Kirkkotie 6-10 |
20540 TURKU | FIN
tel +358-2-231 0321 | fax +358-2-237 1670
toimisto@maanystavat.fi
http://www.maanystavat.fi
http://www.globalisaatio.net
20.11.2001
. New
Round and Singapore Issues
Moore Warns of 'Difficult' Fifth
Meeting Of WTO in 2003 to Resolve
Singapore
Issues
GENEVA--World Trade Organization Director-General Mike Moore
warned Nov. 19
that the WTO's next
ministerial conference set to take
place in 2003 was likely to be a
challenging one as members decide
whether
to incorporate new issues such as investment and competition policy
into
the new Doha trade round.
"We're setting ourselves up for a
difficult fifth ministerial," Moore said
in a conversation with journalists
to
discuss the outcome of the WTO's successful Nov. 9-14 fourth
ministerial
conference in Doha, Qatar.
The fifth ministerial is set to
serve as a mid-term review for the new
round, which is scheduled to end by
Jan. 1,
2005.
The problems for the fifth ministerial not only include
the decision on
whether to initiate negotiations on the
so-called
"Singapore issues" of investment, competition, trade facilitation
and
transparency in government
procurement, the WTO chief noted, but also whether
sufficient
capacity-building has taken place to allow the
organization's
poorer members to effectively take part in such
negotiations.
The Doha
meeting ended with the adoption of a ministerial declaration
calling for two
years of additional study
on the Singapore issues within their respective WTO
working groups (which
were established at the
organization's 1996
Singapore ministerial conference).
Ministers agreed that negotiations on
the Singapore issues "will take place
after the Fifth Session of
the
Ministerial Conference on the basis of a decision to be taken, by
explicit
consensus, at that Session on
modalities of
negotiations."
The declaration, however, was only adopted after India
received assurances
that the decision to proceed with
negotiations would
require "explicit consensus" from the membership.
To placate India, Doha
conference chairman Youssef Kamal of Qatar issued a
statement on behalf of
the
membership stating that a WTO member has the right to take a position
on
modalities that would prevent
negotiations from proceeding after the
fifth ministerial conference, due in
late 2003, until that member
is
prepared to join in an explicit consensus.
EU Mandate Clashes With
India Condition
The European Union, which pushed hardest for the
inclusion of the Singapore
issues on the Doha round
agenda, believes it
has a mandate to go ahead with negotiations on the new
issues, since the
decision at the
fifth ministerial is only supposed to focus on the modalities
of
negotiations, not the negotiations themselves.
India, however,
believes the separate chairman's statement makes it clear
that the decision
on modalities will
determine whether the negotiations go ahead or
not.
EU trade commissioner Pascal Lamy indicated during a final press
conference
in Doha that conclusion of the
new round might not be possible
unless the Singapore issues are tackled as
part of the negotiations. The
Doha
declaration includes the Singapore issues as part of the single
undertaking
for the round, Lamy said, meaning
that a final agreement in
one sector is contingent on agreement being
reached in all other
sectors.
Moore said he interpreted the chairman's statement as meaning
that "unless
countries are comfortable at the
fifth ministerial, we will
go no further" on the Singapore issues. He
noted, however, that positions
could change
over the next two years, and that the Doha declaration marked
"the
beginning of a negotiation."
Capacity-Building in
Question
Just as important as the decision on whether to proceed with
negotiations
on the Singapore issues at the fifth
ministerial will be the
determination of whether the capacity-building
needs of poorer members have
been met to
handle such negotiations, the WTO chief said.
The Doha
declaration emphasizes the need to address the technical
assistance and
capacity building needs of
developing countries on the Singapore issues so
that they are able to
evaluate the impact of multilateral
arrangements in
these areas on their development objectives.
Moore said he would be
announcing a reshuffle of the WTO's Secretariat by
the end of the year in
order to
address the demands being put on the organization following the
decision to
launch a new round.
He also said the WTO would probably
require a "modest" increase in its
$80.8 million annual budget to
meet
demands in areas such as technical assistance and capacity
building,
although he added that the trade body
could "stretch a dollar to
a $1.20" by contracting out some of the capacity
building work through
competitive
bidding and private sector initiatives
By Daniel Pruzin,
Copyright © 2001 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.,
Washington
D.C.
WTO-Reporter, Wednesday, November 21, 2001, ISSN
1529-4153
20.11.2001
.
initial analysis of the Doha declarations
CAFOD Analysis of WTO
Doha Declarations
Duncan Green, 20/11/01
This is an initial analysis
of the Doha declarations. We would welcome
feedback. Please send all comments
and corrections to dgreen@cafod.org.uk.
For more
information and analysis on the WTO, visit www.cafod.org.uk/policy
Background
There were three main texts agreed at the end of the 4th WTO Ministerial
in
Doha: The Ministerial Declaration, the Decision on Implementation
Related
Issues and Concerns, and the Declaration On The Trips Agreement And
Public
Health. This paper provides an initial analysis of the potential
impact on
developing countries of the decisions taken at Doha. It does not
discuss
process or institutional issues at the WTO or in Doha, or the two
other
major events in Doha - the accession of China and 'Chinese Taipei'
(Taiwan)
and the agreement of a WTO waiver for the EU-ACP Kotonou agreement -
the
successor to the Lome agreement, thereby exempting the agreement from
legal
challenge under WTO rules.
Summary
The Doha declaration has
no clear winners and losers - it is a classic case
of 'is this glass half
full or half empty?' The full implications for
developing countries will only
become clear in the course of negotiations,
but here are some of the high and
low points of the text, in terms of
development.
The Good News
The
biggest victories for developing countries in Doha were mainly
defensive. In
particular, they defended the original broader interpretation
of the TRIPs
agreement, allowing them to override patents in the interests
of public
health, and they fended off a determined effort by the EU and (to
a lesser
extent) the US to begin negotiations on the four 'Singapore Issues'
of
competition, investment, transparency in government procurement and
trade
facilitation. These will now come back to the next ministerial in late
2003
for a decision on whether to go forward to a negotiating
phase.
There were some positive victories as well. Developing countries
were
relatively pleased with the text on agriculture, in that it opens the
way to
reducing the excessive levels of domestic support in both the EU and
North
America, which lead to structural dumping of food on world markets.
Although
they failed to get an explicit reference to the Development Box,
the
language on Special and Differential Treatment is sufficiently strong,
and
the momentum built up in Doha sufficiently great, that they are
confident
that the Development Box will form part of the agriculture
negotiations from
now on. Elsewhere, they now have a mandate to discuss the
use of tariff
peaks and tariff escalation, practices commonly used to keep
out their
exports.
Other gains are less clear cut. The Working Groups
on Trade, Debt and
Finance, and on Trade and Technology Transfer and the
discussion on small
economies could either prove mere talking shops, or
be the first step to
resolving some of the most pressing issues facing
developing countries. The
declaration is dripping with language on 'Special
and Differential
Treatment' (S&D) for developing countries, and in
particular LDCs. Critics
say this is just talk, but so-called 'best
endeavours' language at the
outset of negotiations is not the same as best
endeavours language in the
final agreements. The latter can be ignored by
individual countries as they
implement the agreements; the former should
strengthen the hands of
developing countries as they go into negotiations. In
many ways, developing
countries came of age as a political force in Doha.
What matters now is
whether they can maintain that energy, unity and clarity
as they go into a
complex web of negotiations.
The Bad
News
Developing Countries now face a colossal, almost overwhelming challenge
in
Geneva. Doha set up nine parallel sets of full negotiations,
mandated
discussions on nine other Geneva-based bodies and established a new
Trade
Negotiations Committee. Realistically, all but the largest
developing
countries will have to concentrate their energies on the issues of
immediate
relevance to them, such as agriculture and implementation. In doing
so, they
run the risk of repeating the Uruguay Round experience, where they
were
arm-twisted into signing up to agreements whose implications for
developing
countries were poorly understood, only to regret it when it was
too late.
Many Developing Countries are also disappointed with other
aspects of the
agreement. They resent the glacial pace of implementation
discussions and
the inclusion of most of the significant implementation
issues as part of
the wider negotiations, arguing that this means they will
have to 'pay
twice' by having to make concessions in other areas in
order to correct the
inequities of the Uruguay Round.
On TRIPS,
although the public health issue was clarified, there was little
progress on
issues relating to the patenting of life forms, especially
seeds, and the
problem of biopiracy, although this received a mention in
more diplomatic
language as a topic to be examined (para 19).
Detailed Analysis
1.
Preamble (paras 1-11)
Among the positive aspects are several references to
the need for special
attention to issues concerning developing countries,
e.g. WTO members
'recognize the particular vulnerability of the
least-developed countries and
the special structural difficulties they face
in the global economy. We are
committed to addressing the
marginalization of least-developed countries in
international trade and to
improving their effective participation in the
multilateral trading system.'
(para 3)
However, some developing countries took exception to the
unqualified
pro-liberalisation tone of the preamble, which failed to
acknowledge some of
the negative impacts of liberalisation in recent years.
Moreover, while the
preamble makes reference to poverty reduction (para 2)
there is no explicit
reference to making the 2015 millennium development
targets an overarching
objective of the WTO's work, as had been proposed by
the G77 + China in the
run up to Doha. At the WTO, trade liberalisation
remains an end in itself,
rather than a means to an end.
On other
issues, the EU managed to insert a large paragraph (para 6) of
text
establishing that countries should not be prevented by the WTO in
pursuing a
range of 'non-trade concerns', such as animal welfare and
environmental
protection. On Labour Standards, the preamble merely reaffirms
the 1996
ministerial declaration , offering little comfort to those wishing
to
introduce labour rights issues into the WTO. However the dropping of
the
final sentence from the 27 October draft, which read 'The ILO provides
the
appropriate forum for a substantive dialogue on various aspects of
this
issue' was hailed as a victory by labour rights activists, who argued
that
the final text at least does not exclude the WTO from taking part in
such a
'substantive dialogue' in the future.
2. Implementation-related
Issues and Concerns (para 12)
The separate decision on Implementation-Related
Issues and Concerns divides
up implementation issues into a set of issues
agreed in Doha, and a set of
'outstanding issues' (including many of the more
important ones for
developing countries), which will be negotiated as part of
the single
undertaking.
Chief among the issues to be settled in Doha
was the section on Textiles and
Clothing (Decision on implementation,
Paragraph 4). Ever since the Uruguay
Round established a phasing out of
textile quotas by the year 2005,
developing countries have been complaining
that the importing countries have
been dragging their feet and twisting the
rules to delay implementation
until the last possible minute. After fierce US
resistance to any speeding
up of liberalisation, Paragraph 4 merely 'Requests
the Council for Trade in
Goods to examine' a range of proposals suggested by
developing countries and
report back by July 2002.
The Doha
declaration also agreed to extend the timeframe for developing
countries to
comply with new sanitary measures, and to consider requests for
other
extensions in the areas of Trade Related Investment Measures and
Customs
Valuation agreements. However, most of the significant
implementation issues
were not settled in Doha, but were included as further
negotiations as part
of the Single Undertaking. This means that the
outstanding implementation
concerns will have to be addressed by developed
countries, if they are to get
a successful conclusion to the round. However,
Developing Countries have
argued consistently that implementation issues
should be settled before Doha,
and many are unhappy that they are being
'made to pay twice' - first they
sign a bad agreement in the form of the
Uruguay Round, then they are only
able to rectify some of the inequities in
that round by negotiating further
concessions in other areas through a
single undertaking.
3.
Agriculture (paras 13 and 14)
After a prolonged battle between the EU and the
Cairns group of
agroexporters, the text finally settled on 'without
prejudging the outcome
of the negotiations we commit ourselves to
comprehensive negotiations aimed
at: substantial improvements in market
access; reductions of, with a view to
phasing out, all forms of export
subsidies; and substantial reductions in
trade-distorting domestic support'
(para 13)
While this does not commit the EU to phasing subsidies out
altogether, as
demanded by many other countries, it will increase pressure
for their
reduction. Export subsidies have the effect of leading to
artificially cheap
prices for food exports, which can trigger import surges
which undercut and
destroy the livelihoods of third world farmers.
Encouragingly, the EU is
adamant that the phrase 'all forms of export
subsidies; and substantial
trade reductions in trade-distorting domestic
support', also applies to two
of the US' favourite instruments - export
credits and food aid. This could
further reduce the level of dumping on Third
World markets.
Despite a strong campaign in Doha by a large number of
developing countries,
there is no specific mention of the need to create a
'development box' in
the Agreement on Agriculture. However, there is strong
text on Special and
Differential Treatment for developing countries, which
reads 'We agree that
special and differential treatment for developing
countries shall be an
integral part of all elements of the negotiations and
shall be embodied in
the Schedules of concessions and commitments and as
appropriate in the rules
and disciplines to be negotiated, so as to be
operationally effective and to
enable developing countries to effectively
take account of their development
needs, including food security and rural
development.' The Committee on
Agriculture is required to report on
provisions for S&D by 31.3.03.
Developing countries are optimistic that
this will allow them to have a
proper discussion on the development box in
Geneva.
4. Services (para 15)
The Services paragraph proved one of the
more uncontroversial issues in
Doha. The main complaint from a group of
developing countries was that it
failed to include their proposals for
negotiations to be linked to progress
on an assessment of the developmental
impact of services liberalisation (as
specified in the GATS
agreement).
5. Industrial Tariffs (para 16)
This paragraph agrees
negotiations 'to reduce, or as appropriate eliminate
tariffs, including the
reduction or elimination of tariff peaks, high
tariffs, and tariff
escalation'. It also allows for 'less than full
reciprocity' in tariff
reductions between rich and poor countries.
Developing countries have
long argued for reductions in tariff peaks and
escalation, and see this text
as an important victory. However, developed
countries managed to slip in the
phrase 'high tariffs', since industrial
tariffs are typically higher in
developing countries. This may divert
attention away from the impact of
Northern tariffs on developing country
producers.
Developing
countries, notably in a written submission by seven African
countries, had
also argued that negotiations should only be begun after a
full impact
assessment, since their experience to date suggests that this
form of
liberalisation has led to de-industrialisation and job losses. These
concerns
were ignored.
6. Trips (paras 17, 18 and 19)
This section was
accompanied by a separate declaration on Trips and public
health. Together,
they confirm the existing agreement that the TRIPS
agreement 'does not and
should not prevent Members from taking measures to
protect public health'.
This merely reaffirms the existing text of the TRIPS
agreement, but was
important because of a number of recent incidents in
which pharmaceutical
companies and the US government have challenged
countries availing themselves
of this option. Although developing countries
wanted an imperative 'shall'
rather than the exhortatory 'should' which
finally appeared in the text, they
clearly scored a significant victory over
the US and several EU countries,
which wanted to be much more restrictive on
the circumstances in which
countries can override patent laws in the
interests of public
health.
The other change that weakened this crucial paragraph was the
stipulation
that the TRIPs agreement should be interpreted in such a way as
to 'promote'
rather than 'ensure' (text in earlier draft) access to medicines
for all
(TRIPs declaration para 4).
Delegates also pointed out that
the TRIPs declaration is a political
declaration, rather than an
authoritative TRIPs agreement. In other words,
it addresses the spirit,
rather than the letter, of the agreement and does
not provide legal
clarification.
While the focus on public health is important, it was
disappointing to see
that other important developmental aspects of Trips
received far less
attention. In particular, there is no acknowledgement of
developing country
requests that life forms and genetic codes should be
excluded from TRIPS
disciplines, little on biopiracy (the patenting of
traditional community
knowledge by big companies), and no clear statement
that the Biosafety
Protocol (which allows countries to refuse the release of
GM seeds) takes
precedence over WTO rules.
7. Competition, Investment
and other Singapore Issues (paras 20-27)
The four 'Singapore Issues' (named
after the location of the 1996
ministerial conference), proved one of the
main North-South battlegrounds of
the conference. The EU wanted to begin
negotiations on competition and
investment, while the US pushed talks on
transparency in government
procurement and trade facilitation (e.g. making
sure trade flows smoothly
through customs at the borders).
Most
developing countries did not want any of them, arguing that they
imposed a
massive negotiating burden, that they were not priority issues,
and that they
had yet to be convinced that it is in their interests to seek
agreements in
these areas. For example, governments have traditionally used
their
purchasing power to develop national industries, something which might
be
threatened if, as expected, an agreement on transparency in
government
procurement leads to increased pressure for an agreement on
government
procurement per se.
In the end, a last minute compromise
was reached. The text for each of the
four issues reads: 'we agree that
negotiations will take place after the
Fifth Session of the Ministerial
Conference on the basis of a decision to be
taken, by explicit consensus, at
that Session on modalities of negotiations'
However, in order for this to
be acceptable to India and 12 other developing
countries, the chair of the
final Doha plenary read out the following
statement.
'I would like to
note that some delegations have requested clarification
concerning paragraphs
20,23,26 and 27 of the Draft Declaration. Let me say
that with respect to the
reference to an 'explicit consensus' being needed,
in these paragraphs, for a
decision to be taken at the Fifth Session of the
Ministerial Conference, my
understanding is that, at that Session, a
decision would indeed need to be
taken, by explicit consensus before
negotiations on Trade and Investment and
Trade and Competition Policy,
Transparency in Government Procurement, and
Trade Facilitation could
proceed.
In my view, this would give each
Member the right to take a position on
modalities that would prevent
negotiations from proceeding after the Fifth
Session of the Ministerial
Conference until that Member is prepared to join
in an explicit
consensus.'
This in effect removes any commitment to negotiate after the
5th
ministerial, which will take place in 2003. Until then the work
programme
agreed in Doha confines itself to clarifying a range of issues
around trade
and the Singapore Issues, without going into direct
negotiations.
Despite fending off the immediate threat of negotiations,
the issues have
not gone away. Between now and the next ministerial, the
pressure is likely
to increase on developing country to accept negotiations.
As in Doha, the
battle in 2003 over a Northern-driven agenda risks diverting
attention from
more pressing development concerns.
There was some
progress in other areas. Paras 21 & 24 acknowledge the need
for further
evaluation of the developmental implications of competition and
investment
agreements, and specifically mention UNCTAD as a body which can
help with
this. There is also language specifying that any competition
framework must
'take due account of the development policies and objectives
of host
governments as well as their right to regulate in the public
interest. The
special development, trade and financial needs of developing
and
least-developed countries should be taken into account as an integral
part of
any framework, which should enable Members to undertake obligations
and
commitments commensurate with their individual needs and
circumstances.'
(para 23)
8. WTO Rules (paras 28 &29)
This subject was mainly a
response to widespread unhappiness with the abuse
of anti-dumping rules by
richer WTO members. The US in particular fought
hard to water down the draft
text and restrict the remit of any review of
anti-dumping rules. Only time
will tell how successful they were.
9. Trade and Environment (paras 31,
32 and 33)
The EU fought hard to introduce text on the environment into the
draft, and
was fiercely opposed by many developing countries that fear it
will be used
to justify 'ecoprotectionism' against their exports. The EU
managed to win a
commitment to negotiations on the relationship between WTO
rules and
Multilateral Environmental Agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol on
Climate
Change, and the reduction or elimination of tariff barriers on
environmental
goods and services. Other hot topics, notably
eco-labelling, were kicked
into the sluggish backwaters of the
Committee on Trade and Environment,
which will be asked to report to the 5th
ministerial on future action,
'including the desirability of
negotiations.'
The 'precautionary principle' was also kept out of the
negotiations, to the
satisfaction of the developing countries, which fear
that it could impose
crippling certification costs on their exports, and be
used for
eco-protectionist purposes. The US and Cairns Group countries also
opposed
its inclusion as a potential threat to their exports.
10.
Small Economies (para 35)
The WTO agreed to a work programme to look at the
particular issues facing
small, vulnerable economies, such as the islands of
the Caribbean, but
stopped short of creating a special category of such
members within the WTO.
The small economies have long argued that they are
unable to compete on
equal terms with large economies, because they cannot
generate the same
economies of scale (e.g. it is impossible to produce
bananas in the broken
hillsides of the Caribbean as cheaply as on the flat
plains of Central
America).
11. Debt, Finance and Technology Transfer
(paras 36 & 37)
At the request of a large number of developing countries,
the WTO set up two
new working groups to examine these issues. They have long
argued that the
kind of trade system currently enshrined in WTO rules has
failed to
contribute to a resolution of the debt crisis, or to deliver the
improved
technology transfer promised during the Uruguay Round. While working
groups
can merely be talking shops, sucking up scarce resources from
overstretched
delegations, they can also be the first step on the road to
reform. Much
will depend on the seriousness with which developing countries
in Geneva
pursue the work in these groups, and whether the rich countries
approach
discussions with an open mind.
12. Technical Cooperation and
Capacity Building (paras 38, 39, 40, & 41)
The developing countries have
long argued that they need far more help if
they are to participate actively
in highly complex negotiations, and
implement the agreements that they sign.
These paragraphs stress the
importance of such work, and calls on the WTO's
Director General to report
on progress in December 2002. However, the
language used is of the 'best
endeavours' kind, urging countries to provide
support, but not, for example,
making the provision of adequate capacity
building a condition for
implementation by developing countries of their WTO
commitments.
13. Least-Developed Countries (paras 42 & 43)
These
paragraphs acknowledge many of the concerns of the WTO's poorest
members, but
only in 'best endeavours' language. Thus WTO members 'recognize
that the
integration of the LDCs into the multilateral trading system
requires
meaningful market access, support for the diversification of their
production
and export base, and trade-related technical assistance and
capacity
building' and 'urge development partners to significantly
increase
contributions to the IF Trust Fund and WTO extra-budgetary
trust funds in
favour of LDCs.' It remains to see if these exhortations
result in greater
help for LDCs.
There was particular disappointment
that the EU's pre-Doha decision to open
its markets to all non-military
exports from LDCs was not taken up by the
other developed countries. Instead
the text merely read that members 'commit
ourselves to the objective of
duty-free, quota-free market access for
products originating from LDCs'.
Without a deadline, or any negotiating
framework, this objective is unlikely
to be achieved.
14. Special and Differential Treatment (para 44)
WTO
members 'agree that all special and differential treatment
provisions
shall be reviewed with a view to strengthening them and making
them more
precise, effective and operational'. The decision on
implementation
instructs the Committee on Trade and Development to review
S&D, consider how
best endeavours language can be turned into binding
commitments and to
report on this to the General Council by July 2002. While
the CTD has not
been particularly dynamic in the past, the work programme as
outlined could
offer significant gains on S&D, if pursued forcefully by
developing
countries, and not blocked by the developed world.
15.
Organization and Management of Work Programme (paras 45-52)
This sets out the
machinery for running negotiations, leading to a
conclusion 'not later than 1
January 2005'. A new Trade Negotiations
Committee will be set up in Geneva,
open to all countries with Geneva-based
representatives. With the exception
of the review of the Disputes Settlement
Understanding, all negotiations will
be treated as parts of a single
undertaking, meaning that all WTO members
sign up to all of them, and they
only come into force when all have been
agreed. Again there is a commitment
to 'take fully into account the principle
of special and differential
treatment for developing and least-developed
countries.' (para 50). The
Committee on Trade and Development is also
instructed to 'identify and
debate developmental and
environmental aspects
of the negotiations, in order to help achieve the
objective of having
sustainable development appropriately reflected.' (para
51)
There
greatest problem with the single undertaking is that developing
country
delegations in Geneva will be faced with an enormous task in
participating in
a well-informed, proactive manner on nine simultaneous and
highly complex
areas of negotiations, plus substantive discussions on a
range of other
issues. Between now and 2005, there will be
Negotiations on:
·
Implementation
· Agriculture
· Services
· Industrial Tariffs
·
Trips
· Anti Dumping
· Relationship between Regional Trade Agreements and
the WTO
· Dispute Settlement Understanding
· Trade and
Environment
Between now and the 5th ministerial (late 2003) the
declaration also calls
for substantive discussions in the following
bodies:
· Working Group on the Relationship between Trade and Investment
·
Working Group on the Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy
·
Working Group on Transparency in Government Procurement
· Council for Trade
in Goods (on trade facilitation)
· Work Programme on Electronic Commerce
·
General Council (on small economies)
· Working Group on the Trade, Debt and
Finance (New Group)
· Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology (New
Group)
· Committee on Trade and Development (review of Special and
Differential
Treatment)
Lastly, the Trade Negotiations Committee will
add another tier of meetings
alongside those of the General Council. This is
clearly a huge, if not
impossible, workload for developing country
delegations in Geneva, many of
which have only one or two WTO specialists,
and no budget to fly in experts
for particular subjects, as is the practice
of the developed country
governments.
21.11.2001
. The Ill Wind of Trade
The ill wind of trade
The WTO talks which ended last week in
Qatar were hailed as a breakthrough for poor countries. More like a disaster,
argues delegate Caroline Lucas
Wednesday November 21, 2001
The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk/>
I have a cartoon in my Brussels office of two international trade
delegates who have landed on the moon. One is saying to the other: "Thank
heavens, our negotiations are finally safe from the threat of democracy."
Arriving in Doha as a Green party MEP and a member of the European Parliament's
official delegation to the world trade talks, I was convinced that the World
Trade Organisation secretariat had that cartoon in mind when it settled on Qatar
as the venue.
Imagine a lunar landscape, empty but for a forest of new
steel and glass buildings, cocooned in eerie isolation from the rest of the
world, and you get a sense of what it was like. And the absence of democracy was
a leitmotif running through the entire meeting from November 9-13.
Developing countries were already furious before they arrived because
the negotiating text drawn up in Geneva was weighted entirely in the interests
of the rich north. But that was nothing compared to the ruthlessness of the
negotiation tactics employed against them.
Immense pressure was exerted
on the poorer countries by the powerful trading nations, who threatened to
withdraw aid and debt relief, among other things, in order to get their way. It
was these backroom bruisings that finally forced developing country delegates
into resentful acquiescence. At one point, two countries - one from Latin
America, the other from Africa - were threatened with the removal of agreed
access to richer country markets. And Uganda was even asked by a senior US
official to remove its ambassador to the WTO from Geneva because he disagreed
with the US on key policy areas.
Richard Bernal, one of Jamaica's
official delegates, told how his government had come under pressure to fall into
line. He complained: "We are made to feel that we are holding up the rescue of
the global economy if we don't agree to a new trade round here."
The EU,
Britain and the WTO are congratulating themselves on getting a new round of
talks, but the reality is that we now have a global trade race, with the poor
countries arm-twisted and bullied into the starting blocks. None of the
developing countries' main demands were even addressed in Doha. They wanted a
fairer trade system, to be allowed to protect their domestic farmers, and to
analyse the adverse effects of the previous Uruguay round of talks in order to
inform future trade deals. They were simply ignored.
Far from this being
- as the EU's trade commissioner, Pascal Lamy, and others have called it, with
breathtaking hypocrisy - a "development round", it is a disaster for the world's
poor. Take agriculture. The EU fought tooth and nail to protect its right to
dump subsidised farm products in poorer countries. This, they know full well,
has a devastating effect on southern farmers, who simply cannot compete against
cheaper imports. Northern governments have increased agricultural subsidies,
instead of cutting them, to almost $350bn (£244bn) a year. As Tanzania's trade
minister, Iddi Simba, said: "The wrong policy on agriculture might lose
elections in France, but it loses lives in Africa".
Our environment
secretary, Margaret Beckett, may have hailed Doha as good for British consumers,
giving them more "choice and power", but for poor farmers in the south, the
agreement spells more of the same poverty, as their markets continue to be
undermined by cheaper produce from the north.
Or industrial tariffs.
Many developing countries called for a study to examine the effects of tariff
reductions on local industries and jobs, before being required to open their
markets further. Local industries, they say, have already collapsed in most
African and least developed countries as a result of previous tariff cuts. It
seemed a fair and sensible proposal, but such is the nature of talks like this
that every proposal becomes a bargaining chip. The fact that lives are at stake
means nothing. Their request was ignored, and negotiations are to start
immediately.
The results could be devastating, leading to massive job
losses - and the poverty that goes with it. In Senegal, for example, a previous
commitment to open their markets by cutting industrial tariffs by almost half
has led to the loss of one-third of all manufacturing jobs. The same story is
repeated throughout the poorer countries.
So what does the future hold
for poor countries? As a result of the brave new trade round launched in Doha,
it seems inevitable that they will experience even more inequality in the
future, not less; that their markets will become progressively dominated by
northern corporations rather than by stronger local or national producers, and
that poverty and insecurity will rise.
Past experience does not bode
well. More than 80 countries now have per capita incomes lower than a decade ago
and, as the United Nations development programme points out, it is often those
countries which are highly "integrated" into the global economy that are
becoming more marginal.
In spite of the fact that exports from
sub-Saharan Africa, for example, have reached nearly 30% of GDP (compared to
just 19% for the leading industrialised countries of the OECD), the number of
people living in poverty there continues to grow. Even the IMF admits that "in
recent decades, nearly one-fifth of the world population has regressed -
arguably one of the greatest economic failures of the 20th century". Yet another
trade round, on the same terms as the past ones, is only likely to make matters
worse.
Doha deals - winners and losers
Caroline Lucas
Wednesday November 21, 2001
The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk/>
Agriculture
The EU's massively subsidised
agricultural system has long been criticised for its devastating effect on the
livelihoods of southern farmers, who cannot compete against cheap food such as
wheat, beef and butter dumped in their markets by the EU. The draft ministerial
declaration referred to negotiations "with a view to phasing out" these
subsidies. But with the French disputing that subsidies should be phased out and
threatening to walk out, a face-saving deal was made which again puts off the
date when the EU has to stop export dumping. Good for the EU, disappointing for
developing countries.
Intellectual property
Developing
countries wanted assurances that the WTO's agreement on trade-related
intellectual property (Trips) covering patent rules would not threaten their
ability to buy cheap generic drugs. A good deal on patents was negotiated which
will help poor countries get cheaper medicines. Doha sent a strong mes sage that
people's health overrides the interests of big drug companies, who will now find
it much harder to bully poor countries over patents. But the battle on Trips
isn't over. In particular, no attention was paid to concerns about the need to
prohibit the patenting of life forms, and to ensure developing countries can
protect local community rights in seeds from biopiracy by multinationals.
Environment
Under pressure from public opinion in Europe,
the EU came to Doha with the environment high on its agenda. It was resisted by
most developing countries, who feared that high environmental standards in the
north could be used as a protectionist smokescreen to deny them access to their
markets. Negotiations on the liberalisation of environmentally sensitive
services such as water, energy and waste will now be accelerated, posing further
risks to the environment and local communities. Avictory for the EU, a disaster
for the global environment.
22.11.2001
. LOTIS high level chairman Leon
Brittan welcomes
launch of new WTO Round
I forward
International Financial Services London's press release on
the Doha outcome.
To place the press release in context, refer to the
GATSwatch research
paper:
"Liberalisation Of Trade in Services: Corporate Power at
Work",
<
http://www.gatswatch.org/LOTIS/>
Erik
Wesselius
GATSwatch
Press Release
Nov 15, 2001
LOTIS
Chairman, Lord Brittan, Welcomes the Launch of a New WTO Round
IFSL
welcomes the successful launch of the new round of multilateral
negotiations
on trade in services in the WTO and the accession of
China and Chinese Taipei
to the Organisation.
IFSL's Liberalisation of Trade in Services (LOTIS)
structure is the
recognised interface between the UK financial services
industry and
the Government for WTO issues. The Chairman of the High Level
LOTIS
Group, Lord Brittan of Spennithorne, said of the outcome of the
Doha
negotiations:
"The decision taken by Ministers at Doha to launch
a wide ranging new
trade Round is most welcome. Further liberalisation in
trade in
services is in all our interests. But I doubt if we would have
got
very far if the negotiations had been confined to services
and
agriculture. With a full-scale and wide ranging Round, the scope
for
trade-offs between the different areas under negotiation should
enable
us to achieve a high quality services package which will
benefit all WTO
Member countries, whatever their stage of
development".
22.11.2001
. MEP Nick Clegg: Reactions to Doha
stretch credulity
Liberal MEP Nick Clegg defends the Doha
outcome in yesterday's Financial
Times. Read this in conjunction with
FT columnist Martin Wolf's comment
"Broken Promises to the Poor", which
I post separately and Green MEP
Caroline Lucas' article from
yesterday (The Ill Winds of Trade") that was
posted on this list last
night.
Erik Wesselius
Corporate Europe Observatory /
Transnational Institute
-------------
Reactions to Doha stretch
credulity
Financial Times; Nov 21, 2001
By NICK CLEGG
From Mr Nick
Clegg MEP.
Sir, It is, of course, inevitable that different
interests choose to
interpret the results of the World Trade
Organisation meeting in Qatar in
different ways.
Yet some of the
reported reactions stretch credulity too far. It is
reported ("Fischler
hails Doha meeting a success", November 16) that Franz
Fischler, the
European Union commissioner for agriculture, considers that
the
last-minute insertion of wording that specifies that the
WTO
negotiations on agriculture will take place "without prejudging the
outcome
of the negotiations" somehow lets the EU off the hook on
agricultural
reform. This is an absurdly legalistic interpretation of
what remains a
political text to launch the next round of WTO
talks.
In truth, the caveat so beloved of Mr Fischler could easily
serve as the
title of the whole document agreed in Qatar. Of course,
the outcome of the
negotiations has not been prejudged - they have not
even started yet.
The reality is that these talks will not conclude
without the prospect of
the elimination of all forms of EU
agricultural export subsidies, in spite
of the clutching at straws
by European Commission officials to the
contrary.
Equally, the
claim from some (not all) anti-globalisation movements that
the launch
of a new WTO trade round is a "disaster for poor people"
("Activists
call deal 'disaster for poor people'", November 15) is
spectacularly
ill-judged.
Before Qatar they said the EU and the US would never give
way on
intellectual property rights to secure affordable
medicines in the
developing world. Yet it happened. Before Qatar
they said the EU and the US
would never grant flexibility to
developing countries on the implementation
of existing WTO commitments.
Yet it happened. Before Qatar they said that
Europe would not give an inch on
agriculture and the US on anti-dumping
measures. Yet it
happened.
Ministers from Kenya, Bangladesh and others spoke publicly
at the end of
the Qatar meeting of the benefits to the developing
world. They had the
good sense to pocket the concessions they had
extracted from others. No
doubt they will appreciate the insinuation
from some campaign activists in
Europe and North America that they
simply got it all wrong.
Nick Clegg MEP, Liberal Group Trade &
Industry Spokesman, European
Parliament, Rue Wiertz, Brussels,
Belgium
Copyright: The Financial Times Limited 1995-1998
***
NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
this material is
distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes.
***
22.11.2001
. FT columnist Martin WOlf: Broken
promises to the
poor
Broken promises to the poor: If the west
really wants to tackle global
poverty and hunger, it should start
by practising what it preaches on trade
Financial Times; Nov 21,
2001
By MARTIN WOLF
The darkness is lifting a little. This is
true on the battlefields of
Afghanistan. It was also true in Doha
last week, where the ministerial
meeting of the World Trade
Organisation agreed to launch a new round of
negotiations. Taken
together with the membership of China and Taiwan, this
decision indicates a
will to strengthen the trading system. It should also
slow moves
towards protectionist measures during the downturn. But it is
only a
beginning. The members of the WTO must finish what they have
started.
To succeed, negotiators must satisfy the demands of all the WTO's
members,
particularly of developing countries. Yet Oxfam, the British
development
charity, was right in stating that "the system is facing a
crisis of
legitimacy. That crisis is the product not of anti-
globalisation protest
but of the blatant hypocrisy and double standards
that govern the
behaviour of rich countries towards poor
countries".*
In the 1980s and 1990s developing countries were cajoled
- some might say
coerced - into embracing the market. The World
Bank and International
Monetary Fund demanded trade liberalisation as a
price of loans that were
essential for countries burdened with a heavy
load of unpayable debt.
Similarly, the developing countries were told to
participate in the Uruguay
round of trade negotiations.
The
advanced countries play a dominant role in this system, both
as
negotiators and as markets. In 2000, 54 per cent of the world's
merchandise
exports went, in descending order, to the US, the European
Union (excluding
internal trade), Japan and Canada. Here, moreover, the
EU rivals the US as
a superpower, with both absorbing close to a fifth
of world merchandise
imports.
How well have these countries
lived up to their liberal principles and
generous promises? Miserably,
is the answer.
The World Bank notes that the average poor person
confronts trade barriers
roughly twice as high as those confronting
the typical worker in an
advanced country.** In general, tariffs
in advanced countries on imports
from developing countries are four
times higher than those on imports from
other advanced countries.
Exceptional protection is imposed against imports
of many farm products
(particularly in the EU and Japan), of textiles and
clothing (notably
in the US and Canada) and of footwear.
Support to agricultural
producers in advanced countries was Dollars 245bn
(Pounds 170bn) in
2000, five times total development assistance. In the
members of the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as a
whole, a
third of farm income came from government-mandated support in
2000.
In complaining of the wastefulness of much aid, Paul O'Neill,
US
Treasury secretary, strains at gnats and swallows camels. Total
farm
support is today barely less than in the late 1980s and, as the
World Bank
notes, "the share of subsidised exports has even increased
for many
products of export interest to developing
countries".
Then, in addition to high tariffs against imports of
textiles and clothing,
there is the long-standing multi-fibre
arrangement, which imposes strict
bilateral export restrictions on
developing countries that export. In the
Uruguay round, the advanced
countries committed themselves to eliminating
these restrictions by
2005. So far, they have abided by the letter but
failed to obey the
spirit of this commitment. Will they do what they have
promised? One
wonders.
Consider the anti-dumping procedures that advanced
countries are determined
to defend. Every scholar who has looked
at their rationale has concluded
that they are intrinsically
protectionist, violate fundamental competition
principles and often
merely support domestic cartels. One should note the
irony of the EU's
position as a user of anti-dumping measures, in view of
its export
subsidies on farm surpluses. This is the most damaging
dumping
programme in the world - and the one France defended to the
last ditch in
Doha.
Behind these measures lies something deeper. The
advanced countries insist
that developing countries should adjust
to market forces. Yet,
notwithstanding their vastly greater
ability to cushion the plight of the
losers, the advanced countries
themselves have been unwilling to accept the
same adjustments.
Double standards can be found elsewhere. In the Uruguay round,
developing
countries were told to accept such potentially onerous
burdens as the
agreement on trade-related intellectual property
(Trips). Yet, as Oxfam
notes, the US government itself threatened to
override patents when faced
with bio- terrorism at home. In Doha, agreement
was reached that "the Trips
agreement does not and should not prevent
members from taking measures to
protect public health". How far this
will stretch is not yet clear.
Developing countries face high
hurdles in working within the trading
system. Implementation of Uruguay
round agreements has proved notoriously
onerous. Moreover, the WTO's
administrative budget was a miserable SFr134m
(Pounds 55.5m) in 2001, a
mere 6 per cent of the World Bank's, to which can
be added extra-
budgetary contributions for technical co-operation trust
funds of
SFr14.8m. These sums are grossly (and deliberately) insufficient.
The
WTO is unable to help its weaker members make effective use of
the
trading system.
Many critics of the WTO believe it should be
closed because it is no more
than a vehicle of "corporate-led
globalisation" and, as such, a machine for
increasing poverty. These
people are wrong. But more informed critics are
right to complain
that the behaviour of the advanced countries within the
system has been
hypocritical at best and duplicitous at worst.
It would be foolish to
claim that there exists a simple way of promoting
economic development
throughout the world. It would be equally ludicrous to
argue that all
developing countries need to do is to liberalise their
trade. What can
be said is something different. It is that one of the few
things
advanced countries can do, in both their own interest and that
of
the developing world, is to live by their own liberal
principles. In this
coming negotiation, the gap between what they
should do and are doing must
at last be closed.
* Eight Broken
Promises: Why the WTO isn't working for the world's poor,
Oxfam
Briefing Paper 9,
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/; ** Global
Economic Prospects and
the Developing Countries 2002,
http://www.worldbank.org/martin.wolf@ft.com *** NOTICE: In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
this material is distributed
without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included
information for research and educational purposes.
***
24.11.2001
. Lamy in India -- "India & EU Put Trade on
Fast
Track"
Thursday November 22 12:26 PM ET
India, EU Put
Trade on Fast Track
By RAJESH MAHAPATRA, Associated Press Writer
NEW
DELHI, India (AP) - India and the European Union on
Thursday agreed to boost
their trade and investment ties,
putting aside their sharp differences in the
World Trade
Organization over environment and competition rules.
``It is
not all about confrontation between the EU and India.
What matters in the end
is that together we have succeeded,''
EU Commissioner of Trade Pascal Lamy
said Thursday at a
two-day India-EU business meeting in the Indian
capital.
Earlier this month in Doha, Qatar, India reluctantly agreed
with
the other 141 WTO members to negotiate new issues like
the environment,
competition rules and government
procurement.
India agreed to a new round
of talks after winning two major
concessions, which would allow poor
countries to override
drug patents during crises to make cheap generic
versions
available and delay negotiations on new issues by at least
two
years.
Lamy said the EU supported India on a number of
issues,
including patent relaxation during health crises, because
those
were legitimate concerns of developing countries.
``The biggest
boost to our bilateral relation will come from an
ambitious program of trade
negotiations at multilateral level,''
he said.
``We sincerely hope the EU
will fulfill its promise to speed up
implementation of the pending issues
within the WTO in the
interest of the developing countries,'' India's
Commerce and
Industry Minister Murasoli Maran said.
Lamy and Maran also
met separately to discuss setting up of
working groups in areas like steel,
marine and farm products,
textiles and environment.
They agreed to explore
if the EU could work out a deal in the
textile sector for India similar to
the one it has offered
Pakistan, Ukraine and Sri Lanka. Recently it agreed to
raise
the quota for exports of Pakistani textile products to the EU by
15
percent.
``The details can be worked provided India makes an
effort,''
Lamy told a news conference after the meeting. Textile
products
account for about 15 percent of India's total exports
and the EU is the most
important destination.
Maran also raised the issue of non-tariff barriers,
especially to
agricultural exports from India and the trade preference
rules
that harmed Indian exporters. Lamy said he had clearly
indicated
that the EU was in the process of framing new trade
preference rules, which
will not be unfavorable to India.
In return, he said, the EU wanted India to
cut tariffs on several
products such as liquor that favor European
exporters.
The EU is India's biggest trade partner. However, India,
a
country of more than 1 billion people, ranks only 18th on the
EU's list
of trade partners with just 1.3 percent of EU's total
imports. India-EU trade
totaled $22 billion last year.
Similarly, the EU is the biggest investor in
India, but India
received only 0.6 percent of the EU's worldwide
investment,
less than one-fifth of what China gets.
``Clearly, there is a
lot of room for improvement,'' Lamy said
earlier at the meeting.
24.11.2001
. Caroline Lucas: Turn round an
unequal world
Apologies for cross posting
Tribune 23rd
November 2001
Turn round an unequal world
Caroline Lucas urges
the anti-globalisation movements to find
constructive alternatives to the
materialism of rich countries
The WTO Conference in the capital of
Qatar was a quiet event. The very
opposite of the blanket coverage of its
previous 1999 debacle - "the
Battle of Seattle". Skulking in a small state,
allowing hardly any
protestors and being knocked off the news agenda by the
war, it must
have seemed like the good old days to the trade officials -
meeting away
from demonstrations and massive press interest to further open
up
markets to the benefit of corporations and at the price of ever
rising
global inequality.
Well aware of this reality, developing
countries were already furious
before they arrived in Doha, because the draft
negotiating text was
weighted entirely in the interests of the rich North. Of
course it was
theoretically supposed to be the result of democratic
discussions
between the 142 member states, but worse was to come. If the
process of
drawing up the negotiating text was undemocratic, that was
nothing
compared to the ruthlessness of the negotiation tactics
themselves.
Immense pressure was exerted on the poorer countries by the
powerful
trading nations, including threats relating to aid and debt relief,
and
it was these backroom bruisings that finally forced developing
country
delegates into resentful acquiescence to the final unsatisfactory
deal.
Despite EU Commissioner Pascal Lamy's breathtalkingly hypocritical
claim
that this was to be a "Development Round", what was agreed will be
a
disaster for the world's poor. Take agriculture. The EU fought to
the
very end to protect its right to dump subsidised agricultural
products
in poorer countries. This has a devastating effect on Southern
farmers,
who simply cannot compete against cheaper imports. "The wrong policy
on
agriculture might lose elections in France, but it loses lives
in
Africa." was the chilling conclusion of Tanzania's Trade Minister
Mr
Iddi Simba.
One of the central demands of developing countries was
not to be bounced
into further liberalisation until the adverse results of
previous trade
rounds were documented and so could point to a different
direction for
global trade. What is already known is bad enough. Aside from
the
numerous studies showing a rise in inequality world-wide, World
Bank
economist Michael Finger has estimated that a typical developing
country
must spend $150 million to implement requirements under just three
WTO
Agreements- a year's development budget for many
least-developed
countries.
The anti-globalisation movement was swift
to denounced the fact that
almost none of the developing country governments'
concerns had been
adequately met, let alone the broader grass roots concerns
of civil
society. These include the promotion of local economies, food
security,
labour, social and, cultural rights, and protection of the
environment.
All were clearly off the agenda. However in the light of Doha
perhaps
the most important change for the anti globalisation movement with
be
its shift from such critical opposition to the constructive
proposition
of alternatives.
The grass roots movements are already
increasingly demanding and
campaigning for a more cooperative and
internationalist linkage between
countries. This sees a new end goal of
protecting and rebuilding local
economies rather than today's damaging one of
dependence on ever
increasing international competitiveness. Such alternative
economic
models do exist and I drew upon them for my Doha report 'Time to
Replace
Globalisation'. This detailed a new set of international trade
rules
whose purpose is not to ensure the unimpeded international trade
in
goods and services. Instead these rules are designed to promote a
more
sustainable and equitable economic system by strengthening
democratic
control of trade, stimulating industries and services that benefit
local
communities, and rediversifying local and national
economies.
Such 'localisation' involves a supportive internationalism,
where the
flow of ideas, technologies, information, culture, money and goods
has,
as its end goal, the protection and rebuilding of sustainable
regional,
national and local economies world-wide. Its emphasis is not
on
competition for the cheapest, but on co-operation for the best.
The
anti-globalisation movement's shift to setting the debate for the
alternative
direction for world trade could be one of the most
significant developments
post September 11th. In Doha the UK Trade and
Industry Secretary Patricia
Hewitt slavishly adhered to the US line of
fighting terror with trade. Those
of us in the trade justice movement
are clear that the increases in
inequalities inherent in the free market
model could act as a breeding ground
for the support for terrorism. To
adequately address global poverty,
environmental threats and introduce a
sense of future security, it is the
demands for protection and
rebuilding local and national economies, rather
than the contortion of
national economies into ever more ruthless
international competition,
that will give the anti globalisers their most
crucial role. A non
patentable antidote to this post September 11th world of
increasing
personal and economic insecurity.
Caroline Lucas is a Green
MEP for the South East of England, and
coordinator of the Greens/EFA group on
the trade committee of the
European Parliament
--
Chris Keene,
Coordinator, Anti-Globalisation Network
90 The Parkway, Canvey Island, Essex
SS8 0AE, England
Tel 01268 682820 Fax 01268
514164
24.11.2001
. Unravelling the Doha puzzle by C.P.
Chandrasakhar
Unr
This
analysis from C.P. Chandraskhar from Frontline online at
flonnet.com
Regards,
David
Unravelling the Doha puzzle
Although developing countries showed unusual unity at the
ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Doha, developed countries
succeeded in pushing through a version of their agenda.
THE Doha
Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ended with a set of
declarations which signal agreement among its 144 members over a 'work
programme' that amounts to a new round of trade negotiations, irrespective of
what it is actually called. While this end result is clear, the manner in which
the agreement was arrived at and is finally phrased has raised a number of
questions that remain unanswered. Some among these relate to the specific
implications of the opaque manner in which the declarations have been worded, as
part of the power-play and diplomacy that went into forcing out a decision from
the highly contentious negotiations. Others relate to the degree to which
developing countries, led it appears by India, were able to redress existing
inequalities and stall the imposition of fresh burdens through a new round of
negotiations. Yet others relate to the degree to which the promise of greater
transparency made after the fiasco at Seattle in 1999 had been delivered at
Doha.
And, finally there is the all important
question as to why, despite its own domestic record of resorting to accelerated
liberalisation and defending the benefits of freer trade, the National
Democratic Alliance (NDA) government, through its representative, Commerce
Minister Murasoli Maran, articulated and stuck to a hardline position against a
new round, which it gave up only when it was clear that it had been completely
isolated by the manoeuvres of the Quad countries, particularly the United States
and the European Union members.
The three declarations that have come
out of Doha are the 'Doha Development Agenda' for what is in essence a new round
of trade talks; the declaration on a set of implementation issues raised by the
developing countries; and a 'political statement' on patents and public health.
An examination of the three declarations indicate that the developing countries
have been able to manage a partial holding operation and even register some
gains at the end of the Doha meet.
The principal gain is of course
embodied in the political statement dealing with patents and public health.
Spurred by the victories won by some African countries by way of clearance to
obtain cheap imports of drugs for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS),
from countries like India which do not as yet recognise product patents and by
the expressed willingness of sections in the U.S. to resort to similar imports
or compulsorily license the production of ciproflaxcin in the event of an
Anthrax emergency, developing countries and a number of non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) have been demanding more clearly specified and enhanced
flexibility in ignoring clauses of the Trade Related Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPS) agreement and overriding patents for public health reasons. The
developed countries have wanted such flexibility to be provided for only in the
event of a public health "emergency", such as an AIDS pandemic.
As
opposed to this, Brazil, India, the countries of sub-Saharan Africa and some
NGOs have been demanding greater autonomy for countries in deciding the public
health grounds on which they should be able to resort to such measures. The
political statement does go part of the way in providing for such autonomy,
besides making special concessions to the least developed countries. Although
this does not constitute a formal amendment of the Uruguay Round Agreement,
inasmuch as such ministerial-level political statements are taken account of by
dispute settlement panels when deciding on complaints of treaty violations, the
developing countries have indeed won themselves a victory vis-a-vis the
developed countries and the drug multinationals with their headquarters there.
The second, extremely minimal victory for the developing countries is
their ability to get the Ministerial Meet to deliberate on and issue a
declaration about the more than 40 issues relating to the implementation of the
Uruguay Round that had been raised by them over time. All of these focus on the
need to modify or reinterpret specific clauses of the Uruguay Round agreement
because of its failure to deliver on its promises in terms of benefits to
developing countries. However, not much should be made of this 'victory' since,
because barring some agreement on the imposition of anti-dumping duties by the
advanced countries, most crucial implementation problems such as those relating
to domestic support for agriculture in the U.S. and E.U. and to the trade in
textiles have been just accepted as issues that are in need of negotiation as
part of a new enlarged round. That is, going against the grain of demands from
the developing countries, including India, in the run-up to Doha, that
implementation issues need to be sorted out before any new round of talks is
initiated, almost all of those issues have been included in the agenda of the
new round.
AFP
A bottle of wine at a
bistro in Paris. This French vintage is exported to 150 countries. The Doha
Declaration in the area of geographical indications provides implicit copyright
to wine producers from France to the use of the word 'champagne'.
Third, after much hard bargaining the
developing countries have managed to obtain a small concession in the area of
agricultural support in the developed countries. The E.U. had, after much
stonewalling, agreed to reduce, "with a view to phasing out", agricultural
export subsidies. This is only a small advance, since no date has been set for
the phase-out and since the real issue, which is the reduction in the use of
"permitted" green- and blue-box subsidies by the developed countries to
subsidise their farming community, has been left to be renegotiated in the
course of the new round. This despite the evidence that many of those subsidies
not only affect the volume of world production and trade, but in the final
analysis world prices as well.
Fourth, in the area of geographical
indications, which provides for example a kind of implicit copyright to wine
producers from France for use of the word champagne, developing countries have
managed to include a provision to discuss the extension of that privilege to
commodities other than wine and spirits. If that discussion leads to such an
extension, it could, for example, help India to file for protection regarding
use of terms such as 'basmati'(rice) Kancheepuram (fabric) and so on, on
geographical grounds.
Finally, India has won a symbolic victory inasmuch
as the immediate agenda for the new round includes, besides implementation
issues and the already mandated negotiations on agriculture and services, only
industrial tariffs, anti-dumping duties and certain aspects of trade and the
environment. Core labour standards have just been referred to and the work of
the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in this area taken note of. And
negotiations on the so-called Singapore issues, such as foreign investment,
competition policies, public procurement and trade felicitation, though not
altogether dropped, are to be taken up as part of the new round only after
reconsidering the matter and generating an explicit consensus on negotiations on
them at the time of the fifth Ministerial Meet to be held in 2003. While
agreeing to postpone a final decision on these issues, the developed countries
have also put in a mandate for completion of negotiations by 2005.
ALTOGETHER, this does look to be a long list of victories for a group of
countries that lost out substantially at the end of the Uruguay Round, which
largely proved to be an exchange of concessions among the developed. But most of
these are mere statements of intent to discuss, and in areas such as agriculture
and textiles where early concession were needed and expected, little has come
out of Doha.
Doha also made clear the distance developing countries as a
group have to travel if they are to make any real difference to the unequal
international trading order. The most disconcerting was the innumerable ways in
which the developed countries conspire to divide the developing countries and
win major concessions for themselves. The scenario as it evolved was indeed
quite instructive. To start with, the U.S. set itself up as a reasonable
negotiator demanding some liberalisation of agricultural trade plus inclusion of
issues such as industrial tariffs and anti-dumping duties in the agenda for a
new round of trade negotiations. The E.U., on the other hand, remains
intransigent on agricultural protection and subsidies, but puts on the table a
range of new issues varying from the environment to investment and competition
policies. This almost predetermines the compromise that is to come: the E.U.
gives in a bit on agricultural trade, the developed camp as a whole agrees to
discuss implementation, but they get in return a new round which at the minimum
has the issues raised by the U.S. on the agenda and at the maximum includes all
the issues raised by the E.U. The actual outcome included a new round that had
on its agenda a combination of issues lying somewhere between the minimal
demands of the U.S. and the maximal demands of the E.U.
THE surprise
that Doha sprang was not in this outcome, but in three other areas. First, in
the unusual unity within the developing country camp, even if for a short period
of time, and the strong resistance by the Indian delegation in general and
Commerce Minister Murasoli Maran in particular, that helped keep the
implementation issues on the agenda as well as allowed developing countries to
garner the limited gains listed earlier. Second, in the extent to which the
developed countries went to split the developing-country camp and push through a
version of their agenda. Despite claims of having learnt their lessons at
Seattle and promises of abjuring non-transparent procedures, when the chips were
down the WTO leadership and developed-country representatives returned to their
earlier modes of functioning. Through pre-Doha meetings and "green-room"
consultations with a select group of developing countries, through offers of aid
to the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) bloc, through pressure tactics such
as locking in representatives without aides for hours together so as to badger
them into agreement, through attempts at labelling delegates as isolationist and
through what amounted to sheer verbal abuse and public admonition, the developed
countries did manage finally to break the unity of the developing as well as
come through with an agreement even if only after an unscheduled sixth day of
negotiations.
Finally, Doha was a surprise because despite all this the
developing countries went home with little to show for themselves other than
promises of going part of the way to meet their concerns. Most important, in
critical areas like the trade in textiles and domestic support to agriculture,
the developed countries have given nothing at all.
Domestically, the
issue of interest is the reason why unlike the last time this time around the
Indian delegation and its leader chose to stick it out with a hardline position
till the very end, even if it did not yield much by way of results. While
personalities do matter here, it must be realised that Minister Maran had
obtained Cabinet sanction for his tough negotiating stance before he left for
Doha. One explanation for the stance cleared at the Cabinet could be that the
NDA government has realised that its decision to opt for accelerated
liberalisation was proving counterproductive given the unequal nature of the
trading system put in place by the Uruguay Round. Redressing that inequality
would then be seen as a prerequisite for bailing out the reform strategy. But if
this was the motivation, one should expect that the failure to achieve much at
Doha should make the government cautious about proceeding with its reform
agenda. The reaction has in fact been just the opposite. Addressing a press
conference immediately after his return from Doha, Maran emphasised the need to
deepen economic reforms so that economic units within the country restructure
themselves over the next two years to face up to the likely intensification of
international competition. "If there is one lesson from Doha, it is (that) we
should reform fast," he is reported to have said.
The second explanation
could be that having faced substantial domestic criticism in the past, including
from within segments of the ruling coalition, the NDA government decided to
change tack in international negotiations and take a more nationalist stance.
But whatever benefits are likely to accrue from such a public display of
national sentiment outside the country would be more than neutralised by the
obvious willingness of the government to offer major economic concessions to the
developed countries in the domestic market in the wake of the Pokhran blasts of
1998.
The third likely explanation is that the government knew that
international circumstances were such that it would finally be left with little
support for its hardline stance. This, it may have surmised, would allow it to
give in or compromise in the final analysis. That would mean that while the
results from Doha would broadly be in keeping with what the developed-country
camp wanted, India would be seen as having fought hard and not caved in, but as
having, out of sheer lack of support and a need for reasonableness at an
international forum, had to let the 'majority' view prevail.
The slight
friction that this generated vis-a-vis the developed countries would be a small
and temporary price to pay, in return for the benefit that strong resistance
would yield in terms of winning international NGO praise and neutralising
domestic criticism about its reform programme. The lack of correspondence
between India's domestic and international positions on the role of markets and
freer trade, as well as the fact that despite its opposition India withdrew
without gaining much more than what had been won by the sixth day, suggest that
this is in all probability the most plausible explanation for India's initial,
unusually strong resistance.
24.11.2001
. Patents issues
From Frontline
online at flonnet.com
David
Perilous patent
The Bush administration courts controversy by
choosing to defend the monopoly interests of a pharmaceutical company rather
than enable access to cheaper drugs in the wake of the anthrax scare.
V. SRIDHAR
BY choosing to protect the interests of a pharmaceutical
company in the face of the anthrax scare, the Bush administration is mired in a
controversy. Caught between the anthrax scare and the need to keep to its
hardline stance on protecting patents ahead of the World Trade Organisation
(WTO) ministerial meeting in Doha, the Bush Administration chose to defend the
patent rights of the multinational company, Bayer AG.
Ciprofloxacin, or
rather Cipro, Bayer's brand of ciprofloxacin, is in the midst of a controversy.
Until recently it was the only drug on the United States Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) approved list of drugs for the treatment of anthrax. At
issue is whether monopoly profits guaranteed by Bayer's American patent, which
expires in end-2003, is more important than Americans' access to the generic
version of the antibiotic, available across the world at a fraction of the
price.
Three issues are at the centre of the Cipro controversy. First,
there are concerns about the high price of the Bayer drug, enforced by its
monopoly status in the U.S. market. A Cipro pill costs $6 in the retail stores
in the U.S. A 60-day twice-daily regimen of Cipro, the recommended dosage for
people exposed to anthrax, would cost each potential anthrax patient about $720.
The high prices mean Americans empathise easily with those suffering from
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) patients who run bills to the tune of
several hundred dollars a week for anti-viral drugs.
The second issue, crucially linked to the
first, is the increasing doubt about Bayer's capability to provide sufficient
quantities of Cipro in the face of the unprecedented emergency. In the wake of
the anthrax scare, there has been a run on pharmacies stocking Cipro. Drug
stores have reported thousands of orders daily and there are rumours that some
pharmacies and hospitals are even hoarding the drug. This is despite the fact
that the FDA has recently approved penicillin and doxycycline to treat anthrax.
The third issue relates to the U.S. stance on patents and intellectual
property rights, which protects the interests of the drug companies. The
implication is that the administration would rather confine the Cipro issue to a
question of prices and availability rather than as one which challenges the
rights of corporations with a monopoly, to make profits at the expense of public
health needs.
CIPRO has been a blockbuster for Bayer in the U.S. market.
Last year, its sales netted a billion dollars. In the wake of the anthrax scare
the company has planned to make the most of the premium that the drug enjoys in
the U.S. market. Bayer announced that it has stepped up production and expects
to ship 15 million tablets in the next three months. Industry sources told
Frontline that although ciprofloxacin is more expensive to produce
because it must be synthesised - not mass-produced by fermentation as is the
case with some other antibiotics - Cipro commands a premium in the U.S. solely
because it is on patent. Industry sources have pointed out that Bayer's
dependence on Cipro for revenues is greater because the company was forced to
recall a drug for treating diabetes, which resulted in several patient deaths.
The availability of generic ciprofloxacin in markets across the world -
at a fraction of what Cipro costs - has raised a furore in the U.S. Critics are
aghast that Bayer is not only being allowed to charge high prices but is being
protected from the competing influence of numerous other generic manufacturers
across the world (see table). Bayer's wholesale rate for Cipro in the U.S. is
$4.67 for a 500 mg pill; the company's "best price", offered on a preferential
basis to U.S. Federal agencies, is $1.83 a pill. Bayer sells the drug for $1.58
to the Canadian government. In contrast, a Canadian generic producer, Apotex,
sells the drug for 95 cents. In India, generic ciprofloxacin is sold for as
little as three cents a pill and even the best-selling brand costs about 15
cents a pill. Bayer sells the drug for as low as about $2 in the U.K. and at
about $1.50 in New Zealand.
In contrast to the U.S. government's
reaction, on October 16 the Canadian government entered into a contract with
Apotex for one million ciprofloxacin pills for supply to its health services.
This was expected to save the Canadian government at least one million
(Canadian) dollars. Indeed, Canada announced on October 17 that it had
overridden Bayer's patent, allowing generic manufacturers to circumvent Bayer's
patent. However, days later, the Canadian government made a turnabout. It
announced that it had rescinded its agreement with Apotex and that it was
offering compensation to the company. Amar Lulla, joint managing director,
Cipla, told Frontline that the Canadian Government had "caved in under
pressure from the drug companies".
Commenting on the Cipro affair in a
response to Frontline, Jeff Connell, Director, Public Affairs, at the
Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association, said the Canadian government ordered
the pills from Apotex without issuing a compulsory licence or contacting the
Patents Commissioner. "Given its well-publicised problems producing enough Cipro
to meet demand, it is clear that one million pills for Canada was not a
priority." He said that "this changed once news of the Apotex order hit the
Canadian and, more important, U.S. news media." Connell pointed out that Bayer
realised that Canada's move to purchase generic ciprofloxacin "was a precedent
that threatened its market exclusivity (and profits) in the real Cipro market,
the United States."
AT least 78 Indian companies manufacture generic
ciprofloxacin. But they cannot sell the drug in the U.S. until Bayer's patent
expires in 2003. Cipla's version of ciprofloxacin was developed in 1989, two
years after Bayer was granted its patent for Cipro. Companies such as Ranbaxy,
Cipla and Dr.Reddy's Laboratories are already in the queue to sell the drug in
the U.S. after Bayer's patent closes, having obtained provisional approval from
the FDA. In fact, Ranbaxy's American subsidiary, Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, in
Princeton, has offered to supply 20 million tablets of ciprofloxacin to the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) within 45 days. Ranbaxy exports
substantial quantities of ciprofloxacin to China and Russia, apart from selling
its version in the Indian market.
THE Bush administration has sought
congressional approval of a $1.5 billion budget for preparedness against the
threat of bioterrorism. Of this, $643 million is to build a stockpile of drugs.
Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary, HHS, has said that in the wake of the anthrax
scare, the number of people who need to be protected could rise from the current
two million to about 12 million. Even if the entire amount was spent on Bayer's
Cipro at the heavily discounted rate of $1.83 a pill for the U.S. government,
the funding would be enough for only about 350 million doses covering the
requirements of less than three million people in the U.S. This implies that if
Cipro is the only available means to combat anthrax, over nine million people
would not be covered. In contrast, branded ciprofloxacin from India, costing
about 15 cents, would enable coverage of nearly 32 million people.
On
October 16, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer, who represents New York, asked the
HHS to purchase in bulk generic versions of the drug. He said that this would
not only reduce costs but will offer more protection to citizens from anthrax.
He urged the HHS to use provisions of Federal legislation - in particular 28
U.S.C. 1498 - to break the Bayer stranglehold. The legislation enables the
government to make official purchases from alternative sources for a payment to
the patent holder of a royalty fee determined by the courts. Schumer said that
the government "cannot rely on Bayer" to ensure "sufficient supplies of Cipro".
Schumer argued that the government could not afford to "put our best response to
anthrax in the hands of just one manufacturer." He also called on the FDA to
grant final approval to the five generic drug manufacturers who already hold
tentative approvals to manufacture ciprofloxacin. However, Thompson said that 28
U.S.C. 1498 cannot be invoked. Thompson claimed that he did not have the
authority to override the Bayer patent.
In the face of mounting public
criticism, the HHS entered into a deal with Bayer on October 25 which pegged
Cipro at 95 cents a pill. Although Thompson attributed this substantial price
reduction to hard bargaining, critics took a different view. James Love,
Director, Consumer Project on Technology (CPT), an organisation which has
researched on intellectual property issues from a consumer and public-interest
perspective, claims that the Bush administration is simply unwilling to use the
power that the law has given it to handle a major public health issue. Love was
an active participant in an international campaign for alternative cheaper
generic anti-AIDS drugs. Cipla's efforts to sell such drugs in Africa were
staunchly resisted by the drug majors (Frontline, March 16, 2001).
Love argues that 28 U.S.C. 1498 has been used on several occasions for
products ranging from drug to electronics technologies. Although the World Trade
Organisation's Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)
agreement does allow countries to produce or procure generic versions of drugs
in the face of a national emergency - through the compulsory licensing mechanism
- the U.S. and the multinational drug companies have been steadfast in their
opposition to generic drugs.
On October 18, Love and Ralph Nader, in a
joint letter to Thompson, pointed out that Thompson did indeed have the power to
issue compulsory licences for the Bayer patent.
Nader and Love pointed
out that "Bayer stands to make hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars
in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attack on Americans." They said that
in the absence of adequate government stockpiles those who could not afford the
drug were in danger of being exposed to risk. The situation, they claimed,
resulted in an "unethical and unnecessary form of rationing." They asked
Thompson to protect public health instead of defending the "profiteering" drug
companies.
On October 24, the Prescription Access Litigation (PAL)
project filed a lawsuit against Bayer, alleging that the company had entered
into collusive agreements with three generic ciprofloxacin manufacturers. It
claimed that Bayer paid $200 million to three companies, among them, Barr
Laboratories, to block consumer access to adequate supplies of cheaper versions
of ciprofloxacin. The lawsuit, representing 11 consumer groups in 11 States,
claims that the three companies agreed to abandon research on cheaper generic
alternatives in exchange for the money they obtained from Bayer.
An
earlier case filed in the Eastern District of New York last year resulted in a
ruling that the consumer groups had established "plausible" anti-trust charges
against Bayer. In that particular case the Judge observed that Barr Laboratories
had applied in 1991 to the FDA to market ciprofloxacin. Barr Laboratories
asserted that Bayer's patent on Cipro was invalid and unenforceable. Bayer then
sued Barr for patent infringement. Although Barr obtained provisional FDA
approval to manufacture and market ciprofloxacin, Bayer entered into an
agreement with the company in 1997, and paid the company for not producing the
drug. Bayer has till date made payments of more than $200 million.
THE
Cipro controversy could not have erupted at a worse time for the Bush
administration. It gave ammunition to those working against efforts to introduce
a strong regime of international patent laws in Doha during the fourth
ministerial. The issue has provided a rare opportunity for critics of drug
multinationals to come together on a platform, citing not only public health
issues but also issues relating to consumer rights.
The issue of
intellectual property rights has always been controversial. The advocates of
strong patent legislations have had to contend with criticism that the interests
of private monopolies have to be balanced with the needs of public health,
particularly in the developing world. The perception that the U.S. has been
cutting corners while addressing domestic public health issues in order to
protect its negotiating position in Doha is likely to enhance the prospects of
resistance to TRIPS within the
U.S.
24.11.2001
. The Doha Debacle
From Fonrtline online at
flonnet.com
Regards
David
The Doha debacle
The Doha Declaration is a clear gain for the
developed capitalist world. It has catered to the needs of global capital in
crisis.
S.P. SHUKLA
THE self-appointed drum-beaters and trumpeters of the New
Round were right: they knew better than even the leader of the Indian delegation
what would be the denouement of the week-long negotiations at the Ministerial
Meeting of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in Doha, Qatar. They had tendered
unambiguous advice to the government of India to join the bandwagon of the
United States and the European Union well in time and welcome the launch of the
New Round. Notwithstanding their expertise, their advice was based not so much
on the rigorous examination of the issues involved as on the unflinching faith
in the TINA (there is no alternative) doctrine. The wise Ministers accept such
expert advice with alacrity. Alas, Murasoli Maran, the Union Commerce Minister,
was too professional in his analysis of the issues confronting him and a bit too
honest in his remarks. He could have learnt a thing or two about the virtues of
expediency at the feet of our TINA brand experts. But that was not to be. And in
the end, he had to swallow more than a mouthful of pride and a whole lot of
strong statements he had made opposing negotiations on new issues.
NAYEF HASHLAMOUN/ REUTERS
Delegates attending the Doha Ministerial Meeting.
The question, however, is not how sincerely and
doggedly Murasoli Maran fought before he finally caved in. It is even less about
his personal embarrassment at the volte-face he had to do. To begin with, it is
necessary to expose and lay threadbare the pitiable attempts to rationalise the
failure at Doha and invent microscopic "gains". More important is the task of
setting out the far-reaching implications of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.
It is equally important to reflect on why it happened the way it happened.
First, the argument that the Indian delegation "succeeded" in postponing
the launch of the New Round, or at the minimum, the negotiations on new issues,
by two years. It is only a "Work Programme" that the Declaration speaks of, not
the "New Round", it is argued. The argument is as naive as it is false.
The change of nomenclature does not alter the pith and substance of the
process. The past "rounds" have followed a pattern: the Ministerial Declaration
lays down a broad negotiating mandate for every subject on the agenda, a
time-frame is indicated, a Trade Negotiations Committee is set up to supervise
and direct the negotiations. The concept of treating the negotiations as a
"single undertaking" was invented in the Uruguay Round. All these elements are
unmistakably present in the Doha Ministerial Declaration.
NO
negotiations of the type envisaged have ever been completed at one go in one
ministerial meeting; nor even in two years. The Tokyo Round, which had some
rule-making agenda, modest though in comparison with the agenda of new issues
adopted in Doha, lasted six years. The Uruguay Round, which had a comparable
agenda, lasted eight years. It has always been the practice that the broad
negotiating mandate in the ministerial declaration would be followed by a
process of elaboration of the mandate into specific elements of the multilateral
discipline. The process took anywhere between three to five years. It is this
process that has been launched in Doha and the talk of "postponement" of the
negotiations on the new issues to the next ministerial meeting is stupid. One
has only to look at the language and content of the so-called work programme
under specific subjects, to see through this argument. For example, on all the
three important new issues, namely, investment, competition policy and
government procurement, the mandate starts with the acknowledgment: "Recognising
the case for a multilateral framework." This amounts to a clear decision in
favour of elaboration of a multilateral discipline.
Right up to the last
hour of the ministerial meeting, the Indian delegation, among others, had
questioned the very need for a multilateral discipline on these subjects. If
postponement of negotiations had to have any meaning under the circumstances,
the very question whether there should be a multilateral discipline should have
been kept open until a later date. This matter, however, has been effectively
and finally closed in favour of initiating substantive negotiations on the
multilateral agreements. While the formal decision on modalities of
negotiations, that is, on exchange of concessions under the agreement, has been
left to the next ministerial meeting, no doubt whatsoever has been left in the
text elaborating "further work" under the work programme that substantive
negotiations on the content of the new disciplines would begin forthwith. Thus,
the working group on investment will focus on "scope and definition;
transparency; non-discrimination, modalities of pre-establishment commitments;
development provisions, exceptions and balance of payments safeguards;
consultation and settlement of disputes between members." The working group on
competition policy will focus on "core principles including transparency;
non-discrimination and procedural fairness; provisions for hardcore cartels; ...
progressive reinforcement of competitive institutions in developing countries."
One look at the lists of issues to be focussed on shows that they are but a
contents page listing chapter headings of the text of a new multilateral
agreement. Once these elements are elaborated in the next two years, as the Work
Programme lays down, all that will be left for the next ministerial meeting
would be to adopt formally the texts of the new multilateral agreements
containing the elements elaborated earlier.
It has been argued that
vehement opposition by the Indian delegation secured a last-minute "out" in that
the Declaration was adopted on the basis of "an understanding" from the
Conference Chair in regard to negotiations on new issues. The "understanding"
says that "a reference to the explicit consensus being needed for the decision
to be taken" at the next ministerial conference "would give each member the
right to take a position on modalities that would prevent negotiations from
proceeding after the fifth (that is, the next) session of the ministerial
conference until that member is prepared to join in an explicit consensus." (The
clarification within the brackets added.) As noted earlier, the decision on
negotiations on modalities has been slated for the next ministerial meeting. Let
us leave aside, for a while, the semantic and substantive confusion caused by
the inclusion of some important modalities of negotiations in the Work Programme
itself, which has to start forthwith. Let us also ignore, for a moment, the
basic point that negotiations on modalities of exchange of concessions cannot be
divorced from the substantive negotiations on the content of the disciplines.
Let us also not question, for the sake of argument, the legal value of the
Conference Chair's understanding. Even so, it is difficult to visualise what has
been "gained" through such an " understanding". If members opposing the
inclusion of new issues failed miserably in preventing the launch of the
substantive negotiations on those issues at Doha in the first instance, on what
basis can one hope that they would succeed in doing so two years later, when the
substantive negotiations would have gained momentum and each member would be
busy protecting its own specific interests in the light of the various elements
of the discipline that would have been elaborated by then? If one were bent on
blocking the consensus and forcing a vote, it could have been done at the Doha
conference itself. Such a move would have sent shock waves around the developed
world and energised the Third World countries, restoring one's credibility. Such
a step can be taken at a later stage also, when a formal decision comes up for
adoption. The Conference Chair's "understanding" is not needed to buttress the
legal right inherent in the decision-making procedure. In sum, the "out" that
has been obtained has little practical or legal significance. The fig-leaf does
not cover the reality that India succumbed to the combined pressure of the U.S
and the E.U.
LET us now turn to the second issue: the implications of
the Doha Declaration. The implications are far-reaching with regard not only to
the new issues but also to the old, continuing issues.
The investment
issue has been on the agenda in the form of studying the implications since the
Singapore Ministerial Meeting in 1997. That study exercise is by no means over.
Nor are a large number of developing countries convinced about the need for a
multilateral discipline on this subject. Their main argument is that it is not a
trade issue and is best left for national governments to handle according to
their own perspectives and objectives and requirements. The industrialised
countries and their multinationals in financial and other sectors had tried hard
to get the issue included under the services negotiations in the Uruguay Round.
There was a specific proposal on the table then that the capital's "right to
establish" should be recognised, meaning thereby that the investor should have
the freedom to move across national borders without let or hindrance caused by
nation-states. The move was countered by tabling the labour's "right to reside",
meaning thereby that labour should have the right to migrate and reside wherever
it may decide to improve its prospect. Hastily, the proposal for "right to
establish" was withdrawn. Also, the services negotiations resulted in an
agreement, which left a good deal of discretion in the hands of the
member-countries. In the opinion of many analysts of the developed capitalist
world, GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) remained a "weak"
agreement. This perceived weakness is being sought to be removed by means of a
comprehensive multilateral discipline on investment. What has happened in Doha
is the beginning of the final assault of global capital on the economic
sovereignty of the nation-states, particularly of the Third World. That would
also ultimately spell the end of auto-centric development for the developing
countries. The insistence on the inclusion of this item on the agenda has to be
understood in this perspective and context and not in the limited context of the
bald chapter headings that have been incorporated in the Work Programme.
DAVID GRAY/ REUTERS
A rally
in Sydney on November 13 in protest against the economic impact of corporate
globalisation brought about by the WTO.
THE move for a global discipline for
competition policy has also been opposed by many developing countries. For one
thing, their national policies and structures to implement such policies are not
yet in place in many countries. The need, if any, is for a global discipline on
regulating and eliminating the restrictive business practices of multinationals.
But all initiatives in that regard have been squarely thwarted and effectively
neutralised by developed countries in forums such as the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the United Nations Economic and
Social Council (ESOSOC). Under a multilateral discipline on competition policy,
the powers of nation-states in the Third World would get circumscribed in the
name of principles and rules of non-discrimination, procedural fairness and
transparency.
Government procurement was always outside the purview of
any multilateral discipline. Under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT), a code on government procurement was established but it remained a
plurilateral arrangement, that is to say, it was optional for member-countries
to join it. Government procurement is sizable in Third World countries. It
serves economic and social objectives. Through this means incentives can be
offered to indigenous industry, public distribution of essential commodities can
be ensured, and even prices can be influenced to meet the social goals. Global
capital is making the first move to neutralise ultimately this powerful weapon
in the hands of governments. Although the proposal limits itself to
transparency, it is clear that transparency cannot be a goal in itself as far as
the interest of global capital is concerned. The move would be followed by
demands for "liberalisation" in due course.
In the negotiations on the
"new issues", more often than not it is the developing countries that would be
"paying" in the sense of accepting new obligations and paring down their
autonomy in economic decision-making. It would only enhance the imbalance that
characterises the outcome of the Uruguay Round of agreements and the functioning
of the WTO. Hence developing countries legitimately asked for the existing
imbalances to be removed before entering into negotiations on new issues. This
was the celebrated "implementation issue". Here too, the record of Doha is
niggardly. Improved access for textile exports under the agreement on textiles,
preventing the abuse of anti-dumping provisions by industrialised countries,
particularly the U.S., and the loopholes left in the agreement on agriculture
regarding subsidies given by developed countries were some of the issues
flagged. There was no substantial progress on this and the issues have now been
incorporated as part of the new negotiations, thus ensuring that the existing
imbalance worsens.
Two issues need special reference here. The agreement
on Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the system
for settlement of disputes in the WTO. The working of the two has presented
several difficulties for developing countries. TRIPS was found to be responsible
for the non-availability of life-saving drugs at affordable prices. It also has
been perceived as a constraint on the dissemination of technology for
development. The dispute settlement system was perceived as being biased,
undemocratic and unaccountable even to the WTO's highest legislative body. The
situation called for a thoroughgoing review of the two agreements. This has not
received attention in the Doha Declaration. The hoopla about the declaration on
"TRIPS and Public Health" is misleading. The Declaration, in its cautious and
emaciated form, does not add to or subtract from TRIPS. It is at best a public
relations exercise. It does not add to the armoury of the poor countries in need
of some effective mechanism to ensure the supply of essential drugs at
affordable prices.
In the area of agriculture and services, the outcome
of Doha is no better. In agriculture, the perspective of negotiations will
continue to be informed mainly by trade concerns of temperate-zone,
capital-intensive, heavily subsidising, trade-oriented, agriculture-exporting
countries. There is no recognition that for a country like India, that
perspective is inappropriate and harmful. There is no hint that India would
insist on retaining its right to impose quantitative restrictions (QRs) on
imports of agricultural products as necessary, without qualifications and
without prior consultations in the WTO. All that is there in the Doha text of
some interest is that differential treatment for developing countries shall be
so elaborated as to be operationally effective and "to enable developing
countries effectively to take account of their development needs, including food
security and rural development." This by itself is totally inadequate to meet
the crisis that Indian agriculture is facing.
The E.U., more
particularly France, got away with diluting the provisions regarding the
"phasing out" of all forms of export subsidies, further reducing the prospect of
any substantial reduction in such subsidies in the course of the negotiations.
In services, there is a re-affirmation of the member's right to
"regulate and introduce new regulations on the supply of services and of the
articles in GATS that were designed to meet the concerns of developing
countries. But there is no departure from the very narrow approach regarding the
movement of labour. Moreover, no cognisance has been taken of the far-reaching
issue raised by the U.N. Sub-Commission on Human Rights, about the fundamental
importance of the delivery of basic services, particularly health and education,
as a means of promoting human rights, and the likely adverse implications of a
market-oriented and "liberalising" approach in respect of such services on the
promotion of human rights.
All in all, the Doha Declaration is a clear
gain for the developed capitalist world. It has catered to the needs of global
capital in crisis. And this has been done in conformity with the way capitalism
has reacted to its crisis all along in its history, except perhaps in its short,
so-called "golden age". That is to say, by further building upon the world order
in which global capital can expand its field of operation, avail itself of new
opportunities for appropriation and intensify the rate of exploitation.
IT is time to turn to the third question about Doha: Why did it happen
the way it happened? One of the main contradictions of the times is the WTO. It
has a facade of democratic structure and rules of functioning. It is at the same
time a non-transparent, non-participative, and undemocratic institution. Its
very birth was occasioned by the processes and motivations characterised by
those attributes. It talks of one vote for one member and decisions by
prescribed majorities. It never flinches from forcing the will of the two
powerful capitalist entities on the unwilling and screaming majority of Third
World countries. It swears by consensus, but it reaches the consensus by
suppressing or ignoring dissenting voices. It markets its predatory designs in
the name of liberalisation and freer exchanges. The fundamental reason why
things happened the way they happened in Doha is our failure to recognise the
contradiction and seize the opportunity that the contradiction itself provides
to turn it upside down.
The point is that India has to recognise that it
is firmly situated in the South, which accounts for the majority in the WTO.
India has to disabuse itself of the fashionable illusion that it is about to
emerge as a great power and soon would be hobnobbing with the two capitalist
giants. Neither logic nor the history of capitalism supports such a conclusion.
More particularly, India has to regain credibility with the countries of the
South in the WTO. It cannot do it by indulging in the luxury of issue-based,
opportunist coalitions. It has also to realise that, more than any other country
in the South, by virtue of its size, stage of development and its resources, it
has better potential to bear the cost of leading the challenge to the
inequitable order represented by the WTO.
Unfortunately, India's
policies and reactions in the last few years have been at variance with that
kind of approach. It has been, and so seen by the whole world to be, eager to
gain the favours of the big powers. India has taken unilateral measures to offer
its markets, be it in telecommunications or in thermal power generation, to
impress the big powers or convey the good tidings to the rulers of the country
to be visited by Indian leaders. India's eagerness to help the U.S. in its war
against Afghanistan has not gone unnoticed by a large majority of developing
countries. New Delhi's somersault on the question of the U.S.' national missile
defence (NMD) surprised many. In that background, the Third World countries are
not easily convinced of India's determination to withstand big-power pressures
and fight out the battle in the WTO to the bitter end. The prophecy of isolation
thus becomes self-fulfilling.
In short, the Doha debacle cannot be torn
out of its wider context. Nor can one expect to see an alternative outcome
without changing the context. Murasoli Maran held on to his guns and did his
best in trying the brinkmanship. One week's performance, howsoever impressive it
may be, cannot alter the trajectory of events determined by a whole lot of
factors. The performance has to be informed by a vision of the new world order
based on equity. It has to be backed by a strategy of building solidarity of the
South. It has to be credible to the South in terms of the totality of external
and domestic policies. Once the strategy in the WTO is founded on the solidarity
of the South, the formal democratic representation that is mandated in the
constitution of the WTO can be converted into a powerful strategic weapon to
challenge and moderate, if not to halt and reverse, the onslaught of the process
symbolised by the Doha meeting. Without that, Murasoli Maran could only do so
much and not more.
S.P. Shukla was formerly India's Ambassador to
GATT and Secretary in the Commerce and Finance Ministries of the Union
Government.
24.11.2001.
. New ICTSD newsletter on trade and
biological
resources launched
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIDGES
Trade BioRes, Vol. 1, No. 1 22 November,
2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
- New ICTSD Publication On Trade And
Biological Resources
I. WTO
- Environment Makes
Its Way Onto The WTO Negotiating Agenda
- TRIPs Council To
Examine GI Extension, TRIPs-CBD
Relationship,
Protection Of TK
II. PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES
-
FAO International Undertaking Finally Adopted
- Mexico
Biodiversity Project Cancelled Following NGO Criticism
III.
BIOTECHNOLOGY
- EU Resists Biotech Discussion In SPS
Committee
IV. IN BRIEF
- CBD Advisory Body
Discusses Forest Trade
- US Keeps Up Pressure On Japan To
Halt Whaling
V. EVENTS & RESOURCES
-
Events
- Resources
NEW ICTSD PUBLICATION ON TRADE
AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The International Centre for Trade and
Sustainable Development (ICTSD)
is proud to present a new product to the
trade and sustainable
development communities: BRIDGES Trade BioRes - Trade
and Biological
Resources News Digest. This new publication is produced
in
collaboration with IUCN - The World Conservation Union, and
its
Commission on Environment, Economic and Social policy (CEESP), in
an
effort to complement the activities of both organisations on
the
increasingly important intersection of trade and biological
resources.
Please note that we will not be sending you any more issues of
BRIDGES
Trade BioRes unless you wish us to do so. In order to receive
this
publication on a regular basis, please send a blank email to
subscribe_biores@ictsd.ch. The
issues will also be posted on the ICTSD
website at http://www.ictsd.org/.
Recipients of the
first issue were carefully selected in an effort to
target key stakeholders
in the trade and sustainable development
communities. If you know of others
who might be interested in receiving
BRIDGES Trade BioRes, we would kindly
ask you to forward this issue to
them.
BRIDGES Trade BioRes aims to
build bridges between diverse and often
insulated communities (including
policy-makers and those in civil
society) working on issues related to
biological resources, trade and
sustainable development. To this end, the
publication will continue in
the tradition of BRIDGES Weekly Trade News
Digest, providing objective
coverage, context setting, reporting and analysis
on these intersecting
issues. Articles will cover a diverse field of
activities as they
relate to trade policy and development of international
governance
mechanisms in areas such as biodiversity, traditional
knowledge,
intellectual property rights, biotechnology, genetically
modified
organisms, and food security.
The format of BRIDGES Trade
BioRes will be closely modelled on the
established format of BRIDGES Weekly.
The main articles (4-6 per issue)
will be grouped under categories that will
precede each story title.
These "tags" are intended to help the readers to
quickly grasp each
story's area of focus. An "Additional Resources" section
at the bottom
of most articles will provide links to further information
sources on
the topic. Articles will be complemented by "In Brief's" which
provide
a concise coverage of recent developments. The final section, "Events
&
Resources", will inform readers of upcoming events and
recent
publications in the relevant
areas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WTO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENT
MAKES ITS WAY ONTO THE WTO NEGOTIATING AGENDA
WTO Members for the first
time in the trade body's history agreed to
negotiations on environmental
issues, thereby at least partly meeting
one of the key demands pushed by the
EC at the Fourth WTO Ministerial
Conference, held in Doha, Qatar, on 9-14
November. The negotiations
will be part of a single undertaking which
includes negotiations on a
range of other issue areas (see BRIDGES Weekly, 15
November 2001;
http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/01-11-15/story1.htm).
The EC and the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) welcomed this
move, while
developing countries and environmental organisations showed
mixed
reactions to the environment-related outcomes of the
Conference.
As set out in the Ministerial Declaration, negotiations on
all but the
Singapore issues (ie investment, competition, transparency
in
government procurement and trade facilitation) will begin
immediately.
The Trade Negotiating Committee -- instructed to meet for the
first
time not later than 31 January 2002 -- will supervise the
overall
conduct of the negotiations under the authority of the General
Council.
The negotiations are set to conclude by 1 January 2005. The outcomes
of
the different negotiating areas (with the exception of the
Dispute
Settlement Review) will enter into force as part of a
single
undertaking.
Stronger language in the preamble
Using
stronger language than ever before in WTO agreements, WTO Members
in para. 6
of the Ministerial Declaration's preamble stress that the
multilateral
trading system and efforts towards environmental
protection and sustainable
development "can and must" be mutually
supportive. In addition, the preamble
recognises Members' right "to
implement measure to protect human, animal or
plant life or health".
The text also for the first time explicitly recognises
the importance
of promoting cooperation between the WTO and relevant
international
environmental and developmental organisations, singling out the
WTO's
continued cooperation with UNEP in particular.
Negotiations
launched on environment
The Ministerial Declaration launches negotiations
on trade and
environment in three areas (para. 31): (i) relationship between
WTO
rules and trade obligations set out in Multilateral
Environmental
Agreements (MEAs); (ii) procedures for information exchange
between MEA
secretariats and relevant WTO committees, including criteria
for
granting observer status; and (iii) the reduction or elimination
of
tariff and non-tariff barriers to environmental goods and
services.
The first area was further qualified by adding that
the
negotiations "shall not prejudice the WTO rights of any Member that
is
not a party to the MEA in question", thereby avoiding the 'party
versus
non-party' issue, according to one UNEP official. Environmental
groups
are concerned that this qualification could in fact prove to be
a
disincentive for getting countries to sign on to MEAs. "These
are
loopholes for the US so it can duck the MEA issue," said
Remi
Parmentier of Greenpeace.
In addition, the Declaration further
waters down the mandate under (i)
and (ii) by saying that the negotiations
"shall not add to or diminish
the rights and obligations of Members under
existing WTO agreements".
According to sources, this shifts the possible
outcomes of negotiations
on these points away from rule changes and towards
clarifications or
footnotes to existing rules.
Members also agreed to
conduct negotiations on clarifying and improving
WTO disciplines on fisheries
subsidies as part of negotiations on 'WTO
Rules', "taking into account the
importance of this sector to
developing countries" (para. 28). This decision
marks a significant
change from the previous WTO mandate on this issue, which
had
restricted discussions in this area to the non-negotiating body of
the
Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE). The World Wildlife
Fund
(WWF), one of the key campaigners on fisheries subsidies, welcomed
the
launch of the negotiations, praising in particular the leadership
of
Iceland and the US at Doha. "For the first time, governments
have
recognised the responsibility of the WTO to do its part in
promoting
the health of a vital natural resource," said David Schorr,
Director of
WWF's Sustainable Commerce Program.
CTE mandate more
focused
The CTE is instructed to continue its work programme while
focusing in
particular on the effect of environmental measures on market
access,
relevant provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects
of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) and eco-labelling (para. 32).
The
first two issues are of particular concern to developing countries
and
might have been singled out in order to obtain their support
for
negotiations on environment, as one trade source speculated. Similar
to
points (i) and (ii), however, discussions in the CTE should not
impact
on Members' rights and obligations under WTO agreements.
Para.
51 of the Declaration furthermore identifies the CTE together
with the
Committee for Trade and Development (CTD) as fora "to identify
and debate
developmental and environmental aspects of the negotiations,
in order to help
achieve the objective of having sustainable
development appropriately
reflected". As one environmental source
pointed out, this provision could
help to elevate and focus the mandate
of the CTE, where environmental
discussions have remained at the purely
analytical level since the WTO's
creation in 1995.
Developing country concerns on environment
The
Declaration recognises the technical assistance (TA) and capacity
building
needs of developing countries in the area of trade and
environment, and calls
for a report on these activities to be prepared
for the Fifth Session (para.
33). Activities will be carried out
through the WTO Secretariat's technical
cooperation programmes and
other external mechanisms, including bilateral
donors, regional banks
and international organisations, such as UNCTAD. The
budget for the WTO
TA efforts overall will be "no lower than that of the
current year"
(ca. USD 10 million for 2000).
Environment also finds
mention in the Decision on Implementation-
Related Issues and Concerns, which
takes note of a proposal stating
that measures implemented by developing
countries with a view to
achieving legitimate development goals, such as
"development and
implementation of environmentally sound methods of
production", should
be treated as non-actionable subsidies. This proposal
will be discussed
in the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures,
which will
report on the outcomes by the end of 2002.
Mixed
Reactions
The EC in their assessment of the results at Doha
expressed
satisfaction with the way in which the Ministerial
Declaration
reflected its calls for increased action on sustainable
development and
environmental protection, which they say will be
"mainstreamed
throughout the negotiations". While the EC claims that the
Declaration
also covers precaution and labelling, EC Trade Commissioner
Pascal Lamy
has assured US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick that the EC
will
not use the controversial "precautionary principle" to
justify
illegitimate trade barrier.
The positive sentiments were
echoed by Klaus Toepfer, Executive
Director of UNEP. "Negotiations on trade
and the environment were,
until recently, a taboo subject in the WTO," he
pointed out. "We still
have a long way to go. But the agreements in Doha are,
I believe, a new
beginning". While welcoming the launch of negotiations on
environment
as "encouraging", one UNEP official cautioned that the outcomes
for the
environment will now depend on various other factors, including
how
Members use their mandate, the yet to be determined body that
will
carry out the negotiations, processes and coordination at the
national
level, participation of civil society and other
international
organisations, and further clarification of the negotiating
mandate.
Developing countries -- who have so far strongly resisted
negotiations
on environment at the WTO fearing that resulting provisions
might be
used for protectionist purposes -- remain weary of the references
to
environment in the Ministerial texts and the resulting
'qualitative
jump' from a work programme in the CTE to negotiations. While
agreeing
that the relationship between MEAs and WTO rules should be
clarified, a
developing country representative questioned why the WTO should
be
singled out as the forum for negotiations rather than the
MEA
Secretariats. One developing country delegate also pointed out that
the
environmental provisions in the end were "much less rigorous"
than
expected, but highlighted continued concern among developing
country
that negotiations might expand to other issues, such as
precaution.
While environmental groups cautiously welcomed the launch
of
negotiations on environment, they also highlighted potential
negative
environmental impacts of the outcomes at Doha. WWF expressed
concern
about the launch of negotiations on investment, which they referred
as
a "significant setback for the environment" given the important role
of
investment flows on the world's environment. Greenpeace, one of
the
strongest critics of Conference's environmental outcomes, claims
that
"the agreement on environment offers very little progress in
defending
environmental protections against trade concern". "This
meeting has failed to
produce a vision for sustainable development and
the protection of the
environment," said Parmentier.
Additional Resources
The
Ministerial texts (Declaration, Decision on Implementation and
Declaration on
TRIPs and Public Health) are available on the ICTSD
website at http://www.ictsd.org/ministerial/doha/relevantdoc.htm.
For
daily coverage of the Ministerial Conference, see
http://www.ictsd.org/ministerial/doha/wto_daily/index.htm.
"EU
assures U.S. it will not pursue 'precautionary principle' in new
talks," WTO
REPORTER, 21 November 2001; "environmental issues make
significant progress
at key trade talks," UNEP, 15 November 2001; "WTO
Meeting Fails the World,"
GREENPEACE, 14 November 2001; "CAFOD analysis
of WTO Doha Declarations,"
CAFOD, 19 November 2001; "Environment scores
two wins, one loss in Doha,"
WWF, 14 November 2001; ICTSD Internal
Files.
TRIPS COUNCIL TO EXAMINE
GI EXTENSION, TRIPS-CBD RELATIONSHIP, PROTECTION OF
TK
In spite of the
increasing number of developing country proposals on a
range of issues
concerning the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPs), negotiations in Doha focused
mainly on just one: public
health (see BRIDGES Daily Update No. 4, 13
November 2001;
http://www.ictsd.org/ministerial/doha/wto_daily/englishissue4.htm).
However,
the Ministerial Declaration and the Decision on Implementation-
Related
Issues and Concerns each contain a section on TRIPs. These
cover three areas:
geographical indications, Article 27.3(b) and
technology transfer to
least-developed countries. In addition, the
Ministerial Declaration contains
some language on TRIPs in the context
of trade and environment (see related
story, this issue). While these
provisions do not establish any new
commitments in the sense of norm-
creating, the decision to cover these
controversial issues may
ultimately result in a negotiations that go beyond
the mere
clarification of existing rules, a trade source said.
Little
headway on geographical indications
Issues relating to the extension of
the protection of geographical
indications (GIs) to products other than wines
and spirits, as provided
for in Article 23 of the TRIPs Agreement, will be
addressed in the
Council for TRIPs. Discussions on this issue, however, have
been going
on in the Council for some time, and the Ministerial Declaration
simply
acknowledges that these are on-going without committing members to
a
resolution.
The inclusion of this issue is a response to demands
made by some
Members that additional protection should not be limited to
wines and
spirits, but should include products that are economically
important
for themselves. Countries that have been seeking such
additional
protection are mainly from Asia, Europe and Africa. They also
include
countries like Thailand and India that have complained about what
they
see as the misappropriation of high-value goods, namely jasmine
and
basmatic rices. For these countries, the issue is of
particular
important as that GIs can be used to promote the export of
valuable
products and prevent misappropriation. They furthermore consider it
a
matter of fairness that such additional protection not be limited
to
alcoholic beverages. Those who have tended to oppose
additional
protection are mainly from the Americas plus Australia and New
Zealand,
all of which are bulk exporters of agricultural products.
In
addition, WTO members have agreed to negotiate to establish "a
multilateral
system of geographical indications for wines and spirits
by the Fifth Session
of the Ministerial Conference". This essentially
repeats the commitment
contained in Article 23.4 of the TRIPs
Agreement, except that it establishes
a deadline. This provision is of
great interest to those European countries,
such as France, that use
GIs to market wines and spirits. Conversely, several
countries in the
Americas and the southern hemisphere have successfully
traded such
products without resort to GI protection, and have little to gain
from
the establishment of the multilateral system.
Article 27.3(b)
discussions set to continue
In spite of being one of the most
controversial articles of the TRIPs
Agreement, discussions on Article 27.3(b)
(patentability of life forms)
were understandably overshadowed by the
negotiations relating to TRIPs
and public health. In the end, the TRIPs
Council is merely
instructed "to examine, inter alia, the relationship
between TRIPs and
the Convention on Biological Diversity, the protection of
traditional
knowledge and folklore, and other relevant new developments
raised by
members pursuant to Article 71.1". [Article 71.1 deals with reviews
of
the implementation of the Agreement, including with a possible view
to
modifying or amending it.] While reference to traditional knowledge
and
folklore was novel for a Ministerial Declaration, indicating
how
mainstream these topics now are, no explicit commitments were made
by
WTO members.
To date, discussions at the TRIPs Council on these
issues have failed
to make substantial progress, leading trade sources to
speculate that
the contentious issues will only ever be resolved within the
context of
a new trade round that explicitly re-opens negotiations on the
text.
Technology transfer to least-developed countries
The
Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns reaffirms
the
"mandatory" nature of the provisions of Article 66.2 of the TRIPs
Agreement,
which requires developed country members to provide
incentives for the
promotion and encouragement of technology transfer
to least-developed
countries. The TRIPs Council is mandated to oversee
developed country
compliance. To this end, the latter countries must
before the end of 2002
submit reports on the practical functioning of
these incentive measures that
will be reviewed in the TRIPs Council.
The Ministerial Declaration also
establishes a Working Group under the
auspices of the General Council to
examine "the relationship between
trade and transfer of technology" and
"possible recommendations on
steps that might be taken within the mandate of
the WTO to increase
flows of technology to developing countries". The General
Council is to
report on the progress of this examination to the Fifth Session
of the
Ministerial Conference.
Some reactions
Reactions to the
text on 27.3(b) and GIs varied within the NGO
community. Some considered the
provisions on TRIPs -- and the outcome
of the Ministerial Conference more
generally -- to represent a defeat
for developing countries. Others, however,
saw it as a draw, setting a
victory on public health against the failure of
the Conference to
commit to a substantive review of Article 27.3(b) and
thereby respond
to the concerns of a certain number of developing countries
about
biopiracy and the patenting of life-forms. However, because of
the
focus on public health, reaction so far to these other
TRIPs-related
issues has been perfunctory.
ICTSD Internal
Files.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant
Genetic
Resources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAO
INTERNATIONAL UNDERTAKING FINALLY ADOPTED
After seven years of difficult
negotiations, the revised International
Undertaking (IU) -- now International
Treaty (IT) -- on Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA)
was finally adopted by the
Conference of the UN Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) on 3
November, making it the first binding international
instrument dealing
specifically with the conservation and sustainable use of
PGRFA. It
remains to be seen, however, how the IT's provisions will
influence
discussions at the WTO and which countries will actually ratify
the
Treaty.
Negotiations on the revision of the IU to harmonise it
with the UN
Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) have been underway since 1994.
In its
original form as a non-binding agreement, dating from 1983, the IU
was
based on the principle that PGRFA should be "preserved [...] and
freely
available for use, for the benefit of present and future
generations"
as part of the common "heritage of mankind." To date, 113
countries
have adhered to the IU, the most notable exceptions being
Brazil,
Canada, China, Japan, Malaysia and the US.
Recognising both
the sovereign rights and the inter-dependence of
countries over their PGRFA,
the IT establishes a Multilateral Sytem
that aims to facilitate access and
benefit-sharing (ABS). ABS is to be
regulated principally by means of a
standard material transfer
agreement (MTA), which will apply also to
transfers to third parties
and to all subsequent transfers.
Agreement
on IPRs despite US and Japan opposition
An Open-Ended Working Group met
from 30 October to 1 November in Rome,
Italy, alongside the FAO Council to
finalise the issues that had
remained unresolved at June's Sixth
Extraordinary Session of the
Commission on PGRFA (see BRIDGES Weekly, 3 July
2001;
http://www.ictsd.org/html/weekly/03-07-01/story3.htm).
One of the most
contentious points on the agenda related to Article 12.3(d)
of the
text, ie whether "genetic parts and components" received from
the
Multilateral System (MS) should be patentable.
After long and
heated debates, delegates decided to keep the original
text -- minus the
brackets -- which stipulates that "recipients shall
not claim any
intellectual property or other rights that limit the
facilitated access to
the plant genetic resources for food and
agriculture, or their genetic parts
and components, in the form
received form the Multilateral System". Such an
undertaking is to be
provided in the standard MTA adopted to regulate the
facilitated
access. Both Japan and the US opposed this formulation and
consequently
abstained from the final vote on the adoption of the IU. The US
in
their statement during the Final Plenary noted that it would be
unable
to ratify the agreement due to the restrictions it places
on
innovations. Some observers have questioned the usefulness of
the
Agreement if the US -- as one of the key countries involved in
plant
breeding and genetic engineering -- is not bound to the
Treaty's
provisions.
Canada and Japan also expressed concerns
regarding the consistency
between the IT and existing intellectual property
rights (IPR) regimes,
such as the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual
Property Rights
(TRIPs) and in particular Article 27.3(b) that requires
Members to
grant patents on micro-organisms and non biological and
microbiological
processes, and to establish some kind of intellectual
property
protection for plant varieties. Some observers noted that the IT
might
provide an important precedent for the unresolved discussions on
the
review of Article 27.3(b) at the WTO.
Another IPR-related area
concerns the IT provisions on benefit sharing
which provide for monetary
contributions derived from the
commercialisation of products developed from
PGRFA accessed under the
MS. The payment is mandatory when the
commercialisation of the product
restricts the product's availability for use
in further research and
breeding, and voluntary when the product is freely
available for such
purposes. While the IT does not explicitly discriminate
between IPR
holders - who are by definition conferred exclusive rights under
TRIPs -
and others, some observers speculate that it does so in
practice due
to the different rules for products available for further
research and
breeding and those that are not. Depending on how
governments
incorporate the IT 's provisions into their IPR regulations,
the
possibility might arise that they could be challenged on the basis
that
in doing so, they contravene their TRIPs obligations under
Articles
27.1 and 29 by imposing additional conditions for IPR
protection.
Other resolved issues
Trade concerns were also raised
in the context of Article 19.4(d) on
financial resources for national
activities for conserving and
sustainably using PGRFA. In particular,
delegates discussed a proposal
by Australia to include a reference to
avoiding subsidies in the text.
Several countries opposed the reference,
including Thailand which
argued that subsidies should be discussed at the
WTO. The EU pointed
out that this language would introduce trade issues
inconsistent with
the rest of the text. In the final text, the Article simply
states that
the provision of financial resources should not be used for
ends
inconsistent with the treaty, in particular in areas related
to
international trade in commodities.
Delegates furthermore agreed on
the text of Article 4, which deals with
the IT's relationship to other
international agreements. The final text
affirms the mutual supportiveness of
relevant international treaties
and the absence of hierarchies between them,
thus leaving the
relationship as ambiguous as in many other international
negotiations,
such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (see BRIDGES
Weekly, 8
February 2000; http://www.ictsd.org/html/weekly/story4.08-02-00.htm).
Thus,
it remains unclear which agreement would prevail in the case of
a
dispute.
Regarding Annex I of the IT, which lists crops for
inclusion in the MS,
delegates retained the list of 35 crop genera and 29
forages already
agreed to in June despite efforts by the EU to expand the
list. Some
observers pointed out the paradox that a small list, as proposed
by
many developing countries, would actually leave a large number
of
crops, which are not included in the MS, available for
patenting.
Others also questioned whether the list, be it short or long,
could
actually be itself be sufficient to ensure food security,
considering
that the agreement will not affect the international
agricultural
trading system with its distortions, subsidies and other
barriers to
market access for developing countries.
The IT is now open
for signature and will enter into force 90 days
after ratification by at
least 40 signatories, provided that at least
20 of the 40 signatories are
Members of the FAO.
Background
In some legal jurisdictions, it is
possible to patent DNA sequences and
chemical substances that have been
isolated from plant material without
any structural modification. Therefore a
patent holder could restrict -
subject to possible research exemptions - use
of the protected sequence
or compound by others, and even access if the
patent covered the method
of isolation. To some developed countries, allowing
such patents is
necessary to encourage innovation and disclosure of the
'invention'.
But to many developing countries (and even some developed
countries),
they legitimise misappropriation of resources to which they
have
sovereign rights, and are contrary to the spirit of an
international
agreement that emphasises exchange rather than
appropriation.
Additional Resources
For further information on the
IU's trade implications, see BRIDGES
Year 5, No. 6 (July-August 2001), p.
11
(http://www.ictsd.org/English/BRIDGES5-6.pdf).
Documents of the meeting
are available at
http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/agricult/cgrfa/IU.htm.
For daily
coverage, see IISD Linkages at http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/biodiv/iu-
wg/.
ICTSD
Internal Files; ENB, Vol. 9 No. 213, 5 November 2001.
MEXICO BIODIVERSITY
PROJECT CANCELLED FOLLOWING NGO CRITICISM
The US government on 9 November
confirmed that the controversial Maya
International Cooperative Biodiversity
Group (ICBG-Maya) project on
drug discovery, medical ethnobiology,
biodiversity inventory, and
sustainable development among the Maya of
Highland Chiapas, Mexico, has
been cancelled. The project, one of a series
co-sponsored by three
United States federal agencies, the National Institutes
of Health
(NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the US Department
of
Agriculture (USDA), began in 1998 and was scheduled to last for
five
years.
Organisations who had been strongly campaigning against
the project --
including the locally-based Council of Indigenous Traditional
Midwives
and Healers of Chiapas (COMPITCH) and the Canadian NGO
Rural
Advancement Foundation International (now called ETC), who proceeded
to
launch an international campaign to stop the project
--
enthusiastically welcomed the decision. "The definitive cancellation
of
the ICBG-Maya project is important for all indigenous peoples
in
Mexico," said Antonio Perez Mendez of COMPITCH. "Indigenous
communities
are asking for a moratorium on all biopiracy projects in Mexico,"
he
added. "We want to insure that no one can patent these resources
and
that the benefits are shared by all."
The consortium running the
project, consisting of the University of
Georgia-Athens, Colegio de la
Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), and Molecular
Nature (a British biotech firm), claimed
to have secured permission
from 50 communities in 15 municipalities to carry
out the project's
activities, and to have received requests from eight Maya
communities
to help them set up medicinal plant gardens. The drug discovery
element
of the project, however, had attracted significant controversy, and
the
consortium found itself faced with intense criticism for
alledgedly
committing biopiracy, failing to secure the prior informed consent
of
the Highland Maya to the satisfaction of these groups, and
for
violating the Convention on Biodiversity and International
Labour
Organization Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (both
of
which Mexico is a party to) as well as Mexican law, the leader of
the
project.
Additional Resources
For further information, see
the ECOSUR website at
http://www.ecosur.mx/icbg/default.htm.
"US
Government"s $2.5 Million Biopiracy Project in Mexico Cancelled
Victory for
Indigenous Groups in Chiapas", ETC GROUP, 9 November 2001,
http://www.etcgroup.org/; "Maya-ICBG
Cancelled", GLOBAL EXCHANGE
CHIAPAS, 15 November 2001; "A Maya ICBG Fact
Sheet", Brent Berlin,
University of Athens-Georgia, Jan.
2001.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biotechnology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EU
RESISTS BIOTECH DISCUSSION IN SPS COMMITTEE
At the meeting of the WTO
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures (SPS) on 31 October to 1
November, the US and Canada strongly
criticised Europe's continued de facto
moratorium on the approval of
genetically modified organisms (GMOs), in place
since 1998. The EU
reacted evasively to the criticism, arguing that the
matter should
instead be discussed in the Committee on Technical Barriers to
Trade
(TBT).
Despite frantic preparations for the WTO Ministerial
Conference in
Doha, Qatar (9-13 November), the SPS Committee meeting was
well
attended, with all the major players as well as many
developing
countries and representatives from capitals present. According to
one
trade source, the SPS Agreement is rapidly becoming a "hot topic"
as
WTO Members are increasingly recognising the importance of SPS
measures
as potential hidden trade barriers, in particular given the
obligations
under the Agreement on Agriculture to reduce other protective
measures,
such as export subsidies, tariffs and domestic support.
In
what one trade source described as a "no-goer", the issue of GMOs
was placed
on the agenda of the SPS Committee for the first time when
the US requested
discussions on the European Commission's proposed
labelling and traceability
regulations (see BRIDGES Weekly, 31 July
2001; http://www.ictsd.org/html/weekly/31-07-01/story5.htm)
in the
context of 'non-trade concerns'. The EU, however, which had
notified
the proposed rules under the TBT Agreement, refused to enter
into
discussions, noting that the US should raise the matter in the
TBT
Committee which deals with questions of labelling. In a second
attempt
to force a discussion in the SPS Committee, the US -- supported
by
Canada -- again raised the issue under the agenda item
'other
business'. The two countries strongly criticised the EU for the
delay
in implementing the necessary approval procedures for GMOs which
they
said had resulted in a significant trade impact. For its part, the
EU
reacted strongly to the US strategy, pointing out that
substantive
discussions under this agenda item contravened normal procedures
and
that they were not sufficiently prepared for a response.
As one
trade source speculated, the EU, which has so far been reluctant
to discuss
the GMO issue at the WTO, is trying to restrict debates to
the TBT Committee,
as the TBT Agreement "doesn't really have teeth to
bite them". In addition,
the EU might want to avoid challenges under
the SPS Agreement in light of its
loss in the beef-hormone case which
the US had brought against the EU under
this Agreement (see BRIDGES
Weekly 21-03-00,
http://www.ictsd.org/html/weekly/story8.21-03-00.htm).
However, the trade
source also pointed out that the US would be free to
invoke the SPS Agreement
in a dispute and that the EU could find it
difficult to justify that its
proposed regulations do not fall within
the scope of the
Agreement.
Despite efforts by the European Commission to convince EU
member states
to lift the moratorium on GMO approvals, many EU member states
have
refused to do so until appropriate labelling and
traceability
regulations are in place. It will take at least another two
years,
however, until these regulations will enter into force (see
BRIDGES
Weekly, 30 October 2001;
http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/01-10-
30/story4.htm).
The next meeting of
the SPS Committee is currently scheduled for 20-21
March
2002.
Background
The SPS Agreement has two objectives, aiming to
(i) recognise the
sovereign right of Members to provide the level of health
protection
they deem appropriate, and (ii) ensure that SPS measures do
not
represent unnecessary, arbitrary, scientifically unjustifiable,
or
disguised restrictions on international trade. While requiring
SPS
measure to be based on science, the Agreement also allows WTO
Members
"in cases where relevant scientific evidence is insufficient"
to
provisionally adopt SPS measures. In such cases, Members are
instructed to
seek to obtain additional information necessary for a
more objective risk
assessment "within a reasonable period of time"
(Art. 5.7). The Agreement
furthermore encourages Members to base their
SPS measures on international
standards, guidelines and recommendations
where they exist, recognising the
Codex Alimentarius Commission (food
safety), the Office International de
Epizooties (OIE; animal health)
and International Plant Protection Convention
(IPPC; plant health) as
international standard-setting bodies.
ICTSD
Internal
Files.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In
Brief
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBD
ADVISORY BODY DISCUSSES FOREST TRADE
At the seventh meeting of the
Convention on Biological Diversity's
Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical
and Technological Advice
(SBSTTA-7) (12-16 November), discussions focused
mainly on forest and
to some extent agricultural biodiversity. The
deliberations on forest
biodiversity covered a broad range of issues
including trade, illegal
harvesting, and the rights of indigenous peoples and
local communities.
The outcome of the meeting was a series of recommendations
for the
consideration of the CBD Conference of the Parties (COP) at its
next
meeting on 8-26 April 2002. The forest biodiversity
recommendation
outlines a suggested work programme, consisting of three
elements,
namely conservation, sustainable use and benefit sharing;
institutional
and socioeconomic enabling environment; and knowledge,
assessment and
monitoring. Among other issues, the work programme explicitly
reflects
the need to prevent the illegal importation of non-timber
forest
products not covered by the Convention on International Trade
in
Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES). Subject to its
adoption
by the COP, it would also investigate the impacts of illegal
logging
and trade. Documents of the meeting are available
at
http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meeting.asp?lg=0&wg=sbstta-07. For
daily
coverage, see IISD Linkages
at
http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/biodiv/sbstta7/
US KEEPS UP PRESSURE ON
JAPAN TO HALT WHALING
In response to the departure of the Japanese
whaling fleet from
Shimonoseki on 5 November, the US continued to put
pressure on Japan to
halt the annual hunt on Antarctic minke whale. Voicing
the only
significant official international criticism of the Japan's
2001-2002
whale hunt, US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said that
the
US strongly backed international calls on Japan to stop the hunt,
which
Japan claims is only carried out for scientific purposes.
Japan's
decision to continue whaling despite concerns expressed by
the
International Whaling Commission (IWC) regarding a possible decline
of
the minke population was also strongly condemned by
environmental
groups. Greenpeace furthermore accused Japan of trying to
obtain
support from other nations ahead of the next meeting of the IWC in
May
2002. "Japan wants a return to high seas whaling with factory
ships,
and it's willing to use bribery to get it," said John
Bowler,
Greenpeace campaign coordinator. "U.S. Pressures Japan to Stop
Minke
Whale Hunt," ENS, 13 November
2001.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Events
&
Resources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EVENTS
For
a more comprehensive list of events in trade and sustainable
development,
please refer to ICTSD's web calendar
at:
http://www.ictsd.org/html/calendar.htm.
19-24 November, Bangkok,
Thailand: FISH FOR PEOPLE. Conference on
Sustainable Fisheries for Food
Security in the New Millennium,
organised by the ASEAN-South East Asian
Fisheries Development Centre
(SEAFDEC). For further information, contact the
Conference Secretariat,
fax (66 2 ) 940 6336; email: secretariat@seafdec.org;
Internet:
http://www.seafdec.org/
25-30 November, Taiwan: 6TH ASIAN
FISHERIES FORUM - TRIENNIAL MEETING
OF THE ASIAN FISHERIES SOCIETY. The Forum
will address various issues
facing fisheries scientists and managers on a
regional and global
level, and will hold round table talks concerning the
Asian sector's
future, including capture fisheries, aquaculture and
processing. For
more information, contact: Mr. John Cooksey, tel: (1 760)
432-4270;
fax: 432-4275; email: meetingmanager@aol.com;
Internet:
http://www.afs.tfrin.gov.tw or
http://www.tfrin.gov.tw/AFS
26-30 November, Helsinki, Finland: AD HOC
WORKING GROUP ON THE
INTERLINKAGES BETWEEN BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND CLIMATE
CHANGE. For
further information contact: CBD Secretariat, Montreal, Canada;
tel:
(514) 288-2220; fax: 288-6588; e-mail:
secretariat@biodiv.org;
Internet: http://www.biodiv.org. From
Linkages:
http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/journal/.
26 - 30 November,
Montreal, Canada: GPA 2001 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
MEETING. Organised by
UNEP's Global Program of Action for the
Protection of the Marine Environment
from Land-based Activities. For
further information, contact the GPA
Coordination Office, tel: (31 70)
3114460; fax: 345 6648; email:gpa@unep.nl;
Internet:
http://www.gpa.unep.org/igr/
27-28 November, Geneva,
Switzerland: WTO COUNCIL ON TRADE-RELATED
ASPECTS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
RIGHTS (TRIPS).
27-29 November, Phnom Penh, Cambodia: WORLD SUMMIT ON
SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT ASIA PACIFIC PREPARATORY MEETING. For further
information
contact: Hiroko Morita-Lou, UN-DESA, New York; tel: (212)
963-8813;
fax: 963-4260; email: morita-lou@un.org;
Internet:
http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/web_pages/asia_pacific.htm.
27-30
November, Raleigh-Durham, US: LMOs AND THE ENVIRONMENT: AN
INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD)
will host a conference to promote dialogue
between developed and developing
countries on the underlying science
for assessing transgenic organisms in the
environment. For further
information contact: OECD; tel: (33 1) 4524-8097;
fax: 4524-9437;
email: RaleighConference@oecd.org;
Internet:
http://www1.oecd.org/ehs/raleigh/index.htm.
28-29 November,
Montevideo, Uruguay: SYMPOSIUM ON THE INTERNATIONAL
PROTECTION OF
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS. Organised by the World
Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) and the National Directorate
for Industrial Property
(DNPI), Ministry of Industry, Energy and Mining
of Uruguay. For further
information contact: WIPO Secretariat, tel: (41
22) 338-9428; email:
francis.gurry@wipo.int;
Internet:
http://www.wipo.int/eng/meetings/2001/geo_mvd/index.htm.
29
November - 1 December, Flores, Peten, Guatemala: SECOND
INTERNATIONAL
MEETINGS OF SCIENTISTS: "PEASANT ECONOMY AND CHALLENGES
FOR SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUTHERN MAYA LOWLANDS OF GUATEMALA,
MEXICO AND BELIZE."
For further information contact: Silvel Elias
at
selias@flacso.edu.gt.
Other Forthcoming Events
5 December,
Geneva, Switzerland: UNEP/GEF BIOSAFETY PROJECT: A BRIEFING
ON GOALS AND
ACTIVITIES. The UNEP/GEF Biosafety Project will host this
meeting to promote
regional and sub-regional collaboration on issues
relevant to developing
countries' national biosafety frameworks. For
further information, contact:
The International Environment House; tel:
(41-22) 917-8505; fax: 797-3464;
email: info@environmenthouse.ch;
Internet:
http://www.environmenthouse.ch.
10-14 December, Geneva, Switzerland: WIPO
SECOND SESSION OF THE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
AND GENETIC
RESOURCES, TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE. The following are
on the
agenda for this meeting: "Accreditation of certain
Non-Governmental
Organizations," "Operational Principles for Contractual
Agreements
Concerning Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-
Sharing,"
"Traditional Knowledge" which includes a review of current
IPR protection,
Folklore, and Future Work. For further information
contact: WIPO Secretariat,
tel: (41 22) 338-9428; email:
francis.gurry@wipo.int;
Internet:
http://www.wipo.int/eng/meetings/2001/igc/index_2.htm.
13-17
May 2002, Maracay, Venezuela: BIOSAFETY 3 - ADVANCED ISSUES ON
BIOSAFETY:
RISK MONITORING AND PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF BIOTECHNOLOGY.
Organised by Centro
Nacional de Investigaciones Agropecuarias/CENIAP
(Maracay, Venezuela) and
Centro Tecnológico Polar (Caracas, Venezuela).
Postponed from 12-16 November
2001. For further information, contact:
Dr. Efrain G. Salazar Yamarte; tel:
(58-43) 471066; fax: 471066,
831421; email: efra63@hotmail.com;
Internet:
http://www.icgeb.trieste.it/~bsafesrv/bsfn0011.htm.
RESOURCES
If
you have a relevant resource (books, papers, bulletins, etc.) you
would like
to see announced in this section, please forward a copy for
review by the
BRIDGES staff to hbaumuller@ictsd.ch. Submissions of
publications to
ICTSD's documentation centre would also be welcome
(contact
mgalvin@ictsd.ch).
HARD FACTS, HIDDEN PROBLEMS: A REVIEW OF CURRENT DATA
ON FISHING
SUBSIDIES. Published by WWF, October 2001. The report concludes
that
fishing industry subsidies worldwide amount to US$15 billion per
year,
as opposed to the US$13 billion reported by governments, with
Japan
having the highest fishing subsidy levels, followed by the EU, the
US,
and China. Available online
at
http://www.panda.org/endangeredseas/publications/hardfacts_oct26.pdf.
TRADING
AWAY THE LAST ANCIENT FORESTS: THE IMPACTS ON FORESTS OF TRADE
LIBERALISATION
MEASURES BY THE WTO. By R.G. Tarasofsky and S. Pfahl,
Ecologic - Institute
for International and European Environmental
Policy, on behalf of Greenpeace
International, November 2001. Available
at
http://www.greenpeace.org/politics/wto/Doha/reports/wto.pdf.
INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY IN BIODIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURE. Edited by Peter
Drahos and Michael
Blakeney. Published by Sweet and Maxwell, November
2001. The essays in this
volume draw attention to a broad set of global
biodiversity-related
regulatory agendas with which intellectual
property rights are now
irrevocably linked, and address aspects of the
failure to address the
difficult relationship between intellectual
property and the regulation of
food, agriculture, the environment, and
health. Further information is
available online at:
http://
http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/products/cat/mydetails.cfm?
title=107625&detail=126830.
"The
economic consequences of alien plant invasions: examples of
impacts and
approaches to sustainable management in South Africa," by
B.W. van Wilgen et
al, in ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY, 3
(2), 2001: 145-168. The
paper reviews what is known of the economic
consequences of alien plant
invsions in South Africa. These economic
arguments have been used to
successfully launch the largest
environmental management programme in
Africa.
"Ecologically unsustainable trade," by J. O. Andersson and M.
Lindroth
in ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 37 (1, 2001): 113-122. In this article,
the
ecological footprint concept is used to distinguish different types
of
ecologically unsustainable trade, but the issue of the possible
effects
of trade on the ecological footprints is also raised. The authors
argue
that since international trade can be a subtle mechanism by
which
ecological sustainability is preserved locally by means of
importing
biomass and sink-capacity from other countries, it can also blur
the
view of responsibility for the ecological effects of production
and
consumption. At the end of this article, some ethical and
political
dilemmas related to these issues are raised.
FOOD FOR ALL:
CAN HUNGER BE HALVED? By the Panos Institute, 2001. The
report, inter alia,
looks at the question whether trade liberalisation
should be seen as part of
the solution to world hunger, or part of
the problem. Available online
at
http://www.panos.org.uk/food_for_all.htm.
Electronic
Resources
INTERPORTAL.CH. This internet portal for cooperation and
development
was implemented by the Swiss Coalition of Development
Organisations,
Erklärung von Bern, cinfo, Swissaid and the Swiss Tropical
Institute,
and will involve over 30 organisations, including charities,
political
and cultural organisations. Interportal.ch aims to enable a wide
range
of groups to exchange varied information and to network by providing
up-
to-the-minute news, background reports, as well as campaign and
event
announcements. The main language of the portal is German, with
French
and English versions to be introduced over time. For
further
information, see
http://www.interportal.ch
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIDGES
Trade BioRes© is published by the International Centre for
Trade and
Sustainable Development (ICTSD), http://www.ictsd.org, in
collaboration with
IUCN - World Conservation Union, http://www.iucn.org,
and IUCN's Commission
on Environment, Economic and Social Policy,
CEESP,
http://www.cenesta.org/ceesp/.
This edition of BRIDGES Trade
BioRes was co-edited by Graham Dutfield,
gdutfield@ictsd.ch, and Heike
Baumuller, hbaumuller@ictsd.ch. The
Managing Editor is Andrew Crosby,
acrosby@ictsd.ch. The Director is
Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz, rmelendez@ictsd.ch.
ICTSD is an independent,
not-for-profit organisation based at: 13, ch. des
Anémones, 1219 Geneva,
Switzerland, tel: (41-22) 917-8492; fax: 917-8093.
Excerpts from
BRIDGES Trade BioRes may be used in other publications with
appropriate
citation. Comments and suggestions are welcomed and should be
directed
to the Editors or the Director.
BRIDGES Trade BioRes is made
possible in 2001 through the generous
support of the Minister of Housing,
Spatial Planning, and the Environment
Netherlands). It also benefits from
ICTSD's core funders: the Governments
of Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands
and Sweden; Christian Aid (UK),
IUCN - The World Conservation Union,
MISEREOR, NOVIB (NL), Oxfam (UK)
and the Swiss Coalition of Development
Organisations (Switzerland).
24.11.2001
. A New Trade Round, Virtually
Volume 18 - Issue 24,
Nov. 24 - Dec. 07, 2001
India's National Magazine
from the publishers
of THE HINDU
Table of Contents
COVER STORY
A NEW TRADE
ROUND, VIRTUALLY
At the end of much posturing and
tough talk, the Fourth Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade Organisation in
Doha produces a mixed outcome. And India's lone hand had a crucial role to play
in the deal.
SUKUMAR MURALIDHARAN
in Doha
LATE on the evening of November 13, the
scene at the Sheraton Hotel in Doha suggested nothing so much as a crucial
conference plummeting towards failure. Delegates and officials to the Fourth
Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) were bargaining
furiously over a draft declaration that had been prepared earlier in the day to
the satisfaction of the United States, the qualified approval of the European
Union (E.U.), and the barely concealed rage of the developing world.
PATRICK BAZ/ AFP
At the closing ceremony of
the WTO conference in Doha.
Having yielded the previous day in approving a declaration on
the centrality of public health concerns in enforcing the WTO's patents regime,
the U.S. had seemingly earned the mantle of the honest broker. But the E.U. was
playing hardball. As rumours swirled around the conference centre of a pullout
threat from French President Jacques Chirac, the E.U. was holding firm to its
insistence on deleting a reference to the objective of phasing out export
subsidies in agriculture. And despite being the only outlier on this issue, the
E.U. was playing for high stakes on other fronts, in demanding an explicit
acknowledgment that negotiations on a bundle of issues of special interest to
European corporations would begin no later than the next Ministerial Conference.
Developing countries were equally adamant that there could simply be no
presumption that the WTO could venture into these areas - collectively known as
the Singapore issues since the Second Ministerial Conference of the WTO in 1996
approved of a study programme in them. Negotiations on investment, competition
policy, government procurement and trade facilitation were potentially deeply
intrusive on national decision-making processes. And even as the developing
countries were engaged in studying the deeper implications of the Singapore
issues, they could not be herded into a commitment on negotiating them.
The Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) grouping had welded this concern
onto another one - over the possibility that WTO rules on uniformity of trade
rules would lead to the removal of a special waiver that it enjoyed in exports
to E.U. markets. Bewildered by the complexities involved, New Zealand's Trade
Minister withdrew from the fray late that evening. He chose to spend his time in
the cavernous lobby of the Doha Sheraton playing out a pensive tune on the grand
piano. His befuddlement and urge for relief was widely shared.
But the
WTO was not about to give in. After the fiasco of the Seattle Ministerial
Conference in 1999 (Frontline, December 24, 1999), a second consecutive
failure was simply too terrible an eventuality for it to face. The U.S. and the
E.U., which have found the WTO a convenient instrument to render the multiplying
complexities of the world into some semblance of simplicity and order, had to
make that extra effort. And as the night wore on the full repertoire of feint
and manoeuvre, coercion and cajolery, was brought into play.
Late in the
night, the ACP grouping won the assurance that its special waiver in E.U.
markets would be sustained. Concurrently, promises of technical assistance for
capacity building - in the over-used cliche of trade diplomacy - won the
undertaking that the least developed countries (LDCs) and the Africa bloc would
contain their dissent over the Singapore issues. Then an acknowledgment by the
E.U. that it would not be averse to the objective of phasing out export
subsidies in agriculture provided that the outcome of negotiations were not
prejudged, seemed to eliminate another obstacle to agreement.
India then
stood well and truly isolated. Early on November 14 it was presented a draft
declaration that put in place all the issues that it had spared no effort to
remove from the WTO's negotiating agenda. Crunch time had come and the Indian
delegation without further heed to diplomatic delicacy made it known that it was
on the verge of voting with its feet. Commerce Minister Murasoli Maran, as the
leader of the delegation, informed the conference that India would not agree to
a consensus. The next step in the battle engagement called for blocking the
process of placing the declaration before the Ministerial Conference. And
finally in the contingency plans that were being hatched in those feverish
hours, the Indian delegation would complete its pull-out from Doha, presumably
leaving the WTO in chaos and disarray.
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick (left)
with E.U. Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy (standing) during the final
session.
Apart from the blow to the WTO's credibility, such an outcome
would have constituted a serious loss of face for the conference organisers.
Finally, it was the conference chairman, Qatar's Minister for Industry and
Commerce Sheikh Youssef Hussein Kamal, who came up with the formulation that
clinched the deal. While placing the declaration before the Ministerial
Conference, Sheikh Kamal issued a clarification in two paragraphs. This was to
the effect that the Singapore issues would be taken up for negotiations after
the next Ministerial Conference only on the basis of a decision to be taken then
by explicit consensus. This meant that each WTO member would be at liberty to
take a position on modalities that could prevent negotiations from proceeding
until that Member (was) prepared to join in.
The final declaration now
contains the same formula on all four Singapore issues, that Ministers agree
that negotiations will take place, after the Fifth Session of the Ministerial
(Conference) on the basis of a decision to be taken, by explicit consensus, at
that Session on modalities of negotiations. This seems to presume that
negotiations will take place, with a decision being awaited only on modalities.
It is in this sense, perhaps a relatively stronger assertion than the earlier
draft, which said that the Fifth Ministerial Conference would decide whether
negotiations should take place. But with the Chairman's clarifications appended,
India was willing to accept the final declaration as an adequate compromise in
order to win the E.U.'s concurrence on the agriculture text.
Ironically,
however, no sooner had the conference concluded than the U.S. delegation began
casting doubt over the long-term negotiating consequence of the Chairman's
declaration. The final declaration, said a trade official cited by the policy
journal Inside U.S. Trade, is the governing document of the conference. It alone
will set the agenda for the future work of the WTO.
Similar polarities
in interpretation were evident also with regard to the declaration on
agriculture. The Cairns group of major agricultural exporters called it an
unequivocal triumph against E.U. recalcitrance. The E.U. likewise claimed
victory in having eliminated all discussion about the end point of negotiations
in agriculture. These rather mixed assessments are perhaps inevitable. But they
also highlight how the WTO agenda is always a work in progress, continually
flowing into certain new areas and ebbing away from others in response to the
compelling needs of its most powerful members. India may have won a reprieve on
the Singapore issues, but the study programme sanctioned in 1996 will continue.
And with WTO personnel being actively engaged in the research effort, the
findings of the study could well be pre-ordained. A momentary lapse of attention
on the part of the developing countries may be all that is required for these
issues to make their appearance as full-blown items for negotiations on the
WTO's slate.
Expectations were mixed when the Ministerial Meeting began
on November 9 amidst high security in the capital city of the Gulf kingdom of
Qatar. The U.S. delegation, ringed by layers of security, had been considerably
reduced in size as a consequence of the September 11 terrorist attack and its
aftermath. But in insisting that the conference would not be postponed and would
be held at the venue that was decided in February, the U.S. was giving an
obvious indication of the importance it placed on the occasion.
The U.S.
and the E.U. had both stated their intention to see that a new round of global
trade negotiations was kicked off at Doha. Preliminary briefings by the two
sides made it apparent that conflicting perceptions and priorities divided them.
The U.S.' principal concern, as elaborated by senior trade officials just prior
to the conference, was market access in the most general sense, with trade in
agriculture being earmarked for special attention.
RABIH MOGHRABI/ AFP
Mike Moore,
Director-General of the WTO.
Early statements of the U.S.' negotiating posture were
interpreted as a direct challenge to the E.U., which continues to maintain the
most comprehensive system of agricultural subsidisation possible under WTO
rules. The E.U. for its part responded aggressively, with the assertion that it
would support a programme of agricultural trade liberalisation provided that it
benefited all. Even before the formal inauguration of the conference,
delegations were grappling over the language of a Draft Ministerial declaration
jointly prepared late in October by Mike Moore, WTO Director-General and Stuart
Harbinson, the Ambassador of Hong Kong (China) and president of the WTO General
Council. This text, called the Harbinson Draft, was a catalogue of a number of
subjects and priorities for action by the WTO as part of an expanded work
programme, which many developing country delegations believed referred to a new
trade round by another name.
On agriculture, the Harbinson text affirmed
that the WTO's priority would be to initiate reductions of, with a view
ultimately to phase out, all forms of export subsidies. The E.U. placed on
record its reservations about this clause right at the outset, but in order not
to hobble the discussions, expressed its willingness to go along with a
programme of subsidy reduction provided all forms of trade distortions were
disciplined. As elaborated by E.U. Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler,
these would include export credits and the use of food aid not to relieve
suffering but to dispose of surpluses, open up markets (and) drive out
competitors.
THESE subtle manoeuvres between the U.S. and the E.U. on
the question of agriculture provided an early pointer to the direction in which
the talks would move. The E.U. was evidently determined to hold out on
agriculture in an overture for the U.S.' support on the Singapore issues, as
also environment and labour. India had vocally expressed its opposition to the
new issues, but other developing countries were expected to acquiesce. Arriving
at Doha amidst a chorus of media comment about India's isolation, Murasoli Maran
soon discovered substantial support for its position. Most developing countries
were convinced that the WTO should handle the issues of implementation of
existing agreements before taking on a broader negotiating agenda. But during
informal interactions with the media Maran was careful to underline that these
principles, bilaterally agreed between developing countries, might not stand up
within the hard bargaining of the Ministerial Meeting.
Apart from the
contentious issue of subsidies, the E.U. had staked out a lone position in
insisting that environment, rural development and food safety should also
feature in the agriculture negotiations. This was viewed by other member-states
as a thinly disguised protectionist device. The U.S. likewise was alone in its
belief that the anti-dumping provisions of the WTO agreement were not in need of
review. Among the developed countries Japan was known to have a grievance on
this score and seemed likely to join the E.U. in wielding anti-dumping as a
weapon against the U.S.' resolve to curb their agricultural subsidies.
Among the implementation issues of concern to India, the Harbinson text
proposed that the pace of dismantling textile export quotas and integrating
textiles and clothing into the WTO framework could be accelerated. In the area
of agriculture there was a recognition that the green box subsidies, that is,
those subsidies that are employed to safeguard food entitlements and ensure
nutritional security to the vulnerable, should be exempted from reduction
commitments. The Harbinson text, though, remained in the main quite oblivious to
developing country interests.
ADDRESSING the opening plenary, Maran
sharply attacked the Draft declaration, characterising it as neither fair nor
just. He also took issue with the tone of the letter that had been addressed to
the member-states by Moore, while forwarding the Draft declaration for
consideration. Disregarding the reservations expressed by various countries, the
Director-General had in his letter made out a case for quick agreement on the
terms listed in the Draft declaration, saying that it represented a
near-consensus among the member-states. This failed to reflect the substantive
differences that had been stated and reiterated, said Maran.
V.V. KRISHNAN
Murasoli Maran, India's Commerce
Minister.
The Doha Ministerial had the opportunity to provide a strong
impetus to ongoing negotiations on agriculture and services as also to
accelerate the process of reviewing existing agreements. These negotiations had
already been mandated and could not be held hostage to unreasonable demands that
new issues be brought on board the WTO agenda, said Maran. The WTO is not a
global government, he continued, and it should not seek to arrogate to itself
responsibilities that legitimately belong to national governments and
legislatures.
Maran's intervention was rightly regarded as a signal that
the Doha Ministerial Conference continued to face unbridgeable gaps of
perception. This was pointedly if unwittingly emphasised by Robert Zoellick, the
U.S. Trade Representative who led his country's delegation to Doha. Articulating
U.S. priorities on market access for agriculture, industrial goods and services,
Zoellick praised the draft declaration as a document that skilfully cleared many
impediments to the opening of a new round.
E.U. Trade Commissioner
Pascal Lamy made a direct pitch for the allegiance of the developing countries.
In his address to the plenary, Lamy sought to mitigate the anxieties about a new
round of negotiations by couching it in the phraseology of a development agenda.
The language undoubtedly appealed to the developing countries, though the
details were far from agreed. At one of several media interactions, Iddi
Mohammad Simba, the Tanzanian Minister for Trade, described a development agenda
as a desirable outcome of Doha. But speaking on behalf of the less developed
countries, the ACP and the Africa bloc, Simba placed on record his allergy for
the notion of a new round. "We do not have the capacity to negotiate on the new
issues," he said, "and there was a noticeable lack of will on the part of the
developed countries to talk of a development agenda in the absence of these
issues." The LDCs, the ACP and the Organisation of African Unity remained
opposed to a new round of trade negotiations in the sense of a single
undertaking, that is, a multiplicity of agreements all of which have to be
accepted or rejected in their totality. What was required, said Simba, was a
sequencing of the negotiations, an ordered priority that would put development
first.
IN procedural terms, the negotiations at Doha kicked off with an
innovative feature. The infamous green room, where the decisive bargains would
be struck between key players and recalcitrant elements would be summoned for
inquisitorial hectoring, was done away with. After the collapse at Seattle, the
green room had been denounced by several members of the WTO as an undemocratic
and medieval feature. In its place the conference chairman, in consultation with
the WTO Director-General, appointed six facilitators (or friends of the chair)
who would coordinate the discussions.
RAVEENDRAN/ AFP
CPI(M) Polit bureau member
Sitaram Yechury, former Prime Minister V.P. Singh, CPI(M) general seceratary
Harkishan Singh Surjeet and Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav at an
anti-WTO rally in New Delhi.
Visiting Trade Ministers from South Africa, Canada, Mexico,
Venezuela, Singapore and Switzerland were appointed facilitators in six key
areas. In a crucial intervention in the WTO Committee of the Whole - which is
the final decision-making body in the Ministerial Conference - Maran emphasised
the need for the facilitators to follow a completely transparent process in
eliciting opinions. The facilitators in turn should present a text to the
Committee of the Whole only if there is consensus, he said. Failure to forge a
consensus should be duly reported to the Committee. There must be no attempt to
presume a consensus where none exists, and as a precaution against the
manufacture of consensus Maran demanded that all delegations be given an
opportunity to scrutinise the texts of the facilitators' reports before they
were presented to the Committee. The Indian Minister's intervention was broadly
endorsed by a large group of developing countries, though it was flagrantly
disregarded as pressure mounted to produce an agreed outcome.
Signalling
further the deep divisions, Japan on the second day of the conference reacted
strongly to U.S. suggestions that it was not showing sufficient flexibility and
leadership in the negotiations on agriculture. It also chose to reiterate its
reservations over the U.S. proposal to broaden the discussion on anti-dumping
rules to bring the alleged unfair trade practices of other member-states under
scrutiny. Till the third day all participants were doing little else than
repeating their well-known and inflexible positions. Early on the fourth day, a
compromise text on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property rights (TRIPS)
and access to essential medicines was worked out in a nine-member sub-group and
referred to a wider committee. A considerably modified version, with certain
sections reflecting persisting disagreements, was placed before the Committee of
the Whole that evening.
HUSSEIN MALLA/ AP
An anti-WTO protest in Doha
on November 13.
In the unique bargaining procedures used in the WTO, where
nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, it seemed likely that agreement on
the medicines issue could break the deadlock in other areas. But these remained
unfulfilled. India and other developing countries continued to encounter
resistance in the textiles negotiations. The U.S. and Canada stuck to their
insistence that the proposal to accelerate the elimination of quotas amounted to
an amendment of the existing Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC). The E.U.
continued to support the declaration on textiles, on the understanding that it
only involved the full utilisation of existing flexibilities in the ATC. Japan,
while remaining loftily unconcerned over this argument since it maintained no
textiles quotas, expressed pessimism about the prospects of a deal. And in an
evident effort to ratchet up the pressure, Maran characterised the persistent
stalemate in textiles as a potential deal-breaker.
With the compromise
text on TRIPS and essential medicines clinched, the U.S. had seemingly relieved
itself of its most onerous negotiating burden. It was now free to use its good
offices and coercive power to stitch together a deal. It was clearly amenable to
bringing on board the Singapore issues if it could induce the E.U. to back down
on agriculture. It was also keen to see Japan relent on anti-dumping measures.
And if when the final day of the conference dawned the latter deal seemed closer
to realisation than it was at the beginning, the former seemed as elusive as
ever.
The E.U. was if anything only hardening its position, refusing to
give any ground on the Singapore issues. As the last day of scheduled talks
began, an E.U. spokesperson brusquely brushed aside the reservations repeatedly
expressed by the LDCs about the new issues as being dilatory and diversionary.
With surpassing manipulative skill it had worked overnight with the U.S. in
presenting a Draft declaration - the third draft in conference shorthand - that
was a virtual and exclusive charter of its demands.
The Indian
delegation was incensed. Speaking at the final plenary, Maran chose a relatively
moderate-register idiom to present India's disagreement, expressing his strong
sense of disappointment at the third draft. The declaration, he said, failed to
reflect India's concerns and demands in a substantive manner. Maran identified
the weak provisions on implementation of the Uruguay Round agreements as one of
the specific shortcomings in the third draft. In comparison to the Harbinson
text, the third draft that had been placed before the Committee of the Whole
represented a considerable dilution on implementation issues. It placed the
entire section on textiles, for instance, within square brackets, indicating
that there had been no agreement on it.
The draft declaration also put
in stronger preambular language on the issue of environment and trade. It
removed a crucial qualifying phrase, thus recognising the International Labour
Organisation (ILO) as the appropriate forum for a substantive dialogue on trade
and labour standards. On the issues of investment, competition policy,
government procurement and trade facilitation, the third draft mandated either
immediate negotiations or a decision at the next Ministerial Conference on
beginning negotiations. Expressing a sentiment that was widely shared by
developing countries, Maran told the plenary that all this was premature, since
the decision on negotiations could only be taken after the results of the study
programme authorised by the Singapore Ministerial Meeting of the WTO were known.
India was also concerned about the single undertaking clause of the
declaration, which stipulated that negotiations in all areas - including the
implementation of the Uruguay Round - would be conducted, concluded and enforced
as a package involving all members. This effectively meant that in order to
obtain a discussion on the implementation of the Uruguay Round India would have
to begin negotiations in areas as diverse as investment, competition policy and
perhaps even environment and labour.
AFP
Chinese Foreign Trade and Economic
Cooperation Minister Shi Guangsheng signs his country's accession to the
WTO.
Till late in the evening of November 13, the Ministerial Plenary
remained deadlocked. The E.U. showed no sign of relenting from its insistence
that the clause on phasing out export subsidies in agriculture should be
deleted. It was also raising the stakes by demanding stronger language on
environment, labour and the so-called Singapore issues. The U.S. and Japan were
in relative terms the least dissatisfied with the third draft. Since the
declaration on essential medicines, the U.S. had managed to position itself as a
credible broker for a comprehensive deal. But its insistence on not conceding
ground on textiles removed a vital element of flexibility in the bargaining
process. Japan had for its part worked out a compromise agreement with the U.S.
on the use of anti-dumping measures. But even with movement along these
directions, the Doha Ministerial remained deadlocked between the E.U.'s
insistence on more than the developing countries could yield and the U.S.'
reluctance to relieve pressure by granting crucial concessions of interest to
the developing countries.
As often happens, minds were focussed by the
possibility of failure. And an expedient of rather dubious value - the
conference chairman's prefatory statement to the tabling of the final
declaration - was deployed to wear down India's resistance. Nomenclature is of
course not of any great consequence. It is not yet clear that the negotiations
that will begin in the WTO's expansive offices in Geneva early next year will be
called a new trade round. These are more likely, as a verbal concession to
mitigate the material injuries that are likely to be caused to the poorer
countries, to be called the Doha Development Agenda. But for India the
negotiations on market access in industrial products will be crucial. With a
large number of industrial tariff lines remaining unbound, India will be
compelled to undertake binding commitments beyond which customs duties will not
be raised. Whether these amount to a new round or not is a matter of
terminology. But clearly, a period of wrenching adjustment is foretold for
Indian industry, as also for agriculture and services.
24.11.2001
. daily ministerialbriefings
for NGOs in Doha
Tony Coleman MP
said that the UK was the
only delegation to provide daily ministerial
briefings for NGOs in Doha, not
the only delegation to have NGO reps on
the
delegation and regular NGO
briefings. Does anyone know if that was true?
I
suppose quite possibly as
there would have been relatively few NGOs
present
in Doha from many other
countries.
--
Chris Keene, Coordinator, Anti-Globalisation Network
90
The Parkway, Canvey Island, Essex SS8 0AE, England
Tel 01268
682820 Fax 01268 514164
25.11.2001
.
S2B meeting: update on participants, accommodation,
agenda
etc
Dear friends,
This is to give you a short update
about
1) who is planning to come so far to the S2B meeting
2) the
venue
3) new developments on the agenda and
4) tips for
accommodation
5) lunches and dinners
More practical information will
follow.
1) WHO IS PLANNING TO COME SO FAR?
* Austria Salzburg
Forum against the WTO Matthias Reichl
* Belgium Oxfam S. Raoul
Jennar
11.11.11. Marc Maes
* Denmark ATTAC Denmark Kenneth
Harr
* Finland WTO campaign of the Finnish NGOs Thomas Wallgreen
* France
ECOROPA Agnes Bertrand
ATTAC Christophe Ventura or Pierre
Tartakowsky
* Germany BLUE 21 Thomas Fritz and WEED Peter Fuchs
*
Italy Campagna per la riforma Martin Köhler (tbc)
* Netherlands
Milieudefensie Bertram Zagema, Meike Skolnik
and CEO Erik Wesselius and
Olivier Hoedeman
* Sweden Forum Syd Maud Johansson and or Karin Gregow
*
UK JMG Jon Cracknell
WDM (still to be confirmed)
* European Networks
FoEE, Alexandra Wandel
* CPE Gerard Choplin or Maria
ATTENTION: Please
if you are not listed yet, but still intend to come
please just let me
know.
Please also help to see whom we could still invite from the
following
countries Spain (upcoming presidency), Portugal, Greece and
Irelandand
any other countries?
2) VENUE: 11.11.11. the Flemish North
South Federation has offered to
host the meeting at their venue. Address:
Klasfabriekstraat 11, next to
metro station Porte des Halles (one stop from
Gare du Midi), from the
metro station you walk up the hill on the main street
called Avenue
Henri Jaspar. You will find Klasfabriekstraat/in French Rue de
la
Liniere on the right hand side.
3) AGENDA: please still send me
back your feedback (if you have not done
so). I will then send around a
new revised agenda.
4) ACCOMMODATION: WHERE TO STAY AND HOW TO GET
THERE:
There are various options:
Recommended good places to
stay:
Hotel:
* Hotel Pacific (between 1200 and 1700 BEF, 30-40 Euro),
tel: 02-511 84
59, centrally located and popular place in the centre of
Brussels
Bed and Brekfast:
* ICA, icab@linkline.be, tel: 32-2-2190 00 87, bed
and breakfast for 1
100 BEF. Close by metro Madou, direct line to metro
station Port des
Halles.
* Hostel:
Bruegel , tel: 32-2-511 04 36,
centrally located, with big dorms. Most
participants of international meeting
will stay there. Very cheap.
You can also contact resotel for free
booking at http://www.resotel.com/,
info@resotel.be
FYI: The OWNFS
coalition meeting in the weekend will take place in a
different venue in the
centre of town close to gare centrale.
6) LUNCHES AND
DINNERS
Coffee, tea and water will be available at our meeting for free.
For the
lunch I will order for everyone sandwiches. On Monday evening I
will
make a reservation in a reasonable cheap restaurant. I would like to
ask
you to cover your own expenses for lunch and dinners, as we have
no
funds for the meeting.
That's it for the moment,
thanks!
Cheers, alexandra
--
alexandra wandel
trade and
sustainability co-ordinator - europe & middle east
friends of the earth
europe (FoEE)
29, rue blanche - B-1060 brussels -
belgium
fon:+32-2-54201-85 - fax:+32-2-53755-96
e-mail: alexandra.wandel@foeeurope.org
http://www.foeeurope.org/trade/about.htm
25.11.2001
.
FOEI Doha publications: SALE OF THE CENTURY? THE
WTO's 4TH
MINISTERIAL
SALE OF THE CENTURY? THE WTO's 4TH
MINISTERIAL
Friends of the Earth International has produced a series of
briefings
covering the WTO's 4th Ministerial Conference and the proposed new
round
of negotiations. These briefings examine how the world trade
system
operates (for example, the workings of the WTO and free trade
theory),
what's wrong with it (for example, the impacts of 'free trade',
the
influence of transnational corporations and the failings of the
theory
of comparative advantage) and who are the main winners and
losers from
trade liberalisation. The briefings also cover two sectoral
issues that
services - and assesses current and future impacts of
further trade
liberalisation are currently being (re)negotiated within the
WTO -
agriculture and in these sectors.
The briefings in
this series are:
* The World Trade System: How it Works and What's
Wrong With It
* The World Trade System: Winners and Losers
*
Services: the Implications of Current Trade Negotiations
* Peoples'
Food Sovereignty: Part 1 - the Implications of Current
Trade
Negotiations
* Peoples' Food Sovereignty: Part 2 - a New
Multilateral Framework for
Food and Agriculture
Additional
briefings include:
* The World Trade System: an Activist's
Guide
All these briefings can be accessed from the FOEI website at
http://www.foei.org/
--
alexandra
wandel
trade and sustainability co-ordinator - europe & middle
east
friends of the earth europe (FoEE)
29, rue blanche - B-1060 brussels
- belgium
fon:+32-2-54201-85 - fax:+32-2-53755-96
e-mail: alexandra.wandel@foeeurope.org
http://www.foeeurope.org/trade/about.htm
26.11.2001
.
Query on destruction of US public hospitals
I am
currently writing a leaflet on GATS for consumption by the general
public in
the UK.
I remember seeing a reference to the head of a large US
health-care
corporation vowing to destroy every public hospital in the US,
which
should motivate people here to do something to stop GATS.
But
unfortunately I can't remember where I saw the reference, or the name
of
the corporate head. Does anyone have the reference?
--
Chris
Keene, Coordinator, Anti-Globalisation Network
90 The Parkway, Canvey Island,
Essex SS8 0AE, England
Tel 01268 682820 Fax 01268
514164
26.11.2001
.
NGOs+Civil society
Apologies for cross
posting
This is forwarded from the Lebanese NGO, the Humanitarian Group
for
Social Development.
If you have any ideas please send them to
<hgsd@cyberia.net.lb> and
copy
them to <chris.keene@which.net>
I
would like to share with you some thoughts on the effectiveness
of
the
work of NGOs and how we can improve it.
We have seen some
excellent work done by civil society ,NGOs , groups
all
over the world , I
see them as the consciousness of the planet.
Now, is it enough that
they be just that ? or could they be more?
It seems that they need to be
more, they should be the AGENT FORCING
CHANGE, as we notice the accelerating
detrimental effects of corporate
globalization on democracy, poverty ,
environment,.... in fact the
quality
of life altogether.I see their action
is still, shy , not as powerful as
it
should be, in view of the urgency of
the situation.
The purpose of this email is to gather views and ideas on how
to
increase
the effectiveness of NGOs world wide and make them become a
leverage
voice
in the political scene that can not be ignored.
We
notice that some drastic changes should happen before the world is
put
on
the right track for a sustainable future, one of the things
is
changing
the consumption pattern of people. we cannot survive long
continuing in
the way we consume.
Also we cannot survive long
with humanity increasing the way it is.
These are just a few essential
items , that NGOs and civil society can
work successfully on.
So
the question is what can give a boost to the work of NGOs and
civil
society??
IF YOU HAVE ANY REALISTIC IDEAS. LETS HEAR
THEM
Send them BY EMAIL to : HGSD,Humanitarian Group For Social
Development
,
Lebanon at the following address:
EMAIL : hgsd@cyberia.net.lb
or by mail to : Po
Box:110208. Beirut
A few ideas in that direction :
A dedicated TV
(satellite) channel run by NGOs that would broadcast
unbiased programs. And
some REAL NEWS.
Ways to increase the reach of NGOs at GRASS ROOT
LEVEL, COUNCILS
LEVEL,
POLITICAL LEVEL. thru NGOs pooling
resources and creating CONTINUOUS
meetings and discussion groups, teach
ins...etc in
schools,universities,unions,clubs, ...etc
Force the
governments(by non violent means) to enter into a discussion
on
its
policies on :globalization,privatization,debt relief to poor
countries,aid to
poor countries....)
Use the law to enforce democracy, whenever , a
politician , or a Trans
National Co ,is braking the law in any
way a court case is instigated.
Work with governments and political
parties in developing countries so
they
are enlightened on matters of
international laws (wto,imf.wb) that will
work against them.
We would
like to hear more ideas about the subject so please spread out
this email to
all the people u have on your list , and we hope that by
the
end of the
year we would have received some good ones we can cooperate
to
realize
together.
best regards Ayman Jallad
HGSD
26.11.2001
.
Brussels: meeting with Commission
Dear
all,
this is just to let you know that unfortunately the European
Commission
is still not in the position right now to confirm the meeting for
monday
morning 10 November. Haitze Siemers from DG Trade has promised to
get
back to me within the next 24 to 48 hours to see who could meet us
on
monday morning. Due to the EU India Summit, they could not get back
to
us earlier. In principle they are open to such a meeting of
course.
I will let you know asap, please watch out for latest
news.
Cheers, alexandra
--
alexandra wandel
trade and
sustainability co-ordinator - europe & middle east
friends of the earth
europe (FoEE)
29, rue blanche - B-1060 brussels -
belgium
fon:+32-2-54201-85 - fax:+32-2-53755-96
e-mail: alexandra.wandel@foeeurope.org
http://www.foeeurope.org/trade/about.htm
27.11.2001
.
New UN statement on intellectual property and
human
rights
COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL
RIGHTS ADOPTS STATEMENT ON
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND HUMAN
RIGHTS
CESCR
27th session
26 Novembre 2001
Afternoon
The
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights this afternoon
completed
its adoption of a 17-paragraph statement on intellectual property
and human
rights.
The Committee, on 27 November 2000, held a day of general
discussion on
article 15.1(c) of the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and
Cultural Rights, the right of everyone to benefit from the
protection of the
moral and material interests resulting from any scientific,
literary or
artistic production of which he is the author, which formed a
basis for the
Committee's drafting of the statement. The Committee also plans
to prepare a
general comment on the subject.
After adopting five out
of the 17 paragraphs this morning, the Committee
Experts continued to debate
their draft this afternoon. Paragraph six of the
draft text was accepted
after an extensive debate and a series of amendments
on the concept of
individual human rights and intellectual property rights.
According to the
text, human rights are fundamental as they derive from
human persons and
intellectual property rights are instrumental, derived
from intellectual
property systems, in that they are a means by which States
seek to provide
incentives for inventiveness and creativity, which society
might benefit
from. Human rights are dedicated to assuring satisfactory
standards of human
welfare and well-being, while intellectual property
regimes, although
traditionally providing protection to individual authors
and creators, are
increasingly focused on protecting business and corporate
interests and
investments.
On the issue of accountability, the Committee says in the
statement, "rights
and obligations demand accountability: unless supported by
a system of
accountability, they can become no more than window-dressing".
While the
State holds the primary duty to respect, protect and fulfil human
rights,
other actors, including non-State actors and international
organizations,
carry obligations that should be subject to scrutiny.
Accordingly, the
adequate protection of human rights needs accessible,
transparent and
effective mechanisms of accountability to ensure that rights
are respected,
and where they are not, that redress is accorded to victims. A
human rights
approach to intellectual property protection requires that all
actors are
accountable for their obligations under human rights law,
specially with
regard to the adoption, interpretation and implementation of
intellectual
property systems.
In dealing with equality and
non-discrimination, the statement says that
human rights are based on the
equality of all persons and their equal
standing before the law. For that
reason, human rights instruments place
great emphasis on protections against
discrimination. Articles 2(2) and 3 of
the Covenant mandate that States
parties undertake to guarantee that the
rights enunciated in the Covenant can
be exercised without discrimination of
any kind and to ensure the equal
rights of men and women to the enjoyment of
all the rights set forth in the
Covenant.
A paragraph in the statement is also devoted to the most
disadvantaged and
vulnerable while designing intellectual property
protection. It says that
States should ensure adequate protection for the
human rights of the
disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals and groups, such
as indigenous
peoples. A human rights-based approach focuses particularly on
the needs of
the most disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals and
communities.
In connection with self-determination, the statement says
that article 1(2)
of the Covenant states that "All peoples may, for their own
ends, freely
dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice
to any
obligations arising out of international economic cooperation."
The
statement says that in negotiating and in adhering to international
treaties
on intellectual property, States should consider how that will
affect their
sovereignty over their resources and ultimately their capacity
to protect
the rights under the Covenant.
The statement says article
15 of the Covenant identifies a need to balance
the protection of both public
and private interests in knowledge. On one
hand, article 15.1(a) recognizes
the right of everyone to take part in
cultural life and to enjoy the benefits
of scientific progress and its
application. On the other hand, article
15.1(c) recognizes the right of
everyone to benefit from the protection of
the moral and material interests
resulting from any scientific, literary or
artistic production of which he
or she was the author. In adopting and
reviewing intellectual property
systems, States should bear in mind the need
to strike a balance between the
concurrent Covenant provisions so that
private interests are not unduly
advantaged and the public interests in
widely accessing new knowledge are
given due consideration.
The
Committee in the statement says that international human rights law
include
the right of everyone to participate in significant decision-making
processes
that affect them; and it supports the active and informative
participation of
all those affected by intellectual property rights and a
frank discussion in
the design of intellectual property systems that
includes all sectors of
society.
The Committee observes in the statement that countries enjoy
differing
levels of development, resulting in different technological needs.
While
some countries might focus on the protection of technology, other
countries
might focus more on facilitating access. It is essential that forms
of
intellectual property protection facilitate and promote
development
cooperation, technology transfer and scientific and cultural
collaboration.
The statement considers of fundamental importance the
integration of
international human rights norms into the shaping and
interpretation of
intellectual property law.
When the Committee
reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 27 November, it will
meet in private to
adopt concluding observations and recommendations on
country reports already
considered during its current session. The
Committee's next public meeting is
scheduled to be at 10 a.m. on Thursday,
29 November, during which it will
adopt suggestions and general
recommendations relating to its work. The
Committee will finalize its
three-week session on Friday, 30
November.
Maan ystävät ry | Jordens vänner i Finland
Eatnama
ustibat | Friends of the Earth Finland
Kirkkotie 6-10 | 20540 TURKU |
FIN
tel +358-2-231 0321 | fax +358-2-237 1670
toimisto@maanystavat.fi
http://www.maanystavat.fi/
http://www.globalisaatio.net/
27.11.2001
.
GATS: EU-wide student- and pupilstrike and
protestdays
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
[GATSCrit] GATS: EU-wide student- and pupilstrike and
protestdays
Date:
Sun, 25 Nov 2001 07:58:18 -0000
From: eustudenten@gmx.net
To: GATSCrit@yahoogroups.com
EU-wide
student- and pupilstrike and protestdays
>From the 10th until the 14th of
December
Newsletter number 5
25.11.2001
In this newsletter you
can read articles about the latest
developments on the protestweek in the
different EU countries and
some practical information for the demonstration
in Brussels (Coaches
to the demonstration, citymap and sleepingplaces in
Brussels). From
the 10th until the 14th of December pupils and students will
protest
all over the European Union against the GATS-treaty and
the
privatisation of education. At December the 14th lots of students
and
pupils will march in an "educationblock" in the demonstration
against
EU politics during the EU summit in brussels. This newsletter
starts
with information about the WTO summit in Qatar.
The
Services-industry is statisfied with Qatar
The services-industry says
it`s very statisfied with the results of
the WTO-summit in Qatar that took
place from November the 9th until
November the 14th.
On services,
ministers acknowledged the work already undertaken in the
negotiations as
well as the large number of proposals submitted by
WTO members on a wide
range of issues. They also reaffirmed the
guidelines and procedures adopted
by the WTO's Services Council in
March 2001 for continuing
the
negotiations.
The ministers added that countries participating in
the negotiations
should
submit initial requests June 30, 2002, for
services market access
commitments they would like to see other WTO members
make. This would
be followed by the submission of initial market access
offers by the
participants no later than March 31, 2003, at which time
the
intensive stage of bargaining would begin.
Benchmarks, Deadlines
Seen as Key
J. Robert Vastine, president of the U.S. Coalition of
Services
Industries,
said his group was satisfied with the outcome from
Doha. "The major
thing for us is that we obtained benchmarks and deadlines
with
respect to the submission of offers," Vastine told on Nov.
19th.
Vastine said the delay in getting to the bargaining phase of
the
negotiations was not necessarily a negative thing. "This will
take
lots of educating, both by industry and governments, on issues
like
transparency and domestic regulation," he noted. "A lot of
people
just don't understand these issues. We will need all that time
to
educate folks, which might end up in the submission of a higher
level
of offers."
The round is being conducted as a single
undertaking, meaning that
even if
a deal on services were clinched early
on, a final deal would be
contingent on completion of negotiations on all
other issues.
The Doha declaration, however, does provide that early
agreements may
be
implemented on a provisional or definitive basis pending
the
conclusion of the round.
Christopher Roberts of the European
Services Forum, which includes
representatives from more than 30 European
services sectors, said his
industry association was "generally happy with the
outcome in Doha.
We knew that, if the WTO negotiations on services are in due
course
to achieve substantial results, we had to have a
round."
"Ideally we would have preferred an earlier start to the
request/offer
process on services," Roberts admitted, "but it is more
important to
have a precise timetable. The services section of the
ministerial
declaration was not a
matter of controversy at Doha. So we
look forward to engaging, from
next year, in a serious and detailed
negotiation."
Moore Optimistic
WTO Director-General Mike Moore
said Nov. 19 that the delay in
entering the
request-offer phase of the
services negotiations was aimed at
ensuring some symmetry between services
and other sectors. "We don't
want any one area to get too far ahead," Moore
said.
What does this mean to us?
The failure of the WTO summit
(Qatar was definitly a failure, they
achieved almost nothing) is that the
participating states didn`t
agree about most items and than decided to extend
the timetable. The
danger for us doesn`t get smaller for us but the
possibillities to
resist against neo-liberal globalisation are getting
bigger. The
privatisation of public services like for instance water
and
education has ofcourse already started but we might stop
these
developments. The GATS-treaty will take care that the situation
will
escalate so we have to stop it! It gave us a lot of hope when
we
heard that students are on strike against privatisation in South
Korea,
Argentina, Brasil and Nicaragua. An studentunion from Uruguay
contacted us
and they want to work together with European students.
They also have created
a Latin-American Network against the neo-
liberal politics. We have are also
in contact with students from
Canada, the U.S.A. and Australia. This
ofcourse means that we can
think about actions and a network against the
privatisation of
education and GATS on a larger than, EU, scale on the
meeting in
Brussels.
The present overview
Demonstration and
international meeting of pupils and students in
Brussels
On December
the 14th the international demonstration will take place
in Brussels. During
a meeting on November the 17th in Brussels it was
agreed on that there will
be a students- and pupilblock (lots of
NGO`s and other groups will
demonstrate against EU politics on
December the 14th)at the demonstration.
The meetingpoint for
the "educationblock" can be regognized by a huge banner
with the
slogan "Public education is not for sale!" on it. Take your
own
banners with you! On our website (webadress below) you can
find
information about coaches (busses) from that will drive to the
demo
in Brussels from different EU countries, about sleeping places
in
Brussels and a citymap of Brussels where the demonstrationroute
is
drawn.
In the evening of the 14th of December the international
meeting of
students and pupils will take place. We want to discuss there
about
the next steps in the campaign against GATS and privatisation
but
also find a political position for the network on wich base we
will
work togheter in the future.
Points of discussion are until
now:
1. Short introduction by EU students
2. GATS and Bologna - what
is connecting these declarations
3. Discussion about the actions from
December the 10th until the 14th.
4. Foundation of a coalition against the
privatisation of education
(finding a political position on wich basis we can
work togheter)
5. Next steps (future actions) in the campaign against
the
privatisation of education.
6. Final round with general questions and
items.
All points of discussion are being introduced by somebody who
will
tell something about the subject. EU students (Dortmund) will
travel
to Sevilla to get informed about the next eU summit in Sevilla
(June
2002). Somebody from belgium will prepare something for the
item
Bologna and somebody from EU students about the GATS-treaty.
EU
Students will also prepare something about the ""orld Education
Market"
that will be held in Portugal in Mai 2002 and where
the "education-industry"
will meet.
14th December:
International demonstration from
Brussels to Laeken
>From the Little Castle (name of the asylum seekers
centre) to the Big
Castle
(the Royal family lives in Laeken).
Leaving
at 11 o'clock from the Little Castle (Watch for the banner:
Education is not
for sale! there will be the educationblock),
bd. 9ième de Ligne,
Brussels
Arrival in the Parc Stuyvenbergh,
Laeken
Netherlands
On the 8th of November there was an action in
the Dutch city of
Leiden there was an action against the commercialisation
of
education. Several commercial billboards where during broad
daylight
taken of the wall of the university-restaurant and brought to
a
company called "Worldwide Baggage Services" at Amsterdam airport.
They
said the the company that they should fly the billboards to
Qatar since they
didn`t want this kind of garbage to hang at the
walls of their university.
For the week of the 10th until the 14th
of December actions are being
planned in several cities. Students
from several cities will also attend on
the international meetin and
demonstration in
Brussels.
Belgium
In Belgium actions are planned on several
universities and ofcourse
there is a massive mobilisation for the demo in
Brussels.
Germany
In Germany the second national meeting of pupils
and students took
place. In almost every region there are meeitings to
prepare actions
for the protestweek. In some cities there will be protests in
some
other cities there are general assemblees to discuss and vote about
a
strike. In the following cities there will be protests:
Berlin,
Dortmund, Bochum, Halle, Kassel, Duesseldorf, Leipzig,
Potsdam,
Frankfurt a/M, Hamburg, Münich, Cologn and lots of other cities.
On
the meeting in Fulda we decided that most local actions will be
on
December the 11th and 12th. From Germany lots of busses will drive
to
the demonstration in Brussels as well.
Spain
In Spain there
are a lot of actions already against the L.O.U. law.
It`s all about
privatisation and the lack of democracy on the
university under this new law.
In Madrid about 200.000 people (!)
demonstrated against this new law. On the
24th and 25th of November
there will be a national meeting of studentgroups
in Zaragoza where
the EU protestweek will be discussed as well. In some
cities students
already decided to strike at December the 12th and to
organise
actions during the strikeday. On December the 13th lots of
students
want to drive to Brussels to attend at the demonstration on the
14th.
Greece
For a lot of Greec students it`s very expensive to
travel to
Brussels. In Greece actions will take place in different cities
as
well.
Great Brittan
In GB there is a massive mobilisation
for brussels and in some cities
there will be protests in the days
before...
Denmark
In Denmark demonstrations will take place in
three big cities under
the slogans: "Education is not for sale - Ffight
neo-liberalism"
and "Education for life - not for the bosses". On December
the 13th
coaches (Busses) with students on board that want to jin
the
demonstration in Brussels will start from the following
cities:
Aalborg, Aarhus, Copenhagen and
Odense.
Dänemark
Austria
In Astria there will be some protests
to. They are also mobilising
for Brussels.
Sweden
In Sweden
there will be actions as well and some groups are
mobilising to the
demonstration in Brussels.
France
In France there are several
groups activly involved in the
protestweek. Here there will be local actions
in several cities and a
massive mobilisation for
Brussels.
Italy
There will be an action in Milan but the Italian
translation on our
website is pretty bad. We try to get in contact with other
groups as
well(Help is always welcome).
Portugal
We have
contact with one group and what will happen in portugal isn`t
clear
yet.
Luxemburg
Here we have had contact with one group as well. We
are pretty sure
that there won`t be any actions in
luxemburg.
Ireland
We don`t have any contacts in Ireland (Please
help us on that one!)
Finland
In Finnland 2 groups will prepare
actions. They are mobilising to
Brussels as well. We have send a mail to the
Finnish studentunion as
well.
Outside the European union
In
Switzerland and the Chech Republic there are groups that will
organise
actions against GATS and the privatisation of education
during the
protestweek.
Stories and announcements
You can send uns your
Stories and announcements of protests so we can
publish them on our website
and in the next newsletter. We are also
still looking for
backgroundinformation about the educationpolicy in
all the EU-member
states.
Website
On our website you can find loads of information
about GATS and the
privatisation and comercialisation of education. You can
also find
detailed information about protests in a city near to you
(We
hope...). Translations in the other EU languages are still
welcome.
Contakt: eustudenten@gmx.net
Mailinglists:
English:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/international-pupil-and-studentactions
German:
http://de.groups.yahoo.com/group/int-schueler-und-studentenaktionen
Dutch:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/int-scholieren-en-studentenakties
Website:
http://www.studi-protest.de.vu/
or
http://int-protest-action.tripod.com/
27.11.2001
.
Alan Oxley: corporate lobbyist at Doha
One of the
corporate lobbyists active in Doha was Alan Oxley.
He was behind the rather
stupid and misleading "Press release by
Pro-Free Trade NGOs", issued on 13
November 2001, Doha,
Qatar, with the title: "Free Trade Progress in Doha
applauded
by Business and NGOs"
You can find Mr. Oxley's evaluation of
the Doha outcome on
<http://www.worldgrowth.org/pages/trade/wg-doha-results.shtml>
According
to the short bio at the end of that article, "Alan Oxley
attended Doha as an
NGO representing the Australian APEC
Study Centre of which he is Chairman. As
founder of
http://www.worldgrowth.org/, he organized
a seminar for business
and pro-WTO NGOs with the Policynetwork
<http://www.policynetwork.net/> on
strategies to support the WTO."
If you have additional info on any of the
above-mentioned
organisations/networks or on Mr. Alan Oxley, please share on
this
list!
Erik Wesselius
GATSwatch <http://www.gatswatch.org/>
27.11.2001
.
FT 24 Nov: Pascal Lamy is the real villain of
theWTO's Doha
meeting
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Pascal Lamy is the real
villain of the WTO's Doha meeting
Financial Times; Nov 24, 2001
By PER
GAHRTON
From Mr Per Gahrton MEP.
Sir, in your editorial on the
World Trade Organisation meeting
in Doha (November 15), you named India as
the "villain" of the
meeting.
Having followed the deliberations as a
member of the European
parliament delegation I would rather consider Mr
Maran, head
of the Indian delegation, as a defeated hero of a common
Third
World cause. I would propose another candidate for the
pejorative
label: Pascal Lamy, trade commissioner of the
European Union.
On the
morning of the last official day of negotiations Mr
Lamy admitted to MEPs
that the EU "is the problem", being at
loggerheads with others on several
crucial points, including
its defence for the protectionist interests of
certain member
countries, such as agriculture, fisheries and
textiles.
But Mr Lamy was not prepared to give an inch to the
demands
from Africa, Asia and Latin America. On the contrary,
he accused those MEPs
who were asking the EU to make
reasonable compromises in order not to be
perceived as a
neocolonial entity in confrontation with the entire
developing
world, of being "deceived by paid manipulators".
Now we
know that Mr Lamy's tactics worked: the EU did not have
to compromise to
"save" the meeting from another Seattle-type
breakdown, because the EU has
the power to twist the arms of
the poor instead of listening to their
arguments against a new
round.
The price: the EU's image as supporter
of fair and green trade
and global solidarity has been replaced, at least in
the eyes
of non-Europeans and non-governmental organisations, with
the
image of a bunch of rich countries determined to remain
richest at all
costs, even that of children's lives in Africa,
Asia and Latin
America.
Per Gahrton, MEP (Greens, Sweden), European
Parliament,
Brussels, Belgium
28.11.2001
.
Pathetic WTO
A good example of the stupid propaganda issued by the WTO is
to be found
on its pathetic "Trade Resources" web site.
Just have a
glance at the "Quotes" section on environment: no single quote
from
environmental NGO representatives. On the other hand, the quotes
section on
services is rife with quotes from corporate lobbyist Pascal
Kerneis
of
the European Services Forum.
Erik Wesselius
GATSwatch <
http://www.gatswatch.org/>
28.11.2001
. EU-governments: "Demonstrations
and other terrorist
acts"
Majority of EU governments want a wide definition of "terrorism",
one
that could include protests
The latest version of the Council's
(representing the 15 EU governments)
discussion on the definition of
terrorism shows that it could cover
protests and other democratic activity as
well as terrorism. The
Council's proposed definition, as discussed at the
Justice and Home
Affairs Council on 16 November, is backed by a "a majority
of
delegations" who want a reference to "terrorist intent" as set out
in
the UN conventions on terrorism (conventions influenced in a major
way
by the USA and leading EU governments around G8) - along the lines
of
"with the aim of intimidating a population or to compel a government
or
international organisation to do or abstain from doing
something".
But:
"Other delegations wanted to restrict this
definition as far as possible
in order to ensure that legitimate action, such
as trade union
activities or anti-globalisation movements, could under no
circumstances
come within the scope of the Framework Decision" (12647/3/01,
14.11.01)
The current draft text thus represents the view of the majority
of EU
governments and reads as follows:
"Each Member State shall take
the necessary measures to ensure that
terrorist offences include the
intentional acts listed below, which may
be seriously damaging to a country
or international organisation, as
defined under national law, where committed
with the aim of:
(i) seriously intimidating a population, or
(ii)
unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to
perform or
abstain from performing any act or
(iii) destabilising or destroying the
political, constitutional or
economic structures of a country or
international organisation"
The concept of "seriously damaging a country
or international
organisation" is nebulous and vague. "Seriously intimidating
a
population" is equally vague and could, in certain circumstances,
be
applied to a large-scale protest. "Unduly compelling a Government
or
international organisation to perform or abstain from performing
any
act"defies reasonable understanding and would appear to cover many,
many
legitimate demands for change as would "destabilising or destroying
the
political, constitutional or economic structures of a country
or
international organisation".
The previous version of 26 October
read:
"Each Member State shall take the necessary steps to ensure
that
terrorist offences include the [intentional] acts list below, as
defined
under national law, where unlawfully committed with the aim of
seriously
affecting, in particular by the intimidation of the population,
or
destroying the political, economic or social structures of a country
or
of an organisation governed by public international law" (the
brackets
[] in original; 12647/1/01, 26.10.01)
The Council position on
the controversial Article 3.f (in the
Commission's draft). The Commission
draft read:
"Unlawful seizure of or damage to state or government
facilities, means
of public transport, infrastructure facilities, places of
public use,
and property"
The Council's new draft
reads:
"causing extensive damage to public facilities, a transport
system, an
infrastructure facility, including information systems, a fixed
platform
located on a continental shelf, a public place or private property
which
may cause massive destruction of such a place, facility or system
or
considerable economic loss"
This version adds "a fixed platform
located on a continental shelf"
presumably referring to oil or natural gas
rigs and re-inserts "or
private property" omitted from the previous
version.
Full-text of European Commission proposal: Text
(pdf)
Full-text of first Council's reaction (12647/01): Text (pdf)
For
full background see: Statewatch "Observatory" in defence of freedom
and
democracy
28.11.2001
. Book on WTO
From:
Arun Goyal <
arung@giasdl01.vsnl.net.in>
You
will be pleased to know that the Fifth Edition of the title "WTO
In
The
New Millenium: Commentary, Case Law and Legal Texts" is now on
sale. The
material is updated till the Doha Ministerial held on 9-14
November
2001.
The Fourth Edition of the title published immediately after
the Seattle
Ministerial in January 2000 proved a best seller and was out of
print in
just two months.
Book
Highlights
1. It covers all multilateral and
plurilateral agreements operating
under
WTO.
2. New chapters on Technology Transfer,
Environment, Biotechnology
and
WTO rules are
added
3. Updated Information and Analysis of
New Issues like Labour,
Investment, Competition, Government Procurement,
Trade Facilitation are
captured.
4. Updated
Information of 237 cases filed at WTO in a logical and
orderly
way.
5. New chapter on WTO Ministerial
Doha, Qatar November 2001.
In short, the book provides a valuable source of
information on WTO
developments upto Doha Ministerial (9-14 November 2001).
It is a big
leap
forward in demystifying WTO. Chapter list enclosed for
detail.
To book a order fill the order form given below and email to us.
The
book
can be delivered in 7-10 days by airmail. Faster delivery by
courier
also
possible.
Bulk orders are welcome. Orders for 100 or more
books will be given 30%
discount. The cover design, logo, etc will be
customised as per
requirements of bulk purchaser.
Please feel free to call
me for more information.
With Regards,
Arun Goyal
28.11.2001
. WTO : THE TRADE-BASED
ORGANISATION OF THE WORLD
CONTINUES
WTO: The Doha
Declaration
DESPITE BRAKES,
THE TRADE-BASED ORGANISATION OF THE WORLD
CONTINUES
>From Marrakech to Doha, the will of industrialised
countries to impose the
ultra-liberal ideology throughout the planet has by
no means withered.
Since the adoption of a set of agreements in 1994 at the
end of the Uruguay
round, agreements that are managed by the World Trade
Organisation (WTO),
this ideology has not lived up to its promises for all of
those for whom the
priority is the fight against poverty through a better
distribution of
wealth, through a reduction of inequalities, through the
pre-eminence of the
rights of peoples over private interests. Economic
indicators have, year
after year, proven that free-trade set up as a dogma
benefits only
industrialised countries. The lack of decisions at the
3rd ministerial
conference in Seattle marked the beginning of a resistance
movement stemming
from the South, a resistance to this imperial desire of the
North. Thanks
to the real progress made by developing countries in
terms of their
expertise and cohesion, the conference which recently took
place in Doha, if
it re-launched the process of trade in goods and persons
has, nevertheless,
limited the declared ambitions of industrialised
countries. But, the corpus
of Marrakech remained unchallenged.
And the courageous resistance of
developing countries will demand new and
important efforts in the coming two
years which separate us from the next
ministerial conference to which some
of the demands of rich countries have
been deferred to.
Doha also gave a brutal lesson to Europeans militating
in favour of a united
world based on law. The hypocrisy and double
language of European
governments and the Commission in Brussels has become a
planetary evidence.
The humanist language voiced in unison and aiming to
hypnotise the good
conscience of the public in Europe and to abuse some of
the governments of
the South was never translated into concrete action at the
negotiation
table. When it comes to making a choice, the European Union
stands side by
side with the US, not with developing countries: protectionism
is acceptable
only when and if it benefits rich countries. The
responsibility of the 15
European governments and of the political parties
supporting them is, in
this regard, complete. All of the European
governments, from Jospin to
Berlusconi, follow the same line, supporting the
mandate granted to Pascal
Lamy and government participation, here and there,
from the communists to
the greens has, unfortunately, changed nothing.
The powerlessness of
citizens to change, for Doha, the mandate which had
already been granted to
the European Commission for the Seattle conference by
the 15 national
parliamentarians and the 15 governments should provoke
thought with regards
to the strategies which should be implemented in the
coming months. The
self-satisfaction expressed after Doha by the
European governments and the
parties supporting them provides a clear
indication of what has yet to come.
THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS: A
PERSISTING OLIGARCHY
Developing countries have made considerable efforts
to prepare Doha, to
analyse the stakes and to express both, their viewpoints
and their
alternatives. In short, they have made the effort to play the
game of
democratic debate taught to them again and again by Americans and
Europeans.
Both Americans and Europeans, however, did all they could to start
of the
Doha conference on the basis of their expectations, manipulating WTO
rules.
The positions expressed by developing countries at various
intergovernmental
summits (of African countries, of the ACP countries, of the
LDC group, of
the Group of 77) or at meetings organised regularly or
informally by the WTO
have been systematically ignored and even denied.
Indeed, the western
media, in collusion with their governments, have been
taking part to a real
occultation of any opinion that differs from the
dominant discourse imposed
by rich countries. The successive drafts of
the ministerial declarations
prepared by the WTO's General Council presidency
were outrageously biased,
excluding any reference to the positions expressed
by developing countries,
in violation to WTO rules. Upon arrival in
Doha, official delegations were
forced to work on a draft declaration that
completely follows the diktats of
industrialised countries. Everyone
knows that entering into a negotiation
on the basis of an adverse position is
the same as being forced into a
situation of weakness.
The
organisation of the work programme at Doha was never carried out with
the
concern of respecting the fundamental rules of democratic debate.
Rather, it
was carried out in a context of power struggles. This was
blatantly
illustrated during the bilateral contacts between rich countries
and
developing countries, the former alternating between promises
and
threats. The persons chosen to represent the chair person during
the
consultations were chosen amongst the partisans of rich countries and
the
issues chosen for consultation were those which correspond to
the
expectations of these very countries. Developing countries had to
fight to
be able to include one of their representatives in order to begin
the
consultations on issues which mattered to them. Despite the fact
that the
negotiations were split into seven groups - which required, from
each
country, a large enough delegation to ensure representation in each of
the
groups - these various consultations, as much as the meetings between
the
heads of delegation, enabled developing countries to voice their
opinions.
This was a progress when compared to the situation in Seattle where
the
delegations from the developing countries - although representing
the
majority - had to wait in the halls for industrialised countries to reach
an
agreement in their name. Yet this time, industrialised countries
could not
- unless they were ready to run the risk of a new Seattle - afford
to
continue the negotiations without including developing countries. It
is
indeed difficult to isolate a country like India whose population totals
1
billion inhabitants. The solution was, rather, to resort to the most
diverse
forms of manipulation.
When it appeared that developing
countries could in fact force rich
countries into agreeing to some
concessions, "informal consultations" were
renewed - a technique that had
often been used in Marrakech and Seattle as
well as in the day to day
operations at the WTO. It is more commonly known
as the "green room" in
reference to the initial colour of the Director
General's office. The
"green room" in Doha was, in fact, the "presidential
suite no. 11". It
is there that the western camp and its allies held
meetings with the most
resilient delegations. It was also the means to
isolate the Indian
delegation from the rest of the negotiations that were
being held during a
part of the decisive night between the 13 and 14
November, a night which
marked the turning point of the Doha conference.
Only 20 of the 144 countries
(China and Taiwan having been admitted during
the conference) were granted
the right to access presidential suite no. 11.
The other countries that had
wished to participate were denied access. A
number of the countries
allowed in were able to be represented only by their
ministers, excluding any
expert who could have shed light on the subjects
discussed. The leaders
of the negotiations took advantage of the confusion
regarding the different
state of the texts to be discussed. Adherence to
the proposed drafts
were bartered against promises of technical assistance,
direct financial aid
or threats of withdrawal of such aid. The charade went
as far as pure
and simple intimidation and persecution of the most
resistant
ministers. The WTO secretariat took active part in the game,
siding with
these practices and completely neglecting its obligations towards
all member
states.
It was at the end of this night that the coalition
of countries gathering
the African and ACP countries and LDC group was
dismantled. ACP countries
obtained the necessary waiver with regards to
the application of the special
trade regime provided for in the Cotonou
Agreement. Yet, despite these
mafia-style methods - indeed, this is
how, with the support of our
governments, the world of trade is being
regulated - a couple of hours
before the end of the negotiations which were
prolonged by one day, some ten
countries still held on to their position when
the heads of the delegations
were all gathered for a meeting. This last
handful crumbled when confronted
to the possibility of being held responsible
for what could be a new
Seattle. India alone held strong and continued
the battle until the last
possible limit. It was able to snatch a
decisive interpretation on the
postponed opening of the negotiations
regarding what is commonly called the
Singapore issues (see below). It
is thus that India gained the contempt of
the French newspaper 'Le Monde'
which accused the country of having
obstructed the process from beginning to
end.
Doha has offered a blatant refutation of the Financial Time's
recent
assertion (09.11.2001) according to which "the multilateral
rules-based
system gives the poor and the weak the same rights as those
granted to the
rich and powerful". The WTO is not a democratic
institution. Its working
methods have produced a system based on power
struggles rather than on the
law. Its reform is more than ever
essential. The outrage experienced by
developing countries should
incite them to consider this reform as the
priority in the next ministerial
conference.
THE CONTENT OF THE DOHA DECLARATION: EVERYTHING BUT
DEVELOPMENT
In order to evaluate the implications of the 'Doha
Declaration', it is
important to recall that there are two types of
negotiations at the WTO.
There are areas which, in virtue of the Marrakech
Agreements, are the object
of quasi-permanent negotiations: agriculture,
services and intellectual
property rights. This is the built-in
agenda. Whether there is a
ministerial conference or not, whether there
is a new round or not,
negotiations on these issues are scheduled and
underway. Only a formal
decision of the ministerial conference could
put an end to this, by changing
its scope or defining the direction to be
taken. The 'Doha Declaration'
gives direction to the negotiations on
these issues.
The concept of a 'new round' thus only concerns
negotiations on other
issues. There is hence - in the Doha programme -
a difference between that
which regards the built-in agenda and that which
regards the new round of
negotiations.
During a USA - European
Union summit last spring in Sweden, the governments
of this Atlantic economic
community had called for a "new ambitious round"
of negotiations in view of
privatising new sectors of life. This wish for a
new "ambitious" round
was confirmed by the 15 European governments last 29
October in
Luxembourg. During an informal meeting gathering some 20
countries a
couple of weeks ago in Singapore and confronted to the hostility
of
developing countries with regards to a new round of negotiations, a
proposal
had been presented to rename the project "an agenda for
development",
without, of course, changing the ultra-liberal proposals
contained
therein. The Doha programme, whether concerning the built-in
agenda or
the new round, is neither ambitious nor devoted to development.
The programme
is limited to a few expectations of rich countries without any
opening
whatsoever for negotiations on the issues forwarded by
developing
countries. As has declared Chakravati Raghavan in the SUNS
(no. 5011 of the
16 November 2001), we can talk about a round of "Everything
but
development".
Articles 1 and 2 of the Declaration reassert
the belief in the virtues of an
absolute free-trade system. This is the
dogma and its implementation is
believed to automatically produce growth and
development. Lyrical wording
follows concerning the fight against
poverty which has recently become the
refrain of the institutions (World
Bank, International Monetary Fund, WTO)
which have contributed the most to
the increase of poverty.
THE BUILT-IN AGENDA
Negotiations on the
three areas of this agenda continue, permanently, at the
WTO headquarters in
Geneva. The 'Doha Declaration' has been limited to
providing
indications as to the direction which should be given to
these
negotiations. It did not question any of the relevant agreements,
contrary
to the demands of developing countries.
Agriculture
This
is the area which concerns the overwhelming majority of the
planet's
population: the small farmers. It is the area which offers the
most amazing
show of hypocrisy from the European Union and the USA.
Together, they
grant, each year and under different forms, 380 billion US$ in
premiums and
subsidies whilst at the same time forbidding, through the
Agriculture
Agreement, the rest of the world from supporting their production
and
exports of foodstuffs (should they have the capacity to do so) and
to
protect their domestic markets against this unfair competition.
Nothing in
Doha was granted to small farmers. Either in the area of
agriculture or in
that of the protection of natural resources and indigenous
knowledge.
(refer to the TRIPS issue) NOTHING. The European Union
took the risk of
provoking the failure of the Doha conference for the sake of
protecting the
European agro-industry and its hyper-productivist model (the
performances of
which are well-known: dioxin, mad cow, foot and mouth,
massive pollution).
Developing countries asked for preferential tariff
treatment and specific
measures for small-scale agriculture through a special
chapter in the
Agriculture Agreement. The European Union led the
opposition to this
demand, summarised in the expression "Development
Box".
The draft declaration mentioned the will to commit to "holding
global
negotiations with the aim of phasing out the export subsidies in view
of
their progressive withdrawal". The European Union, which grants aid
of a
whole other nature than that granted by the US, pushed to introduce
an
additional indication in the text which indicates that what matters is
the
reduction of "all forms" of subsidies. However, the European Union
also
obtained that the phrase "with a view to phasing out" become ineffective
by
introducing the following indication: "without prejudging the outcome of
the
negotiations".
Services
The Doha Declaration
confirms the on-going negotiations, the direction taken
and the objectives
pursued. In spite of the fears expressed by citizens,
nothing formally
indicates that the notion of public service will be
protected against the
will of privatisation, apart from paragraph 7 of the
Declaration which
stipulates that: "We reaffirm the right of Members, under
the General
Agreement on Trade in Services, to regulate, and to introduce
new regulations
on, the supply of services." It has been asserted that this
provision
will enable states to protect the concept of public service,
particularly in
the areas of education and health. It should be noted
that
environmental negotiations which are about to commence (see below)
entail
environmental services which are directly threatened by
privatisation.
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)
The Trade-related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS)
- the extremely
elaborate form of property law - hinders the application of
fundamental
rights: the right to health (A) and the sovereign right of
peoples over their
natural resources (B), a right which is, for that matter,
enshrined in
international instruments adopted and ratified by all states.
The TRIPS
tackles areas of intellectual property (C).
A. With regards to the right
to health and its practical application, that
is, the right to access
essential medicines, a different declaration was
adopted following the
persisting efforts of developing countries, resolutely
united in their fight
presented, quite rightly, as "a matter of life or
death".
In
February 2000, in front of the European Parliament, the European
Commissioner
for international trade asserted, peremptory, that
international property
rights (patents) have no effect on the price of
medicines. The Doha
Declaration adopted in Doha makes note of exactly the
opposite. The
Doha text on the "TRIPS and health" represents a major
political step.
Yet, it contains no legal translation, a point which the
American delegation
did its very best to recall at all times. The problems
posed by patents
in the area of public health and of the fight against
epidemics have been
identified and recognised. States have expressed their
wish to ensure
that the application of the TRIPS does not hinder the rights
of WTO members
to take appropriate measures to enable access to essential
medicines.
They did not question the principle of a patent. A negotiation
is
scheduled in Geneva on the issue of the import of generic medicines.
It
should be finalised before the end of 2002.
B. With regards to the
sovereign right of peoples over their natural
resources and the fight against
biopiracy and the patenting of life, article
19 of the Declaration gives
instruction to "the Council for TRIPS, in
pursuing its work programme
including under the review of Article 27.3(b),
the review of the
implementation of the TRIPS Agreement (. . .) to examine,
inter alia, the
relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention
on Biological
Diversity, the protection of traditional knowledge and
folklore, and other
relevant new developments." Even if the wording does
not open a
renegotiation of the TRIPS as was requested by developing
countries, it does
not put an end to the discussions of article 27:3 b), as
was requested by the
European Union.
The progress witnessed with regards to the TRIPS
(concerning medicines) in
the Doha Declaration should not make us forget that
this Agreement is not
open for renegotiation. According to the demands
of multilateral
pharmaceuticals and of the agro-industry, the European Union
and the USA are
resolutely hostile to such a renegotiation which was
requested by developing
countries.
C. The Declaration announces the
opening of negotiations on the
establishment of a multilateral system of
notification and registration of
geographical indications for wines and
spirits. This is the implementation
of article 23 of the TRIPS
and not its review.
THE NEW ROUND
Under the leadership of an ad
hoc committee, negotiations will be held
between the 01.01.2002 and the
01.01.2005. A ministerial conference will be
organised to take decision
on the results. These negotiations, their
conclusion and the
implementation of their results will be treated as parts
of a single
undertaking. These negotiations will focus on the following
areas:
*
Market access for non-agricultural products: it concerns customs
duties and
tariffs on industrial products. Developing countries and,
more
particularly, the African group, had asked that there be no
negotiation
prior to an in-depth study of the impact of the lowering of
custom duties
and of tariff peaks on the de-industrialisation of developing
countries.
Their voices were not heard. If care is not taken,
negotiations on this
issue could lead to a considerable expansion of
free-trade in the areas that
directly concern sustainable development.
*
* The GATT 1994 (that is, the agreements reached within the framework
of
the former GATT until 1994): the negotiations will focus on the question
of
the implementation of the existing provisions, particularly in the area
of
subsidies (for example, fisheries) as well as the procedures and
disciplines
relating to regional trade agreements.
*
* The environment: negotiations
will concentrate on the relation
between WTO rules and multilateral
environmental agreements. These
negotiations will, however, not bind those
countries which are not signatory
to the agreements. The US is thus
free to act as it wishes and to impose to
others rules that it refuses for
itself. Worse yet, the wording of this
provision shows an implicit
pre-eminence of WTO rules above all other rules
which make up international
law and incites countries to refuse to adhere to
environmental
agreements. The Declaration also announces that the
environmental
negotiations will focus on the "reduction or, as appropriate,
elimination of
tariff and non-tariff barriers applicable to environmental
goods and
services". The way has been paved for the privatisation of
environmental
public services (water, energy, waste . . .). On the other
hand, the
prescriptions with regards to labelling for environmental purposes
have been
transferred to a working group. The priority of sustainable
development
is not presented as a limit to the expansion of free-trade.
*
*
Implementation. It is not a matter of negotiations on new issues
per
se, but rather on the details of implementation of the
existing
agreements. It was a request expressed by the overwhelming
majority of
developing countries in their wish to see that work on
implementation and
its impact would eventually lead to the review of the
existing agreement.
They did not obtain this. No significant progress
has been made concerning
the respect, by rich countries, of the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing,
nor on the abusive use by these very countries of
anti-dumping measures.
*
* The reform of the dispute settlement
mechanism. It is the only
negotiation which will focus on an existing
agreement and on the actual
operations of the WTO. Contrary to the
other issues of the new round, the
deadline for these negotiations has been
set to May 2003. Without
forecasting the direction which the
negotiations will take, it is indeed a
delight to see that a possibility has
been offered to review a mechanism
which has given rise, quite rightly, to
substantial criticism.
It is evident that the impact of this new round is
greatly limited. It
would have been different if the so-called
Singapore issues had been
integrated into the negotiations.
Industrialised countries wanted the new
round to focus on investment (to give
impetus to the Multilateral Agreement
on Investment rejected in 1998),
competition, government procurement and
trade facilitation. Developing
countries - and LDC even more so - were
unanimous in declaring, time and time
again, that they were not ready to
take this big step forward into free-trade
which is turning the planet into
a single market dominated by transnational
corporations from the North.
The entire battle which took place on the
night between the 13 and 14
November concerned these paragraphs of the draft
declaration (20, 23, 26 and
27). During the first days of the
conference, developing countries had
obtained that a decision on these issues
be postponed to the 5th ministerial
conference in 2003. However, under
the pressure of the European Union, they
were reinserted in the programme of
the new round. The only difference
between these issues and the other
issues of the programme is that
negotiations on the former will take place
"after the 5th session of the
ministerial conference on the basis of a
decision to be taken by explicit
consensus, at that session, on the
modalities of negotiations."
It was India's persistence which led to the
presentation, before the
adoption of the Declaration in plenary session, of
the following
interpretation by the chair of the conference: "I would like to
note that
some delegations have requested clarification concerning Paragraphs
20, 23,
26 and 27 of the draft declaration. Let me say that with respect to
the
reference to an 'explicit consensus' being needed, in these paragraphs,
for
a decision to be taken at the Fifth Session of the Ministerial
Conference,
my understanding is that, at that session, a decision would
indeed need to
be taken by explicit consensus, before negotiations on trade
and investment
and trade and competition policy, transparency in government
procurement,
and trade facilitation could proceed. In my view, this would
also give each
member the right to take a position on modalities that would
prevent
negotiations from proceeding after the Fifth Session of the
Ministerial
Conference until that member is prepared to join in an explicit
consensus."
This means that if a member is not willing, in 2003, to
participate to the
consensus, negotiations on these issues will be blocked.
The USA and the
European Union will most certainly forward the fact that the
chair's
interpretation does not have the legal value of the
Declaration. This may
provide jurists with matter for debate even if
the clarification of the
conference's chair is an integral part of its work
and even if no one can
forecast the final result regarding the adoption of
the Doha Declaration had
the chair's interpretation not been expressed prior
to this adoption. Beyond
the legal debate, there is undoubtedly a political
commitment to avoid
forcing any country before opening negotiations on these
issues.
As for the other issues which were not the object of
negotiations
(electronic trade, small economies, debt and finance, transfer
of
technology, technical co-operation and capacity building), they have
been
transferred to WTO working groups. The fundamental
internationally
recognised labour norms remain the exclusive competency of
the International
Labour Organization.
In conclusion, one will note
that, if the operations and rules of the WTO
remain extremely harmful to
developing countries, these have started to
defend their interests.
Negotiations on issues of the built-in agenda will
continue and other
negotiations will start on new issues. Everything will
henceforth take
place in Geneva. A long and difficult battle will have to
be waged for
trade to be at the service of people rather than for people to
be at the
service of trade.
Raoul Marc JENNAR
researcher for Oxfam-Solidarity
and the Research, Training and Information
Unit on Globalization
(URFIG)
21 November 2001
24.11.2001
. daily ministerialbriefings
for NGOs in Doha
Tony Coleman MP
said that the UK was the
only delegation to provide daily ministerial
briefings for NGOs in Doha, not
the only delegation to have NGO reps on
the
delegation and regular NGO
briefings. Does anyone know if that was true?
I
suppose quite possibly as
there would have been relatively few NGOs
present
in Doha from many other
countries.
--
Chris Keene, Coordinator, Anti-Globalisation Network
90
The Parkway, Canvey Island, Essex SS8 0AE, England
Tel 01268
682820 Fax 01268 514164
25.11.2001
.
S2B meeting: update on participants, accommodation,
agenda
etc
Dear friends,
This is to give you a short update
about
1) who is planning to come so far to the S2B meeting
2) the
venue
3) new developments on the agenda and
4) tips for
accommodation
5) lunches and dinners
More practical information will
follow.
1) WHO IS PLANNING TO COME SO FAR?
* Austria Salzburg
Forum against the WTO Matthias Reichl
* Belgium Oxfam S. Raoul
Jennar
11.11.11. Marc Maes
* Denmark ATTAC Denmark Kenneth
Harr
* Finland WTO campaign of the Finnish NGOs Thomas Wallgreen
* France
ECOROPA Agnes Bertrand
ATTAC Christophe Ventura or Pierre
Tartakowsky
* Germany BLUE 21 Thomas Fritz and WEED Peter Fuchs
*
Italy Campagna per la riforma Martin Köhler (tbc)
* Netherlands
Milieudefensie Bertram Zagema, Meike Skolnik
and CEO Erik Wesselius and
Olivier Hoedeman
* Sweden Forum Syd Maud Johansson and or Karin Gregow
*
UK JMG Jon Cracknell
WDM (still to be confirmed)
* European Networks
FoEE, Alexandra Wandel
* CPE Gerard Choplin or Maria
ATTENTION: Please
if you are not listed yet, but still intend to come
please just let me
know.
Please also help to see whom we could still invite from the
following
countries Spain (upcoming presidency), Portugal, Greece and
Irelandand
any other countries?
2) VENUE: 11.11.11. the Flemish North
South Federation has offered to
host the meeting at their venue. Address:
Klasfabriekstraat 11, next to
metro station Porte des Halles (one stop from
Gare du Midi), from the
metro station you walk up the hill on the main street
called Avenue
Henri Jaspar. You will find Klasfabriekstraat/in French Rue de
la
Liniere on the right hand side.
3) AGENDA: please still send me
back your feedback (if you have not done
so). I will then send around a
new revised agenda.
4) ACCOMMODATION: WHERE TO STAY AND HOW TO GET
THERE:
There are various options:
Recommended good places to
stay:
Hotel:
* Hotel Pacific (between 1200 and 1700 BEF, 30-40 Euro),
tel: 02-511 84
59, centrally located and popular place in the centre of
Brussels
Bed and Brekfast:
* ICA, icab@linkline.be, tel: 32-2-2190 00 87, bed
and breakfast for 1
100 BEF. Close by metro Madou, direct line to metro
station Port des
Halles.
* Hostel:
Bruegel , tel: 32-2-511 04 36,
centrally located, with big dorms. Most
participants of international meeting
will stay there. Very cheap.
You can also contact resotel for free
booking at http://www.resotel.com/,
info@resotel.be
FYI: The OWNFS
coalition meeting in the weekend will take place in a
different venue in the
centre of town close to gare centrale.
6) LUNCHES AND
DINNERS
Coffee, tea and water will be available at our meeting for free.
For the
lunch I will order for everyone sandwiches. On Monday evening I
will
make a reservation in a reasonable cheap restaurant. I would like to
ask
you to cover your own expenses for lunch and dinners, as we have
no
funds for the meeting.
That's it for the moment,
thanks!
Cheers, alexandra
--
alexandra wandel
trade and
sustainability co-ordinator - europe & middle east
friends of the earth
europe (FoEE)
29, rue blanche - B-1060 brussels -
belgium
fon:+32-2-54201-85 - fax:+32-2-53755-96
e-mail: alexandra.wandel@foeeurope.org
http://www.foeeurope.org/trade/about.htm
25.11.2001
.
FOEI Doha publications: SALE OF THE CENTURY? THE
WTO's 4TH
MINISTERIAL
SALE OF THE CENTURY? THE WTO's 4TH
MINISTERIAL
Friends of the Earth International has produced a series of
briefings
covering the WTO's 4th Ministerial Conference and the proposed new
round
of negotiations. These briefings examine how the world trade
system
operates (for example, the workings of the WTO and free trade
theory),
what's wrong with it (for example, the impacts of 'free trade',
the
influence of transnational corporations and the failings of the
theory
of comparative advantage) and who are the main winners and
losers from
trade liberalisation. The briefings also cover two sectoral
issues that
services - and assesses current and future impacts of
further trade
liberalisation are currently being (re)negotiated within the
WTO -
agriculture and in these sectors.
The briefings in
this series are:
* The World Trade System: How it Works and What's
Wrong With It
* The World Trade System: Winners and Losers
*
Services: the Implications of Current Trade Negotiations
* Peoples'
Food Sovereignty: Part 1 - the Implications of Current
Trade
Negotiations
* Peoples' Food Sovereignty: Part 2 - a New
Multilateral Framework for
Food and Agriculture
Additional
briefings include:
* The World Trade System: an Activist's
Guide
All these briefings can be accessed from the FOEI website at
http://www.foei.org/
--
alexandra
wandel
trade and sustainability co-ordinator - europe & middle
east
friends of the earth europe (FoEE)
29, rue blanche - B-1060 brussels
- belgium
fon:+32-2-54201-85 - fax:+32-2-53755-96
e-mail: alexandra.wandel@foeeurope.org
http://www.foeeurope.org/trade/about.htm
26.11.2001
.
Query on destruction of US public hospitals
I am
currently writing a leaflet on GATS for consumption by the general
public in
the UK.
I remember seeing a reference to the head of a large US
health-care
corporation vowing to destroy every public hospital in the US,
which
should motivate people here to do something to stop GATS.
But
unfortunately I can't remember where I saw the reference, or the name
of
the corporate head. Does anyone have the reference?
--
Chris
Keene, Coordinator, Anti-Globalisation Network
90 The Parkway, Canvey Island,
Essex SS8 0AE, England
Tel 01268 682820 Fax 01268
514164
26.11.2001
.
NGOs+Civil society
Apologies for cross
posting
This is forwarded from the Lebanese NGO, the Humanitarian Group
for
Social Development.
If you have any ideas please send them to
<hgsd@cyberia.net.lb> and
copy
them to <chris.keene@which.net>
I
would like to share with you some thoughts on the effectiveness
of
the
work of NGOs and how we can improve it.
We have seen some
excellent work done by civil society ,NGOs , groups
all
over the world , I
see them as the consciousness of the planet.
Now, is it enough that
they be just that ? or could they be more?
It seems that they need to be
more, they should be the AGENT FORCING
CHANGE, as we notice the accelerating
detrimental effects of corporate
globalization on democracy, poverty ,
environment,.... in fact the
quality
of life altogether.I see their action
is still, shy , not as powerful as
it
should be, in view of the urgency of
the situation.
The purpose of this email is to gather views and ideas on how
to
increase
the effectiveness of NGOs world wide and make them become a
leverage
voice
in the political scene that can not be ignored.
We
notice that some drastic changes should happen before the world is
put
on
the right track for a sustainable future, one of the things
is
changing
the consumption pattern of people. we cannot survive long
continuing in
the way we consume.
Also we cannot survive long
with humanity increasing the way it is.
These are just a few essential
items , that NGOs and civil society can
work successfully on.
So
the question is what can give a boost to the work of NGOs and
civil
society??
IF YOU HAVE ANY REALISTIC IDEAS. LETS HEAR
THEM
Send them BY EMAIL to : HGSD,Humanitarian Group For Social
Development
,
Lebanon at the following address:
EMAIL : hgsd@cyberia.net.lb
or by mail to : Po
Box:110208. Beirut
A few ideas in that direction :
A dedicated TV
(satellite) channel run by NGOs that would broadcast
unbiased programs. And
some REAL NEWS.
Ways to increase the reach of NGOs at GRASS ROOT
LEVEL, COUNCILS
LEVEL,
POLITICAL LEVEL. thru NGOs pooling
resources and creating CONTINUOUS
meetings and discussion groups, teach
ins...etc in
schools,universities,unions,clubs, ...etc
Force the
governments(by non violent means) to enter into a discussion
on
its
policies on :globalization,privatization,debt relief to poor
countries,aid to
poor countries....)
Use the law to enforce democracy, whenever , a
politician , or a Trans
National Co ,is braking the law in any
way a court case is instigated.
Work with governments and political
parties in developing countries so
they
are enlightened on matters of
international laws (wto,imf.wb) that will
work against them.
We would
like to hear more ideas about the subject so please spread out
this email to
all the people u have on your list , and we hope that by
the
end of the
year we would have received some good ones we can cooperate
to
realize
together.
best regards Ayman Jallad
HGSD
26.11.2001
.
Brussels: meeting with Commission
Dear
all,
this is just to let you know that unfortunately the European
Commission
is still not in the position right now to confirm the meeting for
monday
morning 10 November. Haitze Siemers from DG Trade has promised to
get
back to me within the next 24 to 48 hours to see who could meet us
on
monday morning. Due to the EU India Summit, they could not get back
to
us earlier. In principle they are open to such a meeting of
course.
I will let you know asap, please watch out for latest
news.
Cheers, alexandra
--
alexandra wandel
trade and
sustainability co-ordinator - europe & middle east
friends of the earth
europe (FoEE)
29, rue blanche - B-1060 brussels -
belgium
fon:+32-2-54201-85 - fax:+32-2-53755-96
e-mail: alexandra.wandel@foeeurope.org
http://www.foeeurope.org/trade/about.htm
27.11.2001
.
New UN statement on intellectual property and
human
rights
COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL
RIGHTS ADOPTS STATEMENT ON
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND HUMAN
RIGHTS
CESCR
27th session
26 Novembre 2001
Afternoon
The
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights this afternoon
completed
its adoption of a 17-paragraph statement on intellectual property
and human
rights.
The Committee, on 27 November 2000, held a day of general
discussion on
article 15.1(c) of the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and
Cultural Rights, the right of everyone to benefit from the
protection of the
moral and material interests resulting from any scientific,
literary or
artistic production of which he is the author, which formed a
basis for the
Committee's drafting of the statement. The Committee also plans
to prepare a
general comment on the subject.
After adopting five out
of the 17 paragraphs this morning, the Committee
Experts continued to debate
their draft this afternoon. Paragraph six of the
draft text was accepted
after an extensive debate and a series of amendments
on the concept of
individual human rights and intellectual property rights.
According to the
text, human rights are fundamental as they derive from
human persons and
intellectual property rights are instrumental, derived
from intellectual
property systems, in that they are a means by which States
seek to provide
incentives for inventiveness and creativity, which society
might benefit
from. Human rights are dedicated to assuring satisfactory
standards of human
welfare and well-being, while intellectual property
regimes, although
traditionally providing protection to individual authors
and creators, are
increasingly focused on protecting business and corporate
interests and
investments.
On the issue of accountability, the Committee says in the
statement, "rights
and obligations demand accountability: unless supported by
a system of
accountability, they can become no more than window-dressing".
While the
State holds the primary duty to respect, protect and fulfil human
rights,
other actors, including non-State actors and international
organizations,
carry obligations that should be subject to scrutiny.
Accordingly, the
adequate protection of human rights needs accessible,
transparent and
effective mechanisms of accountability to ensure that rights
are respected,
and where they are not, that redress is accorded to victims. A
human rights
approach to intellectual property protection requires that all
actors are
accountable for their obligations under human rights law,
specially with
regard to the adoption, interpretation and implementation of
intellectual
property systems.
In dealing with equality and
non-discrimination, the statement says that
human rights are based on the
equality of all persons and their equal
standing before the law. For that
reason, human rights instruments place
great emphasis on protections against
discrimination. Articles 2(2) and 3 of
the Covenant mandate that States
parties undertake to guarantee that the
rights enunciated in the Covenant can
be exercised without discrimination of
any kind and to ensure the equal
rights of men and women to the enjoyment of
all the rights set forth in the
Covenant.
A paragraph in the statement is also devoted to the most
disadvantaged and
vulnerable while designing intellectual property
protection. It says that
States should ensure adequate protection for the
human rights of the
disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals and groups, such
as indigenous
peoples. A human rights-based approach focuses particularly on
the needs of
the most disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals and
communities.
In connection with self-determination, the statement says
that article 1(2)
of the Covenant states that "All peoples may, for their own
ends, freely
dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice
to any
obligations arising out of international economic cooperation."
The
statement says that in negotiating and in adhering to international
treaties
on intellectual property, States should consider how that will
affect their
sovereignty over their resources and ultimately their capacity
to protect
the rights under the Covenant.
The statement says article
15 of the Covenant identifies a need to balance
the protection of both public
and private interests in knowledge. On one
hand, article 15.1(a) recognizes
the right of everyone to take part in
cultural life and to enjoy the benefits
of scientific progress and its
application. On the other hand, article
15.1(c) recognizes the right of
everyone to benefit from the protection of
the moral and material interests
resulting from any scientific, literary or
artistic production of which he
or she was the author. In adopting and
reviewing intellectual property
systems, States should bear in mind the need
to strike a balance between the
concurrent Covenant provisions so that
private interests are not unduly
advantaged and the public interests in
widely accessing new knowledge are
given due consideration.
The
Committee in the statement says that international human rights law
include
the right of everyone to participate in significant decision-making
processes
that affect them; and it supports the active and informative
participation of
all those affected by intellectual property rights and a
frank discussion in
the design of intellectual property systems that
includes all sectors of
society.
The Committee observes in the statement that countries enjoy
differing
levels of development, resulting in different technological needs.
While
some countries might focus on the protection of technology, other
countries
might focus more on facilitating access. It is essential that forms
of
intellectual property protection facilitate and promote
development
cooperation, technology transfer and scientific and cultural
collaboration.
The statement considers of fundamental importance the
integration of
international human rights norms into the shaping and
interpretation of
intellectual property law.
When the Committee
reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 27 November, it will
meet in private to
adopt concluding observations and recommendations on
country reports already
considered during its current session. The
Committee's next public meeting is
scheduled to be at 10 a.m. on Thursday,
29 November, during which it will
adopt suggestions and general
recommendations relating to its work. The
Committee will finalize its
three-week session on Friday, 30
November.
Maan ystävät ry | Jordens vänner i Finland
Eatnama
ustibat | Friends of the Earth Finland
Kirkkotie 6-10 | 20540 TURKU |
FIN
tel +358-2-231 0321 | fax +358-2-237 1670
toimisto@maanystavat.fi
http://www.maanystavat.fi/
http://www.globalisaatio.net/
27.11.2001
.
GATS: EU-wide student- and pupilstrike and
protestdays
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
[GATSCrit] GATS: EU-wide student- and pupilstrike and
protestdays
Date:
Sun, 25 Nov 2001 07:58:18 -0000
From: eustudenten@gmx.net
To: GATSCrit@yahoogroups.com
EU-wide
student- and pupilstrike and protestdays
>From the 10th until the 14th of
December
Newsletter number 5
25.11.2001
In this newsletter you
can read articles about the latest
developments on the protestweek in the
different EU countries and
some practical information for the demonstration
in Brussels (Coaches
to the demonstration, citymap and sleepingplaces in
Brussels). From
the 10th until the 14th of December pupils and students will
protest
all over the European Union against the GATS-treaty and
the
privatisation of education. At December the 14th lots of students
and
pupils will march in an "educationblock" in the demonstration
against
EU politics during the EU summit in brussels. This newsletter
starts
with information about the WTO summit in Qatar.
The
Services-industry is statisfied with Qatar
The services-industry says
it`s very statisfied with the results of
the WTO-summit in Qatar that took
place from November the 9th until
November the 14th.
On services,
ministers acknowledged the work already undertaken in the
negotiations as
well as the large number of proposals submitted by
WTO members on a wide
range of issues. They also reaffirmed the
guidelines and procedures adopted
by the WTO's Services Council in
March 2001 for continuing
the
negotiations.
The ministers added that countries participating in
the negotiations
should
submit initial requests June 30, 2002, for
services market access
commitments they would like to see other WTO members
make. This would
be followed by the submission of initial market access
offers by the
participants no later than March 31, 2003, at which time
the
intensive stage of bargaining would begin.
Benchmarks, Deadlines
Seen as Key
J. Robert Vastine, president of the U.S. Coalition of
Services
Industries,
said his group was satisfied with the outcome from
Doha. "The major
thing for us is that we obtained benchmarks and deadlines
with
respect to the submission of offers," Vastine told on Nov.
19th.
Vastine said the delay in getting to the bargaining phase of
the
negotiations was not necessarily a negative thing. "This will
take
lots of educating, both by industry and governments, on issues
like
transparency and domestic regulation," he noted. "A lot of
people
just don't understand these issues. We will need all that time
to
educate folks, which might end up in the submission of a higher
level
of offers."
The round is being conducted as a single
undertaking, meaning that
even if
a deal on services were clinched early
on, a final deal would be
contingent on completion of negotiations on all
other issues.
The Doha declaration, however, does provide that early
agreements may
be
implemented on a provisional or definitive basis pending
the
conclusion of the round.
Christopher Roberts of the European
Services Forum, which includes
representatives from more than 30 European
services sectors, said his
industry association was "generally happy with the
outcome in Doha.
We knew that, if the WTO negotiations on services are in due
course
to achieve substantial results, we had to have a
round."
"Ideally we would have preferred an earlier start to the
request/offer
process on services," Roberts admitted, "but it is more
important to
have a precise timetable. The services section of the
ministerial
declaration was not a
matter of controversy at Doha. So we
look forward to engaging, from
next year, in a serious and detailed
negotiation."
Moore Optimistic
WTO Director-General Mike Moore
said Nov. 19 that the delay in
entering the
request-offer phase of the
services negotiations was aimed at
ensuring some symmetry between services
and other sectors. "We don't
want any one area to get too far ahead," Moore
said.
What does this mean to us?
The failure of the WTO summit
(Qatar was definitly a failure, they
achieved almost nothing) is that the
participating states didn`t
agree about most items and than decided to extend
the timetable. The
danger for us doesn`t get smaller for us but the
possibillities to
resist against neo-liberal globalisation are getting
bigger. The
privatisation of public services like for instance water
and
education has ofcourse already started but we might stop
these
developments. The GATS-treaty will take care that the situation
will
escalate so we have to stop it! It gave us a lot of hope when
we
heard that students are on strike against privatisation in South
Korea,
Argentina, Brasil and Nicaragua. An studentunion from Uruguay
contacted us
and they want to work together with European students.
They also have created
a Latin-American Network against the neo-
liberal politics. We have are also
in contact with students from
Canada, the U.S.A. and Australia. This
ofcourse means that we can
think about actions and a network against the
privatisation of
education and GATS on a larger than, EU, scale on the
meeting in
Brussels.
The present overview
Demonstration and
international meeting of pupils and students in
Brussels
On December
the 14th the international demonstration will take place
in Brussels. During
a meeting on November the 17th in Brussels it was
agreed on that there will
be a students- and pupilblock (lots of
NGO`s and other groups will
demonstrate against EU politics on
December the 14th)at the demonstration.
The meetingpoint for
the "educationblock" can be regognized by a huge banner
with the
slogan "Public education is not for sale!" on it. Take your
own
banners with you! On our website (webadress below) you can
find
information about coaches (busses) from that will drive to the
demo
in Brussels from different EU countries, about sleeping places
in
Brussels and a citymap of Brussels where the demonstrationroute
is
drawn.
In the evening of the 14th of December the international
meeting of
students and pupils will take place. We want to discuss there
about
the next steps in the campaign against GATS and privatisation
but
also find a political position for the network on wich base we
will
work togheter in the future.
Points of discussion are until
now:
1. Short introduction by EU students
2. GATS and Bologna - what
is connecting these declarations
3. Discussion about the actions from
December the 10th until the 14th.
4. Foundation of a coalition against the
privatisation of education
(finding a political position on wich basis we can
work togheter)
5. Next steps (future actions) in the campaign against
the
privatisation of education.
6. Final round with general questions and
items.
All points of discussion are being introduced by somebody who
will
tell something about the subject. EU students (Dortmund) will
travel
to Sevilla to get informed about the next eU summit in Sevilla
(June
2002). Somebody from belgium will prepare something for the
item
Bologna and somebody from EU students about the GATS-treaty.
EU
Students will also prepare something about the ""orld Education
Market"
that will be held in Portugal in Mai 2002 and where
the "education-industry"
will meet.
14th December:
International demonstration from
Brussels to Laeken
>From the Little Castle (name of the asylum seekers
centre) to the Big
Castle
(the Royal family lives in Laeken).
Leaving
at 11 o'clock from the Little Castle (Watch for the banner:
Education is not
for sale! there will be the educationblock),
bd. 9ième de Ligne,
Brussels
Arrival in the Parc Stuyvenbergh,
Laeken
Netherlands
On the 8th of November there was an action in
the Dutch city of
Leiden there was an action against the commercialisation
of
education. Several commercial billboards where during broad
daylight
taken of the wall of the university-restaurant and brought to
a
company called "Worldwide Baggage Services" at Amsterdam airport.
They
said the the company that they should fly the billboards to
Qatar since they
didn`t want this kind of garbage to hang at the
walls of their university.
For the week of the 10th until the 14th
of December actions are being
planned in several cities. Students
from several cities will also attend on
the international meetin and
demonstration in
Brussels.
Belgium
In Belgium actions are planned on several
universities and ofcourse
there is a massive mobilisation for the demo in
Brussels.
Germany
In Germany the second national meeting of pupils
and students took
place. In almost every region there are meeitings to
prepare actions
for the protestweek. In some cities there will be protests in
some
other cities there are general assemblees to discuss and vote about
a
strike. In the following cities there will be protests:
Berlin,
Dortmund, Bochum, Halle, Kassel, Duesseldorf, Leipzig,
Potsdam,
Frankfurt a/M, Hamburg, Münich, Cologn and lots of other cities.
On
the meeting in Fulda we decided that most local actions will be
on
December the 11th and 12th. From Germany lots of busses will drive
to
the demonstration in Brussels as well.
Spain
In Spain there
are a lot of actions already against the L.O.U. law.
It`s all about
privatisation and the lack of democracy on the
university under this new law.
In Madrid about 200.000 people (!)
demonstrated against this new law. On the
24th and 25th of November
there will be a national meeting of studentgroups
in Zaragoza where
the EU protestweek will be discussed as well. In some
cities students
already decided to strike at December the 12th and to
organise
actions during the strikeday. On December the 13th lots of
students
want to drive to Brussels to attend at the demonstration on the
14th.
Greece
For a lot of Greec students it`s very expensive to
travel to
Brussels. In Greece actions will take place in different cities
as
well.
Great Brittan
In GB there is a massive mobilisation
for brussels and in some cities
there will be protests in the days
before...
Denmark
In Denmark demonstrations will take place in
three big cities under
the slogans: "Education is not for sale - Ffight
neo-liberalism"
and "Education for life - not for the bosses". On December
the 13th
coaches (Busses) with students on board that want to jin
the
demonstration in Brussels will start from the following
cities:
Aalborg, Aarhus, Copenhagen and
Odense.
Dänemark
Austria
In Astria there will be some protests
to. They are also mobilising
for Brussels.
Sweden
In Sweden
there will be actions as well and some groups are
mobilising to the
demonstration in Brussels.
France
In France there are several
groups activly involved in the
protestweek. Here there will be local actions
in several cities and a
massive mobilisation for
Brussels.
Italy
There will be an action in Milan but the Italian
translation on our
website is pretty bad. We try to get in contact with other
groups as
well(Help is always welcome).
Portugal
We have
contact with one group and what will happen in portugal isn`t
clear
yet.
Luxemburg
Here we have had contact with one group as well. We
are pretty sure
that there won`t be any actions in
luxemburg.
Ireland
We don`t have any contacts in Ireland (Please
help us on that one!)
Finland
In Finnland 2 groups will prepare
actions. They are mobilising to
Brussels as well. We have send a mail to the
Finnish studentunion as
well.
Outside the European union
In
Switzerland and the Chech Republic there are groups that will
organise
actions against GATS and the privatisation of education
during the
protestweek.
Stories and announcements
You can send uns your
Stories and announcements of protests so we can
publish them on our website
and in the next newsletter. We are also
still looking for
backgroundinformation about the educationpolicy in
all the EU-member
states.
Website
On our website you can find loads of information
about GATS and the
privatisation and comercialisation of education. You can
also find
detailed information about protests in a city near to you
(We
hope...). Translations in the other EU languages are still
welcome.
Contakt: eustudenten@gmx.net
Mailinglists:
English:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/international-pupil-and-studentactions
German:
http://de.groups.yahoo.com/group/int-schueler-und-studentenaktionen
Dutch:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/int-scholieren-en-studentenakties
Website:
http://www.studi-protest.de.vu/
or
http://int-protest-action.tripod.com/
27.11.2001
.
Alan Oxley: corporate lobbyist at Doha
One of the
corporate lobbyists active in Doha was Alan Oxley.
He was behind the rather
stupid and misleading "Press release by
Pro-Free Trade NGOs", issued on 13
November 2001, Doha,
Qatar, with the title: "Free Trade Progress in Doha
applauded
by Business and NGOs"
You can find Mr. Oxley's evaluation of
the Doha outcome on
<http://www.worldgrowth.org/pages/trade/wg-doha-results.shtml>
According
to the short bio at the end of that article, "Alan Oxley
attended Doha as an
NGO representing the Australian APEC
Study Centre of which he is Chairman. As
founder of
http://www.worldgrowth.org/, he organized
a seminar for business
and pro-WTO NGOs with the Policynetwork
<http://www.policynetwork.net/> on
strategies to support the WTO."
If you have additional info on any of the
above-mentioned
organisations/networks or on Mr. Alan Oxley, please share on
this
list!
Erik Wesselius
GATSwatch <http://www.gatswatch.org/>
27.11.2001
.
FT 24 Nov: Pascal Lamy is the real villain of
theWTO's Doha
meeting
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Pascal Lamy is the real
villain of the WTO's Doha meeting
Financial Times; Nov 24, 2001
By PER
GAHRTON
From Mr Per Gahrton MEP.
Sir, in your editorial on the
World Trade Organisation meeting
in Doha (November 15), you named India as
the "villain" of the
meeting.
Having followed the deliberations as a
member of the European
parliament delegation I would rather consider Mr
Maran, head
of the Indian delegation, as a defeated hero of a common
Third
World cause. I would propose another candidate for the
pejorative
label: Pascal Lamy, trade commissioner of the
European Union.
On the
morning of the last official day of negotiations Mr
Lamy admitted to MEPs
that the EU "is the problem", being at
loggerheads with others on several
crucial points, including
its defence for the protectionist interests of
certain member
countries, such as agriculture, fisheries and
textiles.
But Mr Lamy was not prepared to give an inch to the
demands
from Africa, Asia and Latin America. On the contrary,
he accused those MEPs
who were asking the EU to make
reasonable compromises in order not to be
perceived as a
neocolonial entity in confrontation with the entire
developing
world, of being "deceived by paid manipulators".
Now we
know that Mr Lamy's tactics worked: the EU did not have
to compromise to
"save" the meeting from another Seattle-type
breakdown, because the EU has
the power to twist the arms of
the poor instead of listening to their
arguments against a new
round.
The price: the EU's image as supporter
of fair and green trade
and global solidarity has been replaced, at least in
the eyes
of non-Europeans and non-governmental organisations, with
the
image of a bunch of rich countries determined to remain
richest at all
costs, even that of children's lives in Africa,
Asia and Latin
America.
Per Gahrton, MEP (Greens, Sweden), European
Parliament,
Brussels, Belgium
28.11.2001
.
Pathetic WTO
A good example of the stupid propaganda issued by the WTO is
to be found
on its pathetic "Trade Resources" web site.
Just have a
glance at the "Quotes" section on environment: no single quote
from
environmental NGO representatives. On the other hand, the quotes
section on
services is rife with quotes from corporate lobbyist Pascal
Kerneis
of
the European Services Forum.
Erik Wesselius
GATSwatch <
http://www.gatswatch.org/>
28.11.2001
. EU-governments: "Demonstrations
and other terrorist
acts"
Majority of EU governments want a wide definition of "terrorism",
one
that could include protests
The latest version of the Council's
(representing the 15 EU governments)
discussion on the definition of
terrorism shows that it could cover
protests and other democratic activity as
well as terrorism. The
Council's proposed definition, as discussed at the
Justice and Home
Affairs Council on 16 November, is backed by a "a majority
of
delegations" who want a reference to "terrorist intent" as set out
in
the UN conventions on terrorism (conventions influenced in a major
way
by the USA and leading EU governments around G8) - along the lines
of
"with the aim of intimidating a population or to compel a government
or
international organisation to do or abstain from doing
something".
But:
"Other delegations wanted to restrict this
definition as far as possible
in order to ensure that legitimate action, such
as trade union
activities or anti-globalisation movements, could under no
circumstances
come within the scope of the Framework Decision" (12647/3/01,
14.11.01)
The current draft text thus represents the view of the majority
of EU
governments and reads as follows:
"Each Member State shall take
the necessary measures to ensure that
terrorist offences include the
intentional acts listed below, which may
be seriously damaging to a country
or international organisation, as
defined under national law, where committed
with the aim of:
(i) seriously intimidating a population, or
(ii)
unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to
perform or
abstain from performing any act or
(iii) destabilising or destroying the
political, constitutional or
economic structures of a country or
international organisation"
The concept of "seriously damaging a country
or international
organisation" is nebulous and vague. "Seriously intimidating
a
population" is equally vague and could, in certain circumstances,
be
applied to a large-scale protest. "Unduly compelling a Government
or
international organisation to perform or abstain from performing
any
act"defies reasonable understanding and would appear to cover many,
many
legitimate demands for change as would "destabilising or destroying
the
political, constitutional or economic structures of a country
or
international organisation".
The previous version of 26 October
read:
"Each Member State shall take the necessary steps to ensure
that
terrorist offences include the [intentional] acts list below, as
defined
under national law, where unlawfully committed with the aim of
seriously
affecting, in particular by the intimidation of the population,
or
destroying the political, economic or social structures of a country
or
of an organisation governed by public international law" (the
brackets
[] in original; 12647/1/01, 26.10.01)
The Council position on
the controversial Article 3.f (in the
Commission's draft). The Commission
draft read:
"Unlawful seizure of or damage to state or government
facilities, means
of public transport, infrastructure facilities, places of
public use,
and property"
The Council's new draft
reads:
"causing extensive damage to public facilities, a transport
system, an
infrastructure facility, including information systems, a fixed
platform
located on a continental shelf, a public place or private property
which
may cause massive destruction of such a place, facility or system
or
considerable economic loss"
This version adds "a fixed platform
located on a continental shelf"
presumably referring to oil or natural gas
rigs and re-inserts "or
private property" omitted from the previous
version.
Full-text of European Commission proposal: Text
(pdf)
Full-text of first Council's reaction (12647/01): Text (pdf)
For
full background see: Statewatch "Observatory" in defence of freedom
and
democracy
28.11.2001
. Book on WTO
From:
Arun Goyal <
arung@giasdl01.vsnl.net.in>
You
will be pleased to know that the Fifth Edition of the title "WTO
In
The
New Millenium: Commentary, Case Law and Legal Texts" is now on
sale. The
material is updated till the Doha Ministerial held on 9-14
November
2001.
The Fourth Edition of the title published immediately after
the Seattle
Ministerial in January 2000 proved a best seller and was out of
print in
just two months.
Book
Highlights
1. It covers all multilateral and
plurilateral agreements operating
under
WTO.
2. New chapters on Technology Transfer,
Environment, Biotechnology
and
WTO rules are
added
3. Updated Information and Analysis of
New Issues like Labour,
Investment, Competition, Government Procurement,
Trade Facilitation are
captured.
4. Updated
Information of 237 cases filed at WTO in a logical and
orderly
way.
5. New chapter on WTO Ministerial
Doha, Qatar November 2001.
In short, the book provides a valuable source of
information on WTO
developments upto Doha Ministerial (9-14 November 2001).
It is a big
leap
forward in demystifying WTO. Chapter list enclosed for
detail.
To book a order fill the order form given below and email to us.
The
book
can be delivered in 7-10 days by airmail. Faster delivery by
courier
also
possible.
Bulk orders are welcome. Orders for 100 or more
books will be given 30%
discount. The cover design, logo, etc will be
customised as per
requirements of bulk purchaser.
Please feel free to call
me for more information.
With Regards,
Arun Goyal
28.11.2001
. WTO : THE TRADE-BASED
ORGANISATION OF THE WORLD
CONTINUES
WTO: The Doha
Declaration
DESPITE BRAKES,
THE TRADE-BASED ORGANISATION OF THE WORLD
CONTINUES
>From Marrakech to Doha, the will of industrialised
countries to impose the
ultra-liberal ideology throughout the planet has by
no means withered.
Since the adoption of a set of agreements in 1994 at the
end of the Uruguay
round, agreements that are managed by the World Trade
Organisation (WTO),
this ideology has not lived up to its promises for all of
those for whom the
priority is the fight against poverty through a better
distribution of
wealth, through a reduction of inequalities, through the
pre-eminence of the
rights of peoples over private interests. Economic
indicators have, year
after year, proven that free-trade set up as a dogma
benefits only
industrialised countries. The lack of decisions at the
3rd ministerial
conference in Seattle marked the beginning of a resistance
movement stemming
from the South, a resistance to this imperial desire of the
North. Thanks
to the real progress made by developing countries in
terms of their
expertise and cohesion, the conference which recently took
place in Doha, if
it re-launched the process of trade in goods and persons
has, nevertheless,
limited the declared ambitions of industrialised
countries. But, the corpus
of Marrakech remained unchallenged.
And the courageous resistance of
developing countries will demand new and
important efforts in the coming two
years which separate us from the next
ministerial conference to which some
of the demands of rich countries have
been deferred to.
Doha also gave a brutal lesson to Europeans militating
in favour of a united
world based on law. The hypocrisy and double
language of European
governments and the Commission in Brussels has become a
planetary evidence.
The humanist language voiced in unison and aiming to
hypnotise the good
conscience of the public in Europe and to abuse some of
the governments of
the South was never translated into concrete action at the
negotiation
table. When it comes to making a choice, the European Union
stands side by
side with the US, not with developing countries: protectionism
is acceptable
only when and if it benefits rich countries. The
responsibility of the 15
European governments and of the political parties
supporting them is, in
this regard, complete. All of the European
governments, from Jospin to
Berlusconi, follow the same line, supporting the
mandate granted to Pascal
Lamy and government participation, here and there,
from the communists to
the greens has, unfortunately, changed nothing.
The powerlessness of
citizens to change, for Doha, the mandate which had
already been granted to
the European Commission for the Seattle conference by
the 15 national
parliamentarians and the 15 governments should provoke
thought with regards
to the strategies which should be implemented in the
coming months. The
self-satisfaction expressed after Doha by the
European governments and the
parties supporting them provides a clear
indication of what has yet to come.
THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS: A
PERSISTING OLIGARCHY
Developing countries have made considerable efforts
to prepare Doha, to
analyse the stakes and to express both, their viewpoints
and their
alternatives. In short, they have made the effort to play the
game of
democratic debate taught to them again and again by Americans and
Europeans.
Both Americans and Europeans, however, did all they could to start
of the
Doha conference on the basis of their expectations, manipulating WTO
rules.
The positions expressed by developing countries at various
intergovernmental
summits (of African countries, of the ACP countries, of the
LDC group, of
the Group of 77) or at meetings organised regularly or
informally by the WTO
have been systematically ignored and even denied.
Indeed, the western
media, in collusion with their governments, have been
taking part to a real
occultation of any opinion that differs from the
dominant discourse imposed
by rich countries. The successive drafts of
the ministerial declarations
prepared by the WTO's General Council presidency
were outrageously biased,
excluding any reference to the positions expressed
by developing countries,
in violation to WTO rules. Upon arrival in
Doha, official delegations were
forced to work on a draft declaration that
completely follows the diktats of
industrialised countries. Everyone
knows that entering into a negotiation
on the basis of an adverse position is
the same as being forced into a
situation of weakness.
The
organisation of the work programme at Doha was never carried out with
the
concern of respecting the fundamental rules of democratic debate.
Rather, it
was carried out in a context of power struggles. This was
blatantly
illustrated during the bilateral contacts between rich countries
and
developing countries, the former alternating between promises
and
threats. The persons chosen to represent the chair person during
the
consultations were chosen amongst the partisans of rich countries and
the
issues chosen for consultation were those which correspond to
the
expectations of these very countries. Developing countries had to
fight to
be able to include one of their representatives in order to begin
the
consultations on issues which mattered to them. Despite the fact
that the
negotiations were split into seven groups - which required, from
each
country, a large enough delegation to ensure representation in each of
the
groups - these various consultations, as much as the meetings between
the
heads of delegation, enabled developing countries to voice their
opinions.
This was a progress when compared to the situation in Seattle where
the
delegations from the developing countries - although representing
the
majority - had to wait in the halls for industrialised countries to reach
an
agreement in their name. Yet this time, industrialised countries
could not
- unless they were ready to run the risk of a new Seattle - afford
to
continue the negotiations without including developing countries. It
is
indeed difficult to isolate a country like India whose population totals
1
billion inhabitants. The solution was, rather, to resort to the most
diverse
forms of manipulation.
When it appeared that developing
countries could in fact force rich
countries into agreeing to some
concessions, "informal consultations" were
renewed - a technique that had
often been used in Marrakech and Seattle as
well as in the day to day
operations at the WTO. It is more commonly known
as the "green room" in
reference to the initial colour of the Director
General's office. The
"green room" in Doha was, in fact, the "presidential
suite no. 11". It
is there that the western camp and its allies held
meetings with the most
resilient delegations. It was also the means to
isolate the Indian
delegation from the rest of the negotiations that were
being held during a
part of the decisive night between the 13 and 14
November, a night which
marked the turning point of the Doha conference.
Only 20 of the 144 countries
(China and Taiwan having been admitted during
the conference) were granted
the right to access presidential suite no. 11.
The other countries that had
wished to participate were denied access. A
number of the countries
allowed in were able to be represented only by their
ministers, excluding any
expert who could have shed light on the subjects
discussed. The leaders
of the negotiations took advantage of the confusion
regarding the different
state of the texts to be discussed. Adherence to
the proposed drafts
were bartered against promises of technical assistance,
direct financial aid
or threats of withdrawal of such aid. The charade went
as far as pure
and simple intimidation and persecution of the most
resistant
ministers. The WTO secretariat took active part in the game,
siding with
these practices and completely neglecting its obligations towards
all member
states.
It was at the end of this night that the coalition
of countries gathering
the African and ACP countries and LDC group was
dismantled. ACP countries
obtained the necessary waiver with regards to
the application of the special
trade regime provided for in the Cotonou
Agreement. Yet, despite these
mafia-style methods - indeed, this is
how, with the support of our
governments, the world of trade is being
regulated - a couple of hours
before the end of the negotiations which were
prolonged by one day, some ten
countries still held on to their position when
the heads of the delegations
were all gathered for a meeting. This last
handful crumbled when confronted
to the possibility of being held responsible
for what could be a new
Seattle. India alone held strong and continued
the battle until the last
possible limit. It was able to snatch a
decisive interpretation on the
postponed opening of the negotiations
regarding what is commonly called the
Singapore issues (see below). It
is thus that India gained the contempt of
the French newspaper 'Le Monde'
which accused the country of having
obstructed the process from beginning to
end.
Doha has offered a blatant refutation of the Financial Time's
recent
assertion (09.11.2001) according to which "the multilateral
rules-based
system gives the poor and the weak the same rights as those
granted to the
rich and powerful". The WTO is not a democratic
institution. Its working
methods have produced a system based on power
struggles rather than on the
law. Its reform is more than ever
essential. The outrage experienced by
developing countries should
incite them to consider this reform as the
priority in the next ministerial
conference.
THE CONTENT OF THE DOHA DECLARATION: EVERYTHING BUT
DEVELOPMENT
In order to evaluate the implications of the 'Doha
Declaration', it is
important to recall that there are two types of
negotiations at the WTO.
There are areas which, in virtue of the Marrakech
Agreements, are the object
of quasi-permanent negotiations: agriculture,
services and intellectual
property rights. This is the built-in
agenda. Whether there is a
ministerial conference or not, whether there
is a new round or not,
negotiations on these issues are scheduled and
underway. Only a formal
decision of the ministerial conference could
put an end to this, by changing
its scope or defining the direction to be
taken. The 'Doha Declaration'
gives direction to the negotiations on
these issues.
The concept of a 'new round' thus only concerns
negotiations on other
issues. There is hence - in the Doha programme -
a difference between that
which regards the built-in agenda and that which
regards the new round of
negotiations.
During a USA - European
Union summit last spring in Sweden, the governments
of this Atlantic economic
community had called for a "new ambitious round"
of negotiations in view of
privatising new sectors of life. This wish for a
new "ambitious" round
was confirmed by the 15 European governments last 29
October in
Luxembourg. During an informal meeting gathering some 20
countries a
couple of weeks ago in Singapore and confronted to the hostility
of
developing countries with regards to a new round of negotiations, a
proposal
had been presented to rename the project "an agenda for
development",
without, of course, changing the ultra-liberal proposals
contained
therein. The Doha programme, whether concerning the built-in
agenda or
the new round, is neither ambitious nor devoted to development.
The programme
is limited to a few expectations of rich countries without any
opening
whatsoever for negotiations on the issues forwarded by
developing
countries. As has declared Chakravati Raghavan in the SUNS
(no. 5011 of the
16 November 2001), we can talk about a round of "Everything
but
development".
Articles 1 and 2 of the Declaration reassert
the belief in the virtues of an
absolute free-trade system. This is the
dogma and its implementation is
believed to automatically produce growth and
development. Lyrical wording
follows concerning the fight against
poverty which has recently become the
refrain of the institutions (World
Bank, International Monetary Fund, WTO)
which have contributed the most to
the increase of poverty.
THE BUILT-IN AGENDA
Negotiations on the
three areas of this agenda continue, permanently, at the
WTO headquarters in
Geneva. The 'Doha Declaration' has been limited to
providing
indications as to the direction which should be given to
these
negotiations. It did not question any of the relevant agreements,
contrary
to the demands of developing countries.
Agriculture
This
is the area which concerns the overwhelming majority of the
planet's
population: the small farmers. It is the area which offers the
most amazing
show of hypocrisy from the European Union and the USA.
Together, they
grant, each year and under different forms, 380 billion US$ in
premiums and
subsidies whilst at the same time forbidding, through the
Agriculture
Agreement, the rest of the world from supporting their production
and
exports of foodstuffs (should they have the capacity to do so) and
to
protect their domestic markets against this unfair competition.
Nothing in
Doha was granted to small farmers. Either in the area of
agriculture or in
that of the protection of natural resources and indigenous
knowledge.
(refer to the TRIPS issue) NOTHING. The European Union
took the risk of
provoking the failure of the Doha conference for the sake of
protecting the
European agro-industry and its hyper-productivist model (the
performances of
which are well-known: dioxin, mad cow, foot and mouth,
massive pollution).
Developing countries asked for preferential tariff
treatment and specific
measures for small-scale agriculture through a special
chapter in the
Agriculture Agreement. The European Union led the
opposition to this
demand, summarised in the expression "Development
Box".
The draft declaration mentioned the will to commit to "holding
global
negotiations with the aim of phasing out the export subsidies in view
of
their progressive withdrawal". The European Union, which grants aid
of a
whole other nature than that granted by the US, pushed to introduce
an
additional indication in the text which indicates that what matters is
the
reduction of "all forms" of subsidies. However, the European Union
also
obtained that the phrase "with a view to phasing out" become ineffective
by
introducing the following indication: "without prejudging the outcome of
the
negotiations".
Services
The Doha Declaration
confirms the on-going negotiations, the direction taken
and the objectives
pursued. In spite of the fears expressed by citizens,
nothing formally
indicates that the notion of public service will be
protected against the
will of privatisation, apart from paragraph 7 of the
Declaration which
stipulates that: "We reaffirm the right of Members, under
the General
Agreement on Trade in Services, to regulate, and to introduce
new regulations
on, the supply of services." It has been asserted that this
provision
will enable states to protect the concept of public service,
particularly in
the areas of education and health. It should be noted
that
environmental negotiations which are about to commence (see below)
entail
environmental services which are directly threatened by
privatisation.
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)
The Trade-related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS)
- the extremely
elaborate form of property law - hinders the application of
fundamental
rights: the right to health (A) and the sovereign right of
peoples over their
natural resources (B), a right which is, for that matter,
enshrined in
international instruments adopted and ratified by all states.
The TRIPS
tackles areas of intellectual property (C).
A. With regards to the right
to health and its practical application, that
is, the right to access
essential medicines, a different declaration was
adopted following the
persisting efforts of developing countries, resolutely
united in their fight
presented, quite rightly, as "a matter of life or
death".
In
February 2000, in front of the European Parliament, the European
Commissioner
for international trade asserted, peremptory, that
international property
rights (patents) have no effect on the price of
medicines. The Doha
Declaration adopted in Doha makes note of exactly the
opposite. The
Doha text on the "TRIPS and health" represents a major
political step.
Yet, it contains no legal translation, a point which the
American delegation
did its very best to recall at all times. The problems
posed by patents
in the area of public health and of the fight against
epidemics have been
identified and recognised. States have expressed their
wish to ensure
that the application of the TRIPS does not hinder the rights
of WTO members
to take appropriate measures to enable access to essential
medicines.
They did not question the principle of a patent. A negotiation
is
scheduled in Geneva on the issue of the import of generic medicines.
It
should be finalised before the end of 2002.
B. With regards to the
sovereign right of peoples over their natural
resources and the fight against
biopiracy and the patenting of life, article
19 of the Declaration gives
instruction to "the Council for TRIPS, in
pursuing its work programme
including under the review of Article 27.3(b),
the review of the
implementation of the TRIPS Agreement (. . .) to examine,
inter alia, the
relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention
on Biological
Diversity, the protection of traditional knowledge and
folklore, and other
relevant new developments." Even if the wording does
not open a
renegotiation of the TRIPS as was requested by developing
countries, it does
not put an end to the discussions of article 27:3 b), as
was requested by the
European Union.
The progress witnessed with regards to the TRIPS
(concerning medicines) in
the Doha Declaration should not make us forget that
this Agreement is not
open for renegotiation. According to the demands
of multilateral
pharmaceuticals and of the agro-industry, the European Union
and the USA are
resolutely hostile to such a renegotiation which was
requested by developing
countries.
C. The Declaration announces the
opening of negotiations on the
establishment of a multilateral system of
notification and registration of
geographical indications for wines and
spirits. This is the implementation
of article 23 of the TRIPS
and not its review.
THE NEW ROUND
Under the leadership of an ad
hoc committee, negotiations will be held
between the 01.01.2002 and the
01.01.2005. A ministerial conference will be
organised to take decision
on the results. These negotiations, their
conclusion and the
implementation of their results will be treated as parts
of a single
undertaking. These negotiations will focus on the following
areas:
*
Market access for non-agricultural products: it concerns customs
duties and
tariffs on industrial products. Developing countries and,
more
particularly, the African group, had asked that there be no
negotiation
prior to an in-depth study of the impact of the lowering of
custom duties
and of tariff peaks on the de-industrialisation of developing
countries.
Their voices were not heard. If care is not taken,
negotiations on this
issue could lead to a considerable expansion of
free-trade in the areas that
directly concern sustainable development.
*
* The GATT 1994 (that is, the agreements reached within the framework
of
the former GATT until 1994): the negotiations will focus on the question
of
the implementation of the existing provisions, particularly in the area
of
subsidies (for example, fisheries) as well as the procedures and
disciplines
relating to regional trade agreements.
*
* The environment: negotiations
will concentrate on the relation
between WTO rules and multilateral
environmental agreements. These
negotiations will, however, not bind those
countries which are not signatory
to the agreements. The US is thus
free to act as it wishes and to impose to
others rules that it refuses for
itself. Worse yet, the wording of this
provision shows an implicit
pre-eminence of WTO rules above all other rules
which make up international
law and incites countries to refuse to adhere to
environmental
agreements. The Declaration also announces that the
environmental
negotiations will focus on the "reduction or, as appropriate,
elimination of
tariff and non-tariff barriers applicable to environmental
goods and
services". The way has been paved for the privatisation of
environmental
public services (water, energy, waste . . .). On the other
hand, the
prescriptions with regards to labelling for environmental purposes
have been
transferred to a working group. The priority of sustainable
development
is not presented as a limit to the expansion of free-trade.
*
*
Implementation. It is not a matter of negotiations on new issues
per
se, but rather on the details of implementation of the
existing
agreements. It was a request expressed by the overwhelming
majority of
developing countries in their wish to see that work on
implementation and
its impact would eventually lead to the review of the
existing agreement.
They did not obtain this. No significant progress
has been made concerning
the respect, by rich countries, of the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing,
nor on the abusive use by these very countries of
anti-dumping measures.
*
* The reform of the dispute settlement
mechanism. It is the only
negotiation which will focus on an existing
agreement and on the actual
operations of the WTO. Contrary to the
other issues of the new round, the
deadline for these negotiations has been
set to May 2003. Without
forecasting the direction which the
negotiations will take, it is indeed a
delight to see that a possibility has
been offered to review a mechanism
which has given rise, quite rightly, to
substantial criticism.
It is evident that the impact of this new round is
greatly limited. It
would have been different if the so-called
Singapore issues had been
integrated into the negotiations.
Industrialised countries wanted the new
round to focus on investment (to give
impetus to the Multilateral Agreement
on Investment rejected in 1998),
competition, government procurement and
trade facilitation. Developing
countries - and LDC even more so - were
unanimous in declaring, time and time
again, that they were not ready to
take this big step forward into free-trade
which is turning the planet into
a single market dominated by transnational
corporations from the North.
The entire battle which took place on the
night between the 13 and 14
November concerned these paragraphs of the draft
declaration (20, 23, 26 and
27). During the first days of the
conference, developing countries had
obtained that a decision on these issues
be postponed to the 5th ministerial
conference in 2003. However, under
the pressure of the European Union, they
were reinserted in the programme of
the new round. The only difference
between these issues and the other
issues of the programme is that
negotiations on the former will take place
"after the 5th session of the
ministerial conference on the basis of a
decision to be taken by explicit
consensus, at that session, on the
modalities of negotiations."
It was India's persistence which led to the
presentation, before the
adoption of the Declaration in plenary session, of
the following
interpretation by the chair of the conference: "I would like to
note that
some delegations have requested clarification concerning Paragraphs
20, 23,
26 and 27 of the draft declaration. Let me say that with respect to
the
reference to an 'explicit consensus' being needed, in these paragraphs,
for
a decision to be taken at the Fifth Session of the Ministerial
Conference,
my understanding is that, at that session, a decision would
indeed need to
be taken by explicit consensus, before negotiations on trade
and investment
and trade and competition policy, transparency in government
procurement,
and trade facilitation could proceed. In my view, this would
also give each
member the right to take a position on modalities that would
prevent
negotiations from proceeding after the Fifth Session of the
Ministerial
Conference until that member is prepared to join in an explicit
consensus."
This means that if a member is not willing, in 2003, to
participate to the
consensus, negotiations on these issues will be blocked.
The USA and the
European Union will most certainly forward the fact that the
chair's
interpretation does not have the legal value of the
Declaration. This may
provide jurists with matter for debate even if
the clarification of the
conference's chair is an integral part of its work
and even if no one can
forecast the final result regarding the adoption of
the Doha Declaration had
the chair's interpretation not been expressed prior
to this adoption. Beyond
the legal debate, there is undoubtedly a political
commitment to avoid
forcing any country before opening negotiations on these
issues.
As for the other issues which were not the object of
negotiations
(electronic trade, small economies, debt and finance, transfer
of
technology, technical co-operation and capacity building), they have
been
transferred to WTO working groups. The fundamental
internationally
recognised labour norms remain the exclusive competency of
the International
Labour Organization.
In conclusion, one will note
that, if the operations and rules of the WTO
remain extremely harmful to
developing countries, these have started to
defend their interests.
Negotiations on issues of the built-in agenda will
continue and other
negotiations will start on new issues. Everything will
henceforth take
place in Geneva. A long and difficult battle will have to
be waged for
trade to be at the service of people rather than for people to
be at the
service of trade.
Raoul Marc JENNAR
researcher for Oxfam-Solidarity
and the Research, Training and Information
Unit on Globalization
(URFIG)
21 November 2001