|
|
Guardian
Talk International
The End of the WTO - official |
You are logged in
as guest. (Log in) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You need to log in
to post messages. |
Started by SysOut at 08:00pm May 23, 2002 BST read first message for announcement (click TOP)
SysOut - 08:01pm May 23, 2002 BST (#1 of 25) From: World Trade
Organisation Public Relations <communications@gatt.org> Subject: WTO
to shut down, refound under new charter
[NOTE: On May 21, information regarding the WTO's restructuring was
released prematurely at a special luncheon of CPA Australia, Sydney
(http://www.aapmedianet.com.au/scripts/DisplayRelease.dll?id=304601). The
early release of this information, which met with overwhelming approval,
has accelerated this announcement, originally scheduled for next Friday.]
May 23, 2002 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION WILL DISBAND, REFOUND UNDER NEW CHARTER
After a protracted and detailed review of current trade policy and its
effects on developing countries, the World Trade Organization has decided
to effect a cessation of all operations, to be accomplished over a period
of four months, culminating in September. The WTO will SysOut - 08:02pm May 23, 2002 BST (#2 of 25) reintegrate as a new trade
body whose charter will be to ensure that trade benefits the poor.
As of September, agreements reached under the WTO will be suspended
pending ratification by the new organization, tentatively referred to as
the Trade Regulation Organization. Many existing agreements are likely to
be re-ratified, but each will be subject to individual review for
compliance with the TRO's charter, which is based upon the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
The restructuring has come in response to numerous studies
(http://www.gatt.org/trastat_e/) indicating that current trade
liberalisation rules and policies have led to increased poverty and
inequality, and have eroded democratic principles, with a
disproportionately large effect on the poorest countries.
Under the restructuring, the GATS agreement will be scrapped entirely,
and a new agreement regulating services will be forged after an assessment
of the effects of past services liberalisation, and when there has been
adequate opportunity for governments and civil society to analyse and
debate new proposals. SysOut - 08:02pm May 23, 2002 BST (#3 of 25) In addition, all aspects of
TRIPS, TRIMS, AoA, and other agreements will be reviewed with humanitarian
and other considerations in mind, and will be progressively replaced with
corresponding versions under the TRO.
Proposals and resolutions for the foundation of the TRO will be
evaluated beginning in June according to their likelihood of furthering
the TRO charter. Specifically this will mean redressing the imbalances of
existing trade agreements; providing access for developing countries to
developed countries? markets; assessing the effects past trade
liberalization and redressing problems where possible; and developing an
enforceable framework for special and differential treatment guaranteeing
that development policies are not undermined by trade agreements.
The immediate necessity, besides fixing core problems, will be to build
a new regime of trust among members (notably between HIC and LDC members),
with civil society organizations (NGOs), and with members of the public.
The core goal is to establish rules whose priority is to benefit the poor,
improve the environment, and strengthen democratic SysOut - 08:03pm May 23, 2002 BST (#4 of 25) principles--in a pragmatic
and immediate rather than theoretical and longterm sense.
In order to provide greater access to the Least Developed Countries who
will most benefit from the existence of the TRO, the organisation's
headquarters will be moved from their current location in Geneva to the
capital of one of the LDCs. Proposals for final location are currently
being solicited.
CONTACTS:
World Trade Organization Public Relations: communications@gatt.org CPA
Australia Public Relations: barbara.magee@cpaaustralia.com.au
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Studies page: http://www.gatt.org/trastat_e/
This release online: http://www.gatt.org/ Raskolnikov123 - 08:19pm May 23, 2002 BST (#5 of 25) Interesting stunt. How did
you spoof the address? That is one of the better hoaxes I have seen.
SysOut - 08:28pm May 23, 2002 BST (#6 of 25) The real thing, of course http://www.wto.org/
Just something a pen friend sent me... Raskolnikov123 - 08:35pm May 23, 2002 BST (#7 of 25) Did they just register a
gatt.org site and copy most of the content from the wto.org site? It
actually had me wondering if I had completely missed a major change in
international economic diplomacy, for about 10 seconds. 300mmWafers - 08:35pm May 23, 2002 BST (#8 of 25) yeah. Freaky. SysOut - 08:37pm May 23, 2002 BST (#9 of 25) Ahhh! If only it were true!
<dreams on about a better world> 300mmWafers - 08:39pm May 23, 2002 BST (#10 of 25) Yeah - Abolish the WTO,
Tariffs for Everyone!! JoStoyte - 08:42pm May 23, 2002 BST (#11 of 25) For a moment there, I was
about to re-evaluate everything I believed about western governments and
corporations. 300mmWafers - 08:44pm May 23, 2002 BST (#12 of 25) Well, seeing your views on
other threads, that still could be a good idea. JoStoyte - 08:45pm May 23, 2002 BST (#13 of 25) Nah, I'd love to have a
reason to re-evaluate what I think, but I haven't found one yet.
300mmWafers - 08:47pm May 23, 2002 BST (#14 of 25) Ok, a query then - does trade
liberalization benefit or hinder economic development? JoStoyte - 08:50pm May 23, 2002 BST (#15 of 25) If there was perfect trade
liberalisation, it would benefit economic development, yes. But:
1) It is far from perfect. The rich countries dictate terms. The USA
has slapped protective tariffs on steel, agriculture and a whole load of
other products. As has Europe.
2)Economic development is not everything. A developing country needs to
get it's infrastructure right before even thinking about economic growth.
Forcing coutries to liberalise their health, education, water and
electricity supplies when they are still developing makes poor people far
poorer. 300mmWafers - 08:53pm May 23, 2002 BST (#16 of 25) 1). Agree - but, given the
completely unequal balance of political, does it not therefore dictate the
need for a multilateral organization to lower developed countries' tariff
barriers?
2) How so? Does the import / export of goods and services affect how
countries tax, provide social services, etc? Are you not confusing trade
liberalization with government austerity budgeting and privatization?
Raskolnikov123 - 08:55pm May 23, 2002 BST (#17 of 25)
I am not quite sure what you are saying here. Liberalization is bad
because it cannot be perfect? You seem to picture a world where perfect
liberalization is good, imperfect liberalization is better, and some
unknown third option is in between. What are you proposing?
This is a separate issue from trade liberalization. The IMF often
forces austerity measures in order to give countries financial aid, but no
one forces countries to privatize in order to trade. JoStoyte - 09:07pm May 23, 2002 BST (#18 of 25) No, countries are often given
loans, with the condition that they must liberalise their water, electric
system, healthcare and education systems. Then westen companies come in,
take over the public services and the cost goes up, so people are left
without basics. Countries often have no choice.
But I have argued about this so many times on GU that I can't be
bothered re-stating arguments. Read George Soros, On globalization
George Soros is hardly a left wing radical, and he makes a lot great
points. 300mmWafers - 09:12pm May 23, 2002 BST (#19 of 25) Again, you're talking about
gov't deficit financing. What does that have to do with trade
liberalization? 300mmWafers - 09:13pm May 23, 2002 BST (#20 of 25) Actually, Soros doesn't talk
at all about trade liberalization. His beef is with unregulated capital
markets and its effect on gov't sovereignity. JoStoyte - 09:16pm May 23, 2002 BST (#21 of 25) I've just told you. That's
what trade liberalisation is
Opening your markets. All your markets.
i no one forces countries to privatize in order to trade
Don't they? Well, Cuba has resisted so far. Is the trade embargo still
in place? Venezuala resisted, there was a US backed coup. Iran
nationalised it's oil industry - there was a westen backed coup.
JoStoyte - 09:17pm May 23, 2002 BST (#22 of 25) #20 It's the same thing, or
at least two sides of teh same coin JoStoyte - 09:22pm May 23, 2002 BST (#23 of 25) Trade and financial
markets generate wealth effectively but cannot take care of other social
needs.
A quote from Soros:
http://www.soros.org/textfiles/writings/103001_The_Free_Market_for_Hope.txt
Raskolnikov123 - 09:53pm May 23, 2002 BST (#24 of 25)
This is a very skewed view of history. Following your logic, why isn't
the US launching an embargo on Norway, with its publicly controlled oil?
300mmWafers - 09:23am May 24, 2002 BST (#25 of 25) Or England, when it
nationalized its automotive industry, or France / Germany / UK / etc with
their nationalized mass transit & public health systems, or India,
with its 30 years of socialist policy, or every LDC that followed input
substitution trade policies for over 20 years, or Brazil, with massively
high tariff barriers on automobiles, computers, and many other goods, etc
etc etc. |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||