Sender en artikkel av Martin Khor (Third World Network) som
oppsummerer situasjonen mht WTO ett år etter Seattle. Denne mener jeg
er godt egnet for KK. Jeg skulle gjerne oversatt den sjøl, men det er
ikke mulig før tidligst mandag (og jeg har andre ting jeg gjerne også
skulle skrevet for avisa før den tid). Om noen andre har anledning
ville det vært utmerket.
Hvordan er rutinene med å kontakte artikkelforfatteren i slike
tilfelle?
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 12:25:49 -0500 (EST)
To: adhoc-L@undp.org
From: Martin Khor <mkkp@pd.jaring.my>
Organization: Third World Network <twnet@po.jaring.my>
Subject: [mai] TWN Report: WTO Since Seattle
TWN AND SUNS INFO SERVICE ON WTO ISSUES
9 Dec 2000
Dear friends and colleagues:
TWN REPORT ON WTO SITUATION A YEAR SINCE SEATTLE
Attached is a report of TWN briefly outlining the situation at
the WTO in the year since the failure of the Seattle WTO meeting.
Although statements were made by a number of Trade Ministers of
developed countries pledging to improve the situation, in reality
there has been no progress to remedy the weaknesses in the WTO
and in many ways the situation has worsened.
The report below points out the ways in which the situation
worsened, and gives some points on what needs to be done.
Your feedback on this report is most welcome.
Your feedback on this report is most welcome.
Your feedback on this report is most welcome.
A shorter version of this report was published in the South-North
Development Monitor (SUNS) on 5 December 2000.
(Please see Notes at end of report for more information).
With best wishes
Martin Khor
Third World Network
-=-=-
A Third World Network Report (December 2000)
THE SITUATION AT WTO A YEAR SINCE SEATTLE
By Martin Khor (Director, TWN)
PART I: THE DIVISIONS AT SEATTLE
One year has gone by since the World Trade Organisation's
Ministerial Conference collapsed at Seattle in December 1999.
In large part, the failure of the Seattle meeting to reach a
Conclusion was due to deep divisions between developing and
developed countries. The developing countries had become
disillusioned with their lack of export benefits from their WTO
membership (as markets in the North remain protected, especially
in agriculture and textiles and through barriers such as
anti-dumping measures).
They were also encountering serious problems implementing their
obligations in various agreements such as agriculture, TRIPS
(intellectual property), TRIMS (investment measures), and
subsidies. However, their requests before and at Seattle to have
the WTO agreements reviewed were not taken seriously.
Instead, developed countries wanted to introduce new subjects
into the WTO, such as an investment agreement, transparency in
government procurement, competition, labour standards, rules
relating to the environment, a biotechnology working group. They
also wanted to launch a "comprehensive" New Round to bring these
issues inside. Only through such a Round would they consider the
developing countries' requests for a review of existing rules.
Many developing countries felt a review must come first, to
correct the WTO's serious imbalances, and rejected the New Round
which would make the WTO even much more imbalanced. At Seattle,
the undemocratic procedures also angered developing countries,
many of which made clear they would not agree to a Declaration in
which they had little part in negotiating. The meeting collapsed
without a Declaration.
Meanwhile, five years after the WTO's establishment, many NGOs
had also learnt about the negative effects the WTO is having on
development, sovereignty, food security, the environment and
livelihoods. Their protests on the streets of Seattle marked a
turning point in public awareness and expression on the kind of
globalisation promoted by the existing WTO rules and system.
PART II: THE SITUATION IN THE YEAR SINCE SEATTLE
After the Seattle debacle, the developed countries and the
Secretariat said they would improve the WTO's performance and
battered image through 'confidence building measures'. This
implied that the grievances of developing countries would be
taken seriously.
But one year later, there has been little or no progress, and the
situation has not improved or has worsened.
** 1. The major developed countries have not shown any
seriousness in addressing the plight of developing countries and
turned away their continuing appeals for reviewing the WTO
agreements.
The WTO has been holding special General Council sessions to deal
with 'implementation issues', (i.e. the problems faced by
developing countries in implementing the WTO agreements), and
many developing countries have put forward clear requests and
demands for reviewing several WTO rules.
But these have met with either no response or a cold response
from the developed countries, which have chosen to adopt the
position that the agreements are legally binding and once signed
cannot be changed, and any problems can be looked at only in the
context of a new round, including new issues that would involve
new commitments and obligations.
** 2. Since the 'grace period' or the transition period (during
which developing countries do not yet have to fulfil their
obligations) for some agreements (such as TRIPS and TRIMS) have
expired at the beginning of 2000, the negative effects of having
to implement the flawed agreements are beginning to 'bite'
painfully, and the ill effects will worsen as the implementation
proceeds in the months and years ahead.
** 3. Developing countries had asked that during the present
period when the implementation issues are being discussed,
developed countries should not take them to a dispute panel for
not following certain rules. Although the developed countries had
at one stage seemed to agree to such a 'moratorium,' in fact more
and more cases have been brought against some developing
countries.
This has caused developing countries to be even more
disillusioned, and has added to the breakdown of the
'confidence-building process.'
** 4. The concerns of many developing countries and of NGOs that
the WTO rules will lead to a wide range of serious problems have
not been addressed. These problems include: threats to
livelihoods of farmers and workers, threats to the survival of
small farms and small enterprises, threats to food security and
national sovereignty, misappropriation of the traditional
knowledge of local communities through 'biopiracy.' There has
been no sincere attempts by the major powers to deal with these
serious issues.
** 5. Instead the major powers have been intensifying their
efforts once again to launch a New Round through which to forge
more agreements in new areas such as investment, government
procurement, competition, labour and environment. The US and EU
are trying to bridge their own differences and once they succeed
in doing that, they will use their combined might to push a New
Round launch onto other countries, as early as 2001 when another
WTO Ministerial is scheduled.
** 6. The major powers have also increased the pressures on
developing countries to take on new onerous obligations on these
'new issues' through regional arrangements such as APEC, AGOA
(the US Africa Growth and Opportunity Act) and through bilateral
trade agreements.
** 7. The present agriculture negotiations at the WTO have not
produced any positive results. Farmers in developing countries
are facing threats to their livelihoods as cheaper imports flood
their markets. Developed countries have not responded to the call
by many developing countries that they be allowed to take
measures to control food imports or to increase domestic
subsidies to food-producing farmers. Moreover, developed
countries show no signs of being willing to reduce own very high
subsidies and tariffs. Indeed the total value of agriculture
subsidies of OECD countries has gone up in recent years.
** 8. At the current services negotiations, intense pressures
are being put by developed countries to have all countries
accelerate their liberalisation. They are using concepts such as
'domestic regulation' and methods such as reclassification of
services, and the "cluster approach" to reduce the ability to
governments to regulate their services sector. Several NGOs have
also voiced concern about the intrusion of the WTO into national
policies on essential services such as health, education and
provision of water, and they want these sectors to be 'off
limits'; but the negotiations continue to treat these as any
other areas for market opening and liberalisation.
Trade officials are arguing that government provided services are
not covered by the GATS, but this is somewhat misleading since
the GATS disciplines will apply where in any country private
domestic services operate in competition with or complementary to
public sector services.
** 9. In relation to the TRIPS agreement, developing countries
have requested for the transition period (before implementation)
to be extended until the present mandated process of reviewing
the agreement is completed.
Many developing countries (including the Africa Group) have also
put forward concrete proposals for amending TRIPS to prevent the
patenting of life forms and to allow developing countries the
right to protect the rights of local communities so that their
resources and knowledge will not be patented by big companies of
the developed countries. But so far there has been negative
response from developed countries. Instead hundreds of cases of
'biopiracy' are taking place.
** 10. Many developing countries have asked for more time to
comply with the WTO's prohibition against using investment
measures such as 'local content policy' (that requires projects
or industries to make use of local materials). They have
requested that the WTO decide to relax the implementation
schedule for developing countries as a whole, on a multilateral
basis.
So far, however, the developed countries have instead insisted
that each request for extension be treated on a case-by-case
basis, and in 'bilateral consultations' seek to extract more
concessions, and place onerous conditions on those seeking
extension. Complaints have also been lodged against some of the
countries, in an effort to pressure them.
** 11. Over the past year or two, the dispute settlement process
has been shown to be seriously flawed, affecting the credibility
of the whole WTO system. In some cases, the panels and the
Appellate Body have strayed beyond their jurisdiction and have
used specious arguments about "treaty interpreter's rights" into
rule-making (the prerogative of WTO Members through the General
Council or Ministerial Conference).
Many of these decisions have created new obligations for
developing countries and reduced their rights and thus further
constricting the policy options of developing countries to
promote development, thus acting against the legitimate interests
of these countries. And there is some evidence of the excessive
influence and role of the WTO Secretariat in the dispute
settlement process, in violation of all legal and judicial norms.
The US and appellate body initiatives to open the dispute process
and enable amicus curiae briefs are 'red herring' attempts at
distracting attention from needed reforms.
The above indicative list shows that there has been little or no
progress since Seattle to make the WTO rules and system more
appropriate to the needs and interests of developing countries.
This has further eroded the WTO's credibility with the policy
makers and the public in developing countries.
PART III: SOME MEASURES REQUIRED TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION
For the situation to improve, the developed countries have to
show much more serious commitment to meeting the demands of
developing countries. In particular developed countries need to
take some urgent steps for the system to improve:
* Those countries that have been pushing for a New Round with
new issues should stop doing so. The NGOs are reaffirming their
opposition to any such New Round being launched in 2001.
* Moreover, the developed countries should not bring these new
issues in regional and bilateral agreements.
* The deadline for developing countries to implement the WTO
agreements should be extended until the implementation issues are
settled. And they can't be allowed to be jettisoned by the
industrialized nations withholding consensus or not negotiating.
* Developed countries must be much more sincere, sympathetic and
responsive to the requests made by developing countries to review
and amend the rules in several Agreements.
* Developed countries should not pressurise developing countries
to further liberalise their agriculture and services sectors.
* The developed countries should instead liberalise those
sectors that remain protected which could enable developing
countries' products to be sold in their markets. They should also
stop disguised protectionist measures such as anti-dumping
action.
* The position of the Africa Group that all life forms and
living processes be prohibited should be supported by all
countries and the TRIPS should be amended to this effect.
* There must be a thorough overhaul of the dispute settlement
system. Panels and Appellate Body must not encroach into the area
of law making; their independence should not be compromised by
the undue influence and role of the Secretariat; and a mechanism
should be established that can correct unfair or imbalanced
judgments and decisions.
.
* Meanwhile, over a thousand NGOs worldwide have endorsed a joint
statement, "WTO: Shrink or Sink." All the points in that
statement should be addressed by the policy makers of all WTO
Member countries.
_______________________
Notes:
1. A shorter version of this report was published in the
South-North Development Monitor (SUNS) on 5 December 2000.
Acknowledgements are due to its Chief Editor, Chakravarthi
Raghavan. For subscription to SUNS, contact suns@igc.org.
2. To contact Third World Network, email to twnet@po.jaring.my.
3. More information on the above issues can be obtained at the
TWN Website at www.twnside.org.sg
............................................................
Bob Olsen's reply to Martin Khor <mkkp@pd.jaring.my>
At 12:25 PM 00/12/09 -0500, you wrote:
>TWN AND SUNS INFO SERVICE ON WTO ISSUES
>
>9 Dec 2000
>
>Dear friends and colleagues:
>
>TWN REPORT ON WTO SITUATION A YEAR SINCE SEATTLE
>
>
>PART III: SOME MEASURES REQUIRED TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION
Many of us here in Toronto, the victim of the FTA
(Free Trade Agreement) between the USA and Canada,
agree with our Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, who
promised in the the 1993 federal election to abrogate
the Free Trade Agreement, which had been imposed
upon the people of Canada by our previous Prime
Minister, Brian Mulroney, who had said that free
trade between Canada and the USA would be bad for
Canada. Of course, once elected, both Prime Ministers
did the opposite of what they said that they would do.
Anyways, many people in Canada think that we should
abolish all of these "free trade" agreements. They
have nothing to do with "trade." They only transfer
wealth, power and authority to unelected and
unaccountable TNCs.
I am sure that the only way to "improve the situation"
and to save the environment, save the planet and save
the human race is to abolish the WTO, the World Bank,
the IMF and all their "free trade" agreements and
return authority to elected governments.
Bob Olsen, Toronto
--
______ _________________________________________________
/ | |
| jon | jonivar skullerud |
\______ | |
\ | jonivar@bigfoot.com |
ivar | | http://www.bigfoot.com/~jonivar/ |
_______/ |_________________________________________________|
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 18 2001 - 10:59:33 MET