Indiske NGOs er svært skuffet over utfallet i Doha:
From: "Benny Kuruvilla, EQUATIONS" <bennyk@equitabletourism.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 11:48:18 +0530
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES LOSE IN DOHA.
As tired delegations left the Doha ministerial after 6 days of hectic,
confused and often acrimonious negotiations it was clear to developing
countries that the WTO continues to be dictated by the interests of the QUAD
countries (EU, US, Japan and Canada).
The reworked draft which emerged in the early hours of 14 November in Doha
essentially launches a New Round of trade negotiations- something that
developing countries have consistently rejected. Developing countries
constitute the bulk of membership of the Trade organisation that purports to
work on the consensus principle to create a rules based system for the
conduct of multilateral trade. It is deplorable that even after years of
concerted lobbying this most priority issue for countries like ours has been
virtually ignored by the WTO. On the other hand countries like the EU have
bludgeoned their way into gains on virtually every issue on the agenda.
The minimal gains in agriculture and TRIPS are represented by feeble
language with the EU mentioning clearly that the outcome of negotiations on
removing their subsidies on agriculture will not be prejudged. Contrary to
widespread critique on the General agreement on Trade in Services the WTO
has decided that the ongoing negotiations that are part of the built in
agenda will continue. The UNCHR is in the process of reporting on the human
rights implications of trade in services. Developing countries have said
that there should be an assessment before they are required to further
commit their sectors. Most developing countries do not maintain data on a
majority of their services sectors, which makes it impossible for them to
make informed commitments. The EU and the US have been demanding that there
are further commitments in the GATS and this green signal from the WTO will
put further pressure on delegations from the south.
EQUATIONS was part of the coalition of civil society groups in Doha and we
were witness to the courage and determination of the developing countries to
secure the interests of thousands of their populations who will be
profoundly impacted by the deliberations in Doha. We were also witness to
the highhanded unethical negotiating practices of the developed countries
like the Green Room process, linking aid budgets and trade preferences to
the trade positions of developing countries, and targeting individual
developing country negotiators. Countries like India initially held a high
moral ground but caved into the intense pressure exerted by the troika of
the US, EU and the WTO's Director General Mike Moore. It is tragic that a
sanction to a new round was given while many developing countries are still
recovering from the wide-ranging impacts of the Uruguay round.
The Doha ministerial holds nothing for the developing countries. Along with
our civil society partners from across the globe we reaffirm our commitment
to a vision for a just and equitable trading order.
In solidarity
THE GATS PROGRAMME
EQUATIONS
198, 2ND CROSS, CHURCH ROAD,
NEW TIPPASANDRA
BANGALORE - INDIA
Below is the 15 November 2001 press release on the WTO declaration by the
WTO WIRODHI BHARATIYA JAN ABHIYAN (Indian People's Campaign against WTO)
WTO WIRODHI BHARATIYA JAN ABHIYAN
(Indian People's Campaign against WTO)
1.The Doha ministerial meeting has concluded . The results are before us to
see. When we met PM on 30th October and presented him a memorandum
containing our views and suggestions with a view to fully safeguarding
the national interests in the negotiations, he assured that GOI WOULD NOT
SUCCUMB to the pressures of developed countries and multinationals.
Unfortunately, the outcome of Doha makes that promise meaningless.
2.Although the ministerial declaration calls it a Work Programme and not a
New Round of negotiations, it amounts to launching of a new round of
negotiations under WTO. The negotiating mandates on different subjects have
been elaborated. The traditional mechanism that goes with the commencement
of a New Round viz. the establishment of a "Trade Negotiations
Committee" to supervise and direct the process of negotiations has been
announced. In the true style of New Round, the entire negotiations will be
treated as a" single undertaking".
3.The bulk of "implementation" issues whose satisfactory solution, our
country, among other developing countries, had insisted upon as a
pre-condition for any new negotiations , have been incorporated as part of
the new negotiations. By all accounts, there has been no worthwhile
commitment on the part of developed countries on further liberalization of
access for developing countries' exports of textiles products. The issue of
abuse of anti-dumping provisions as neo-protectionist measures has been
now made part of new negotiations with little or no flexibility for
reopening basic elements of the existing discipline and instruments
currently in use by USA.
4.As far as the New Issues are concerned, there is an explicit commitment
that negotiations will start after two years on for" trade facilitation" on
some specific articles of GATT 1994.
On the issues of "Investment" and "Competition policy" and "Government
Procurement", three most important new issues, (which ,GOI was repeatedly
asserting , would be opposed ) have been squarely put in the work
programme. The mandates in respect of these three issues start with a
phrase: "recognizing the case for a multilateral framework". This amounts to
a-priori decision on elaborating a multilateral discipline. While the formal
decision on modalities of negotiations on these issues has been postponed to
the next ministerial meeting i.e. giving a reprieve of two more years, no
doubt whatsoever has been left that under the apparently innocuous title of
"further work" of the respective " Working Groups" , virtual negotiations
would proceed apace forthwith. 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; consultations and settlement of disputes
between members.". The working group on competition policy will focus on
"core principles; transparency; non-discrimination and procedural fairness;
provisions for hard-core cartels; progressive reinforcement of competitive
institutions in developing countries." If these elements are elaborated in
the next two years , all that will remain to be done at the next ministerial
meeting is to formally adopt the multilateral agreements on these two
issues, incorporating these provisions !
The only fig -leaf that was obtained by those who tried unsuccessfully to
resist this process of launching the New Round with New Issues , consists of
"an understanding" from the Conference Chair that would enable each member
to use the negotiations on modalities to prevent any negotiations until the
member is prepared to join a consensus for negotiations on all the four new
issues. What legal and practical value such an understanding has remains to
be seen. If the members could not resist the virtual launch of negotiations
ab initio on these issues at Doha, what hope is there that they would
succeed later when the negotiations would have already gained momentum and
the members would be busy protecting their individual interests in the light
of the specific elements of the agreement that would have emerged by then?
On the other new issue of "core labour standards", i.e. the celebrated
"social clause", the text does not contain the wording that ILO is the
appropriate forum for a substantive dialogue on labour rights and thus
implies that WTO could bring up the issue later.
On electronic commerce, the zero duty commitment that USA had extracted
earlier from the rest of the countries, has been extended until the next
ministerial meeting.
5.On the question of "reviewing" the agreements like TRIPs and "
Understanding on Dispute Settlement" so as to redress the imbalances and
inequities that have been imposed by the former on developing countries and
to do away with the coercive, undemocratic and unaccountable features that
characterize the latter , hardly anything has been accomplished. The much
publicized declaration on TRIPs and Public Health serves a very limited
purpose; in the words of one commentator " it could (and it is no more than
could ) enable developing countries to take measures to protect public
health and "promote" ( not assure) access to medicines for all." The wider
issue of TRIPs constricting the development and dissemination of technology
in developing countries and strengthening the hold of private monopolies in
knowledge and technology in general, at the cost of public welfare and
development, has remained untouched.
6.In the area of on-going negotiations on "Agriculture" and "Services", the
position is as follows. In "Agriculture", all that is there is the
willingness "to take into account" the "development needs, including food
security and rural development". The whole perspective of negotiations will
continue to be informed mainly by trade concerns i.e. removing the
so-called trade distortions. There is no recognition that for a country like
ours that perspective is inappropriate and harmful. There is not even a
hint that India will insist on retaining her right to impose quantitative
restrictions on imports of agricultural products, without any qualifications
and without prior consultations. In other words, GOI would continue to
rely on the old and oft- repeated weak dispensation of "differential
treatment to developing countries" in terms of tariffs and subsidies and
even that would be subject to the broad negotiating objective of
substantial improvements in market access for agriculture exporting
countries.
In regard to "Services", there is a reaffirmation of the right of members
" to regulate, and to introduce new regulations on the supply of services"
and of the articles in GATS that are in favour of developing countries.
But there is no departure from the very narrow approach regarding movement
of labour. Moreover, no cognizance has been taken of the far-reaching
issue raised by the UN 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
"liberalizing" approach in respect of such services on the promotion of
human rights.
7.All in all, brave posturing of GOI notwithstanding, what has finally
happened at Doha is what we apprehended in our memorandum to PM viz.
capitulation to the pressures of developed countries and their
multinationals. Whatever name they may give it, the product of Doha
reinforces the process of encroachment on our economic sovereignty.
>From all accounts, the Doha process constituted one more chapter in the
murky annals of undemocratic, non-transparent and non-participative
functioning of WTO. GOI has meekly surrendered to the armtwisting and
trickery of the developed countries and compromised national sovereignty .
We reiterate our demand in our memorandum to PM for a White Paper. We
also repeat our demand that no agreement in WTO be signed without prior and
explicit approval of Parliament and the State Leglislatures , as necessary.
The outcome of Doha will be challenged by the people of India.
We reaffirm our resolve to continue and intensify our struggle against the
process of globalization, marketization and recolonization spearheaded by
WTO and furthered by the GOI.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 11-07-02 MET DST