Veldig bra kommentar om WTO, fra et indisk perspektiv.
____________________
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 )
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 11-07-02 MET DST