>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > When the United States and Australia tried to set a > date for a new WTO Round of negotiations in 2001, > Malaysia led a fight against putting a dateline. > > Malaysian Minister for International Trade and > Industry, Ms. Rafidah Aziz, had insisted that there > could not be a mention of a date until an agenda for > a round had first been agreed to."If there is no > agenda, then what are countries going to talk about?" > > > >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 13:39:47 -0500 (EST) >From: Martin Khor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Organization: Public Citizen Global Trade Watch <www.tradewatch.org> >By-way-of: Information Habitat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [mai] Analysis of APEC Summit and WTO Round > > >TWN INFO SERVICE ON WTO ISSUES >21 Nov 2000 > >From: Martin Khor, Third World Network <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >ANALYSIS OF APEC SUMMIT AND WTO ROUND > >The APEC Debate: Launch A New WTO Round or Fix An Agenda First? > >WHY IT MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE > >By Martin Khor > >SUMMARY: Last week's (Nov 2000) APEC meetings in Brunei saw >a dramatic debate between the developed countries and some >developing countries (led by Malaysia) on how soon to launch >a new Round of trade talks at the World Trade Organisation. >Malaysia insisted that first agreeing to the content of such a >Round should precede a move to launch a Round. Fixing the agenda >or launching a Round may appear to be only a matter of emphasis. >In fact, it could make all the difference to the future economic >and social prospects developing countries. > >------------------------------------ > >What's the difference between launching a new round of trade >talks at the World Trade Organisation, and fixing an agenda first >before committing to such a launch? > >Lots, judging from the controversy that erupted and then stayed >on the boil at the series of high-level meetings of the Asia >Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum held in Brunei last >week. > >The battle began at the APEC Economic Ministers' meeting on 12-13 >November. When APEC members from developed countries like the >United States and Australia pressed for an agreement to launch a >new WTO Round in 2001, Malaysia led a fight against putting a >dateline. > >Malaysian Minister for International Trade and Industry, Ms. >Rafidah Aziz, had insisted that there could not be a mention of >a date until an agenda for a round had first been agreed to."If >there is no agenda, then what are countries going to talk about?" > >She denied that Malaysia was a "lone voice" speaking against the >tide, and said Malaysia's views were shared by many other >countries that were just not so vocal. "Malaysia is vocal on the >side of the majority and does not want the rest of the world to >be bulldozed by the very vocal but powerful few." (The Star, 14 >November). > >However, when the APEC leaders' meeting ended last Thursday, the >mention of a date for launching a new round had appeared. The >Declaration of leaders stated that: "We agree that a balanced and >sufficiently broad-based agenda that responds to the interests >and concerns of all WTO members should be formulated and >finalised as soon as possible in 2001 and that a round be >launched in 2001." > >There were, however, differing interpretations among the leaders >as to the meaning and the points of emphasis to the placed on >this part of the Declaration. > >Whilst much of the mainstream media highlighted that APEC leaders >had called for the launching of a new WTO round, Malaysia's Prime >Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad stressed at a post-Summit press >conference that any launching of a Round would be conditional on >first having agreement on an agenda, and that this position was >shared by some other APEC leaders as well. > >Dr Mahathir said the differently-worded Declaration did not mean >that APEC had backtracked on Malaysia's earlier proposal to set a >deadline for the agenda first before deciding on a launch date >for a WTO round. > >"The general opinion is that we should have the launch in 2001, >but it must be preceded by an agreement on the agenda. If there >is no agenda, how can we have a meeting? It (the launch) is >conditional on having an agenda. And this is not just Malaysia, >others speak in the same way." > >Dr Mahathir reiterated that if an agenda cannot be finalised, >then there is no way that a new Round of WTO talks can be >launched. "I hope that they (trade officials in Geneva) can have >an agenda. If they purposely do not come up with an agenda, then >it will be difficult to have a new round. What are we going to >talk about?" > >The different opinions at the APEC meeting reflect the on-going >battles at the WTO between developed countries led by the US, >European Union, Japan and Australia (that want to expand the >powers of WTO through a new round) and developing countries like >Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Egypt and Zimbabwe (which want the WTO >to first resolve problems faced by developing countries arising >from implementing the WTO's existing agreements). > >The sharp differences came to a head at the WTO's Ministerial >Conference at Seattle last December. When the rich countries used >manipulative methods in an attempt to push developing countries >into agreeing to a new round, the latter revolted and refused to >sign on to a Declaration they had no hand in drafting. > >The collapse of the Seattle talks sent shockwaves through the >trading system. Developing countries seemed to be standing up for >their rights. Their representatives thought that now, perhaps, >the rich countries would pay attention to their demands. > >But when discussions continued in Geneva, the same "dialogue of >the deaf" was played out. Diplomats from developing countries >have been forcefully putting forward proposals on how the >presently unequal and unfair rules in the WTO have to be >reviewed, so that the trading system can regain its credibility. > >Dozens of suggestions on how to resolve the "problems of >implementation" (the code term for all the present difficulties >facing developing countries) have been formally put on the table. > >These problems include the threat to farmers' livelihoods >resulting from the influx of cheap imported food (caused by the >WTO's agriculture agreement); high prices of essential medicines >and the high cost of using technology (caused by the agreement on >intellectual property); and problems faced by local industries >which can no longer rely on government policies that require >projects or firms to use local materials (as this is prohibited >by the WTO's treaty on investment measures). > >If unresolved, these and other problems will hinder and even stop >prospects of future development. Developing countries are thus >insisting that future talks must focus on solving these >"implementation problems" and thus restore balance to the trading >system's rules. > >Unfortunately, these requests have met with a cold response from >the developed countries. They have taken a "legalistic" approach: >Whatever has already been signed in the previous talks (the >Uruguay Round of 1986-93) is legally binding; if poor countries >want to revise some of that, they have to give new concessions to >the rich countries. > >This is where the New Round comes in. What the rich countries >want is the agreement of the developing countries to launch such >a round to introduce yet more issues into the WTO system and thus >multiply its power, to the further advantage of the former. > >The "new issues" (which eventually, through negotiations, would >become new agreements in the WTO) include: > > ** Investment rules, aimed at granting freedom from rules for >foreign investors and foreign funds); > > ** Government procurement, aimed at eventually ending >preferences that governments now give to local firms in their >purchasing practice and policy; > > ** Competition policy, aimed at prohibiting advantages enjoyed >by or given to local firms, so that foreign firms can "compete on >equal terms" in the domestic environment; > > ** Labour standards, aimed at introducing labour-related >standards (starting with the right of association but likely >proceeding to other issues such as minimum wages, employment and >social security) that could eventually lead to trade sanctions >against products of developing countries. > > ** Environmental standards, aimed at allowing trade rules such >as extra import duties to be applied to products that do not meet >acceptable environmental standards. > > ** Electronic commerce, starting with a permanent ban on customs >duties on products purchased and delivered electronically, and >leading to other rules that would probably favour countries that >are already more advanced in making use of e-commerce. > >Many developing countries, including Malaysia, have been very >reluctant to allow the WTO to acquire the mandate to create new >multilateral rules or treaties on these and other new issues. > >These are not trade issues and do not belong to the WTO. If >absorbed into the WTO system, it is likely that they will be >interpreted in ways that benefit the powerful Members at the >expense of the developing countries. > >This is especially so because the decision-making process is such >that developing countries have little bargaining power compared >with the major countries. Until this is changed, the will of the >powerful is very likely to prevail over the interests of the >many. > >If a New Round in WTO leads to the entry of this range of new >issues, the trade and development prospects would be bleak for >developing countries. > >The smaller firms and farms of the developing countries would be >too weak to withstand the might of the big firms of the rich >countries, which would have much more freedom to enter and >compete in the markets of the poorer countries, should the new >issues be accepted into the WTO. > >Further, the road would be opened to allow new trade sanctions to >be placed on developing countries, whose products are said not to >meet the acceptable social or environmental standards with which >they are made. > >This is where the issue of the Agenda comes in. Whilst countries >can all agree to have a New Round, it is far from clear what are >the issues that will feature in this round. > >If the agenda of the new round is the review (and where needed, >the amendment) of existing agreements, rules and procedures in >the WTO, so that there will be better balance in the system to >benefit developing countries, then it would be to the benefit of >developing countries. > >It would be a totally different matter if a new round would >include negotiations to conclude new treaties on investment >rules, government procurement, competition policy, labour and >environment standards. > >For then the trade system, already having lost a lot of >credibility after the Seattle debacle, would be even more >over-loaded with non-trade issues and even more loaded against >the developing countries' interests. > >Malaysia has thus been right to insist at the APEC meetings that >the first order of priority is to get the proper agenda for >future negotiations at the WTO. Only if the right agenda is >agreed to, should there be moves to launch a "new round." > >Ensuring the correct content and really beneficial outcome of >future talks is certainly more important than blindly agreeing to >launch something called a "new round" in the false belief that it >would somehow benefit everybody. > >Given the record of the WTO, which the developed countries have >so far been able to dominate, developing countries should not >agree to walk onto new territory on the basis of blind faith or >the sweet promises made by the major trading powers. > >The lesson of the past is the opposite: Do not tread lightly onto >new areas and certainly onto a new round until and unless you >have very carefully and thoroughly studied all the aims of the >proponents who are trying to attract you, and all the effects it >will have on your economy, society and future. > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >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. > >Margrete Strand Rangnes >Field Director >Public Citizen Global Trade Watch >215 Pennsylvania Ave, SE >Washington DC, 20003 USA >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >+1 202-454-5106 >+1 202-547 7392 (fax) > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > > > > ............................................ > Liberate democracy from corporate control > > Bob Olsen, Toronto [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ............................................ > > _______________________________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi _______________________________________________________ Kominform list for general information. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anti-Imperialism list for anti-imperialist news. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________________
