This story
was taken from Bulatlat, the Philippines's alternative weekly
newsmagazine (www.bulatlat.com, www.bulatlat.net, www.bulatlat.org).
Vol. V, No. 28, August 21-27, 2005
WTO Headed for
Debacle in Hong Kong?
The lack of more definite
agreements in the recently-concluded July council meeting raises the possibility
of yet another collapse in the forthcoming WTO talks
By
Sonny Africa
IBON Features
Posted by
Bulatlat
Gloom settled on negotiators at the World Trade
Organization (WTO) as its July General Council Meeting ended with the failure to
reach key agreements ahead of the upcoming 6th ministerial to be held in Hong
Kong in December.
Agriculture continued to be the main hurdle to
the talks, as the United States (U.S.) and the European Union (EU) remained in a
deadlock over their massive farm subsidies, with neither willing to concede even
an inch to the other.
Outgoing Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi,
in his final report as Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) chair, summed up the
situation as “disappointing but not disastrous” and insisted that “the picture
remains a mixed one overall.”
The lack of more definite agreements (“first
approximations”) on the so-called Doha work program– agriculture,
non-agricultural market access (NAMA), services and “development issues” –
raises the possibility of yet another collapse in negotiations similar to what
happened in past WTO ministerials in Seattle (1999) and Cancun (2003).
Negotiators now hope to use the Hong Kong
ministerial to adopt the set of rules (”modalities”) needed to reach a final
Doha Round agreement by 2007.
Still, Panitchpakdi tried to put a positive spin
on the failure, claiming that “there has been constructive engagement and some
positive signals and we have narrowed differences, even if we have not resolved
them.” He added, “The situation we are in makes Hong Kong harder but not
impossible.”
Growing popular protest
For activists who gathered at the parallel
General Council of Peoples, however, the stalemate was welcome news. Unlike the
WTO negotiators, the nearly-200 participants from non-government organizations
and social movements ended their meeting with a clear development consensus:
derail the Hong Kong Ministerial, stop the corporate trade agenda and promote an
alternative global trading system that promotes people’s interests over those of
corporations.
The Council closely monitored events at the WTO
meeting even as they remained wary, since progress on global trade talks
inevitably involves setbacks. Even as unity against the WTO grows on the
outside, internally the world’s most powerful governments are maneuvering within
the Organization to ensure that their respective corporate interests are
protected and their profits ensured.
While pointing to the need for “inside and
outside strategies,” Tony Clarke of Canada-based Polaris Institute stressed the
importance of “coordinated actions by the major social movements to put pressure
on national governments in the build-up to Hong Kong.” Clarke added that it is
not enough to have information, analyses and action, these need to be
popularized to reach sectors most affected at the grassroots.
These mass mobilizations cannot come too soon,
the People’s Council believes, since developed countries are already maneuvering
within the WTO.
First World maneuvering
Regarding negotiations on NAMA, Goh Chien Yen of
Malaysia’s Third World Network said that First World countries will likely
succeed in getting an agreement on further trade liberalization in industrial
goods. “Opposition from the developing countries is weak and doesn’t seem to be
consolidating in the direction of strengthening,” he said.
The situation in NAMA talks contrasts with that
of agriculture. In agriculture, rich countries such as the U.S., EU nations and
Canada want to keep protecting their respective agriculture sectors, even from
each other. In NAMA, the industrialized countries all have low industrial
tariffs to begin with, and so have a uniform interest in dismantling high
industrial tariff barriers in the developing countries.
There is a similar danger in the General
Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Although only 92 out of the 148 WTO-member
countries have made commitments (“offers”) to liberalize their domestic services
sectors, rich countries are clearly on the offensive in GATS, believes Marc Maes
of Belgium’s 11.11.11, and “looking for ways to speed up the process.”
Alexandra Strickner of the Geneva-based
Institute of Agricultural and Trade Policy (IATP) revealed that the GATS
negotiating process would likely intensify after the August summer break “with
almost weekly formal and informal meetings.” Strickner warned that not only GATS
but also other negotiating processes will likely be “fast-tracked with less
transparency and greater maneuvering” and that First World countries will likely
“try very, very hard and move very, very quickly to get something defined by the
Hong Kong ministerial.”
Strike three?
Developing countries oppose trade liberalization
under the WTO because of the disastrous effect it has had on their domestic
economies. Industries have been devastated, farmers driven off their land and
jobs have been lost, all to ensure the mega-profits of transnational
corporations. It is clear that trade liberalization has not improved the
people’s welfare and this is why an increasing number have organized in protest
against the WTO.
The WTO has already seen two dramatic upheavals
in the collapse of talks at the Seattle and Cancun ministerials. A third
breakdown is a very real possibility and would represent a clear victory for the
people.
But the collapse of the December ministerial
would not represent a decisive victory against corporate-led globalization. The
reality is that the world’s largest corporations have a vast array of resources
at their command to maintain their stranglehold over the global economy. Thus,
the struggle against globalization - which has brought disastrous effects on
people’s jobs, livelihood, and welfare worldwide - must persist even if the WTO
talks in December falters. IBON Features / Posted by Bulatlat © 2004 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.