a civil society perspective from the South
By Walden Bello
Tonight I will give my 1st presentation in Sociology of Developing Nations class.
I was asked to examine the WTO's 4th Ministerial meeting in Doha, Qatar and write on the net results, to include my own thoughts and opinions, as well as provoke and motivate my audience to think about the ramifications therein.
Here is my talk for tonight's class...
* * *
The World Trade Organization or the WTO as it is commonly referred to, is singularly, a global, international entity, focused on the rules of trade between nations.
The central objective of The WTO is agreements - negotiated and signed by a great many of the world�s trading nations, later ratified in their respective parliamentary bodies. The WTO states that its official goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters, and importers conduct their business.
In order to better understand the power of The WTO, and the integral role it seeks to fulfill, I would like to first share foundational information with you. The WTO is located in Geneva, Switzerland, established on January 1, 1995, created by the Uruguay Round negotiations held from 1986 thru 1994. As of April 2004, current membership boasted by The WTO is 147 countries. 2004's organizational budget is reportedly 161 Million Swiss Francs (CHF, or "Schweizer Franken", ISO symbol of CHF. "CH" is derived from Switzerland's moniker "Confoederatio Helvetica".) Currency exchange rates as of April, 2004 are $1 U.S. Dollar is equivalent to 1.36 Swiss Franc (data provided by The Financial Forecast Center at http://www.neatideas.com/sfranc.htm ). WTO Secretariat level staff numbers 601. Supachai Panitchpakdi presently presides over The Office of Director General, or head of the WTO.
The WTO reportedly, prides itself on accomplishing its aims through:
� Administering WTO trade agreements,
� Conducting forums for trade negotiations,
� Handling trade disputes,
� Monitoring national trade policies,
� Providing both technical assistance and training for developing countries, and, in
� Cooperating with other international organizations
In November 2001, the Fourth Ministerial of the World Trade Organization was clandestinely held in Doha, Qatar. This meeting in the wake of the tragedy rocking the civilized, modern, global, economy; would yield mixed results - whether to be praised or lamented was uniquely and delicately juxtapositioned over which economic team one ascribed membership.
"The Quad", represented by developed nations, including The United States, The European Union, Japan and Canada appeared to run rough shod over the remaining 104 underling, developing nations. The least of which took a solo stance - India - she was backed both remarkably and astoundingly by Cuba, Jamaica, Zimbabwe and The Dominican Republic. This unified show of strength, however was short lived, uncelebrated, and down played.
The meeting's location was solely reasoned upon The WTO's Secretariat's granting authority regarding visas. NGOs or non-governmental organizations and other dissenting or terroristic factions it was asserted could be ideally controlled - a belief fueled further by the Quatarian monarchy.
What was the reality of this ministerial? Irrespective of which view point one employs to examine the net outcome, The Doha Declaration was the lynch pin. Why?� The WTO could no longer deny or side step the nearly crises crippled economy during the period, from the earlier summit held in Seattle and the September 11th tragedy. It appears nearly, that the Doha meeting may have been a forcing of the WTO's hand, if you will. What was the Doha Declaration?, and further why did it play such a pivotal role? The Doha Declaration single-handedly affirmed continued negotiations on pre-existing agreements - agreements that dealt specifically with agriculture, The General Agreement on Trade in Services or GATS, and it opened negotiations, which would permit and facilitate review of other existing agreements; such as the anti-dumping agreement. Even further still, The Doha Declaration was the genesis for negotiations regarding new agreements - specifically in areas of industrial tariffs. All of this sounds good, great maybe, to the untrained, uneducated and underrepresented - what it truly represented was unprecedented expansion of the WTO's jurisdiction. These fledgling liberties were regarded and referred to as "Singapore issues" of investment, competition policy, and government procurement and trade facilitation. What had transpired? A unilateral set back, pointed squarely at developing nations, comprehensive proportions of which, cannot be accurately foretold. The 104 developing nations had suffered a blow of epic proportions, meanwhile the Quad never bothered to utter "Mother May I" as they unanimously advanced.
While Pascal Lamy took pains to describe the Seattle decision making process as "medieval" it seems that the threshold had been bared, the stage was set for the ear markings of further actions which can best be described and mentally envisioned as "cloak and dagger" - not withstanding, back room intimidation, threats, bribery, and non-transparency; yes, even up to, and including outright lying for the sake of personal protection and [economic] gains on a national level.
It is shameful, to me, at best, to recount this, however, it must be done. The Quad, supported - pushed even - for the drafting of a declaration, which was unbalanced, yet was represented to the ministerial as "clean text" - further asserting and hence, in reality misrepresenting a consensus. The mere fact that a consensus was misrepresented calls to light that a great many developing nations did not have an opportunity to participate, or even further, to mark their objections. Dissenters, objectors were viewed and regarded as "obstructionist." The sheer oppressive weight of peer pressure, felt by representatives of the developing nations is indescribable at this point.
Developing nation representatives were some how matched against their Geneva counterparts. The proffered explanation was that Geneva counterparts were "recalcitrant", unruly or "narrow". This pairing then subsequent derisive separation served to effectively isolate them from the remainder.
Unbelievably in this day and age, the use of direct threats - in the form of the United States "warning" to both Haiti and The Dominican Republic for cessation on their respective oppositionistic positions on the central issues of government procurement. What carrot was dangled before each nation?�Cancellation of their preferential trade arrangements - of course. Didn't we discuss and identify a facet of democracy as being the allowance and acceptance of, or the "tolerance" of, the existence of opposition and its continued existence and practices?�I suppose that definition does not extend to WTO, nor to impending global trade issues. Perhaps the WTO is exempt?�
It seems the lengths to which the Quad would go were boundary-less. Our partner on so many levels, The European Union bought off countries, the employment of good old-fashioned bribery, in exchange for agreement to a final declaration. What did they offer?�assurances were issued to the Motherland (Africa), the Caribbean, and Pacific Group known as (ACP), for respect and recognition of ACP waivers permitting export to Europe on preferential terms relative to other developing countries. Does anyone else see a pattern of behavior here?�
Through all of this Pakistan was docile perhaps even dare I say "invisible"? They'd been "silenced" so to speak by the United States' pachyderm-sized aid package encompassing grants, loans debt reduction, and "special status" in Washington's very own War Against Terrorism. Why was dissent unregistered? Was it possible for all these nations to gather, deliberate and unanimously agree? Nigeria dared to step head and shoulders above the crowd of developing nations, taking a bold step forward, she issued official communiqu� voicing unequivocally strong opposition - she denounced the declaration BEFORE Doha. Promises, promises, promises, there were promises from Washington, of BIG military aid packages in the interm. Resistance of the carrot then seemed, and later proved futile. The sad truth, many representatives of developing nations were in absentia. Details such as the locations, dates and times of official meetings were not made available, or changed sans proper notification. Was this done deliberately?�proactively?, in an effort to avoid or stem terrorist acts, or further done reactively?, to silence the voice of opposition? We cannot answer, nor will ever know for certain.
As if it wasn't enough to bear, exponentially mounting pressures, threats, possibilities of being excluded and denied from the further participation within the global economy, developing countries were told they would shoulder what they knew full well to be a crushing responsibility, for the collapse of yet another ministerial. Hinged on the neat and canned explanations of the collapse of the WTO, and the ever-expanding rift, the likes of which could be compared to the very vastness of our own Grand Canyon - global recession it made for hefty and intimidating consequences - they knew without doubt, no nation developing or otherwise, would wish to ever be associated. Victory was most assured. It goes without saying the playing field was then and remains today unleveled.
Despite the appearance and past results of ministerial transpired events, the WTO maintains that there are 10 benefits associated with a WTO Trading System:
1. The system helps promote peace.
2. Disputes are handled constructively.
3. Rules make life easier for all.
4. Increased freedom regarding trade reduces associated costs of living.
5. The system provides a greater number of choice products at various qualities.
6. Trade increases income.
7. Trade stimulates economic growth.
8. The basic principles make life more efficient.
9. Governments are shielded from lobbying.
10. The system encourages "good government".
Conversely, the WTO, identifies and attempts to address 10 common misconceptions regarding their actions and intents:
1. The WTO dictates policy.
2. The WTO supports free trade irrespective of cost.
3. Commercial interests take priority over development.
4. Commercial interests take priority over the environment.
5. Commercial interests take priority over health and safety.
6. The WTO destroys jobs, hence worsening poverty.
7. Small countries are virtually powerless in the WTO.
8. The WTO is merely a tool of powerful lobbies.
9. Weaker countries are forced into WTO membership.
10. The WTO is not democratic.
When all is said and done, it is my opinion that we are collectively better off, for our attempts to live, work and play freely, under the establishment of a universal economic guidance system, than without.
I further pray for ethical and moral policies, proposals, enacted practices, laws ratified to include mandated resolutions, and yes, more over still - laws which support and foster economic empowerment and prosperity on a true global scale with active equity.
* * *
Edit: 2233hrs. I was chosen to give my talk first. I rocked it. My classmates were both supportive and attentive. I'm proud of myself.
The map and other visual aides I knew I was going to need, but never had the opportunity to take care of, were questioned by the Prof. I sat down at my desk near the rear of the class, not feeling 1 iota of resentment. Instead I sat quietly thinking about how this is a sure sign that I must move on.
Ever forward, just like T says.
Ever forward, it's all Love - really and truly it is.