WTO MINISTERIAL
At last, there is some uncertainty about the venue of the next ministerial. There have been reports that some western countries now want the venue to be shifted to Singapore due to security reasons. After an initial bout of bravado, the tormentors at WTO seem to have found merit in the dictum that discretion is the better part of valor. In the immediate aftermath of September 11, the US and other developed nations were determined to demonstrate that it was business as usual. Zoellick was happy that the new ‘international unity’ could be put to good use to push through a new round. Now they are no longer so sure.
No matter where the meet takes place, there is no shift in the basic anti-Third World thrust of the WTO. The draft ministerial declaration issued on 27th September pats itself on the back as being more accommodative to developing countries’ concerns. Developing countries have been granted a big “concession” that henceforth the new round will be referred to as ‘New Development Agenda’! The preamble informs that the trade system “embodied in the WTO” has “promoted growth, development and employment the past fifty years”, and “trade plays a key role in alleviation of poverty.” Further, “We shall continue to work with the Bretton Woods institutions for greater coherence in global economic policy-making, and for effective cooperation with other intergovernmental organizations that have responsibilities related to those of the WTO”. Like “Enduring Freedom,” we are now offered “Enduring Development”!
The “implementation issues” – in plain words, instances of treachery where the developed countries have reneged on past agreements – have been structured into the agenda in such a manner as to make them bargaining levers to extract new commitments from the developing countries! The impact of TRIPS and Agreement on Agriculture on the public access to food and medicine and on the livelihood of the poor have been left untouched. (The Anthrax irony notwithstanding) In fact, the implementation issues have been separated from the main text of the draft and covered by a different document annexed to the draft. There are two parts to this document. The first one deals with the issues where immediate action can be taken and the second lists those that should be subject to further negotiations. By implication, the proposals on the main draft will be on fast track and Annexures will be allowed to gather dust.
Anyway, the Annexures on implementation covering mainly such issues as sanitary and phytosanitary measures, subsidies and countervailing measures, anti-dumping and textiles, TRIPS and TRIMs etc. have only meagre proposals. The drafters did not consider legally binding commitments on developed countries for special and differential treatment to Least Developed Countries important enough.
On Agriculture, the drafters have urged “members to exercise restraint in challenging measures notified under the green box by developing countries to promote rural development and adequately address food security concerns”. They can show “restraint” by nitpicking on these so long as that would help suppress the pending issues. This much is evident from the fact that the General Council did not feel the need to direct the members to immediately implement bound duty rates and quota free market access conditions to exports originating in LDCs.
On TRIPS, the draft ministerial agrees to complete negotiations on geographical indications for wines and spirits and to examine issues related to possible negotiations on the extension of the protection of geographical indications to additional product areas. To be sure, they get their priorities straight!
The declaration has very conveniently relegated “the issue of the relationship between intellectual property and [access to medicines] [public health]” to a separate declaration in the footnote. Nothing has been said about non-patentability of plants, animals and parts thereof, including gene sequences and biological processes for the production of plants, animals and their parts. Mum is the word on the members’ right to select their own sui generis system, recognising traditional knowledge and the rights of farmers to use, save and exchange seeds etc.
The Draft Declaration expresses satisfaction over the progress of GATS negotiations since Jan 2000, on a “wide range of sectors and several horizontal issues”, as well “as on movement of natural persons”, where very little progress of consequence has taken place due to innovative “administrative” (read restrictive) practices of developed countries. And “the mandated negotiations on trade in services are an important means of promoting the economic growth of all trading partners and the development of developing countries”, the Draft adds. One is forced to muse on the fact that services constitute 72% US GDP and trade in services is a pressing need for the OECD and not for the underdeveloped.
The West seems to be steadily winning the war on the trade front. But for how long? Thanks to the global slowdown, it is protectionism for the West and “free trade” for the rest. One can surely look forward for more dramatic collapse of not just a ministerial like Seattle, but a possible full-fledged round itself, and even some, or most, of the existing trade agreements in the not too distant a future.
– Girish Ghildiyal