Back
to News & Events Main Pag |
WTO Hatches Deal in Hong Kong [courtesy
of Kairos]
The clock was ticking. The legitimacy of the WTO – indeed
the very idea of free trade – was on the table. A third failure could
cause a fundamental shift for the future of globalization.
In this pressure cooker scenario, on par with a thriller,
the week-long meeting was full of intrigue, uncertainty, conflict,
manipulation, posturing, deception, and – sometimes – action. The exact
outcome was never quite clear, the storyline taking a different path
with each new storyteller. In fact, the ending – after a week’s worth of
high drama – was superficial at best, in true Hollywood fashion.
Regardless, there is cause for concern. The tepid deal
hatched in Hong Kong validates the current unjust institution. Most
disturbingly, it brings with it new dangers, new ways to cement global
corporate power at the expense of people, communities and the
environment.
Prologue: Ready for Landing
As the time arrived to get on the plane to Hong Kong was
fast approaching, a flurry of activity took place in Geneva. As in
previous Ministerial Conferences, the Chairs worked behind closed doors
with a “selected group of countries” until the 11th hour,
patching together a draft Ministerial Declaration by early December.
This Declaration relied on each Negotiating Chair (Agriculture, NAMA,
and GATS) submitting their Report as an Annex to the Declaration.
As negotiating teams landed in Hong Kong and made their
way to the spectacularly glossy Hong Kong Convention Centre, past the
shiny, bountiful shopping boutiques of Prada, Cartier, and Yves St.
Laurent, it was far from clear that the meeting would result in a deal.
More than anything, the legitimacy of the WTO hung in the
balance. Having so much to lose, the US, EU, Canada and others were
determined to salvage the flagging institution while many feared that
the narrow self-interests of some Southern countries would dominate the
negotiations, resulting in a bad deal for all.
At the same time, thousands of activists from around the
globe also arrived in Hong Kong and marched in the first of several
protests planned throughout the week. Having no real opportunity to have
their voices heard behind the barricades, the opposition was strong on
the streets of Hong Kong. Kong Yee Sai Mau!
(No WTO!)
The
pressure was on. The final curtain opened as the lights went up on this
high-stakes drama.
ACT
I: Hong Kong, China, 2005
The 6th Ministerial Conference opened with a
rousing speech from WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy. This was countered
by a rousing demonstration of activists who seized the opportunity to
remind negotiators of the undemocratic nature of the talks and the
billions of people whose lives are impacted by back-room deals. Lamy,
however, insisted on the so-called participatory nature of the WTO: “You
all have the right to speak, the right to agree, the right to disagree.
In sum in spite of all criticism, the WTO decision-making process is
democratic.” (WT/MIN (05)/13 page 2-3)
The US and the EU were crystal clear from the outset that
if they were to “give in” on agriculture they would need to get
something in return in Services or NAMA. Yet their obligations under
agriculture were pre-existing obligations stemming from
the Uruguay Round in 1994. To now turn them into a negotiating item,
making them a trade-off to ensure further liberalization under Services
and NAMA, was absurd and fundamentally unjust.
Canada’s position was disappointing but not surprising.
Although Minister of International Trade Peterson had repeatedly
committed to a defensive position vis-à-vis preserving Canada’s supply
management system and state trading enterprises, Canada went into Hong
Kong with an aggressive agenda on NAMA and Services. Peterson stated:
“In NAMA we seek real improvements in market access,” and on services,
added, “Canada feels that a plurilateral negotiating process can improve
the quality of offers….” (WT/MIN (05)/ST/20, page 1) The Canadian
government was clearly choosing to advocate for corporate interests
searching for expanded markets over a development agenda.
High
drama at its finest
The WTO is incredibly undemocratic in countless ways. The
very nature of the Conference is a no-holds barred, no-sleep fest where
major decisions are made late into the night by whomever is left
standing in the ‘invitation-only’ Green Room. It has the air of a
buddy-buddy old boys club that you are either in or want to be in. Jokes
are made about the lack of sleep and number of coffee cups consumed. The
Green Room itself, a negotiating tactic recognized to be counter to
consensus decision-making, is now spoken about openly and figures as the
butt of many jokes. It is scandalous that decisions impacting the lives
of billions of people are made in a pressure cooker that literally
relies on negotiators sleep-deprived capacity to function in order to
make a deal.
As a result, although the Global South came to Hong Kong
with alternative proposals and demands, very few of them made their way
into the draft texts or the text that ultimately was agreed upon.
According to KAIROS partner Tetteh Hormeku of Third World Network
Africa, the Less Developed Countries (LDCs) submitted several hundred
proposals on agriculture, only five of which made it into the official
text for discussion. The G20 submitted a market access proposal; the
G90, the ACP (Group of 77 from the African, Caribbean and Pacific
Regions), and others presented proposals on different aspects of
negotiations including agriculture, services, and NAMA.
On NAMA, Venezuela, Namibia, Argentina and South Africa
wrote a joint letter demanding that flexibility be treated as a separate
issue from the formula reduction. In Services, another group of
countries, the Philippines, Kenya, Venezuela, Mauritius, and South
Africa, highlighted the undemocratic nature of the process by which
Annex C which allows for sectoral and plurilateral negotiations was
included in the Hong Kong Declaration. The LDCs held firm on the need
for Duty Free, Quota Free access for their goods while CARICOM
(Caribbean Community) demands centred on the precariousness of small
economies within global trade, emphasizing the need for Special and
Differential Treatment. Indonesian Trade Minister Mari Pangestu,
spokesperson for the G33 countries, consistently emphasized their key
demands for Special Safeguard Measures and Special Products in
agriculture, two policy tools that would enable Southern countries both
to impose border restrictions on goods coming in and also exempt key
products from liberalization.
Yet, in the upside down world of global free trade, the
selection of proposals – deciding which letters become official
correspondence and which ones don’t – and the weight given to
negotiating positions was clearly skewed in favour of Northern
positions, which in large measure were designed to secure markets for
the most powerful global actors, the multinational corporations.
Act
II: Negotiations reach a climax
At the mid-point, the stalemate was at its peak, the
tension was palpable and something had to give. Thus, on December 16th,
the G20, G33, the ACP, LDC Africa group, Small Economies and the G90
held a historic press conference announcing their newly formed alliance,
the G110 (Group of 110 countries). They declared that by coming together
they would harmonize their negotiating positions for the first time.
The group issued a statement reiterating their now joint
support for (a) the complete elimination of export support measures by
2010; (b) the importance of Special and Differential Treatment in
agricultural negotiations; (c) the role of Special Products and Special
Safeguard Mechanisms as a means of addressing food security, rural
development and livelihood concerns of developing countries; (d) LDC
duty-free and quota-free market access; and (e) specific measures to
provide adequate responses to the issues raised by small, vulnerable
economies.
(Joint Statement Dec.16th,
2005)
Speculation was immediate and fierce. What did the
future hold for the negotiations? The combination of so little
movement and so much frustration was reaching a climax. As the
spokesperson for each group within the G110 rose and linked their arms
in an act of solidarity, observers were sure that the constantly
turbulent WTO was on its way to another spectacular crash.
Meanwhile, on the streets of Hong Kong, each day brought
with it a number of workshops on alternatives, demonstrations and
protests. The strongest voices on the ground came from Via Campesina,
the small farmers and farm workers grassroots movement. The media
focused its attention on the Korean farmers who came to Hong Kong in
large numbers. From the first day of protest, they were well-organized,
vocal and provided strong leadership. They repeatedly highlighted the
forced exclusion of those impacted most by these policies. As the
Ministerial Conference opened, numerous men and women jumped into
ice-cold water and tried to gain access by swimming to the Convention
Centre. On December 17th, they led the march to the
Convention Centre, attempting to push past police into the inaccessible
meeting. Their courage on the front lines was an amazing display of
sheer determination stemming from their understanding that this was a
life and death issue.
In recent years, thousands of farmers, facing
overwhelming despair, have killed themselves; others have felt compelled
to kill themselves to call attention to the death facing all farmers and
to demand action. That night, police used brute force, rubber bullets,
tear gas, and attack dogs to squelch dissent. Hundreds of people were
arbitrarily arrested, denied food and water and held without charges. To
date, three of those prisoners remain in jail. Addressing accusations
against Via Campesina of violence, Jose
Bove
charged: “The WTO is institutional violence.
The WTO is killing farmers. We are fighting for our lives.”
That same day, inside the Convention Centre, the first
revised Text was received by the Heads of Delegation (HoD) Meeting. Its
lack of movement on the Development Round triggered a strenuous
critique. Incredibly, the agriculture discussions had barely moved, with
no end date for export subsidies, no agreement on the cotton issue, and
no clear integration of Special and Differential Treatment disciplines (SDT).
The ACP issued a clear rejection of the Swiss formula on
NAMA, which would force countries with higher tariffs, namely the
Southern countries, to undertake deeper cuts than countries with lower
tariff starting points, namely the Northern countries.
In Services, several countries expressed concern about
the Annex C text, both for the blatantly undemocratic way in which the
text was introduced as well as its content which made a commitment to
plurilateral negotiations. Canada, as one of the supporters for the new
text and consistent with its short-sightedness regarding possible
implications for Canadians, was a strong advocate for its full
acceptance.
Passion, anger, and concern were evident in the powerful
comments coming from the South. On behalf of the LDCs, the Zambian
representative declared “development at a deadlock” adding that “the
text is not positive enough for the LDCs. There are 700 million people
living in the LDCs and they represent less that 1% of trade. How can
this be delayed!” Saint Lucia, on behalf of the Caribbean countries,
stated: “The text is unsatisfactory and lacks a clear development focus
… this text can mean food on the table of our families or not, education
or not, healthcare or not.”
The Zimbabwean representative, the last to speak, best
summed up the deal by stating, “Someone said we needed a platform,
we hope it will not propel us into a pond full of crocodiles.”
(Informal report on HoD Meeting)
Act
III: The Hollywood ending
And so amidst an air of acute disagreement, high tension,
and melodrama the bets were in favour of collapse. Yet, somehow within
the next half dozen hours an agreement was hatched and dispatched. And
that agreement – for the most part – stayed the same as the original
text, committing countries to plurilateral negotiations in Services, the
harsh Swiss Formula of tariff reduction in NAMA negotiations and making
a few “debateable” gains were had by the Global South which upon closer
scrutiny are clearly not firm concessions.
2013 is the date for export subsidies but the declaration
states that this date will be confirmed when modalities are complete.
The cotton agreement talks about export subsidies but not domestic
subsidies, the most problematic and highest quantity while duty-free and
quota-free market access for LDCs commitment does not go far enough
because the declaration only states “on a lasting basis.”
Moreover, duty-free and quota-free market access will be provided for at
least 97% of products originating from LDCs.
Again this apparent gain is countered by the reality that
the remaining 3% will enable Northern countries to protect against key
products produced by Least Developed Countries and open their markets to
those products that are only nominally produced
When it came time to accept the deal, it seemed only two
countries were courageous enough to go against the ‘big boys’ and voice
their concerns. Much to the chagrin of Conference Chair Donald Tsang,
Cuba and Venezuela rose to express their concerns in the form of
exceptions. As to others, even if they wanted to disagree, the pressure
was on, particularly from the new Quad members Brazil and India, for
everyone to accept the deal. Consequently it would be too politically
costly for Cuba and Venezuela to derail the week’s product by
themselves. They had to go along but they did so reluctantly,
articulating exceptions in both the NAMA and GATS sections of the
Ministerial. At the closing session they requested that the exceptions
form part of the final document, hoping that the legal standing of the
exceptions would lead to a future favourable outcome for the Global
South.
Where was the historic Group of 110 countries who had
vowed to stick together and harmonize their positions? Where were the
African voices – those who may have received some immediate gains but at
what future cost? Perhaps everyone was just plain exhausted; perhaps
they put vast amounts of trust in Brazil and India; perhaps because so
much was made of the lack of movement in agriculture that once there was
movement there was no way NOT to accept the deal, regardless of the
cost. Or perhaps, at the end of the day, the pressure and political cost
was simply too high.
And so a
deal that never should have been, materialized from Hong Kong right on
schedule on December 18, 2005.
Epilogue: Destination unknown
Chairman Tsang’s gavel banged one final time, signalling
the end of the 6th WTO Ministerial. The Doha Development
Round and indeed, the WTO had been saved – barely. Any hopes for gains
in the development agenda though, have once again been reduced to
nothing more than rhetoric.
Disturbingly, this Ministerial Declaration provides a
dangerous new platform for future negotiations, even though there is
still so much that has yet to be accomplished within the current agenda.
In order for the Doha Development Round to be completed successfully a
real deal on modalities – spelling out and agreeing to the frameworks
and formulas – needs to be accomplished by the deadline date of December
2006.
In the meantime, within member countries there is still a
lot of concern and disagreement on many aspects of the AoA, GATS, and
NAMA agreements. Without doubt, Hong Kong dramatically increased the
level of solidarity, accountability, and harmonization among Southern
countries as they worked to define and shape their relationship in the
context of global power.
The WTO urgently needs to be put on its head. It needs to
be dismantled and replaced with an alternative model that places people,
communities and the earth at the centre. Communities need to have policy
flexibility and sovereignty: the right to choose their own development
path – a path that recognizes the role that women play in the formal and
informal economy and is ecologically sound. Such globalization would be
intentionally global by building community, solidarity and alternatives
across race, class, sectors, and borders. Such globalization would lift
up and share ‘on the ground’ alternatives and support Southern positions
that are of the people and for the people.
Each Ministerial brings with it new signs resistance to
the Northern corporate agenda, particularly in Latin America, but
elsewhere too. People whose lives have been decimated by neo-liberal
globalization and free trade are electing governments that they see as
responsive to their needs. These governments and the G110 alliance have
the potential to derail the WTO and demand a new way forward for global
trade.
The turbulent flight of the WTO plane has landed it back
in Geneva once again. Typical of any major Hollywood epic, as this one
came to a close it laid the groundwork for its sequel. The passengers
are all at home unpacking what was gained, what was lost and how to move
forward. A pivotal shift to a just trading system or a final cementing
of corporate rights hangs in the balance. People and movements the world
over rise early to strategize, resist, pressure, and transform the
corporate agenda of the WTO as the stage lights go down, and the
curtains are drawn for a brief intermission. |
|
