[E-rundbrief] Info 37 - USA, WTO-negotiations and bilaterialism

[Matthias Reichl]

E-Rundbrief - Info 37

Bad Ischl, 30.9.2003

Begegnungszentrum für aktive Gewaltlosigkeit
www.begegnungszentrum.at

=========================================

USA, WTO-negotiations and bilaterialism

------------------------------------------------------------

DOWN TO EARTH

A boost for bilateralism

That's what the US wants  to push countries into trade deals of its
convenience, says Sunita Narain

Business Standard, India

Published : September 30, 2003

The proposed deal in Cancun had to be rejected. What was proposed at
the World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks would have been a deadly
price for developing countries to pay.

Therefore, for once, our leaders did well. They were prepared to
negotiate together and they stood united in the face of the
disgraceful, utterly indefensible positions of the subsidised North.

But I am not cheering loudly. I believe the failure of Cancun is a
victory, not for the world's poor, but for the machiavellian
strategies of the world's richest  the US. Because, as against a
multilateral framework based on rules and regulations for all,
Cancun's failure is a boost to bilateralism.

That's what the US wants. It has been busy making bilateral trade
agreements  Jordan, Chile, Singapore, Mexico, Canada and Israel are
in its pocket, so to say. Now it says it will "aggressively pursue
bilateral and regional trade agreements with countries committed to
opening markets and undertaking economic reform".

In other words, it will use its enormous economic and political clout
to squeeze countries into trade agreements of its convenience (the
operative adjective it uses is "mutual").

This is a well-heeled foreign policy objective of the US. Take
climate change. When the US walked out of the Kyoto Protocol, it
rejected a multilateral agreement that would have limited the
emissions of the rich world, so that the poor would get ecological
space to grow, and the earth's climate system would be able to
recover.

But it did not just reject the protocol, it made it clear that it
would work overtime to destroy it as well. It says it will prove that
its strategies for "voluntary measures"  to switch to cleaner
technologies  and "bilateral agreements" (selling energy-efficient
technologies to other developing countries) will be more effective
than a multilateral rule-bound agreement.

Forget that what it is promising is that instead of the 5.2 per cent
cut in emissions from its 1990 levels as demanded by the Kyoto
Protocol, it will increase its emissions by over 30 per cent by 2012
  the agreement period.

Where is the EU in all this? Its leaders never miss a chance to extol
multilateralism, global rule-making and consensus. But its
negotiators do the exact opposite. They ensure, again and again, that
developing countries are left with no choice but to accept the
bilateral fare the US offers.

At the last climate change convention, EU negotiators obnoxiously
pushed developing countries to take on legally binding commitments on
emission reductions, instead of focusing on the effective
implementation of the convention and sidelining the US.

This ridiculous demand slapped on them, developing countries found
merit in the US proposal to reject the Kyoto way. At Cancun, the EU
perversely pushed for negotiations on the Singapore issues, which the
South detests. Why?

Shortsightedness? Stupidity? Or deliberate strategy? Understand that
the EU is moving to become a confederation of states, with a powerful
centrist bureaucracy. This might explain why  even as US officials
negotiate like mature politicians, pushing government strategy  EU
office-bearers negotiate like clerks and bookkeepers lost in petty
and arcane details, so that they miss the political opportunities to
win friends and gain coalitions.

It is clear that the EU has changed. At the Rio summit, European
leaders were propelled by the fact that environment was hard
politics; in Europe, the green vote comprised 5 to 15 per cent of the
total vote.

Today, green votes don't seem to count as much. Civil society
pressure has become almost as marginalised in European politics, as
it is in the US  where business dominates. It is no wonder that
civil society groups find it more effective to lobby developing
country governments than their own.

This sad fact may also provide the key to the future. We know what
the US is offering will take us straight to hell. We also know that
the EU is a washout. Where do we go?

We have no choice but to engage. In climate change, we are the most
vulnerable. In trade, we have already given away too much since the
Uruguay Round. We need multilateral rules that protect our interests.

We have no option but to stay and fight. And it is here that we could
strengthen the coalition that was born in Cancun  between
governments of the South and people of the world. A coalition brought
together in common outrage and desire for justice. It is a slim
chance.

But it is our only chance. We cannot let the US win. Because then we
will all lose. Lose all.

=================================================

Matthias Reichl
Begegnungszentrum für aktive Gewaltlosigkeit
Wolfgangerstr.26
A-4820 Bad Ischl
Tel. +43-6132-24590
e-mail: mareichl at ping.at
http://www.begegnungszentrum.at