[E-rundbrief] Info 126 - WTO-Verhandlungen: Kritik von Focus on the Global South u. Attac Oesterreich

[Matthias Reichl]

E-Rundbrief - Info 126 - Kritik an WTO-Verhandlungen in Genf:  Focus on the 
Global South (Walden Bello, Thailand) und Attac Österreich.

Bad Ischl, 27.7.2004

Begegnungszentrum für aktive Gewaltlosigkeit

www.begegnungszentrum.at

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

Flawed July Framework Must be Rejected

Focus on the Global South, July 27, 2004

In preparation for the World Trade Organization General Council Meeting on 
July 27-28, the Chairman has released a draft text as a basis for 
negotiations.  This July framework, as it is called, is projected as a 
penultimate effort to bring the derailed organization back on track. As a 
closer inspection will show, however, this framework does nothing to 
address the demands of developing countries.

There is only one thing that developing country governments can do with he 
proposed July framework: dump it. The text is so unbalanced in favor of the 
interests of the trade superpowers that one wonders if these governments 
have been listening at all to the rising crescendo of protest from 
developing counties that culminated in the rebellion that resulted in the 
collapse of the Fifth Ministerial in  Cancun in September of last year.

The main reasons for rejecting this flawed text are the following:

  -        The Framework for Agriculture is simply an exercise to devise 
increasingly intricate mechanisms to accommodate the United States and 
European Union's efforts to maintain the high levels of subsidization of 
their agricultural interests behind a smokescreen of vague promises to 
address the concerns of developing countries.

-         The  Framework for Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products 
(NAMA) simply reproduces a text rejected in Cancun by the developing 
countries since it amounts to nothing less than a prescription for their 
deindustrialization.

-        The Framework on Trade Facilitation is nothing but a stubborn 
effort on the part of the trading powers to keep alive an issue that lacks 
the necessary explicit consensus of all members to be a subject of 
negotiation.

-        Lip service is paid to the main concerns of developing countries, 
specifically, the cotton issue, special and differential treatment, 
development, and implementation, but they are actually treated as secondary 
issues the negotiation of which is consigned to future negotiations and 
left in the air.

AGRICULTURE

This text does not form the basis for rectifying distortions in 
agricultural trade. The EU and US provide between US$70-80 billion each in 
domestic supports. This draft is the legal framework US and EU need for 
legitimizing the continuation of these supports.

The key concerns of developed countries have been given the green light 
whilst developing countries concerns have not:

- An enlarged Blue Box for the US to house its 2002 Farm Bill payments;

- No limits or reductions on the Green Box which is the major culprit 
legitimizing dumping since for the US. Over $50 billion a year of supports 
(or 70% of US¹ domestic supports) are accounted for under this category. 
They are indirect export subsidies and should be treated as such. 
Essentially, cuts will be made to trade-distorting supports but these will 
be compensated through the Green and Blue boxes, i.e., this is a public 
relations box shuffling exercise.

- Sensitive products for the EU (or up 20% of their tariff lines) will be 
protected.  In contrast, despite developing countries insistence over 
defending crops critical for food security and rural livelihoods, the text 
postpones dealing concretely with this issue.

- The pledge by the EU to eliminating export subsidies is also feeble since 
it is depends on others first fulfilling their commitments,­ e.g. US in 
export credits and food aid, and Canada as well as developing countries in 
"disciplining" their State Trading Enterprises (STEs).  The deregulation of 
STEs, if applied also to developing countries STEs as the text implies, 
would be disastrous since STEs stabilize prices and food supply and play a 
critical role in ensuring food security.

COTTON

The text will not provide what the West African cotton countries have been 
demanding:­ an end to subsidies in cotton.  Moreover, contrary to their 
demand, the text treats cotton as part of the agriculture negotiations, 
thus undermining its satisfactory resolution.

Promises to cap the product-specific supports US gives (to the tune of 
US$2.8 billion) is a futile exercise. Given the political weight of the US 
cotton lobby, US supports to cotton will simply re-emerge in the new Blue 
Box or the untouched Green Box.

MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS (NAMA)

There is hardly any difference between the reject Derbez Text and the July 
package in this area, which means that developing countries should again 
reject its reincarnation as Annex B of the text.

The language suggests that unbound tariff lines shall be subjected to 
non-linear approach, after they are bound at twice he applied rate. This 
would have very serious adverse implications for developing 
countries.  Firstly, the applied rates have never been used as the basis 
for calculating tariff reductions. Secondly, the language of the text 
suggests that after negotiations, countries should bind all their unbound 
tariffs, which, again is a new addition to the modalities of negotiations.

The text directs that work continue on a non-linear formula applied on a 
line-by-line basis. This means that higher tariff rates would be subject to 
steeper tariff cuts. This kind of process of reduction of tariffs would 
drastically reduce the space for a number of developing industrializing 
countries to protect their small industries.

The approach suggested in the July package for tariff reduction does not 
allow countries to choose their own rate, scope, pace and extent of future 
liberalization so as not to cause further adverse effects on local 
industries. Moreover it does not address problems that poor and developing 
countries will face from erosion of preferences. This package would never 
allow poor countries to build their supply capacity but would in fact lead 
to massive deindustrialization. All these features go against the demands 
being made by least developed countries on NAMA negotiating text since the 
Cancun Ministerial Conference of the WTO.

SINGAPORE ISSUES

In order to appease countries such as India and Malaysia, the July text 
says that negotiations on investment, competition and government 
procurement will not form part of the Work Program and goes ahead to 
mention that no work towards negotiations on any of these issues will take 
place within the WTO during the Doha Round.  This is a deceptive 
formulation, for it does not mean that these issues are out of the WTO 
system, as the developing countries have demanded. They can be resurrected 
in some future round of negotiations.

In fact, the inclusion of trade facilitation in the July package as an item 
for negotiation is questionable since the Doha language clearly states that 
the explicit consensus of all members is necessary to begin negotiations on 
any of the Singapore issues.  Moreover, the Doha language is also clear 
that if negotiations on any of the Singapore issues did not begin at the 
next Ministerial (i.e. at Cancun Ministerial Conference), then there would 
be no negotiations on any of these four issues. If this was the agreement 
and the July package brags about being accountable to the Doha Mandate then 
it has no right to include language that would suggest initiation on 
negotiations on trade facilitation.

IMPLEMENTATION AND SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT

This text, like the Doha Ministerial statement, trumpets its concern for 
developing countries by including S&D and some language on developmental 
concerns. The WTO however has to realize that people cannot be fooled by 
the same trick twice.

The language is non-committal and at best can be described as vague. 
Importantly all the vague promises in the paragraphs associated with these 
issues, turn out to be wasted promises if the text within NAMA and 
agriculture negotiations gets implemented.

Although new deadlines have been stated in the July package with respect to 
completion of the work of the Committee on Trade and Development, ­ the 
history of negotiations at the WTO is replete with examples, which show 
that deadlines are not honored when it comes to implementing decisions 
benefiting developing countries.

SERVICES

The services paragraph in Annex C is kept the least controversial in order 
to show that at least negotiations in this sector are on track. The truth 
is far from this. Countries are not coming forward to make offers to 
requests made. A number of developing countries do not see any reason for 
offering their service sectors as they are still grappling with existing 
problems and ambiguities in the GATS agreement. Their need for caution has 
been underscored by the April 2004 WTO dispute panel ruling against Mexico 
in the Telemex case where clauses in the GATS and auxiliary GATS annexes, 
that seemingly allowed developmental aspects of domestic regulations, were 
disregarded.  In short, the services negotiations continue to be biased 
against developmental concerns.

IN CONCLUSION

If there is one thing that links the July text, the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration, the defunct Ministerial Draft in Cancun, and the rejected 
Derbez text, it is this:  all have been extremely unbalanced documents 
designed to protect and advance the interests of the trade superpowers at 
the expense of the developing countries.

It is extremely hypocritical for World Trade Organization Director General 
Supachai Panitchpakdi  to claim that the July text advances the "Doha 
Development Agenda", since neither the Doha Ministerial Declaration nor the 
July text have anything to do with advancing development.

The continuing intransigence of the trade superpowers and their 
determination to push their interests within the WTO framework shows how 
dysfunctional that framework has become as a mechanism for protecting, much 
less advancing, the economic interests and welfare of the developing world.

The developing countries have waited for nearly ten years for the WTO to 
show some responsiveness to their needs.  For this patience, they have been 
rewarded with a succession of anti-development proposals and programs 
culminating in the July text. Thus, it is important that they not only 
reject the July text but also move actively to find or create other 
mechanisms or frameworks to secure their interests outside the WTO.

Development can no longer be pursued within a WTO paradigm.

Focus on the Global South (FOCUS)
c/o CUSRI, Chulalongkorn University
Bangkok 10330 THAILAND
Tel: 662 218 7363/7364/7365/7383
Fax: 662 255 9976
E-mail: N.Bullard at focusweb.org
Web Page   http://www.focusweb.org

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

WTO darf nicht in alter Form wiederauferstehen

Attac sieht wenig Chancen für Einigung bei Freihandelstreffen.

26.7.2004

Morgen Dienstag (27.7.) trifft sich der Allgemeine Rat, das höchste Gremium 
der Welthandelsorganisation WTO, in Genf. Ziel ist die Wiederaufnahme der 
Verhandlungen der 2001 begonnenen "Doha-Runde".  Nach dem Scheitern der 
Ministerkonferenz in Cancún ist es die letzte Chance zum Abschluss dieser 
Welthandelsrunde bis 2006. Inhaltlich geht es vor allem um das 
Rahmenabkommen der WTO-Verträge in den Punkten Landwirtschaft und 
Marktzugang für Industriegüter. Attac Österreich sieht kaum eine Chance für 
eine Einigung: "Die EU und die USA haben nichts aus dem Debakel von Cancún 
gelernt. Der von WTO-Direktor Panitchpakdi Supachai vorgelegte Entwurf ist 
eminent entwicklungsfeindlich und bedient fast ausschließlich die 
Interessen der Industrieländer. Die Entwicklungsländer werden mit 
allgemeinen Zusagen und dem Verweis auf die nächste Phase der 
Verhandlungsrunde vertröstet", kritisiert Alexandra Strickner von Attac 
Österreich.

So wird zum Beispiel der - vorgetäuschte - Abbau von Agrar-Exportstützungen 
in den Ländern des Nordens (es handelt sich weitgehend um Umschichtungen) 
"bezahlt" mit einer Marktöffnung der Entwicklungsländer, der die BäuerInnen 
des Südens nicht gewachsen sind. Die von den Entwicklungsländern geforderte 
Ausnahme lebenswichtiger Agrarerzeugnisse (z. B. Reis, Bohnen, Mais) von 
der Zollreduktion, um ihre Ernährung sicher zu stellen, kommt im Entwurf 
zwar vor, ihre Behandlung wird aber auf die nächste Verhandlungsphase 
verschoben. Gleichzeitig können die EU und die USA ihre Märkte für eine 
Reihe sensibler Produkte (z.B. Zucker, Milchprodukte, Getreide und 
Rindfleisch) dicht halten.

Auch andere Stolpersteine, die für den Abbruch den Verhandlungen in Cancún 
verantwortlich waren, wurden nicht ausgeräumt. "Die im Text vorgesehene 
Reduktionsformel für Industriezölle würde in den armen Ländern zu weitaus 
radikaleren Marktöffnungen führen als in den Industrieländern. Die Folge 
wäre der Zusammenbruch zahlreicher Industrien in den armen Ländern, 
steigende Arbeitslosigkeit und Armut", so Christian Felber. Selbst eines 
der vier berüchtigten "Singapur-Themen" - Handelserleichterungen - soll 
nach dem Textentwurf verhandelt werden, obwohl sich eine überwältigende 
Mehrheit der WTO-Mitglieder in Cancún strikt gegen alle vier 
Singapur-Themen ausgesprochen hat.

Attac-Fazit: "Die EU und die USA haben seit Beginn der Doha-Runde keine 
Bereitschaft gezeigt, ernsthafte Zugeständnisse zu machen und die 
bestehende Handelsverzerrungen - insbesondere im Landwirtschaftsbereich - 
zu beseitigen. Das Debakel von Cancún hat gezeigt, dass die 
"Entwicklungsrunde" eine rein rhetorische ist. Sollte Ende Juli erneut kein 
Ergebnis zustande kommen, ist dies insbesondere den EU und den USA 
zuzuschreiben, auch wenn sie wie gewohnt versuchen werden, den 
Schwarzen  Peter den Entwicklungsländern zuzuschieben", so Strickner.

"Freihandel in der Landwirtschaft führt zu einer großen Zahl von 
VerliererInnen in Nord und Süd. Die WTO sollte sich daher aus diesem 
Bereich zurückziehen, und ihre Mitglieder sollten die globalen 
Handelsgespräche auf die entwicklungsfreundlichere UNCTAD verlagern, 
anstatt auf bilaterale und regionale Freihandelszonen", so Christian Felber 
von Attac Österreich abschließend.

Rückfragen:
Alexandra Strickner: 0041-79- 76 48 6 58
Christian Felber: 0676 - 935 90 97

a t t a c  Österreich/Presse
presse at attac-austria.org
www.attac-austria.org

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

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