NEWS FROM DOHA
WTO: The Doha Declaration
THE 4th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO)
DESPITE
BRAKES, THE TRADE-BASED ORGANISATION OF THE WORLD CONTINUES
(Dr
Raoul Marc JENNAR
From
Marrakech to Doha, the will of industrialised countries to impose the
ultra-liberal ideology throughout the planet has by no means withered.
Since the adoption of a set of agreements in 1994 at the end of the
Uruguay round, agreements that are managed by the World Trade Organisation
(WTO), this ideology has not lived up to its promises for all of those for whom
the priority is the fight against poverty through a better distribution of
wealth, through a reduction of inequalities, through the pre-eminence of the
rights of peoples over private interests. Economic
indicators have, year after year, proven that free-trade set up as a dogma
benefits only industrialised countries. The
lack of decisions at the 3rd ministerial conference in Seattle
marked the beginning of a resistance movement stemming from the South, a
resistance to this imperial desire of the North. Thanks
to the real progress made by developing countries in terms of their expertise
and cohesion, the conference which recently took place in Doha, if it
re-launched the process of trade in goods and persons has, nevertheless, limited
the declared ambitions of industrialised countries.
But, the corpus of Marrakech remained unchallenged.
And the courageous resistance of developing countries will demand new and
important efforts in the coming two years which separate us from the next
ministerial conference to which some of the demands of rich countries have been
deferred to.
Doha
also gave a brutal lesson to Europeans militating in favour of a united world
based on law. The hypocrisy and
double language of European governments and the Commission in Brussels has
become a planetary evidence. The
humanist language voiced in unison and aiming to hypnotise the good conscience
of the public in Europe and to abuse some of the governments of the South was
never translated into concrete action at the negotiation table.
When it comes to making a choice, the European Union stands side by side
with the US, not with developing countries: protectionism is acceptable only
when and if it benefits rich countries. The
responsibility of the 15 European governments and of the political parties
supporting them is, in this regard, complete.
All of the European governments, from Jospin to Berlusconi, follow the
same line, supporting the mandate granted to Pascal Lamy and government
participation, here and there, from the communists to the greens has,
unfortunately, changed nothing. The
powerlessness of citizens to change, for Doha, the mandate which had already
been granted to the European Commission for the Seattle conference by the 15
national parliamentarians and the 15 governments should provoke thought with
regards to the strategies which should be implemented in the coming months.
The self-satisfaction expressed after Doha by the European governments
and the parties supporting them provides a clear indication of what has yet to
come.
Developing
countries have made considerable efforts to prepare Doha, to analyse the stakes
and to express both, their viewpoints and their alternatives.
In short, they have made the effort to play the game of democratic debate
taught to them again and again by Americans and Europeans.
Both Americans and Europeans, however, did all they could to start of the
Doha conference on the basis of their expectations, manipulating WTO rules. The positions expressed by developing countries at various
intergovernmental summits (of African countries, of the ACP countries, of the
LDC group, of the Group of 77) or at meetings organised regularly or informally
by the WTO have been systematically ignored and even denied.
Indeed, the western media, in collusion with their governments, have been
taking part to a real occultation of any opinion that differs from the dominant
discourse imposed by rich countries. The
successive drafts of the ministerial declarations prepared by the WTO’s
General Council presidency were outrageously biased, excluding any reference to
the positions expressed by developing countries, in violation to WTO rules.
Upon arrival in Doha, official delegations were forced to work on a draft
declaration that completely follows the diktats of industrialised countries.
Everyone knows that entering into a negotiation on the basis of an
adverse position is the same as being forced into a situation of weakness.
The
organisation of the work programme at Doha was never carried out with the
concern of respecting the fundamental rules of democratic debate.
Rather, it was carried out in a context of power struggles.
This was blatantly illustrated during the bilateral contacts between rich
countries and developing countries, the former alternating between promises and
threats. The persons chosen to
represent the chair person during the consultations were chosen amongst the
partisans of rich countries and the issues chosen for consultation were those
which correspond to the expectations of these very countries.
Developing countries had to fight to be able to include one of their
representatives in order to begin the consultations on issues which mattered to
them. Despite the fact that the
negotiations were split into seven groups – which required, from each country,
a large enough delegation to ensure representation in each of the groups –
these various consultations, as much as the meetings between the heads of
delegation, enabled developing countries to voice their opinions.
This was a progress when compared to the situation in Seattle where the
delegations from the developing countries – although representing the majority
– had to wait in the halls for industrialised countries to reach an agreement
in their name. Yet this time,
industrialised countries could not – unless they were ready to run the risk of
a new Seattle – afford to continue the negotiations without including
developing countries. It is indeed
difficult to isolate a country like India whose population totals 1 billion
inhabitants. The solution was, rather, to resort to the most diverse forms of
manipulation.
When
it appeared that developing countries could in fact force rich countries into
agreeing to some concessions, “informal consultations” were renewed – a
technique that had often been used in Marrakech and Seattle as well as in the
day to day operations at the WTO. It
is more commonly known as the “green room” in reference to the initial
colour of the Director General’s office.
The “green room” in Doha was, in fact, the “presidential suite no.
11”. It is there that the western
camp and its allies held meetings with the most resilient delegations.
It was also the means to isolate the Indian delegation from the rest of
the negotiations that were being held during a part of the decisive night
between the 13 and 14 November, a night which marked the turning point of the
Doha conference. Only 20 of the 144
countries (China and Taiwan having been admitted during the conference) were
granted the right to access presidential suite no. 11.
The other countries that had wished to participate were denied access.
A number of the countries allowed in were able to be represented only by
their ministers, excluding any expert who could have shed light on the subjects
discussed. The leaders of the
negotiations took advantage of the confusion regarding the different state of
the texts to be discussed. Adherence
to the proposed drafts were bartered against promises of technical assistance,
direct financial aid or threats of withdrawal of such aid.
The charade went as far as pure and simple intimidation and persecution
of the most resistant ministers. The
WTO secretariat took active part in the game, siding with these practices and
completely neglecting its obligations towards all member states.
It
was at the end of this night that the coalition of countries gathering the
African and ACP countries and LDC group was dismantled.
ACP countries obtained the necessary waiver with regards to the
application of the special trade regime provided for in the Cotonou Agreement.
Yet, despite these mafia-style methods – indeed, this is how, with the
support of our governments, the world of trade is being regulated – a couple
of hours before the end of the negotiations which were prolonged by one day,
some ten countries still held on to their position when the heads of the
delegations were all gathered for a meeting.
This last handful crumbled when confronted to the possibility of being
held responsible for what could be a new Seattle.
India alone held strong and continued the battle until the last possible
limit. It was able to snatch a
decisive interpretation on the postponed opening of the negotiations regarding
what is commonly called the Singapore issues (see below). It is thus that India gained the contempt of the French
newspaper ‘Le Monde’ which accused the country of having obstructed the
process from beginning to end.
Doha
has offered a blatant refutation of the Financial Time’s recent assertion
(09.11.2001) according to which “the multilateral rules-based system gives
the poor and the weak the same rights as those granted to the rich and powerful”.
The WTO is not a democratic institution.
Its working methods have produced a system based on power struggles
rather than on the law. Its reform
is more than ever essential. The
outrage experienced by developing countries should incite them to consider this
reform as the priority in the next ministerial conference.
THE CONTENT OF THE DOHA DECLARATION: EVERYTHING BUT DEVELOPMENT
In
order to evaluate the implications of the ‘Doha Declaration’, it is
important to recall that there are two types of negotiations at the WTO.
There are areas which, in virtue of the Marrakech Agreements, are the
object of quasi-permanent negotiations: agriculture, services and intellectual
property rights. This is the
built-in agenda. Whether there is a
ministerial conference or not, whether there is a new round or not, negotiations
on these issues are scheduled and underway.
Only a formal decision of the ministerial conference could put an end to
this, by changing its scope or defining the direction to be taken.
The ‘Doha Declaration’ gives direction to the negotiations on these
issues.
The
concept of a ‘new round’ thus only concerns negotiations on other issues.
There is hence – in the Doha programme – a difference between that
which regards the built-in agenda and that which regards the new round of
negotiations.
During
a USA – European Union summit last spring in Sweden, the governments of this
Atlantic economic community had called for a “new ambitious round” of
negotiations in view of privatising new sectors of life.
This wish for a new “ambitious” round was confirmed by the 15
European governments last 29 October in Luxembourg.
During an informal meeting gathering some 20 countries a couple of weeks
ago in Singapore and confronted to the hostility of developing countries with
regards to a new round of negotiations, a proposal had been presented to rename
the project “an agenda for development”, without, of course, changing the
ultra-liberal proposals contained therein.
The Doha programme, whether concerning the built-in agenda or the new
round, is neither ambitious nor devoted to development.
The programme is limited to a few expectations of rich countries without
any opening whatsoever for negotiations on the issues forwarded by developing
countries. As has declared
Chakravati Raghavan in the SUNS (no. 5011 of the 16 November 2001), we can talk
about a round of “Everything but development”.
Articles
1 and 2 of the Declaration reassert the belief in the virtues of an absolute
free-trade system. This is the
dogma and its implementation is believed to automatically produce growth and
development. Lyrical wording
follows concerning the fight against poverty which has recently become the
refrain of the institutions (World Bank, International Monetary Fund, WTO) which
have contributed the most to the increase of poverty.
THE
BUILT-IN AGENDA
Negotiations
on the three areas of this agenda continue, permanently, at the WTO headquarters
in Geneva. The ‘Doha
Declaration’ has been limited to providing indications as to the direction
which should be given to these negotiations.
It did not question any of the relevant agreements, contrary to the
demands of developing countries.
Agriculture
This
is the area which concerns the overwhelming majority of the planet’s
population: the small farmers. It
is the area which offers the most amazing show of hypocrisy from the European
Union and the USA. Together, they
grant, each year and under different forms, 380 billion US$ in premiums and
subsidies whilst at the same time forbidding, through the Agriculture Agreement,
the rest of the world from supporting their production and exports of foodstuffs
(should they have the capacity to do so) and to protect their domestic markets
against this unfair competition. Nothing
in Doha was granted to small farmers. Either
in the area of agriculture or in that of the protection of natural resources and
indigenous knowledge. (refer to the
TRIPS issue) NOTHING.
The European Union took the risk of provoking the failure of the Doha
conference for the sake of protecting the European agro-industry and its
hyper-productivist model (the performances of which are well-known: dioxin, mad
cow, foot and mouth, massive pollution). Developing
countries asked for preferential tariff treatment and specific measures for
small-scale agriculture through a special chapter in the Agriculture Agreement.
The European Union led the opposition to this demand, summarised in the
expression “Development Box”.
The
draft declaration mentioned the will to commit to “holding global negotiations
with the aim of reducing the export subsidies in view of their progressive
withdrawal”. The European Union,
which grants aid of a whole other nature than that granted by the US, pushed to
introduce an additional indication in the text which indicates that what matters
is the reduction of “all forms” of subsidies. However, the European Union also obtained that the phrase “with
a view to phasing out” become ineffective by introducing the following
indication: “without prejudging the outcome of the negotiations”.
The
Doha Declaration confirms the on-going negotiations, the direction taken and the
objectives pursued. In spite of the
fears expressed by citizens, nothing formally indicates that the notion of
public service will be protected against the will of privatisation, apart from
paragraph 7 of the Declaration which stipulates that: “We reaffirm the
right of Members, under the General Agreement on Trade in Services, to regulate,
and to introduce new regulations on, the supply of services.”
It has been asserted that this provision will enable states to protect
the concept of public service, particularly in the areas of education and
health. It should be noted that
environmental negotiations which are about to commence (see below) entail
environmental services which are directly threatened by privatisation.
Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS)
The
Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) – the
extremely elaborate form of property law – hinders the application of
fundamental rights: the right to health (A) and the sovereign right of peoples
over their natural resources (B), a right which is, for that matter, enshrined
in international instruments adopted and ratified by all states.
The TRIPS tackles areas of intellectual property (C).
A.
With regards to the right to health and its practical application, that is, the
right to access essential medicines, a different declaration was adopted
following the persisting efforts of developing countries, resolutely united in
their fight presented, quite rightly, as “a matter of life or death”.
In
February 2000, in front of the European Parliament, the European Commissioner
for international trade asserted, peremptory, that international property rights
(patents) have no effect on the price of medicines.
The Doha Declaration adopted in Doha makes note of exactly the opposite.
The Doha text on the “TRIPS and health” represents a major political
step. Yet, it contains no legal
translation, a point which the American delegation did its very best to recall
at all times. The problems posed by
patents in the area of public health and of the fight against epidemics have
been identified and recognised. States
have expressed their wish to ensure that the application of the TRIPS does not
hinder the rights of WTO members to take appropriate measures to enable access
to essential medicines. They did
not question the principle of a patent. A
negotiation is scheduled in Geneva on the issue of the import of generic
medicines. It should be finalised
before the end of 2002.
B.
With regards to the sovereign right of peoples over their natural resources and
the fight against biopiracy and the patenting of life, article 19 of the
Declaration gives instruction to “the Council for TRIPS, in pursuing its work
programme including under the review of Article 27.3(b), the review of the
implementation of the TRIPS Agreement (. . .) to examine, inter alia, the
relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological
Diversity, the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore, and other
relevant new developments.” Even
if the wording does not open a renegotiation of the TRIPS as was requested by
developing countries, it does not put an end to the discussions of article 27:3
b), as was requested by the European Union.
The
progress witnessed with regards to the TRIPS (concerning medicines) in the Doha
Declaration should not make us forget that this Agreement is not open for
renegotiation. According to the
demands of multilateral pharmaceuticals and of the agro-industry, the European
Union and the USA are resolutely hostile to such a renegotiation which was
requested by developing countries.
C.
The Declaration announces the opening of negotiations on the establishment of a
multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications
for wines and spirits. This
is the implementation of article 23 of the TRIPS and not its review.
Under
the leadership of an ad hoc committee, negotiations will be held between the
01.01.2002 and the 01.01.2005. A
ministerial conference will be organised to take decision on the results.
These negotiations, their conclusion and the implementation of their
results will be treated as parts of a single undertaking. These negotiations
will focus on the following areas:
-
Market access for non-agricultural products: it concerns customs duties
and tariffs on industrial products. Developing
countries and, more particularly, the African group, had asked that there be no
negotiation prior to an in-depth study of the impact of the lowering of custom
duties and of tariff peaks on the de-industrialisation of developing countries.
Their voices were not heard. If
care is not taken, negotiations on this issue could lead to a considerable
expansion of free-trade in the areas that directly concern sustainable
development.
-
The GATT 1994 (that is, the agreements reached within the framework of
the former GATT until 1994): the negotiations will focus on the question of the
implementation of the existing provisions, particularly in the area of subsidies
(for example, fisheries) as well as the procedures and disciplines relating to
regional trade agreements.
-
The environment: negotiations will concentrate on the relation between
WTO rules and multilateral environmental agreements. These negotiations will,
however, not bind those countries which are not signatory to the agreements.
The US is thus free to act as it wishes and to impose to others rules
that it refuses for itself. Worse
yet, the wording of this provision shows an implicit pre-eminence of WTO rules
above all other rules which make up international law and incites countries to
refuse to adhere to environmental agreements.
The Declaration also announces that the environmental negotiations will
focus on the “reduction or, as appropriate, elimination of tariff and
non-tariff barriers applicable to environmental goods and services”. The
way has been paved for the privatisation of environmental public services
(water, energy, waste . . .). On
the other hand, the prescriptions with regards to labelling for environmental
purposes have been transferred to a working group.
The priority of sustainable development is not presented as a limit to
the expansion of free-trade.
-
Implementation. It is not a matter of negotiations on new issues per se, but
rather on the details of implementation of the existing agreements.
It was a request expressed by the overwhelming majority of developing
countries in their wish to see that work on implementation and its impact would
eventually lead to the review of the existing agreement.
They did not obtain this. No
significant progress has been made concerning the respect, by rich countries, of
the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, nor on the abusive use by these very
countries of anti-dumping measures.
-
The reform of the dispute settlement mechanism.
It is the only negotiation which will focus on an existing agreement and
on the actual operations of the WTO. Contrary
to the other issues of the new round, the deadline for these negotiations has
been set to May 2003. Without
forecasting the direction which the negotiations will take, it is indeed a
delight to see that a possibility has been offered to review a mechanism which
has given rise, quite rightly, to substantial criticism.
It
is evident that the impact of this new round is greatly limited.
It would have been different if the so-called Singapore issues had been
integrated into the negotiations. Industrialised
countries wanted the new round to focus on investment (to give impetus to the
Multilateral Agreement on Investment rejected in 1998), competition, government
procurement and trade facilitation. Developing
countries – and LDC even more so – were unanimous in declaring, time and
time again, that they were not ready to take this big step forward into
free-trade which is turning the planet into a single market dominated by
transnational corporations from the North.
The
entire battle which took place on the night between the 13 and 14 November
concerned these paragraphs of the draft declaration (20, 23, 26 and 27).
During the first days of the conference, developing countries had
obtained that a decision on these issues be postponed to the 5th
ministerial conference in 2003. However, under the pressure of the European Union, they were
reinserted in the programme of the new round.
The only difference between these issues and the other issues of the
programme is that negotiations on the former will take place “after the 5th
session of the ministerial conference on the basis of a decision to be taken by
explicit consensus, at that session, on the modalities of negotiations.”
It
was India’s persistence which led to the presentation, before the adoption of
the Declaration in plenary session, of the following interpretation by the chair
of the conference: “I
would like to note that some delegations have requested clarification concerning
Paragraphs 20, 23, 26 and 27 of the draft declaration. Let me say that with
respect to the reference to an ‘explicit consensus’ being needed, in these
paragraphs, for a decision to be taken at the Fifth Session of the Ministerial
Conference, my understanding is that, at that session, a decision would indeed
need to be taken by explicit consensus, before negotiations on trade and
investment and trade and competition policy, transparency in government
procurement, and trade facilitation could proceed. In my view, this would also
give each member the right to take a position on modalities that would prevent
negotiations from proceeding after the Fifth Session of the Ministerial
Conference until that member is prepared to join in an explicit consensus.”
This
means that if a member is not willing, in 2003, to participate to the consensus,
negotiations on these issues will be blocked. The USA and the European Union
will most certainly forward the fact that the chair’s interpretation does not
have the legal value of the Declaration. This
may provide jurists with matter for debate even if the clarification of the
conference’s chair is an integral part of its work and even if no one can
forecast the final result regarding the adoption of the Doha Declaration had the
chair’s interpretation not been expressed prior to this adoption. Beyond the
legal debate, there is undoubtedly a political commitment to avoid forcing any
country before opening negotiations on these issues.
As
for the other issues which were not the object of negotiations (electronic
trade, small economies, debt and finance, transfer of technology, technical
co-operation and capacity building), they have been transferred to WTO working
groups. The fundamental internationally recognised labour norms remain the
exclusive competency of the International Labour Organization.
In
conclusion, one will note that, if the operations and rules of the WTO remain
extremely harmful to developing countries, these have started to defend their
interests. Negotiations on issues
of the built-in agenda will continue and other negotiations will start on new
issues. Everything will henceforth
take place in Geneva. A long and
difficult battle will have to be waged for trade to be at the service of people
rather than for people to be at the service of trade.
Dr
Raoul Marc JENNAR
Researcher
for Oxfam-Solidarity and the Research, Training and Information Unit on
Globalization (URFIG)
21
November 2001