Document URFIG - Prise de position relative à l'OMC
(Communiqué de presse, 15 octobre 2001)
Depuis
deux ans et demi, les pays riches, Union européenne en tête, veulent imposer
un nouveau round de négociations pour élargir le champ d’action des
entreprises privées dans des domaines jusqu’ici protégés par des législations
nationales ou internationales.
Depuis
deux ans et demi, avec des nuances, plus de 100 pays sur les 142 que compte
l’OMC s’y opposent et demandent, avant toute éventuelle étape nouvelle
dans la libéralisation, une évaluation des accords existants et de la manière
dont ils sont appliqués, une révision de ces accords ainsi qu’une réforme
de l’OMC. Les pays riches refusent radicalement.
Cette
opposition entre Nord et Sud fut la cause de l’échec de la 3e conférence
ministérielle de l’OMC, à Seattle. Rien n’ayant changé dans les positions
des uns et des autres depuis lors, cette opposition risque de provoquer l’échec
de la 4e conférence ministérielle qui doit, en principe, se tenir du 9 au 13
novembre, à Doha, capitale du Qatar.
Avec
les gouvernements des pays du Sud, avec les ONG de ces mêmes pays, l’URFIG déplore
la conspiration du silence organisée par les gouvernements du Nord et
l’immense majorité des média occidentaux à propos des positions adoptées
par les pays en développement.
Du
14 au 20 mai, s’est tenu à Bruxelles un sommet des Pays les Moins Avancés
(PMA). Des pressions énormes ont été exercées par la Commission européenne
pour obtenir de ces pays une déclaration en faveur de ce nouveau round. Ils ont
refusé alors de prendre position. Réunis à Zanzibar du 22 au 24 juillet, ils
ont déclaré que «
l’étendue des négociations
commerciales multilatérales à venir devront prendre en considération
l’incapacité des PMA à participer d’une manière effective à des négociations
sur un ordre du jour étendu et de mettre en place de nouvelles obligations étant
donné la capacité limitée bien connue des PMA. » Ce refus d’un nouveau
round a provoqué de nouvelles pressions de la Commission européenne. Mais les
49 PMA ont tenu bon et, réunis à Abuja du 19 au 23 septembre, ils ont confirmé
leur refus. Ils l’ont répété encore une fois ce 3 octobre, à Genève. La
plupart des médias occidentaux ont passé sous silence cette position des pays
les plus pauvres du monde. Par contre, ils ont répercuté à l’envi les déclarations
manipulatrices du Commissaire européen Pascal Lamy laissant entendre tant et
plus qu’il avait rallié les PMA à l’idée d’un nouveau round.
A Genève se sont
tenues, fin juin, fin juillet et début septembre des réunions informelles du
Conseil général de l’OMC. A chacune de ces réunions, l’opposition
Nord-Sud sur le principe d’un nouveau round et sur la question de l’évaluation
de l’impact des accords existants s’est manifestée clairement, sans exclure
des nuances. Mais, à trois reprises, les média l’ont ignorée et ont répercuté
les propos lénifiants des partisans du nouveau round. Dans le meilleur des cas,
ils évoquent des « conditions préalables » posées par les pays en
développement.
Le 26 septembre, le
directeur général et le président du Conseil général de l’OMC ont déposé
un projet de déclaration ministérielle dans lequel toutes les attentes des
pays riches sont rencontrées et aucune demande des pays en développement
n’est retenue. Ce document a été considéré comme une « sale gifle »
par les pays en développement. Cela n’a pas empêché les représentants de
l’Europe et des USA de déclarer que ce texte était très bien accueilli. Ni
les médias de s’associer à cette manipulation des opinions publiques en répercutant
ces propos sans indiquer qu’ils ne reflètent guère la réalité.
L’OMC a réuni à
Mexico (31/8 et 1/9) et à Singapour (13 et 14/10) des délégués de 17 Etats
membres, plus ou moins représentatifs des différentes catégories de pays,
dans l’espoir de les rallier au principe d’un nouveau round. Chaque fois,
les Européens et les Américains ont annoncé la fin de la résistance du Sud.
Chaque fois, ils ont travesti la vérité. Chaque fois, seuls leurs propos
optimistes ont été relayés par les médias.
Afin de briser cette
occultation de l’information par les médias occidentaux, voici, réunis par Third
World Network (www.twnside.org.sg),
quelques déclarations de représentants de pays du Sud lors de la réunion
informelle du Conseil général de l’OMC les
2-3 octobre 2001 au cours de laquelle fut discuté le projet de déclaration
ministérielle. Ces extraits proviennent des textes distribués par les
ambassadeurs. On pourra se rendre compte ainsi à quel point les déclarations
de l’Union européenne et des Etats-Unis ne correspondent en rien aux
positions exprimées par les pays du Sud.
Pour
l’URFIG,
Dr
Raoul Marc JENNAR
INDIA:
...We
have been clearly pointing out that we are not in a position to commence
negotiations with a view to make binding rules in any one of these four areas.
... For us, these four subjects have to be dealt with in the framework of the
Singapore Ministerial Declaration.
[La
déclaration ministérielle de Singapour en 1996 avait engagé des discussions
en groupes de travail sur des sujets pour lesquels les pays riches demandent
qu’on passe maintenant à la négociation : les investissements, la
concurrence, les marchés publics et les
procédures simplifiées.]
A
solemn commitment was given by our major trading partners, to my Minister at
Singapore that there will be no pressure on us to negotiate rules in these areas
and as a compromise, my Minister was asked to accept a non-prejudicial study
programme with a clear stipulation that negotiations will commence in these
areas only when there is 'explicit consensus'.
... it is absolutely clear that there was no consensus in favour of
changing the study mode into negotiation mode in respect of any one of these
subjects.
... When I first glanced through your draft,
I got the impression that there was no 'round' in it. But subsequently, when I
looked at paragraphs 36 to 39 and 42, all ideas, concepts and trappings which go
to make a 'round' have been included in these paragraphs. We fell these
paragraphs closely mirror the Punta de Este Declaration.
[la Déclaration de
Punta del Este qui a ouvert l’Uruguay Round ne précisait pas les sujets à négocier,
mais permettait de les aborder tous]
... We have an uncomfortable feeling that reference to a
single undertaking in the Draft might be a pointer towards inclusion of new
subjects, a prospect which we do not look forward to. Moreover, your paragraph
42 is so ambiguous and open ended that many developing countries whose memories
about Uruguay Round are still fresh genuinely feel threatened by this paragraph.
INDONESIA:
...
On the new issues initiated in Singapore, I would like to state that Indonesia
cannot accept any language in the Declaration that makes references to
negotiations on these issues. …Indonesia is not comfortable with the existing
draft. However, Indonesia is prepared to agree on the proposal for the extension
for the work in the working groups provided that those work will be focused on
addressing various concerns of those members who have difficulties with the
proposed agreements including the examination of the potential cost of any
possible agreements.
JAMAICA:
On
trade facilitation ... Jamaica seriously doubts whether binding commitments are
a realistic goal. The discussions to which we were party did not suggest that
this would be a basis for consensus. ...
KENYA:
...
On the new issues or Singapore issues, Kenya believes that starting negotiations
on these issues would not be appropriate. ... Kenya is concerned that
multilateral rules in these proposed
new issues will lead to further obligations that will again limit our
development options and prospects. We are therefore, not in a position to agree
to start negotiations on these new issues. Instead, the work of the working
groups on the four Singapore issues should continue. ...
On the section on the organization of the
Work Programme, we find that the way it has been drafted implies that the future
work of the WTO will be organized around the modalities of a New Round. These
elements include ending all negotiations by a certain date, forming a Trade
Negotiations Committee, the single undertaking and possible additions of
negotiating topics at the next Ministerial Conference.
... The experience of the comprehensive
Uruguay Round shows that developing countries were disadvantaged by a broad
based Round of negotiations with single undertaking. We have yet to recover from
the negative effects of previous Round and the seemingly entrenched problems of
implementation ... Kenya is
therefore, not in a position to agree to a broad based round.
LEAST-DEVELOPED
COUNTRIES (LDCs): STATEMENT BY TANZANIA ON BEHALF OF THE LDCs:
... LDCs cannot agree with the parts of the
Draft relating to the Singapore issues. The LDC Ministers indicated that the
four 'Singapore issues' were not yet ripe for negotiations as the issues were
complex and the LDCs were not able to fully understand the implications for
them. Therefore the LDCs' position on the sections on new issues is as follows:
[On trade and investment]: We are unable to
accept para 18.
[On
trade and competition]: We are unable to accept para 20.
[On transparency in government procurement]:
We are unable to accept para 22. LDCs are not prepared to launch negotiations in
this area and hence the study process in the working groups has to continue.
[On trade facilitation] We are unable to accept para 23. We are not
prepared to launch negotiations in this area. ...
With
regard to the last section on 'organisation and management of the Work
Programme, paras 36-42 ... our Ministers in Zanzibar were very clear that LDCs
are not in a position to undertake broad based negotiations involving many new
issues due to lack of capacity to negotiate and implement new commitments. What
we interpret in this section is that we are preparing for a broad based
programme of negotiations with the inclusion of a number of new issues for which we are not prepared as already indicated. ...
MALAYSIA:
...
We would again, on this occasion, stress that Malaysia cannot support the start
of negotiations on these issues. We wish to point out that there were also
fundamental difficulties expressed by delegations, including my own, as to the necessity of starting
negotiations on transparency in government procurement and trade facilitation.
These have not been reflected in the draft. We would have preferred alternative
texts that would give a fair reflection of where positions
differ.
... Any effort to insist the inclusion of new
issues to be part and parcel of the agenda of the New Round will only prolong
the stalemate and will not allow for the consensus in Doha for the launch of a
New Round.
PAKISTAN:
... There is no consensus among Members on
starting negotiations on Singapore issues. ... We therefore cannot agree on
commencing any negotiations until the study phase is over.
SRI
LANKA:
... The Draft Declaration in effect launches
a new broad round although a number of regional meetings held recently,
including South East Association for Regional Cooperation - SAARC held in New
Delhi, have expressed concern on launching a new broad round.
On Singapore issues namely relationship
between Trade and Investment, Trade and Competition Policy, Transparency in
Government Procurement and Trade Facilitation, that is paragraph 18 to 23, my
delegation wishes to reiterate its position that we have difficulty in agreeing
to negotiations on these issues for binding commitments and our position is that
educational and analytical work in the Working Groups/Committees should
continue.
EGYPT:
(As reported in SUNS #4981, October 5, 2001, 'Draft declaration work to be
'... Egypt complained that the level of
ambition was "still high". All proposals for negotiations (government
procurement and trade facilitation) had been included irrespective of the level
of support among the membership. Alternatives should have been proposed on
issues where there were strong disagreements. Both the discussions in Geneva,
and at Mexico city meeting, it was clear that there was no consensus to bring
forward the new issues for negotiations, The present draft presented a broad,
but imbalanced programme.... On Singapore issues, Egypt wanted the current study
programme to be listed and proposed as alternatives....'
HONDURAS
AND DOMINICAN REPUBLIC:
With respect to the trade and investment and
the trade and competition policy, we are of the view that the working groups
have not yet conclude their studies and this must continue, but this must not
lead to the launch of negotiations in the future.
Finally we find it surprising that the text
in the section relating to the Organisation and Management and the Programme of
Work are being launched as a single undertaking without there being at the
moment a consensus in the subject and the negotiations, and without this
negotiation being the preference of many members of the WTO.
[Unofficial translation of statement dated 2
Oct, from the original in Spanish]
UGANDA:
As regards the Singapore issues, our
Ministers stated that these are complex and not yet ripe for Negotiations.
Therefore the current study process should continue until the full
implications are known and well understood. We therefore do not accept para 18
on negotiations on investment and para 20 on negotiations on competition.
We support the oprion indicated in paras 19 and 22 which state that the
study process should continue. On
the other Singapore issues namely transparency in government procurement and
trade facilitation, we believe that the study process should continue.
Our approach to the section on the future
work programme (para 36 to 42) is guided by what LDC Ministers agreed to in
Zanzibar. The Ministers took the
view that the scope of future multilateral trade negotiations will have to take
into account the inability of LDCs to participate effectively in negotiations on
a broad agenda and to implement new obligations given their limited capacity to
do so. The section contains all the
elements of a comprehensive New Round which encompass the new issues with a
possibility of more being added later together with a single undertaking. It is
also suggested that a Trade Negotiating Committee be formed for this purpose as
was the case in the Uruguay Round.
The
experience of the Uruguay Round cautions us of the dangers of taking once again
the roda of a broad based new Round. This
is especially so when implementation issues of the last Round have not yet been
resolved and many members have indicated that they are not ready to engage in a
broad agenda containing new issues. Given the role of the WTO as a permanent
negotiatihg forum, There is no need for establishing a Trade negotiating
Committee. We propose that the elements of the work program to be agreed to in
Doha will be carried out in the relevant bodies of the WTO and these be
supervised by the General
Council which will report back to the 5th Ministerial Conference.
ZAMBIA:
We share the view with many developing
countries that the draft is disappointing as it did not take into account the
interests of developing countries... On the Singapore issues, we cannot agree to
negotiations either in investment, competition, government procurement or trade
facilitation.Therefore we cannot accept [ara 18 or para 20 or para 22 or para
23. We would like the draft to
change to accommodate our view that negotiations should not start and instead
the study process should continue in the respective working groups.
This option should be made available for all areas on new issues.