|
Press
release |
|
|||
|
|
The proponents of
trade liberalization have hailed the framework agreement that emerged from
the General Council Meeting of the World Trade Organization in United States Trade
Representative Robert Zoellick has called the framework, a road map to
prosperity. The Development
for whom? The framework sets the
stalled Doha Round negotiations back on track. The Doha Development Agenda
(DDA) provided the mandate for new negotiations on agriculture, services,
industrial tariffs, and the so-called Singapore Issues. The new
negotiations that began in But what the Doha
Development Agenda (DDA) is really about is further liberalization not
just in agriculture, but services and non-agricultural products as well.
The DDA is more about prying open new markets for the rich rather than
redressing the imbalance in world trade. The only development that the DDA
secures is that of the already rich and powerful countries. Protection
for the strong The framework further
aggravates this imbalance. The text is crystal clear when it comes to
protecting the interest of the developed countries and so conveniently
vague when it comes to accomodating the demands of the developing
countries. In the
agriculture negotiations, which remains the most contentious by far, the
central issue is the failure of the trading superpowers- mainly the The framework
agreement gives a go-signal to the Adding insult to
injury, the text even provides for flexibilities to members with
“exceptionally large percentage of its trade-distorting support in the
Blue Box, to ensure that a member is not alled upon to make a wholly
disproporitonate cut.” ( The framework for
Non-agricultural Market Access (NAMA) resurrects the Derbez text that was
already rejected by Members in The text directs
members to bind 100 percent their non-agricultural tariff lines and
prescribes a formula that will bind still un-bound tariffs at a rate twice
that of MFN applied rates in base year 2001. For a country like the The fisheries sector,
a sector considered sensitive to the Philippine economy because of the
millions of fishers dependent on it for livelihood, has been included in
NAMA. The tariff rates of local fishery products ranged from 10-15
percent in 2001, twice these rates mean 20-30 percent starting tariff
rates. These rates cannot provide ample protection to a sector that is
already drowning from so many threats and pressures on its resource base. Lip
Service for Developing Country Concerns The text dealing with
the demands by developing countries for Special and Differential Treatment
(S&D), for flexibilities for sensitive and special products (SP)
remains vague. The language does not go any further than saying that all
of these concerns will be noted in the negotiations. That is to say that
what developing countries got out of the framework on S&D and SP are
no more than empty promises. Furthermore, as in the case of provision on
sensitive products, the flexibilities are allowed not just for developing
countries who gravely need them, but are afforded to developed countries
as well. An
Unjust Process The process that gave
birth to the flawed framework is an unjust process, fraught with
the usual bullying and intimidation tactics by developed countries. Prior
to the meeting in Geneva, in fact immediately after the collapse of the
talks in Cancun, the proponents of free trade have already made
painstaking efforts to put the agenda of programmed and rapid trade
liberalization back on track. The
failure to consolidate a new trade deal under WTO only strengthened the
resolve of the In the lead up to the
meeting, the United States have used all sorts of tactics to intimidate,
pressure, and lure members to acceed to its demands. The The framework has been
projected as a consensus of the 147 members of the WTO. In reality
however, the process was much more exclusionary. The negotiations for
agriculture were held only among a small group of five countries (called
the non-group of five or NG5) which included the US, EU, Australia and two
of the most influential members of the Group of 20-Brazil and India.
The second draft of the framework was written by Tim Grosser the
chairperson of the Committee on Agriculture based on the NG5 discussions.
The second draft was then discussed by a group of around 20 countries in a
green room process. The outcome was a draft endorsed by the 20 countries.
This draft was then presented to the other groups. By this time, the
pressure to acceed was at its strongest with endorsement already secured
from the major players. Conclusion The WTO framework is
unjust. It is a framework that protects the interest of the trade
superpowers like the The so called
consensus in See also: Developing Countries Under Duress in All Night Negotiations
|
|
||
|
|
||||
|
HOME | ABOUT APL | PRESS STATEMENTS | POSITION PAPERS | BASIC DOCUMENTS | RESOLUTIONS | AFFILIATES | LINKS |
||||
|
Alliance of
Progressive Labor (APL) 2004 |
||||
A
joint statement issued by farmers, fishers, workers, NGOs, and concerned
individuals campaigning against further trade liberalization