|
The 6th Ministerial Conference
of the World Trade Organization was held in Hong Kong from December
13 to 18, 2005. WTO ministerial conferences are the WTO's highest
decision-making body, and are empowered to take decisions on all
matters under any of the agreements within the WTO regime. Previous
to this Hong Kong conference, the 3rd Ministerial Conference of the
WTO was held in Seattle, USA, in 1999 ; the 4th conference in Doha,
Qatar, in November 2001 ; and the 5th conference in Cancun, Mexico,
in September 2003.
In Seattle, the resistance of developing countries against the
intransigent positions of the USA and the European Union (EU), and
massive civil society mobilizations (with tens of thousands of
protestors calling for an end to WTO and its negotiations),
disrupted the conference. The forging of a general agreement was
derailed, and WTO trade talks collapsed for the first time. In Doha,
the absence of civil society mobilizations allowed the big trading
powers to bamboozle developing countries to sign on to the so-called
"Doha Development Agenda" which would include investment, government
procurement and competition policies in negotiations, thus further
expanding the ambit of the WTO over national sovereignty issues.
Then in Cancun, a more unified South and better organized civil
society mobilization forced the USA, the EU and Japan to provoke a
collapse in negotiations, rather than give in to the persistent
demands for significant reductions in their agricultural subsidies,
and for the non-extension of WTO jurisdiction to investment and
other activities beyond trade. The historic walkout led by African
delegates was the appropriate response to the bullying by the North.
To try to save the situation and help ensure that no deadlock will
again happen in the next ministerial conference, a smaller General
Council meeting of the WTO in Geneva in July 2004 crafted a
"framework agreement" for the Hong Kong conference to keep
negotiations alive on the different issues of the so-called "Doha
Development Round".
The Doha conference in 2001 promised a "development round" for
developing countries, particularly the poorest and least developed.
The Hong Kong conference aimed at forging an agreement on the
elements of a new trade deal which would conclude the "Doha
Development Round" by 2006. The Hong Kong conference brought
together the trade ministers from all the WTO member countries
(currently 149) to make final decisions on trade negotiations on WTO
agreements such as the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA),
Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA, which pertains to tariffs on
industrial goods), the General Agreement on Trade in Services
(GATS), the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreements (TRIPs),
and Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs).
The WTO Framework : Profits Before People
The WTO's July 2004 "framework agreement" for the Hong Kong
ministerial conference was primarily focused on the modalities of
agreements on agriculture. Essentially, the framework maintains the
right of the trade superpowers to subsidize their agricultural
production ; creates a new category of "sensitive products" in
developed countries in order to hamper market access for
agricultural products from developing countries ; and makes any USA-EU-Japan
concession in the agricultural field dependent on the opening up to
foreign investment of the services and industry sectors of
developing countries (under GATS and TRIMs). The framework was
deceptively embellished with a promised 20% reduction by the USA, EU
and Japan in their maximum allowed subsidy level. The 'reduced'
level amounts to USD $152.6-Billion, which is still much higher than
their 2000 actual subsidy level of USD $118.1-Billion. Clearly, the
framework for the Hong Kong negotiations on agriculture was in
favour of the trade superpowers of the North.
On the issue of services (under GATS), the framework increases the
pressure on developing countries to open up their services sector
(which now account for 50% of the GDP of developing countries) to
investment penetration by the northern superpowers. At stake is the
privatization of public services (such as energy, water supply and
education). Governments are to be effectively prevented from
exercising national control over private service providers, and
would therefore be unable to regulate prices, ensure universal
coverage of services, or oversee labor standards. Agreements to this
effect would mean the death knell for public services.
On the issue of market access for industrial products (under NAMA),
the industrial powers require deeper tariff cuts on the part of
developing countries. This would mean a continuation and aggravation
of the import liberalization imposed upon developing countries under
previous structural adjustment programs. The de-industrialization of
developing countries is to be accelerated.
On the issue of intellectual property, of special concern is the
need to put the public health and food security interests of
developing countries over the profit drive of pharmaceutical and
other transnational corporations which own or control patents and
trademarks over such items as life-saving drugs, food formulations
for special infants, hybrid seeds and vital chemical products. The
framework for the Hong Kong conference gave short shrift to this and
other main concerns of developing countries.
In general, the continuation of the "Doha Round" of negotiations at
the Hong Kong conference was used by the rich countries to protect
their interests, to the detriment of the vast mass of humanity
belonging to the developing countries.
The Peoples' Resistance : For Fair Trade, Not "Free" Trade
In the months prior to the start of the Hong Kong ministerial
conference, there were a number of anti-WTO activities in many
developing countries, as well as in Hong Kong itself. As early as
September 2004, the Hong Kong People's Alliance against the WTO (HKPA)
was organized to prepare a powerful representation of the peoples to
the official delegates at this WTO conference. The HKPA was formed
by representatives of trade unions and organizations of migrant
workers, students, women, human rights advocates and social
researchers, as well as of regional organizations based in Hong
Kong.
In November 2004, also as an advanced preparation for the Hong Kong
ministerial conference, an "Asia-Pacific Conference on Trade" was
held in Penang, Malaysia, by NGO representatives from 11
Asia-Pacific countries. The main position approved at that Penang
conference was that trade should be in the service of sustainable
development - development which should reflect equity, address
environmental concerns, and meet social needs. Developing countries
of the region must reject any trade arrangement which is detrimental
to sustainable development. As the main slogan goes : No deal is
better than a bad deal ! Better to derail the Hong Kong ministerial
conference, than to worsen inequity.
In the days immediately before the opening of the ministerial
conference, a number of anti-WTO activities were already being held
in Hong Kong. On December 11, an anti-WTO seminar, on the theme of
women and economic justice, was well attended at the City University
of Hong Kong. On December 12, a press conference was held at the
media center at Victoria Park by the "Peoples' Caravan for Justice
and Sovereignty", to rally local support for anti-WTO activities
planned for the duration of the ministerial conference. On December
13, the opening day of the ministerial conference, an anti-WTO
fluvial parade was held off the Kowloon pier in the morning,
followed in the afternoon by a demonstration of around 10,000
participants led by the HKPA at the Victoria Park.
For the whole duration of the ministerial conference, protest
actions were staged, mainly by representatives of farmers' groups
from developing countries of Asia. Most of these manifestations were
held at the main lawn of Victoria Park (around a kilometer from the
venue of the ministerial meetings), and were very informative and
inspiring affairs. There were presentations on the alternative
agenda for peoples' food sovereignty ; workshops on poverty
alleviation and women's rights in the rubric of trade liberalization
; discussions on agricultural subsidies and dumping practices by the
USA and the EU which destabilize farm incomes and rural communities
in developing countries ; and country reports on specific problems
such as the channelling of credit programs for export crops
controlled by transnational agri-trading corporations, instead of
being used to support food production for domestic needs and to
improve farm livelihoods.
On December 17, around 10,000 farmers, fisherfolks and agricultural
workers held a rally at Victoria Park, after which around 4,000
Korean participants stayed on for a candlelight vigil. On December
18, the last day of the ministerial conference, around 10,000
rallyists at Victoria Park were joined by around 5,000 migrant
workers as they marched to the vicinity of the ministerial
conference venue at Wanchai district. The substantial participation
of migrant workers dramatized the fact that the deepening crisis in
agriculture and the de-industrialization of developing countries are
driving millions of people off the land and out of local employment,
and driving many to overseas migration as domestic helpers or as
cheap labor for industrial and agricultural corporations.
The acrimony that prevailed in Hong Kong during the ministerial
conference, both inside and outside the official meeting halls, had
created apprehensions among delegates from the North that consensus
may prove elusive and that the drafting of a general agreement could
be derailed as in the earlier ministerial conferences in Seattle and
Cancun. The official debates and discussions showed that majority of
the member countries oppose the way the WTO is conducting its job.
The developed countries, especially the USA, the EU and Japan,
therefore wanted to ensure that the WTO would not suffer a third
derailment after Seattle and Cancun.
The Disappointing Results Of Hong Kong Ministerial Conference
Faced with the resistance from most of the developing countries, WTO
Director-General Pascal Lamy decided to settle for limited progress
in Hong Kong, in the hope that negotiations would be completed in
the next General Council meeting in Geneva. A third crash for the
WTO in Hong Kong would have fatally undermined its credibility. The
rich countries tried to undermine the unity of the opposition by
selectively offering concessional morsels (such as opportunities in
business process outsourcing) to some developing countries.
Unfortunately, some representatives of developing countries did not
do enough to adequately protect the interests of their countries,
and especially of their farmers. In the end, the developed countries
prevailed, with the developing countries succumbing to their
manoeuvres.
The Hong Kong ministerial conference concluded on December 18, 2005,
with a finalized draft which showed that the global trading system
continues to be systematically skewed in favor of the few rich
trading powers of the North. At the same time, it was the best that
the developed countries could squeeze out of the developing world,
considering the overwhelming opposition from more than 125 members
of the 149-member WTO. In the end, there was no commitment from the
developed countries to lower their domestic agricultural subsidies,
or to liberalize the entry into their territory of service providers
from the developing countries.
The rich countries merely promised to eliminate all forms of
agricultural export subsidies by 2013. As a concession, the
finalized draft allows developing countries to declare an
appropriate number of special products (on a self-selective basis)
to remain outside the ambit of tariff reduction formulas. It also
provided for a special safeguard mechanism under which developing
countries would be able to raise their import duties on agricultural
products in the event of a surge in their import volumes, or a sharp
fall in their import prices.
It would of course be an exaggeration and unwarranted optimism to
consider these concessions as significant safeguards for the
interests of developing countries. First of all, the export
subsidies form no more than 3.5 % of total agricultural subsidies in
developed countries, and will hardly protect agriculture and farmers
of the South. While developing countries have demanded the reduction
of the rich countries' enormous subsidies and restrictions, the US
almost doubled its farm subsidies during the 10 years since the
start of the WTO. While the USA preaches free markets to others, it
practices tighter protection for its industry and agriculture.
Ironically, representatives of a number of developing countries
agreed during the Hong Kong negotiations to further cuts in
agricultural tariffs, instead of protecting the interest of their
small and marginal farmers.
The agreement on NAMA will entail substantial cuts by developing
countries in their tariffs on industrial imports. In the light of
the insignificant reductions in domestic farm subsidies by the
advanced countries, the tariff reduction commitments on industrial
imports agreed to by many developing countries are unjustifiable and
would only accelerate their de-industrialization.
Regarding negotiations on GATS and TRIMs, the results have been a
one-way avenue for services-sector investments from advanced
countries to developing countries. The enhancement of foreign direct
investments (FDIs) in the various services sectors of developing
countries were committed to be further discussed, which would lead
to less regulation by developing countries of foreign service
providers from developed countries. The issue of government
procurement are also to be further discussed, which would lead to
wider privatization in the global South of such services as health,
education, financial management and telecommunications. In the
coming continuation of negotiations, the imperial objective will be
to get all limitations on FDIs removed, and to reinforce such
commitments as part of international treaty obligations. In effect,
the national sovereignty of developing countries would be curtailed,
and even their constitutional limitations on the entry of FDIs in
the retail business, in natural resources exploitation and other
nationally-reserved investment areas, would be jettisoned.
Regarding TRIPs, agreements have been in favor of the advanced
countries, and prices of patented drugs, seeds and chemical
formulations are expected to rise further, affecting the common
people. Overall, the Hong Kong declaration further reinforces the
unequal trade regime and neo-colonial international economic order.
The Continuing Struggle
A positive development in Hong Kong was the increase in the number
of developing countries which stood in unison to oppose and try to
thwart the moves of the rich nations. Even before the ministerial
conference, the G-20 grouping of big developing countries, as well
as the G-33 grouping of smaller agricultural countries, came out
with strong statements against the non-transparent WTO process of
decision-making which is dominated by the big trading powers. The
G-20 now has 21 members, while the G-33 swelled in number to 44
countries. Other new coalitions based on regional backgrounds
(African-Caribbean-Pacific) put up a united fight against the farm
subsidies in the USA, the EU and Japan.
The Hong Kong ministerial conference also saw the formation of
another core group of 9 developing countries (India, Brazil, South
Africa, Indonesia, Argentina, Venezuela, Egypt, Namibia and the
Philippines) which demanded that developing countries should not
make as much of a cut in industrial tariffs as the developed
countries. They demanded the removal of high tariffs and an end to
non-tariff barriers in developed countriesí markets.
The developed countries' concept of "fair" trade - that of
equalizing industrial tariffs in both developed and developing
countries in order to "level the playing field" - is in fact very
deceptive and unfair. Developing countries should not decrease
tariffs unless developed countries eliminate, their trade-distorting
subsidies and other internal "incentives" which prevent the
attainment of a level playing field. Special and Deferential
Treatment (SDT) for developing countries should be emphasized.
There are four general themes that the masses of our people are
pursuing in all aspects of the WTO : (1) Make trade fair ; (2) No to
unilateral impositions by the WTO ; (3) Save our jobs ; and (4)
Protect our agriculture and domestic industries. The success of
these themes depends on firm resistance against the pressures of the
trade superpowers. These superpowers have realized (from the
examples of Seattle, Cancun and Hong Kong) that pressure tactics
could invite a debacle in the wider setting of a ministerial
conference where decision-making is based on majority rule, and
where negotiators are subject to popular pressure from citizens'
groups. It is for this reason that the trade superpowers - primarily
the USA, the EU and Japan - now want the negotiations to be
continued in the limited and non-transparent setting of a General
Council sitting in Geneva.
The trade superpowers now want the decision-making function of the
Ministerial Conference to be formally usurped by a smaller and more
pliant General Council meeting of a few handpicked countries. But if
that happens, then the WTO would totally lose credibility. Then
there would be greater reason for peoples to say : No deal is better
than a bad deal!
-----------------------------
*President of Federation of New
Filipina Women and representative of Afro-Asian Peoples’ Solidarity
Organization at the Hong Kong protest actions.
|
