|
||
|
Launching
a new round under another name? GENEVA: Developing countries at the WTO appear to favour in- depth and detailed discussion on the implementation of the Uruguay Round agreements and the inequities that have become evident, both due to the way the agreements have been implemented as well as due to the text itself. This view was voiced on 5 February, at the informal heads of delegation meeting of the General Council of the WTO, chaired by Ambassador Celso Lafer of Brazil, to discuss what was euphemistically called possible scenarios for the 1998 Ministerial meeting of the WTO. While there have been a number of small conclaves of countries to discuss these issues, this would appear to be the first time that the General Council appears to be seized of the matter. Implementation or new issues? All developing countries, in the discussions on 5 February, stressed the need for the 1998 Ministerial to deal substantively with the implementation issues, unlike the pro forma way in which the Singapore meeting dealt with them (in plenary speeches of the Ministers). While the Europeans, Canadians and the major Cairns Group countries seem to favour the 1998 Ministerial taking some decisions about the "preparations" for the 1999 Ministerial - a "euphemism" for decisions about the "next round" - many others seem to be opposed to any decisions (or even the Chairman's summing-up) being taken at the 1998 Ministerial about a possible new round or new work programme or new issues, with problems of developing countries being sidelined once again. The Cairns Group of countries are understandably anxious about pushing further, the "reform process" in agriculture. But the EC, a main target, has been privately arguing that it could not take any steps on further agriculture reform, unless some of the new issues are also on the agenda - including, among others, multilateral rules for foreign investors' right to invest at will anywhere in the world, so- called competition rules. Australia, which has been leading the Cairns Group, appears to have indicated its willingness to go on with this approach, and get decisions taken at the 1998 Ministerial in May to begin preparatory work for the new round. The US position is not clear. But many developing countries seem to be wary of the idea of new issues and, in any event, do not want to see any decisions on this at the Ministerial in 1998. The developing countries note that in the past several GATT rounds, their problems were put on the agenda, only to be brushed aside or put on the back-burner, while accords of interest to the North were forged. Some of the developing- country issues of the 1960s still remain on the agenda, without any actions having been taken on them. The Singapore Ministerial And as the Singapore meeting showed, new accords which were not even envisaged or discussed multilaterally have a sudden habit of being brought up and railroaded through. The meeting was dominated by the US-EC drive for an information technology accord, the new issues broached by the EC and so on, while the major agenda of that conference, the implementation of the Uruguay Round agreements, was relegated to speeches of Ministers in the plenary, where Ministers spoke mostly to empty chairs - and with no action taken. Some delegates from the developing world complain that as a result of the way the secretariat and the chairman of the various bodies operate, even the normal WTO bodies are unable to address the implementation problems and how to remedy them. Many Ambassadors heading these bodies also have other activities which often take them out of Geneva, complicating informal meetings of the membership. In view of this, some developing-country delegates feel that while no Minister can be prevented from raising any issue at the Ministerial in his or her speeches (which are to be circulated and not actually delivered), the entire focus should be on discussions on implementation of the existing accords and how to remove the inequities in implementation that have become evident. Complicating perhaps the consultations process has been the efforts of the WTO head, Renato Ruggiero, to be empowered to undertake such processes, as his predecessors did during the provisional GATT and its various negotiating rounds. But this necessarily encroaches on the role of the various WTO bodies, including the General Council, and the specific jobs assigned to them in terms of the WTO treaty. The 5 February meeting is clearly the first of many discussions that may be needed - and the process seems likely to be complicated by the fact that most of the developing countries are "excluded" from the entire informal socalled bilateral and plurilateral processes of preparations. Despite the promises in Singapore of transparency in decision-making and so on, little of it has so far emerged - beyond the WTO's "web page and sites" where panel rulings and statements of the WTO head are posted. This may or may not satisfy the appetite for information from NGOs - many of whom saw at first hand in Singapore, the totally non-transparent and non-democratic decision-making processes of the WTO - but has not met the concerns of most of the diplomats and delegates who feel "sidelined". There has been a mushrooming of various groups and conclaves convened by individual major industrial countries or collectively by the Quad (Canada, the EC, Japan and the US), the so-called "invisibles" group, where the Quad member hosting the meet invites particular developing countries. Some even decide which member of a regional sub-group should be called to "represent" that group! One diplomat from a smaller country has even been talking of convening an "excluded" group. There is also a growing view that while informal small consultations and discussions cannot be ended, there should be atleast a decision of sorts that issues should first be broached and brought up at meetings of the WTO bodies, including the General Council, and only then, if countries want to hold informal consultations, should they do so. In a statement to the 5 February informal plenary of the General Council, Ruggiero presented what he called some "scenarios", claiming they were based on his bilateral and plurilateral discussions and consultations. His responses to some queries brought out that he has been meeting small groups of delegations over lunches or dinners hosted by one or another, where the issues of future work agenda, the EC's idea of a so-called millennium round and so on, were talked about. But the question arises whether the WTO head should attend, even as a guest, such meetings, and participate in moves to "cook" the agendas. No one appears to have raised this point. As envisaged, the Ministerial meeting on 18-19 May is to be followed by a meeting on 20 May for the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the GATT trading system. Ruggiero suggested as an agenda for the two-day meeting, implementation of the work programme and future activities. In his proposal, the Ministers are to meet on 18 May and finish discussions in the afternoon (around 17 hours), on the implementation issues, and then start discussion on "future activities" - a phrase aimed at getting discussions and decisions on the next round! These informal discussions among Ministers, Ruggiero suggested, should continue on the 19th. Possible conclusions As for possible conclusions, Ruggiero envisaged several scenarios: * an informal summing up by the Chair on implementation and future activities, plus a Ministerial decision on how to prepare for the 1999 Ministerial Conference. This last is interpreted by several developing countries as an oblique way of getting decisions at the 1998 Ministerial for launching a new round of negotiations in 1999. * a second scenario of Ruggiero's is of an informal summing up on implementation by the Chair, plus a formal decision on preparations for the 1999 Ministerial. * a third scenario is of no Chairman's summing up, but a formal conclusion. In the discussions, Pakistan's Ambassador, Munir Akram (who is also Chair of the informal developing country group) said he had no difficulty with a short and business-like agenda for the 1998 Ministerial, but that it should focus on implementation and conclusions reached in a "transparent" way. Ambassador Mounir Zahran of Egypt voiced a similar position, and said they were not in a position to reflect on the new issues raised by some countries. Trade officials, in briefing the media, said that this was also the general view of the developing countries. Australia, the EC and Canada appeared to favour decisions on preparations for the 1999 Conference - which was taken by others to mean starting preparations for a new round including some of the old and the new issues. New Zealand wanted the 50th anniversary celebratory meeting to lay the foundations for future negotiations, including in areas like agriculture, services, government procurement and so on. Japan was willing to address both implementation and new issues, and wanted Ministers to be able to address the meeting (and not merely have speeches circulated), but did not want decisions. Turkey suggested that once implementation was discussed, if there was scope, discussions could be started on the new issues. Hong Kong was willing to support any option, but wanted something on the record. The most important, in its view, was to tackle the sensitive issues first before new issues like labour standards were brought up. In Hong Kong's view, issues of implementation of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing should be dealt with first. Mexico favoured a distinction between the Ministerial meeting and the 50th anniversary conference celebrations that should send out a broad message about future negotiations. South Korea drew a clear distinction between implementation and future agendas. India's Ambassador Narayanan said there seemed to a hierarchy of issues and agendas developing. The implementation of the Uruguay Round agreements, and the inequities that have become evident, both in the way the agreements have been implemented, as well as in their being built into the rules, were the most important issues that need to be addressed. The developing countries had received a "raw deal" in the Uruguay Round accords and in the manner of their implementation, and these should be set right first. Any new agenda could wait, and there was no scope for decisions on these at the 1998 Ministerial. Each Ministerial Conference should not be engaged in starting preparations for and decisions at the next Ministerial. This should be the responsibility of the WTO bodies and the General Council. According to trade officials, discussions were to have resumed on 16 February. However, some developing countries note that the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Trade and Development Board was to meet in Executive Session on that day to discuss and make some important decisions, including on the entire financial and economic crisis in Asia and elsewhere, and thus the WTO should not schedule any meetings and create a clash. - (Third World Economics No. 179/180, 16 Feb-15 March 1998) The above article first appeared in the SUNS of which Chakravarthi Raghavan is the Chief Editor.
|
||
