|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Rising From the Ashes of Cancun‚
What the WTO's "July 2004 Package" Means
(IFG Summary Analysis)
The World Trade Organization (WTO) signed on July 31, 2004 a package of non-binding "framework agreements" that has revived negotiations launched in 2001 under the Doha Round. After the WTO Ministerial in Cancun last September collapsed in stalemate‚with agriculture being the primary area of disagreement‚many in the global citizens' movement thought that the WTO might be finished. However, this recent agreement means the WTO is now very much alive. While there are both positive and negative developments in the new framework that was hammered out in Geneva, the key development is that the WTO agenda now has momentum and there will be intense negotiations to finalize binding agreements by December 2005.
If, as free trade advocates claim, liberalization is like a bicycle that must advance lest it collapse then WTO's July framework rescued the global process from coming to a full stop. Yet claims of a "victory for multilateralism" ignore the fact that still only a small group of five nations (U.S., EU, Australia, India, and Brazil) decided everybody's future. Between now and December 2005, as WTO faces its ultimate test of public trust, political shakiness is already opening up new spaces in which the global justice movement can advance sustainable, democratic, and equitable alternatives.
WHAT WE WON
Members agreed not to expand WTO's powers over the so-called "New" or "Singapore" Issues, which included Investment, Government Procurement, and Competition. Had they advanced, the New Issues could have required governments to relinquish control over private investments and public spending. Not just blocking, but removing, these issues from the Doha Round is a major victory for popular movements that worked internationally since 1996 to stop the WTO from creating a global regime to protect the rights of capital. The global justice movement must seize this opening to advance its own alternatives that asserts citizens' rights over cross border investments.
WHAT THEY WON
One of the most contentious issues in the WTO has been the northern countries' exporting highly subsidized farm products (known as dumping) to the South. Such dumping has wreaked havoc on millions of small farmers around the globe. Northern nations, led by the U.S. and the EU, along with some developing governments, are claiming that the new agreement requires significant export subsidy reductions by the North. However, upon closer examination of the agreement, "commitments" by the rich nations were left vague and no timetable or amounts were agreed upon. (For the last decade, however, developing countries have already implemented large reductions in tariffs and quota restrictions that the WTO required of them. These are the only tools that would have enabled them to protect their domestic production from the onslaught of dumping from the North.) In addition, many believe that the rich nations inserted clever provisions that will actually allow them to expand farm export subsidies. As for increased market access to northern markets for the developing nations, this area was also addressed with vague language and the North made no concrete commitment; they agreed only to further study this issue.
"NAMA" is a dream vehicle for corporations seeking a global rollback of taxes and regulations. Covering "all products not covered by the WTO's Agreement on Agriculture," NAMA aims for the worldwide elimination of tariffs (import taxes) and Non Tariff Barriers (or NTBs, which can include resource conservation and/or community development policies). The US-based Zero Tariff Coalition , chaired by an executive from Dow Chemical, demands zero tariffs in the following sectors: chemicals, crop protection chemicals, construction & mining equipment, copper & copper alloy brass mill products, cosmetics, distilled spirits, electrical equipment, energy products, environmental products, fertilizer, fish & seafood products, information technology & electronics products, gems & jewelry, medical equipment, paper products, pharmaceuticals, printing, publishing & converting technologies, processed foods, soda ash, sporting goods, steel products, toys, wood machinery, wood products.
The G90 (a grouping of the WTO's ninety-poorest nations) expressed fears they will be forced to expose their infant industries and small firms to global competition that, "would further deepen the crisis of de-industrialization and accentuate the unemployment and poverty crisis in our countries." Natural resources risk both intensified exploitation and deregulation from NAMA's "search and destroy" mandate against measures that internalize social and ecological costs. Poor nations, consumer groups calling for information labeling, rural communities demanding export restrictions on natural resources, and sustainable producers being "dumped" on by cheap imports must unite to assert popular sovereignty over the right to regulate market access.
Despite concerns raised about the privatization of public services Members set a May 2005 deadline for the submission of "a high quality of offers...to achieve progressively higher levels of liberalization with no a priori exclusions of any service sector or mode of supply." Also, new rules to be set on the "movement of natural persons" could affect both migrant workers' rights and outsourcing.
The WTO agreed to also begin reviewing "trade facilitation," with a view to fast-tracking goods more quickly across borders. The push for expedited customs procedures, led by the U.S., reveals once again the trade uber alles agenda of the WTO. Coming on the heels of the 9/11 Commission's call to increase container inspection (currently only five percent are checked), the faster clearance of imported goods seems to be more important than so-called homeland security. Aside from trade facilitation's big implications for food safety issues and invasive species, new customs rules could also impose a whole new layer of technological infrastructure for tracking and inspection, even though poor nations have no resources to cover the costs. Taxpayers in the North are likely to be stuck with the bill, as the U.S. is pledging "aid" to developing nations to build the new infrastructure, resulting in fat contracts for rich countries' corporations.