| November 13, 2001 | Tuesday | Shaba’an 26, 1422 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
WTO: hard bargaining
THE first-ever meeting between Presidents Pervez Musharraf and George Bush has been a remarkable success. More important than the specific points contained in the joint statement is the understanding that was achieved. As a Pakistani spokesman aptly put it, the outcome of the talks marked the revival of an old relationship and the beginning of a new one. Pakistan’s forthright commitment to the international community’s war against terrorism and its key position as a front-line state stood President Musharraf in good stead when he met the US President for their first face-to-face meeting. As President Bush told the press conference, Pakistan’s membership of the world coalition against terrorism benefited the entire world and that this linked Islamabad more closely with the international community.
The most positive outcome of the talks was an identity of views on the two most important issues of the day — Afghanistan and Kashmir. On the former, Pakistan and the US have agreed on the kind of post-Taliban set-up Afghanistan would need and should have. The two leaders were categorical about their attitude towards the Northern Alliance. While they believed that the Northerners should be encouraged to move south, they agreed that under no circumstances should they be allowed to take control of Kabul. As President Musharraf confirmed, such a reservation about the Northern Alliance is based on experience.
On Kashmir, the Pakistani and American heads of state agreed that there was a need for solving the long-standing problem through “diplomacy and dialogue.” More important, and something that New Delhi might find distasteful, the joint statement has called for a resolution that “took into account the wishes of the people of Kashmir.” This can be regarded as one of the most categorical statements by an American president in favour of Pakistan’s basic position on Kashmir. As Islamabad has always made it clear, it does not consider Kashmir as a territorial dispute but one that should be resolved with reference to the wishes of the Kashmiri people. In the same spirit, the two leaders emphasized the need for non-proliferation “at the global and regional level.” In the regional context, the statement said that the two presidents discussed “ways to promote stability in South Asia.” This is an obvious reference to the danger of a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India because of the continuance of Kashmir as a flashpoint of conflict in South Asia.
About the economic package to Pakistan, President Bush spoke of US support to Pakistan to the tune of one billion dollars. It is, however, not yet clear whether the previously announced 600 million dollars aid is part of this. Also, President Bush hoped for legislation that would allow for improved access of Pakistani goods, especially textiles, to the American market. According to the joint statement, President Bush said he was committed to working with international financial institutions to provide additional support for Pakistan. Taken as a whole, the economic measures are an indication of what President Bush called his desire to “help Pakistan build these linkages.”
One hopes the two countries will further build on what this meeting has achieved. Pakistani sources have described the talks as “extremely warm and cordial.” Clearly, the misunderstanding created towards the latter part of the Clinton era and America’s “tilt” in favour of India seems to have yielded to a more balanced approach. There is, indeed, warmth and an understanding of how Washington and Islamabad can enter into a mutually beneficial relationship for peace and stability in a volatile region. America seems to have grasped the advantages of a long-term relationship with a country that is strategically placed in a sensitive region. Situated at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, South-West Asia and the Gulf region, Pakistan occupies a pivotal position in a region in which the US has vital economic and geostrategic interests. A continued and long-term relationship, thus, is as much in Pakistan’s interest as it is in America’s. It has taken the massive jolt of the September 11 events and their effects far and wide to bring this fact into sharper focus.
AT the five-day biennial ministerial conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO) which opened in Doha on Friday, Pakistan has forcefully presented the case of the developing countries in the context of the launching of a new multilateral round of trade liberalization. The conference has been called to set an agenda for the new round of trade promotion talks which may last several years. Speaking at the conference, Pakistan’s Minister for Commerce Abdul Razzak Dawood, said that the current global economic slowdown was not only the result of a cyclical downturn; it also reflected the systemic weaknesses of the world economy. The minister said that the answer to the problem was not so much to launch a new round of trade negotiations, which the developed countries have been eager about, but to build “a more effective structure for the governance of globalization”.
To rectify the situation what is urgently needed is the realization of the essential goals which include the implementation of the Uruguay Round promises made in 1994 and a quick and effective solution to the problem of debt burden of the developing countries. These countries owe $2.5 trillion in debt and the repayment liability constricts these countries’ resources to a point where they have little to spend on physical infrastructure and human resource development, necessary to enable them to participate in free and fair competition in the world market. However, there has been no consensus yet on the agenda of the new round of talks, although the draft claims to offer real liberalization in goods, agriculture and services for the benefit of poor countries which are smarting under the inequities of the Uruguay Round. Until now the European Union and Japan have not yielded to the American, Australian, Japanese and Canadian pressure for freer trade in agricultural commodities and on ending export subsidies. These countries also regard provisions relating to environment as inadequate. For its part, the United States is opposed to relaxing anti-dumping rules and is resisting freeing trade in textiles before 2004.
The developing countries are strongly opposed to the creation of linkages between labour standards and intellectual property rights at one end and liberalization of trade at the other. They consider intellectual property rights and patent rules impractical in that these will make availability of less expensive drugs difficult and render public health problems hard to solve. It is for these reasons and also for fear that the envisaged free trade might retard the industrialization prospects of those countries which have lagged behind. The poor countries are therefore less enthusiastic about the launch of the new round of negotiations for freer trade. Despite these reservations and lack of unanimity on many issues, the Doha conference seems set to succeed because the on-going economic slowdown has worsened following the September 11 events in the US.
The WTO director-general has promised that the new round would give priority to development, consolidate the principles of justice and equity and open the doors of every market wider to the commodities of less developed countries. The World Bank estimates that the abolition of trade barriers would increase global income by $ 2,800 billion and lift 320 million people out of the poverty trap by 2015. In the light of past experience, it remains to be seen whether developing countries would trust the new promises made by the richer nations.