Success at Doha

MARKED by hard bargaining and intense differences at times threatening the breakdown of the talks, the six-day Doha ministerial conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO) managed to conclude on a positive note on Wednesday. The principal decision was to launch a new round of “broad and balanced” negotiations on further lowering of tariff and reduction of direct and indirect obstacles to free trade. The new round of negotiations would begin in January 2002 and should conclude by January 2005. The successful conclusion of the conference has sparked hopes of an early recovery of the world economy which has been in a state of recession for quite some time now. China’s entry into the world trade body amidst universal acclaim of 142 member countries and territories has added enormously to inherent strength and jurisdictional expanse of the WTO, bringing almost the whole world within its regulatory fold. For its part China has shown sagacity in not insisting on keeping Taiwan out of the WTO. Beijing’s entry into the WTO, it is hoped, will strengthen its role in seeking the redressal of unfair treatment of the developing countries by the richer nations.

A particularly ticklish issue at Doha was how to define barriers to the global commerce which have now to be addressed. Groups of delegates clung to their positions until the last minute. The agreement came about because the stakes were too high and the risk of failure too great for all. What prompted the negotiators to make last-minute compromises was the growing uncertainty and instability following the catastrophic September 11 suicide attacks on the US and their unsettling aftermath. One point on which there was unanimity was the need for further reducing tariff on industrial goods. But the sticking points were the “phasing out” of farm subsidies; further liberalization of textile trade in compliance with the Uruguay Round commitment; relaxation of trade-related intellectual property rights (TRIPS), especially drug patents; and introduction of new elements in competition policy and environment rules. The European Union and Japan stuck to their opposition to the mention, in the draft declaration, of ‘phasing out’ of farm subsidies till the last moment while the United States was equally adamant on its inclusion. Finally, a compromise was struck by making the provision desirable rather than mandatory. Members will now take part in subsidy negotiations “without prejudging the outcome”. The European Union justified the continuance of farm subsidies on grounds of food self-sufficiency, stability of rural society and protection of environment.

Liberalization of textile trade before the target date of January 2005 was opposed by the US and the EU. However, as part of the bargain the two eventually committed themselves to “speed up textile liberalization”. Similarly, in respect of TRIPS, the developing countries obtained a commitment from the US and the EU that the WTO rules would not prevent members from taking measures to protect public health. This allows members to override patent rights and produce generic drugs at affordable prices in order to fight endemic diseases. Concern was expressed by the developing countries about efforts to introduce labour standards, child labour and environment in competition policies. However, it was agreed that the ILO was the appropriate forum at which to discuss labour problems. Similarly, talks on environmental issues would be held but the outcome would not be prejudged. Mention of investment rules in the declaration came up against stiff resistance which necessitated issuance of a separate statement clarifying that the talks on the issue would not be launched without the consensus of all WTO members. However, the success of the conference is sure to give a boost to the floundering world economy although actual gains will take some years yet to materialize. As globalization progresses, there will no doubt be some gains to make and some pains to suffer. In the process, the developing countries may reap more of the latter since problems of development were treated only perfunctorily at Doha.

Human rights concern

PAKISTAN has done well to ask the UN to ensure the observance of human rights in Afghanistan following the entry of Northern Alliance troops in Kabul and elsewhere. Islamabad’s fear of a possible deterioration of the human rights situation is justified, given Afghanistan’s history of the last more than a decade. When the victorious Mujahideen entered Kabul to oust Najibullah’s government, there were mass executions, besides widespread looting and plunder. Later, when the Taliban assumed power in most of Afghanistan, human rights were violated under the cover of religion. Whole villages were razed, orchards were destroyed, political enemies were summarily executed, and a new code of conduct, especially harsh on women, was enforced. The fall of Kabul has been welcomed by the populace. But there are reports of grave human rights violations and summary executions in Kabul, while in Mazar-i-Sharif, 200 Taliban soldiers who had surrendered were slaughtered.

Obviously, the Northern Alliance forces are there by courtesy of the US-led military forces which facilitated their advance west and southward by destroying the military power and by putting them on the run on the northern frontlines. However, now that their occupation of Kabul and some other cities is a fact, there is need to remind them that their role is temporary. What the world expects of them is to maintain peace and security till a UN peacekeeping force takes over. Once this force assumes control, the UN’s five-point plan can be put into operation. The key elements of this plan envisage a meeting of the representatives of all Afghan factions, the formation of a provisional council, the convening of a Loya Jirga and, finally, the induction of a broad-based government. Any deviation from this course is full of hazards. Mercifully, indications from the Northern Alliance quarters are that they are aware of the need for a government in which all communities will have a representation. One hopes that, till such time as a UN force moves in, NA commanders in areas under their control will ensure that no human rights violations take place and that they uphold human rights during the interim period.

Children of war

TWO decades of war in Afghanistan have done untold damage to the country’s most precious future asset: the children of Afghanistan. The UN Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict recently highlighted the plight of these young victims of war by citing some horrifying statistics: one out of every four Afghan children dies before the age of five. In Kabul, 40 per cent of children have lost at least one parent; more than two-thirds of the 100,000 victims of landmines are children. The current wave of fighting has exposed these already traumatized children to further suffering. The most alarming trend is the growing number of teenaged children who are being forcibly drafted and sent to the war front by both the Taliban and the Northern Alliance.

A number of NGOs have urged both sides to immediately halt this practice and abide by the provisions of international conventions and human rights laws. According to experts, continued exposure to armed conflict diminishes the prospects for a durable peace because the lives of children are being defined by death, violence and deprivation, to say nothing of lack of education and the basic minimum of health care. If peace returns to Afghanistan, it is crucial that hope and rehabilitation should be provided to the physically and emotionally battered children of Afghanistan. Only then can these young one build a better tomorrow from the ruins of endless years of war.