ALTHOUGH a pre-Seattle atmosphere seems to have set in during the preparatory meetings, yet the indications are that Doha may not be another Seattle. In fact, the fears are that it may prove to be anti-Seattle.
There are various reasons for that, the foremost being that the moot — the fourth WTO ministerial meeting scheduled from November 9 to 13 — takes place soon after September 11 tragedy, an event that the US has not yet recovered from. Then, the sentiment of revenge that it triggered has overwhelmed the Bush administration and given birth to new alignments and new equations in international affairs coupled with a new mood of arrogance and diktat on the part of the West towards the Third World.
Another reason is the launching of war by the US-led coalition on Afghanistan which is too close to the conference venue and too sensitive a development to live with for the Muslim and Arab countries. A third and a decisive reason is President Bush’s shocking decision to impose a division on the nations of the world — ‘they are either with us or with the terrorists’.
Hence, it seems little likely that the anti-globalization protesters would descend on Doha at least in large numbers to press their demands and that the developing countries would be able to boldly resist the decisions that they find detrimental to their interests.
Two years ago, the WTO summit had failed to launch a new round of global trade talks at Seattle, firstly, because of deep differences over farm subsidies and developing countries’ opposition to certain discriminatory initiatives; and, secondly, because of unusually violent agitation by about 40,000 protesters outside the conference venue that contributed to wreck the summit — a performance that was repeated successfully at nearly all major world gatherings which followed. The WTO’s failure at Seattle, it is ironic to note, gave birth to a new kind of activism and laid foundations of an effective anti-globalization movement.
Doha, one may recall, was selected as a venue assuming it would enable the participants to escape the wrath of anti-globalists - protest in Qatar is illegal. There were speculations that the meeting would be cancelled because of Black Tuesday tragedy as has been the case with the annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund which were also recently scheduled to take place in Washington. But on September 26, the WTO released its Draft Ministerial Declaration which outlines the main agenda items for the meeting, thus confirming of its taking place.
For the Third World states, these are difficult times. They are unsure if disagreeing with the United States on certain items of the agenda would amount to the same as being on the other side in the global war on terrorism. The dilemma of the anti-globalization groups is no less distressing. As George Monbiot of The Guardian says the extreme-right has seized the political space which opened up where the twin towers of the World Trade Centre once stood. For many of the rights groups, the new draconian anti-terrorism laws passed by Congress and signed by Bush threaten to undo many years of their hard work. Until the tragic events of September 11, the anti-globalization activists had built a strong movement of recent times having a real impact on global politics. Suddenly, their values are being challenged by the forces of reaction and militarism.
Robert Zoellick, US Trade Representative, wants Congress to grant the President “fast-track” authority so that trade bills are passed in their entirety. Zoellick has equated support for free trade with the fight against terrorism. He says that in signing such legislation the United States would be signalling to the world that it does not plan to ‘retreat from its global responsibilities’, including the defence of free trade against terrorist threats and opponents of globalization, thereby linking anti-globalization protesters with terrorism.
On September 24, he went before a Congressional committee and said: “On September 11, America, its open society and its ideas came under attack by a malevolence that craves our panic, retreat and abdication of global leadership. This President and this Administration will fight for open markets. We will not be intimidated by those who have taken to the streets to blame trade — and America — for the world’s ills.”
Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress that a window of opportunity for expanded free trade has opened up because the world is in a more cooperative mood. “As a consequence of the spontaneous and almost universal support that we have received from around the world, an agreement on a new round of multilateral trade negotiations seems more feasible. A successful round would not only significantly enhance world economic growth, but also answer terrorism with a firm reaffirmation of our commitment to open and free societies.”
So it is no surprise that the Bush Administration has been putting added pressure on developing countries to come on board the new round bandwagon. After high-level meetings on September 24, top trade officials from the US State Department and Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay pledged to work together to launch an ambitious new round of world trade talks at the Qatar meeting. This joint announcement came only hours after the Bush Administration endorsed a billion dollar emergency package for Argentina from the IMF.
Similar trade and debt relief packages are being made with other countries such as Pakistan. The US has also lifted all sanctions against Pakistan which had been put in place when it tested nuclear weapons. India is coming nuder intense pressure not only to support the American war coalition, but to drop its opposition to the WTO talks as well.
On June 26, Europe and the US announced an official consensus on their position at Qatar. It was very ambitious: a full new Round with new negotiations on agriculture, industrial tariffs, services, procurement, investment, competition, trade facilitation and e-commerce. The reaction was swift. India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Philippines, the Africa Group, Kenya and 30 countries of the least developed countries group (LDCs) rejected calls for a new round and made clear their disapproval of any agenda that includes investment, competition and government procurement.
As such, it is difficult to ascertain where this stalemate stands in the aftermath of September 11. As with everything else in the world, the terrible events of that day changed the status quo for the WTO. Many observers say the US cannot allow so many senior trade negotiators and politicians to be in the Middle East at this time. Others, however, are urging “business as usual” and arguing that the WTO is more important than ever for global security. The November 9 moot was originally expected to be attended by some 4,500 people including 2,000 government delegates and 600 NGOs. But Qatar, which has a few thousand policemen and 12,000 troops, is confident to manage the situation and its spokesman saying on October 29 that security will not be an issue.
It is against this backdrop that one can examine the Draft Ministerial Declaration that was released on September 26. Doubtless, the WTO meeting is expected to revive a global liberalization initiative abandoned at Seattle and agricultural issues are again to dominate the proceedings. But differences over the question of subsidies on farm exports still remain wide and threaten the prospects of any consensus. Disagreements on trade and environment and on setting out rules for competition and investment are currently being narrowed down but are unlikely to be resolved. The US, Britain, France, Germany and Japan are under pressure to soften their position on free trade to avert another failure in launching a new round.
Singapore prime minister Goh Chok Tong who presided a preparatory meeting on October 13 warned that any failure to launch a new round would lead to the emergence of sub-regional trade blocs and ‘nationalistic isolationism’, especially if global terrorism is not defeated. China’s entry is another important item on the agenda at Doha and the indications are that the Asia giant may be extended a formal invitation to join the WTO. China will become a formal member within 30 days after accepting the invitation. The current director-general, Mike Moore is to be succeeded by Thailand’s former deputy prime minister Supachai Panitchpakdi.
In June this year, Oxfam, a UK-based charity group, issued a report showing how the richer, more industrialized nations rig trade in their favour at the expense of the poorest countries and use their dominance in the world markets to economically squeeze the latter. Oxfam says, industrialized countries made much of the trade preference provided to the less developed countries (LDCs) under various schemes... the advantages of these preferences are wildly exaggerated.” They purposefully concentrate trade preference on goods from which the LDCs will benefit least while goods such as textiles, footwear and agriculture are “conspicuous by their absence.” In addition, many such schemes require LDCs to use raw materials originating in the country providing preferential market access — a practice Oxfam describes as “Byzantine.” The result is higher trade barriers than the ones faced by the competitors.
The World Trade Organization was formed in 1995 at the conclusion of the “Uruguay Round” of GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) negotiations. The WTO, using its status as a permanent institution with a huge secretariat, began to enforce the GATT and more than twenty separate agreements on services, intellectual property, agriculture and investment. Since the actual creation of the GATT in 1948, there have been eight “rounds” of negotiations, each consisting of a series of meetings spread out over several years to negotiate a fixed agenda of issues.