|
Analysis by Aileen Kwa
GENEVA, Jan 24 (IPS) - Process issues have once again risen to the fore in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) as members brace themselves for the release of a new set of negotiating texts for agricultural and industrial tariff liberalisation at the end of this month or early February.
Delegates are concerned that WTO Director General Pascal Lamy might wrest the negotiation process out of the hands of the chairpersons of the negotiating groups when the texts become available, take control of the process and involve only a small group of delegations in the negotiations.
The corridor talk in Geneva is that Lamy might bring the new texts
directly into a closed-door, selective ''Green Room'' negotiating
process. ''Green Room'' refers to closed-door negotiations held among a
limited number of delegations.
This would be a ''horizontal process'' where the negotiations of
agricultural and industrial tariff liberalization are dealt with
together so that exchanges can be made between these issues. Other
issues, especially services, will also be brought on board quickly --
if not at the same time.
A lunch meeting has apparently been scheduled to take place in Davos on
the sidelines of the World Economic Forum on January 26. Invited is a
select group of ministers. The issue of how to proceed after the
revised texts have been released is expected to take centre stage at
the meeting.
There seems to also be plans for a mini-ministerial meeting in the
not-too-distant future. It was supposed to have taken place by
February. But as a result of the slow progress, some are speculating
that it may only materialize by the end of March or later, if it takes
place at all.
As one major developing country delegate in Geneva put it, ''progress
is incremental. But we will need some more movement at some point (in
order to conclude the negotiations), and this will have to come from
the political level, not from here''.
Commenting on the process, another developing country delegate said:
''Lamy and, to some extent, the European Union, want to take the
revised texts directly to the Green Room. This is going to be
dangerous. We think that the texts need to come back to the membership
for discussion and if necessary, to have a second revision.
''If you listen to the majority, this was made clear at the final
General Council meeting in December and at the recent open-ended
agriculture meeting. Delegations were asking for the revised texts to
be discussed in their specific committees. Lamy, however, wants to move
to the horizontal process immediately,'' said the delegate.
Another representative added, ''Lamy thinks that the technical people
in Geneva have finished their discussions. He doesn't want any more
special sessions (negotiating sessions on single issues). We don't
think this should be the case.''
Delegations that are not usually invited to the Green Room are worried
that their voices may be completely marginalized if the negotiations
are to take place only in the Green Room.
An African delegate commented, ''it has been a tradition within the WTO
to place great emphasis on a process that is not transparent enough and
that is not inclusive. This is what happens when they try to make a
selection of a few delegations, numbering 30-plus, to decide on key
issues.
''They seem to be in discussion on improving texts but in fact the rest
of the membership is then used as a rubber stamp. We have complained
for years about lack of transparency, about exclusion, about divide and
rule and about declarations from chairpersons (which do not reflect
fairly the views of the membership),'' the delegate told IPS.
''A lot of members have raised their voices. If we have a perverted
process when the texts are released, the entire multilateral trading
system could be endangered.''
Despite what some regard as progress on certain issues, there are still
huge divergences. The membership is no nearer on deciding how much the
U.S.'s trade distorting agricultural subsidies are to be cut.
There is still no agreement on the treatment of certain ''special
products'' in agriculture for developing countries -- whether and to
what extent some of these should be excluded from tariff cuts. There is
also disagreement on the ''green box'': billions of dollars of
subsidies provided by the U.S. and the EU which they pass off as
''non-trade distorting'' and therefore ''WTO-legal''.
In recent months there has also been no movement on the level of tariff
cuts to be undertaken for industrial products (the non-agricultural
market access or NAMA talks). As a delegate said, ''we are totally
stuck in NAMA''. Several delegations interviewed said that there does
not seem to be any intention to change the very deep cuts reflected in
the last negotiating text of July last year.
Some of the critical issues for the smaller developing countries,
including the African members, seem to have been left by the wayside.
For example, cotton, commodities and preference erosion. The latter
refers to the removal of trade barriers reducing the price advantages
of existing trade preference schemes that poor countries benefit from.
The ''biggest question mark'' for most negotiators at this point,
however, is what Washington will decide. An insider summed it up as,
''they do not seem to be pushing for anything''. If the harsh NAMA
demands of the EU and U.S. are maintained, the inside source said, the
U.S. will have to go deeper with its subsidy cuts. ''The two issues are
related.''
A delegate from a major developing economy said that he was ''not very
hopeful'' that the talks could come to a conclusion. ''However, we
still have to keep at the negotiations,'' he said. ''Even if we have a
break in negotiations (until after the U.S. elections), you have to be
very careful about what is on the table and what is at stake.
''If texts produced now are used as the basis of negotiations later on,
they would trump everything else, including the Doha mandate. So we
continue to be very vigilant because we might otherwise be laying down
the imbalances of the future,'' the delegate said.
The African delegate highlighted his concern regarding what he saw as
an increasingly inward-looking U.S.: ''I am not clear that they are
ready to make 'effective' cuts in their overall trade-distorting
subsidies (in agriculture). My definition is that 'effective' should be
well below applied rates.
''Their policies seem to be increasingly inward-looking, even when they
are talking about bilateral or multilateral negotiations. They put
their national interests first. Whilst there is nothing wrong with
that, we have a commitment (in the Doha Round) to transform the trading
system so that less developed countries can do better in their
production and trade.
''That would require deliberate policies, including special and
differential treatment. But there is a tendency now to treat us at the
same level, as if we have the same muscles. This is a big problem.''
|