1. NEWS AND ANNOUCEMENTS 1. a. Decisions of the meeting of the India Organising Committee of theWorld Social Forum India held in Lucknow, March 5th-67th. Main decisions: The India Social Forum which was planned for end of 2005 will be postponedto be part of WSF 2006 continental for a (as per the decision of theInternational committee to hold such for a in 2006) The venue which was tobe Delhi may be the venue for the 2006 event unless other Asian countries orother Indian cities express their wish to organise it. The next meeting ofthe IOC will be in the first half of May and will be followed by an Asianlevel consultation in which some African representatives will also beinvited. The detailed minutes will be available from the WSF office in a few days, Contact:
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
. 1. b. Proposed all day meeting of peoples movements and civil society on"A Peoples' agenda for the G 20', Delhi, March 15th at IIC, LodhiInstitutional Area, New Delhi. The Government of India will be hosting a Ministerial Meeting of the G-20and G-33 groups on 18th and 19th March 2005 in New Delhi. A few of us havethought of organising a meeting on the eve of this event which is animportant milestone in the run-up to the 6th Ministerial Meeting of theWorld Trade Organisation (WTO) in Hong Kong (December 13-18,2005). Decisionstaken at this Ministerial meeting of key developing countries have thepotential to impact billions of people in the third world who depend onagriculture for their livelihood. The process of integrating the third worldagriculture with the world agriculture market is proving disastrous for poorand vulnerable peasantry. Thousands of farmers, many of them among theworld's poorest people, have lost their livelihoods as a result .The WTO'sAgreement on Agriculture (AoA) is biased in favour of temperate- zone,large- scale, capital- intensive, export-oriented, agribusiness- centered,peasant- insensitive and mass- livelihood 1.c Indian farmers mobilize against the WTO on March 17: The NationalCoordination of Farmers' Movements including KRRS, BKU, and all the memberorganisations call for a farmers' rally to pressure the government to keepagriculture and food out of the purview of the WTO on March 17th in KisanGhat, New Delhi. For more information, contact us at
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
1.d. Anti war rally and public meting in Mumbai on March 19th against theIraq war and for peace, which will begin at August Kranti Maidan at 4 pm andproceed to Mastan Talao in Nagpada. There will a public meeting at MastanTalao at 6 pm. Speakers: A representative of the Iraqi National FoundationCongress from Iraq, and representatives of different parties andorganisations that are participating. Contact us for more info on
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
2 STATEMENTS/CALL FOR ACTION/PRESS RELEASES/LETTERS 2.a Resolution by participants in the seminar "TOWARDS A COMPREHENSIVESOLUTION TO THE ISSUE OF MILL LANDS, Wednesday 16 February 2005, Mumbai We, citizens and stakeholders in the city of Mumbai (list of signatoriesbelow) who are gathered here, resolved to place the following resolutionbefore the Government of Maharashtra for immediate consideration: The Mill Lands are the historic industrial core of today's MumbaiMetropolitan Region. As the city authorities and state government seek tomakeover Mumbai into a global city, the government has not recognised thatthese valuable lands were entrusted to mill owners to develop the textile industry and provide employment, not to speculate in real estate. This important fact has been repeatedly overlooked in the rush by mill owners and builders to cash in on the commercial value of the Mill Lands. In 1991, the Maharashtra Government addressed the issue by allowing sale and development of mill lands under certain conditions, framed in the Development Control Regulations of Greater Mumbai (DCR). In Section 58 of the DCR (1991) mill lands were to be shared in more or less equal thirds between the Municipal Corporation of GreaterMumbai (MCGM) for civic amenities; Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority (MHADA), for public housing; and the owners for modernisation and development of the mills. This DCR was amended in 2001, and a provision introduced that within the land provided for public housing, 50% would be set aside for housing textileworkers, and an additional provision made for job opportunities for thefamily members of the textile workers. These provisions were included in response to demands made by the textile workers, who lost their jobs due to mill closures in Central Mumbai. However these provisions will only be on paper, since the land now made available under the amended DCR is so miniscule. In the amended DCR of 2001, the land share of the mill owners has increased several times beyond the original one third. The land share of the MCGM, meant for creating open spaces and other facilities, as well as the land share for MHADA meant for public housing, have been reduced by more 90%, often to nil. This was done by making the one third divisions applicable only to vacant open land in the mills, and removing land on which structures are, or were, standing, from the purvey of the one thirddivision. This would have made sense if the mills were still running. Since the mills are closed, the land made available should logically be the entire land, not just open spaces or those on which structures stood. These structures have been or are being demolished, to make space for a real estate bonanza for mill owners and builders, development which gives nothing to the workers, or the city at large. The closure of the mills has already deprived the workers their livelihood. The new modifications proposed to the DCR, while claiming to strengthen these rights,will actually hand over the mill lands to the owners, to do as they wish.The proposed amendments to DCR will also deprive the citizens of Mumbai of badlyneeded open spaces in a congested city. We maintain that the textile mill landsare different from other kinds of industrial land in the city, and require different treatment. We also feel that the amendments to the DCR do not constitute, as theGovernment claims, minor modifications in the Maharashtra Regional and TownPlanning Act (1966). Any planning of 600 acres of land in the centre of thecity constitutes a major issue. The modified DCR is an attack on citizensrights to space and workers rights to livelihood. The committee recentlyappointed by the Government of Maharashtra and chaired by Deepak Parekh toinquire into the mill lands issue is compromised by the interests of millowners, builders and financial institution. Any representation by textileworkers on the committee is conspicuously absent. We therefore demand that: 1. The land share of public housing and open spaces in mill lands, as perthe 1991 DCR, should be restored and stringently applied, not just to vacantland or open spaces, but the total land area of the mills. It should be seenthat the 50% share for public housing is maintained for textile workers, andthe 2001 condition that workers families be given jobs should also beretained and implemented. 2. The Government must immediately freeze the permissions for buildingconstruction on the mill lands until the report of the Deepak Parekhcommittee is released and discussed with the various stake-holders,including mill workers and citizens groups. This should be implemented withretrospective effect, applying to permissions already given under theoriginal 1991 and 2001 amended DCR. 3. The Government must disclose the list of the mills that have beenalready given or to be given clearance for development or redevelopment --including intimations of dissaproval, commencement certificates,approved/proposed drawings, true 7/12 extract of land ownership, and relatedpermissions -- along with their respective dates. 4. The Government must disclose, mill-wise, the list of the dues that havebeen paid to the workers of the respective mills (or are still to be paid)so that this amount can be juxtaposed against the profits generated throughthe development of the mill land. This will help to verify the stated rationale of the government that the increase in landshare through the modification of section 58 is to pay the workers theirdues. 5. The Government must publicly disclose all information on the landownership, leasehold and/or freehold status of the land, and the terms andconditions/covenants of every mill. The terms of reference of the Parekhcommittee should be extended in order to obtain and analyse the rightsassociated with mill owners use of the mill lands. 6. For purposes of these demands and resolutions, the mill land beingconsidered includes both the mills of the National Textile Corporation aswell as private textile mills. We resolve: 1. To set up an independent committee/study group of citizens groups,workers organisations and labour and housing activists to investigate intothese issues and publish a report on its findings into the full range ofissues relating to the mill lands. This committee will access all documents and information relating to land ownership, lease andtenures, development plans and building proposals cleared under the originaland modified DC Rules. The committee will represent independent views andhave a wide terms of reference to include land ownership, urban planning andcomprehensive integrated area development of the entire mill lands. 2. To distribute and publicise this set of demands and resolutions acrossa broad section of the public, civic organisations and social movements andto convene another meeting on theissue within a fortnight of this meeting. Signed by: Girni Kamgar Sangharsh Samiti, Mumbai Study Group, Chemical Mazdoor Sabha,Workers Hind Textile Mills, Girangaon Rozgar Hakk Samiti, Majlis, Hind Mazdoor Sabha, Action for Good Governance and Networking in India (AGNI), CRIT (Collective Research Initiatives Trust), Hindustan Siddhi Vinayak Kamgar Sangh, Bombay First, Textile Workers Federation of India, Zhopadpatti Bachao Parishad, LEARN and Aapli Mumbai, Combat Law & India Centre for Human Rights and Law (ICHRL), Mumbai Citizens Group, FOCUS on the Global South, Praja Foundation, Yusuf Meherally Centre Mumbai Port Trust (MbPT) Dock Kamgar and General Employees Union, Kamgar Aghadi, CITU (Centre for Indian Trade Unions), NAPM (National Alliance of People's Movements), CED (Centre for Education andDocumentation), INTBAU India, Nivara Hakk Sangharsh Samiti, Mill Mazdoor Sangh. 2.b LETTER TO CONGRESS PARTY on SLUM DEMOLITIONS February 14, 2005 To Ms. Margaret Alva AICC General Secretary Maharashtra-in-charge Camp: Mumbai Sub: Regarding massive demolition of Slums in Mumbai Dear Madam, You may be aware that from December 2004, the Government of Maharashtraand Mumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) deploying massive police force havebeen demolishing slums on an unprecedented scale resulting in human misery. Till date, about 80,000 houses have been bulldozed by the governmentthrowing 3.5 lakh people in the open to face the heat and cold. Theeducation of about 1 lakh children have been affected. The health situationof the shelterless slum dwellers is getting worse day by day as a result ofno minimum protection from dust, dirt and disease. Thousands of women,children and the aged have been affected by communicable diseases resultingin increasing number of deaths of these vulnerable sections. There was massive abuse of human rights with police force inhumanlydragging people out of the houses not even allowing people to take theirmeagre life savings. Houses and house materials were burnt, children beatenup; the dignity of the human being was systematically violated. Many people were injured in police action including major factures ofhands and legs. In Ambojwadi, Malad, pregnant women were pulled out and wereforced to deliver in the open. one child running for life and away frompolice beating fell into a nearby well and lost his life. Hundreds of people are now left open in inhuman conditions harassed dailyby police and the municipal corporation. Private security force is employedon a contract basis as per the official Govt resolution dated, 15th February2005 No. JI/KARYA -7/KAVI-1/05 Some persons have committed suicide not beingable to withstand the torture of the authorities. They are left with nooption and are in a condition where they can neither live nor die. We would like to remind you that the Congress party during the previouselections has promised to protect and regularise the slum dwellers till year2000. After coming to power by giving such a promise, the congress party issuffocating to death the very same people on whose votes thy havecome to power. To recognise these lakhs of toiling people as voters andyet immediately after elections, denying them a place and position even asresident citizens is utter deception. This is surely against the democraticas well as human rights and values, which the national congress has alwaysupheld. The credibility of your party is at an all time low among the slumdwellers and other marginalized sections of society, bearing the injustice.The affected communities feel strongly about denial of their rights and nowresisting the evil designs of the government and BMC. The struggle isassuming the strength of a people's movement and is being supported by allthe progressive sections of the society, activists to intellectuals. According to the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution every citizen hasright to live. They are entitled to get food, clothing and shelter alongwith health facilities and education. The government is supposed to createsuch facilities for the proper attainment of the same by all its citizens.This is, however, not possible without guarantee of livelihood as the basicneeds can't be fulfilled through mere subsidy or charity. The citizens thushave right to move and settle at any place in the country for livelihood.The United Nation's Charter on Economic Social and Cultural rights ratifiedby the Government of India stipulates measures for protecting right to lifeand livelihood. Moreover, the Constitution of India has given directions forthe social and economic upliftment of the dalits, Adivasis, nomadic tribes,OBC's and minorities in our society, but instead, the evictions undertakenis not only denying them their basic needs but is also actively destroyingtheir lands, houses We hope, you will, respecting the constitution and fundamental rights ofthe people, stand against this brutal and inhuman assault on the life andlivelihood of the Urban poor. You may realise this is also a violation ofthe Common Minimum Program announced by your party and government at thecentre. If only you take into consideration the welfare of all labourers,dalits, adivasis, nomadic tribes, OBC's and minorities in the process ofplanning the city's development, you will realise that the VISION MUMBAIPLAN is against these disadvantaged sections favouring the builders,corporates and the rich whom the land is being allotted benefiting thepoliticians and bureaucrats too. The same are determined to fight tooth andnail. Hope you will mediate in the struggle between the state and people,which is unfortunate and unavoidable. We demand · STOP inhuman demolitions at once. Withdraw the police force and privatesecurity contracts harassing and committing atrocities till date. · Respect the electoral promise and protect all slums and houses builtprior to 2000, improving the slums and rehabilitating dwellers wherenecessary. · Rehabilitate all people in the same place. Constitute a joint task forcewith government, non-government organisations working in the affected areaand community representatives acceptable to us. · Accept identity proofs like ration cards, photo pass survey receipts andother government documents along with voter's identity card as eligibleidentity proofs for rehabilitation. · Issue immediate photo identity pass to slum dwellers who have beensurveyed before 1995 or later. · Pay compensation worth at least Rs30, 000 per family to those whosehouses and belongings have been demolished and recognise the importance oftheir electoral and human rights in a democratic society. · Transfer ownership of land on which the hutments stand, onto the namesof the hutment dwellers and plan and execute low cost housing scheme for theaffected through people's cooperatives, keeping builders out. · Enact a national rehabilitation policy for any type of displacement andforced evictions. · Implement the Supreme Court order on right to food issued till 2004 andexecute the concerned schemes for people below the poverty line. · The cases files against slum dwellers and activists should beimmediately withdrawn unconditionally and all who are in jailed be released · Implement the Urban Land Ceiling Act and acquire 2500 acres of landbelonging to the Godrej, Jeejeebhoy Beheramjee Trust etc and utilise it forhousing for urban poor. · Amend the existing law for allowing the transfer rights of hutmentsprior to 1995(SRA) and give full rehabilitation rights to new occupants ofthe same structure. · In the city development plan, there should be a provision to ensure thatevery person who comes to the city of Mumbai should be provided affordablehousing and demarcate separate land for slums, poor and marginalizedsections · Protect the lives and livelihoods, shelter and land belonging to andoccupied and utilized by the mill workers and fisher people who are theoriginal, generations old inhabitants of Mumbai. In planning the Vision ofMumbai, keep in mind the culture of the city, its history and otherindicators of human development, especially taking into consideration thevision of the poor 60% of Mumbai's population. It should evolve out ofdialogue with labourers - organised and unorganised, pavement and slumdwellers, tenants etc. The Mumbai vision plan and all specific projects withforeign and Indian funds must be put into the public domain and publichearing especially in the affected communities, must be organised. MMRDA Actmust be followed in this direction, immediately. The final decision shouldbe based on these hearings and special consultations with the people'sorganizations. Yours truly, All the affected and evicted slum dwellers organized under the banner of: Zopadi Bachao Parishad, Apli Mumbai, Shahar Vikas Manch, Girangaon RozgarHaq Samiti, Bruhan Mumbai Bhadekaru Parishad, Ghar Haq Jagruti Parishad,YUVA, India Centre for Human Rights, Zhopadi Bachao Joint Action Committee,· Nirbhay Bano Andolan, Chembur Zopadi Dharak Mahasangh, Asangatith SamajikSuraksha Parishad, Zopadi Bachao Kruiti Samiti, AITUC, Rajiv Gandhi NagarRahivashi Sangh (Dharavi), Baladhikar Sangharsh Sanghatan, Manav MuktiMorcha, Ashankur, Adarsh Ekta Nivara Kruti Samiti, National Alliance ofPeople's Movements 1. ARTICLES 3.a The Patents (Amendment) Ordinance 2004: A Critique By Gopa Kumar, Affordable Medicines and Treatment Campaign. Introduction India, as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has an obligationunder Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights(TRIPS) to comply with its patent provisions. TRIPS provides three timeframes for developing countries like India for its absolute compliance, withthe patent regime in particular. The first dead line was in 1995 tointroduce mail box protection and exclusive marketing rights (EMR). Thesecond was in 2000 to comply with TRIPS provisions on duration of patentprotection, compulsory license, extension of patent protection to microorganism etc. India amended its Patents Act in 1999 and 2002 (well beyondthe dead line) to comply with these obligations. The third deadline was tointroduce product patent protection for pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals by1 January 2005. To meet the deadline, Government of India issued anOrdinance on 26 December, to amend Patents Act 1970. The Ordinance carriedout 77 amendments to the Act. The way in whi The amendment was carried out without transparency and with littleparticipation of all stake holders. The content of the Ordinance goes beyondthe TRIPS obligations and prescribes TRIPS plus provisions, which willcompromise peoples' right to food, health, right to use technologicalprogress etc. Further, it will hamper the growth of domestic pharmaceuticalindustry. The Process The process to the third amendment was initiated in 2003 by organizinginteractive sessions on patent law across the country. However, theseinteractive sessions were organized through FICCI, CII and ASSOCHAM andtherefore there was only limited participation of public interest groups andacademic community. The deliberations in the interactive sessions were basedon some back ground papers prepared by the patent office officials and abovementioned trade bodies. Ignoring the concerns raised during the interactivesessions, the government went on with Patent (amendment) Bill 2003, butthe same lapsed due to the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Responding to thecriticism, the present government referred the Bill to a Group ofMinisters (GoM) to study the contentious issues. The GoM concluded itsdeliberations with two meetings. There were demands from groups andindividuals to the GoM to hold hearings and publish the recommendations inorder to create an informed debate on the issu According to Article 123 of the Constitution if the "president issatisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to takeimmediate action, he may promulgate such ordinance as the circumstancesappear to him require". Here, the government chose the ordinance route tomeet "emergency situation" i.e. to meet the deadline to introduce productspatents on pharmaceutical and agrochemical inventions on or before 1 January2005 as obligated under TRIPS. Since 1994, the Government and people wereaware of this emergency. Further, the content of the ordinance was similarto the Patents Bill 2003 with a few changes. Another important requirementfor the issuance of ordinance is that, it can be issued only during therecess of parliament. The winter session of the Parliament concluded on 23December just 3 days prior to the issuance of ordinance. Even though theordinance satisfies both legal requirements, it fails to satisfy theparticipatory decision making in a democrati The Content As you are aware, the product patent creates monopoly, which will haveadverse consequence on the accessibility and availability of drugs, twomajor components of right to health. Today there is enough evidence to showadverse effect of patent monopoly on the accessibility of drugs due to theabuse of patents. Therefore the main task before law makers is to find abalance between the public interest and private interest by putting enoughprovisions to curb the abuse of patent monopoly. In the case of India thisshould be done by incorporating the flexibility available within the TRIPSto the maximum extent. Further, the general understanding on TRIPS is thatobligations under TRIPS do not create any hierarchy of international obligationsand therefore does not override obligations under other treaties. Again,TRIPS obligations on patent should be read with the objectives and principlesmentioned in Article 7 & 8 of TRIPS. The Government also shares the same understanding. In a subm 1. After the second amendment to patent Act in 2002, the only obligationunder TRIPS agreement regarding patents was to provide product patentprotection to pharmaceuticals and agro-chemicals. From a public intereststandpoint, certain changes were required to strengthen public interestprovisions like compulsory license, parallel importation, Bolar provisionetc. Therefore when the government decided to take the Ordinance route, theviable option was to introduce product patent by scrapping section 5 of theIndian Patents Act and carry out other amendments through a proper debate byintroducing a bill in the parliament. Instead of this option, the ordinancecarried out 76 amendments to the Patents Act and tilted the balance towardsthe patentee. It amended provisions related to procedure for granting ofpatents, the pre-grant opposition procedure, publication requirements etc. 2. Discretionary powers of the patent office: The Ordinance took away thelimitations imposed by the Act, and made it at the discretion of the PatentOffice level by virtue of the Rules. As a result, the patent office can nowtamper with the various time lines by amending the Rules as and when itrequires .Under the amended ordinance, 7 types of time limit will bedetermined by the office through the Rules and not by the statute. Theexcessive and unbridled delegation to the Office is further increased bythe following provision: 'the central government may, if it is satisfiedthat circumstances exist, which render it practically not possible to complywith such condition of previous publication, dispenses with suchcompliance". As a result, the public will not be given an opportunity tooffer its comments to the Rules before it being amended. 3. Change in procedure: According to the Patents Act 1970 as amended in2002, a patent is granted after thorough scrutiny by the patent office andpublic. There are three stages of granting a patent viz. initial publicationafter 18 months of filing under section 11 A, acceptance of completespecification after the examination and scrutiny by the patent office,inviting opposition from public on the accepted complete specification. TheOrdinance did away with the last two stages viz. acceptance of completespecification and its publication (Section 22-24) and inviting opposition(Section 25). Now, it straight away proceeds to grant of patent immediatelyafter the publication after 18 months. As a result various checks providedin the Act to prevent frivolous patent does not exist anymore. Further, theamendment provisions took way the transparency nature of granting the patent 4. Publication: The Ordinance amended the Section 11A of the Patents Actwhich prescribes the initial publication requirement. As per the amendedprovision the duration of opening the application to the public is left toRules. The publication of the application will take place at the request ofthe applicant (18 months from the date of filling or priority date,whichever is earlier). After the publication the applicant shall have therights as if patent for the invention had been granted on the date ofpublication of the application. However, no infringement proceeding ispermissible until the grant of patent. This means that one can get theprivilege of patent from the date of publication i.e. even before filing therequest for the examination of application. According to the amended Rules"a request for examination under Section 11 B shall be made in Form No 18after the publication but within thirty six months from the date ofpriority of the application or from the date of f 5. Quick Examination: As per the Ordinance the time frame for making theexamination report is left to the Rules. The new Rules provide 1-3 monthsfor the examination report preparation changing the earlier18 months period. 6. Refusal of Patent before Grant: The Ordinance took away anotherimportant check against frivolous patent provided in Section 27 of thePatents Act which gave powers to the Controller to take suo moto steps torefuse grant of patent on ground of anticipated publications. 7. Diluted pre-grant opposition: The 2002 amendment diluted the process ofpre-grant opposition by giving the discretion to the Controller as towhether a hearing should be given to the opponent. The Ordinancesubstituted the right of public to give notice of opposition with therepresentation to oppose the patent application. Further, the amendedsection 25 states that the person giving the representation is not a partyto the proceedings. Further, no appeal shall lie against the decision of theController to the Appellate Board. Moreover, the grounds of opposition arelimited to three. one person can give representation after three months ofpublication or grant of patent whichever is later. However, the Controllershall consider such application only after receiving a request ofexamination. Lastly, as per the Rules the opponent cannot access the replyof the applicant. 8. Expansion of the Scope of Patentability: TRIPS does not define thebasic criteria of patents viz. novelty, inventive step and industrialapplication. Further, the only obligation under TRIPS Agreement is toprotect pharmaceutical products. As a result implementing countries have theoption to limit the patent protection only to a new chemical entity.Instead of limiting patents to new chemical entities the Ordinance expandedit even to new use. According to the Minister of Commerce and Industry(stated in parliament on 23 July 2004) there are 4792 pharmaceuticalapplications in the mail box. However, the data shows that only 274 newchemical entities got marketing approvals in the USA during this period(1995-2004). In India only 215 drugs got marketing approval during1998-2004. This is an indicator that most of these applications arefrivolous. 9. No immunity: Many drugs, which lie in the mailbox, are available in themarket through generic manufacturers. If patent is granted on these drugsgeneric manufacturers will have to withdraw these drugs from the market.However, the Ordinance did not address the issue and provided limitedimmunity from damage suits. A blanket immunity can be given to genericmanufacturers under Article 30 of TRIPS. 10. Poor implementation of August 30 Decision: According to August 30Decision, TRIPS Council waives obligation under Article 31 (f) of the TRIPSto permit compulsory license (CL) for export purpose to countries with no orinsufficient manufacturing capacity in pharmaceutical sector. However, theOrdinance insists for CL in the importing country as a precondition forgiving CL for exclusive export purpose. Thus the Ordinance forgot the factthat least developing countries have time till 2016 to implement TRIPSpatent regime. Therefore the question is how can you insist to grant CLto a product which is not even protected in the importing country ? S.No API Thera-peutics Innovator Brand Name Package details Indiangeneric(USD)MRP Patented drug price(USD) 1 Gefitinib Anti Cancer Astra Zeneca Iressa 250mg tablets of 30 tabletspack 222 1802 2 Temozolomide Anti Tumor Scherring Temodar 250mg capsules of 5 capsulespack 500.82 1835 3 Zoledronic acid Anti Cancer Novartis Zometa Vial 4mg solution of 1 vialeach 64 873 4 Letrozole Anti Cancer Novartis Femara 2.5mg tablets of 30 tablets pack6.82 224.30 5 Ganciclovir CMV infection Roche Cytovene 250mg capsules of 60 capsulespack 150 254 (E&OE) 3.b Ten years of WTO: Subordinating development for free trade By Nicola Bullard and Jacques Chai Chomthongdi, Focus on the Global South The Uruguay Round of trade negotiations gave birth to a powerfulinstitution in 1995, the World Trade Organisation which, in concert with theWorld Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), would serve tostrangle the domestic policy autonomy of the South. The WTO was asignificant departure from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade(GATT). Its agenda was much more ambitious than the GATT, going far beyondsimply reducing tariffs on industrial products to 1) lowering the tariffs in agricultural goods, through the Agreement onAgriculture 2) further limiting the scope for countries to determine their domesticlegislation, through the Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMS) and theGeneral Agreement on Services (GATS) 3) permanently consigning the technologically less advanced to economicbackwaters by dramatically restricting access to technology, through theTrade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) and 4) subordinating development concerns to free trade principles favourableto corporations. The WTO has been hailed as an achievement for multilateralism. Yet itsimpact on the world's poor has been overwhelmingly negative. on the eve ofthe revolt by the developing countries at the WTO ministerial in Seattle,the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) issued adamning evaluation of the then nearly five-year-old world trade regime:The predicted gains to developing countries from the Uruguay Round haveproved to be exaggerated. Poverty and unemployment are again on the rise indeveloping countries which had struggled for many years to combat them.Income and welfare gaps between and within countries have widened further.As the twentieth century comes to an end, the world economy is deeplydivided and unstable. The failure to achieve faster growth that could narrowthe gap between the rich and the poor must be regarded as a defeat for theentire international community. It also raises important questions about thepresent approach to development issues. Asymmetries and biases in the globalsystem against the poor and underprivileged persist unchecked. Brushing aside UNCTAD's warning, the so-called "Doha Development Round"was launched in November 2001. The Doha Round puts an extremely ambitiousliberalization agenda in goods, agriculture and services squarely on thetable. This, however, was only possible after developing countries had theirarms thoroughly twisted in the shadows of September 11. During the DohaMinisterial, just two months after the attacks in the US, it was suggestedin the western press, as well as by certain key ministers, that developingcountries' refusal to launch a new round would somehow be tantamount toassisting the cause of terrorists. Although the Doha Round suffered asetback in Cancun 2003, it was given a boost at the Geneva General Councilmeeting in July 2004. Multilateralism or "Disguised Unilateralism"? Despite its anti-development agenda, the WTO as an institution continuesto garner a certain (though grudging) amount of buy-in from the developingcountry governments. This seems to stem from the belief that some rules, nomatter how skewed, are better than the "law of the jungle". Furthermore,most governments want to avoid blame for derailing what is portrayed as animportant multilateral institution. However, this unquestioning faith in"multilateralism", is counter-productive. According to S.P.Shukla, formerlyIndia's ambassador to the GATT,There seems to be an intuitive belief, particularly among the relativelyweaker members of the trading system, that the multilateral process byitself would ensure not only the legality but also the fairness or equity ofdecision-making. once such belief triumphs over experience, it is only ashort further step that leads to the proposition that a multilateral systemis always desirable per se.The more basic question of the "power-relations"defining the system tends to get obfuscated. Such an environment isconducive to manipulation of multilateralism by the powerful few. The formretains the multilateral character but the power-equation determines thesubstance. Some perceptive observers describe the phenomenon as theemergence of "disguised unilateralism" or "new regionalism". The outcome of negotiations remains riddled with inequity against thedeveloping world. Shukla also argues that the application of the non-discriminationprinciple in the absence of substantive provisions to deal with the majortrade problems of the "weaker members" leads to further discrimination."Treating the unequal equally" is, in his words, a "travesty of the equalityprinciple". On paper each country has an equal voice. In reality, power is exercisedthrough several means: 1) Chairpersons who are handpicked by a small minority. Since the Doha2001 Ministerial, Chairs have taken on the habit of drafting one-sided textsoften excluding the views of the majority and presenting these as papers putforward on the Chair's "own responsibility". At a stroke of a pen, the viewsof the majority are rendered invisible. 2) The process of decision-making takes place behind closed doors andonly between a select few. Typically, the "quad" (US, EU, Canada and Japan)agree on an agenda and the decision-making circle is then widened to includeother key developed and developing countries. The majority is kept in thedark until there is agreement amongst about thirty members and trade offsbetween them have been made. This exclusive process is known as the "greenroom" after the colour of the room of the GATT director general where suchmeetings took place during the Uruguay Round. The outcome is then presentedto the wider membership as a take it or leave it package. In the past twoyears, an even more alarming practice has taken root - super "green rooms"have mushroomed. For example, the TRIPS negotiations on public health inAugust 2003 took place under a shroud of secrecy between four delegations -US, Brazil, India and Kenya. Unless a country is a big power, there are fewthat would have the politi 3) Considerable amounts of arm-twisting and political pressures arebrought to bear on countries that attempt to break a "consensus". 4) Powerful countries undermine developing countries negotiating capacityby resorting to maneuvers at the highest political levels to remove theirambassadors. The former Dominican Republic ambassador Federico Cuello wasremoved from his position in Geneva after the Doha Ministerial because hewas an outspoken advocate of development. Due to these procedural irregularities, developing countries haverepeatedly sought more transparent and accountable negotiating practices.However, these efforts have been systematically subverted by the powerfulminority, insisting on "flexibility" and fearful that formal, transparentand democratic processes would subject the WTO's decisions to the "tyrannyof the majority". It is this fear by the powerful industrialized countriesthat they could loose grip over the decision-making process - as happenedmomentarily in Seattle 1999 and in Cancun 2003 - which has spurred theEuropean Commission on various occasions, to make suggestions for a"security council" type WTO negotiating format, where the green room wouldbe formalized. This is the essence of the recent report by former GATTchair, Peter Sutherland, "The Future of the WTO", which most developingcountry members have distanced themselves from. Despite their occasional ability to come together and challenge theindustrialized nations, more often developing countries have succumbed topolitical pressures and divide and rule tactics by the major powers, or totheir own internal contradictions, so they have difficulties carryingthrough their development agenda. By the end of the negotiations, most endup severely compromising on their initial objectives. As a result, theoutcome of negotiations is heavily weighted against the developing world. WTO's Litany of Failures Getting the Fundamentals Terribly Wrong: The Myths of Integration andExports Firstly, the fundamentals of the institution are wrong. Openness,integration and market access have become the mantra. Yet the actualexperience of the countries that expound this dogma does not tally with whatthey preach. Africa has opened up its economy. Its share of global trade at thebeginning of the Uruguay Round was six percent. Today, it has shrunk toabout two percent. An open investment regime has not brought in the promisedwindfall. In contrast, the Asian countries that had tightly regulated theirlevel of openness to the world market - Korea, Taiwan and Singapore - weremore successful. In the words of Harvard economist Dani Rodrik, "Theglobalisers have it exactly backwards. Integration is the result, not thecause of economic and social development." Related to this, the trade regime's fixation on exports as the route todevelopment has not produced the promised outcome. There are many developingcountries that have seen exports rising, even rapidly, but overallemployment levels have not increased, nor have incomes risen. UNCTADcomments, "Making sense of a system in which many developing countries arevigorously expanding their foreign trade but are not rewarded by acomparable rise in income requires some hard thinking". In 2004, UNCTAD's report on least developed counties (LDCs) called intoquestion the market access doctrine on which the WTO pins its existence, andwhich the various multilateral institutions have used as a substitute fordevelopment policy. It concludes that, "The positive role of trade inpoverty reduction is actually being realized in very few LDCs". Whilst therehad been a significant number of export take-offs in a large number of LDCssince the late 1980s, "on balance, future poverty reduction prospects seemto have worsened." Export expansion has led to positive changes in privateconsumption per capita (that is, poverty alleviation) in only three LDCs -Bangladesh, Guinea and Uganda. According to the Report, There is no guarantee that export expansion will lead to a form ofeconomic growth that is inclusive. Indeed, there is a strong likelihood thatexport-led growth (in LDCs with mass poverty) will actually turn out to be"enclave-led growth". This is a form of economic growth that is concentratedin a small part of the economy, both geographically and sectorally. In fact, in over half the number of cases studied, 29 out of 51, exportexpansion has led to either ambiguous or immiserizing effects. The quality,not only the quantity, of trade has to be carefully examined. Dismantling Developing Countries' Agricultural Sector The agricultural sector continues to employ seventy percent of theworkforce in the South (as compared to between two to five percent in OECDcountries) and local production remains closely linked with people's accessto food and livelihoods. The trade regime, in combination with World Bank and IMF structuraladjustment policies, has systematically destroyed developing countries'agriculture sector. Whilst setting the developing world firmly on theliberalization route, the WTO's Agreement on Agriculture provided the coverfor the US and EU to continue their high tariff and non-tariff borderprotection as well as their enormous subsidies to producers (the bulk ofwhich goes to the biggest producers). Some examples of farmers affected by the subsidies include the dairyfarmers in Thailand, India, Jamaica who had been hit by the EU's subsidiesof about 1.7 billion euros (in 1999) a year on diary products. EU exports indiary make up about fifty percent of what is traded on the world market.European dairy products therefore set world prices. EU subsidies to theirdairy producers are up to 87 percent of the world price of milk powder. Similarly the US is depressing world prices of major food crops. The US2002 Farm Bill, which promised farmers at least US$190 billion over tenyears, concentrated on eight areas, all of which are important food cropsfor developing countries and are closely linked to food security and ruralemployment: cotton, wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, barley, oats and sorghum.As a result of US subsidies, exports are sold at below their cost ofproduction and Third World farmers are displaced. The other stark failure of the Agreement on Agriculture has been its totalsilence on the manipulation of world prices by agri-businesses through theirmarket power and control over the global production chain. In addition tosubsidies, this is the second prong to the debilitating phenomenon ofever-declining commodity and food prices. From 1997 to 2001, the combinedprice index of all commodities had fallen by 53 percent in real terms,leading UNCTAD to conclude that the "commodity trap" had become the "povertytrap". Destroying the Industrial Base of the Developing World The Agreement on Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) was broughtinto the WTO in the Uruguay Round at the behest of the industrializedcountries. It prohibits countries from imposing investment measures onforeign companies such as local content requirements, export-importbalancing in terms of foreign exchange, and technology transfer. Theseinvestment measures have been used by the developed countries themselves inthe past, as well as by several East Asian countries. Regulating foreigninvestors is critical if countries want to capture the benefits of foreigndirect investment, such as increasing the tax base, job creation andbackward linkages between the export and domestic sectors. Take the automobile industry as a case in point. Between 1995 and February2002, 11 complaints in the automotive sector (involving not just localcontent requirements but also subsidies, incentives and foreign exchangebalancing) were brought by Japan, the EU and the US against four developingcountries with potentially large automotive markets - Brazil, India,Indonesia and the Philippines. Developing a domestic auto industry is abenchmark of industrial development, and developing countries with largeinternal markets have attempted to build their own car manufacturing sector.The number of cases brought against these countries is clearly an attempt bythe industrialized countries to maintain their hold on the global market. Inthe case of Japan (US and EU as third parties) vs. Indonesia (in 1997) onthe Indonesian national car programme, the WTO panel ruled that Indonesia'slocal content requirements as well as tax exemptions violated the TRIMsagreement. This case, as with others Lowering tariffs on industrial products has been the objective of the GATT since its inception. Until now, industrial tariff reduction through the WTO has been less stringent that those required through World Bank and IMF structural adjustment lending. Now all this is changing in the current negotiations of the Doha Round as the US and EU puts pressure on developing countries to reduce their industrial tariffs. However, developing countries are resisting, informed by the experiences of the 1980s and 1990s. According to Buffie, rapid tariff cuts in sub-Saharan Africa since the1980s resulted in deindustrialization: In Senegal, one third ofmanufacturing jobs disappeared, in Cote-d'Ivoire, the chemical, textiles,footwear and automobile sectors were crushed. In Sierra Leone, Sudan,Tanzania, Uganda, Zaire and Zambia, imports displaced local production ofconsumer goods, causing large-scale unemployment. The industries of Kenya,too, have not been spared - beverages, tobacco, textiles, sugar, leather,cement and glass have been negatively affected. According to UNCTAD (2002),"most developing countries are still exporting resource- andlabour-intensive products, effectively relying on their supplies of cheap,low-skilled labour to compete." For most, competitiveness has been achievedthrough cheap labour. Exports which are labour-intensive have not "beenaccompanied by concomitant increases in value added and income earned indeveloping countries". To add to these woes, the price of si Due to their wrenching experiences in the past 15 years, developingcountries, especially the Africans, have been extremely reluctant to enteran ambitious round of tariff reductions. They rejected the September 2003Cancun Ministerial text on non-agricultural market access (NAMA) statingthat this would cause deindustrialization. Yet the pressure heaped ondeveloping countries post-Cancun was too much to bear. The African delegatesfinally gave in to the text in July 2004, with the weak caveat that variouscontentious issues required "additional negotiations". Taking-over Developing Countries' Services Markets, Erosion of BasicServices for the Poor Even though the GATS has a "positive list" architecture (that is,government liberalise only the sectors they have scheduled), there is strongpressure for members to submit their "offers". This is eroding thefundamental character of the GATS of "progressive liberalisation" whichallows countries to open their services only when they are prepared for it.The 2004 July framework agreed by the General Council calls for revisedoffers to be tabled by May 2005. The EU, propelled by complaints lodged bythe European Services Forum (ESF) - an entity made up of European servicescorporations - regarding what they perceive as "low quality" offers from keycountries such as Brazil, Thailand, China, and Indonesia, will be presentingnew requests to its GATS partners which it deems have not respondedadequately. Yet developing country governments have not been deliberatelyunresponsive. The capacity difficulty that developing country governmentshave in assessing their services sectors and ascertaining their interestsshould not be underestimated, hence their relative reticence in the past twoyears of GATS negotiations. Indeed, neither the WTO nor any othermultilateral institution has prepared a framework for assessing theeconomic, much less the social, impact of opening up services under theGATS. WTO analyst Chakravarthi Raghavan likens the lack of data andassessment to "a blindfolded person in a dark room chasing a black cat" andargues that assessment efforts have been systematically disrupted. Second, the majority of developing countries are in a very weak positionto compete with the multinational services giants of the developed world.Developed countries have dominated world trade in services, making upseventy percent of the world's exports: the top ten exporters (mainlydeveloped countries) control 65 percent of world trade in services. Thisshare in some sectors reaches over ninety percent, for example in financialservices, computer and information services, royalties and licence fees, andconstruction services. Apart from the "movement of natural persons" (knownas Mode 4), tourism and outsourcing, most developing countries have littleor no competitive market access interests in these negotiations compared tothe corporations of the US and EU. How does GATS affect the poor? Access to water, health, education,housing, and other essential services are fundamental human rights.Liberalisation of services usually means that access to services is based ona market model rather than a universal model and this disproportionatelyeffects the poorest sectors of society who are unable to pay for services. The argument for GATS proponents is that liberalisation and the entry ofprivate providers of services can bring about more efficient servicesprovision, including in basic services. The empirical evidence is lessclear. There are some positive experiences, but also many failuresespecially in the provision of services to low income groups. UNDP's 2003Human Development Report concludes: "The supposed benefits of privatizingsocial services are elusive, with inconclusive evidence on efficiency andquality standards in the private relative to the public sector. Meanwhile,examples of market failures in private provisioning abound." Privatisation mostly leads to the "unbundling" or dismantling of publicservices and an end to cross-subsidisation. In the area of utilities,Kessler and Alexander conclude: "Corporations have little incentive toinvest in 'unprofitable people'.(.) They are less likely to go intoperi-urban, slum or rural areas, where topography is more difficult, percapita consumption is less, and most importantly, incomes are lower.." GATS does not mandate privatization, but its liberalisation agendaprovides the conditions for privitisation. In addition, no sector is apriori excluded in GATS. Public opinion and pressure from trade unions hasforced the EU to withhold essential services such as water, health care andeducation from its GATS commitments and current offer, yet the EU continuesto be aggressive in asking other WTO members to open these sectors. Complementary to their market access requests, the industrializedcountries are also interested in limiting domestic regulation. As of July2002, the US submitted requests to 141 WTO members and the EC to 109. Manyof these requests have specifically targeted the regulatory limits agreed inthe Uruguay Round GATS negotiations to allow developing countries to promotedomestic development and to limit the activity of foreign investors. The EUand US requests have included removal of regulations subjecting foreigncorporate takeovers to government approval, laws requiring foreign investorsto form joint ventures when they enter the market, and regulation of landownership. A large number of developing countries do not have good regulatoryframeworks to begin with. Current GATS negotiations could easily lock inthese weak systems and pre-empt any future regulatory measures to limit thepowers of monopolies and protect public and essential services. Intellectual Property: Ensuring the Technological Dominance of NorthernCorporations The TRIPS Agreement (trade related aspects of intellectual propertyrights) has little to do with trade. In fact, it stymies trade by allowingthe patent holder to maintain their monopoly over potential competitors. TheTRIPS agreement was brought into the WTO by strong lobbying from theinformation technology and pharmaceutical companies in the industrializedcountries. It widens the divide between those that have the technology andthose that do not. Whilst the rationale for TRIPS is that there should be a proper balancebetween the right of the inventor and public interests, the twenty-yearpatents stipulated by TRIPS gives all the power to the patent holders. The effects on the poor are manifold. Firstly, it stifles technologytransfer or catch-up by the developing world, hence consigning the majorityof developing countries to being permanently locked in simple manufacturersrather than progressing towards high-end products with increasing valueadded and economic benefits. Even though multinational companies have beenmoving their production to the developing world, there has been notechnology transfer. The know-how and technology are kept within thecorporations. This has contributed to exports in manufacturers being"enclaves" with little or no linkages to the domestic economy. Secondly, TRIPS has allowed multinational companies to engage inbio-piracy. Biotechnology companies such as Monsanto may alter very slightlyseeds that have been bred by farmers for hundreds of years and patent themfor twenty years. Through the slight genetic modification of seeds bred byfarmers, biotechnology companies can privatise the resulting organisms andenjoy patent rights on them for twenty years. These patented seeds are thensold to farmers world-wide, who are not allowed to follow the tried and truepractice of using seeds for the following harvest on pain of being sued. The other highly controversial area is public health and access tomedicines and medical equipment. The patent protection in TRIPS has blockedthe imports of low cost generic medicines and increased drug pricesconsiderably, pushing them beyond the means of the majority. Since theadoption of the TRIPS and Public Health Declaration in Doha, as well as the30 August 2003 decision - the "solution" allowing countries without genericindustries to import generic drugs - TRIPS is no longer supposed to be ahindrance to poor people's access to drugs. However, according to TRIPSexpert, Carlos Correa, the legal red-tape that generic drug producers andthe exporting and importing countries have to deal with makes the solutionof 30 August "largely symbolic in view of the multiple conditions requiredfor its application." The argument by the pharmaceutical industries is that intellectualproperty rights are needed in order to pay for the research and developmentcosts for new drugs. The reality, however, is that tropical diseases are themain killers of the poor today, yet only 12 of 1233 new drugs that reachedthe market between 1975 and 1997 were approved specifically for tropicaldiseases. Even free-trade advocate Jagdish Bhagwati has described the WTO'sintellectual property protection as a "tax" that most poor countries pay ontheir use of knowledge, constituting a one-way transfer to the richproducing countries. Conclusion The failures of trade liberalisation and the single-minded obsession withexport-lead growth have been clearly documented, yet the WTO, the World Bankand the International Monetary Fund remain slow to catch on. Whilst a largeportion of the WTO's members remain crippled by massive poverty - especiallythose countries that have already opened their markets to the limit - theWTO offers them nothing except more blind faith in trade liberalisation, thevery same "faith" that contributed to the stagnation and disintegration oftheir industries, agriculture and economies. The WTO institutionalises the subordination of development to corporatefree trade. A viable trade regime cannot prescribe a one-size-fits-allsolution, but must be loose enough to allow for a wide diversity in itsmembers' economic arrangements. Is this possible? Perhaps the most strikingfeature of the WTO in the last ten years is its inability to reform, despitethe hopes poor countries pin on this agenda every day in their Genevanegotiations. The political and economic interests behind its agenda remaintoo deeply entrenched. 3.c Desperate Martians Now Wooing Venusians By Walden Bello* (Adapted from the author's speeches during an anti-war tour of Italy, Feb.22-27, 2005) Europe and the world have witnessed over the last few days theunfolding of a diplomatic offensive that is designed to convince Europeans,"to put Iraq behind them." The effort is, in fact, geared to persuade notonly Europeans but also the world that with the recent elections in Iraq,there is a new game that must be played, and the name of that game isdemocracy. The reality is that the old game of domination and occupationcontinues, and the US is not winning. The triumphalism that accompaniedGeorge W. Bush's tour of "Old Europe," with his brand new Secretary ofState, Condoleeza Rice, at his side, was a public relations effort tocounter the reality of the spread of a wide and deep resistance in Iraq.There is not only the military resistance that we witness day-to-day ontelevision. There is also a political resistance that is broader than themilitary resistance. There is, as well, massive civil resistance-whichencompasses not only trade union opposition but all those acts ordinarycitizens engage in day-to-day to deny legitimacy to the occupation thatJames C. Scott calls the "weapons of the weak." The US: Losing in Iraq The truth is that the US is losing the war in Iraq, both politicallyand militarily. The number of governments in the so-called "Coalition ofthe Willing" is now so reduced that the Pentagon has dropped the term andstarted using "multinational forces" instead. The 135,000 US troops arestretched thin, their numbers unable to stop the wildfire rise of aguerrilla insurgency. Estimates of many military experts of the minimumnecessary number to fight the guerrillas to a stalemate range from 200,000to a million. It is impossible to attain these numbers without provokingmassive civil unrest in the US, where the majority of the population nowsees the military intervention as unjustified. Mr. Bush may have won theelections but it was not because of public support for the war, and he knowsthis. In the US military itself, more and more troops, even in active duty,along with their families, are speaking out against the war. A few weeksago, television audiences worldwide wi The US Army, one must recall, fell apart internally at the laststages of the Vietnam War owing to demoralization, which took the form of,among other things, the "fragging" of officers, or throwing grenades atthem. With about 40 per cent of the Army troops in Iraq being non-regularforces with the National Guard, who are not fulltime soldiers, the steadyerosion of morale among US units must not be underestimated. Probably theonly soldiers that can resist demoralization are the stupidly gung-hoMarines, but they are a minority in what is otherwise an Army show. The Crisis of Overextension But the US is not only overextended in Iraq. Iraq has in factworsened the crisis of overextension of the US globally. The keymanifestations of the imperial dilemma stand out starkly: Despite the recentUS-sponsored elections in Afghanistan, the Karzai government effectivelycontrols only parts of Kabul and two or three other cities. As UN SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan has said, despite the elections, "without functionalstate institutions able to serve the basic needs of the populationthroughout the country, the authority and legitimacy of the new governmentwill be short-lived." And so long as this is the case, Afghanistan will tiedown 13,500 US troops within the country and 35,000 support personneloutside. - The US war on terror has backfired completely, with Al Qaeda and itsallies much stronger today than in 2001. The invasion of Iraq, according toRichard Clarke, Bush's former anti-terrorism czar, claims, derailed the waron terror and served as the best recruiting device for Al Qaeda. But evenwithout Iraq, Washington's heavy handed police and military methods ofdealing with terrorism were already alienating millions of Muslims. Nothingillustrates this more than Southern Thailand, where US anti-terrorist advicehas helped convert simmering discontent into a full-blown insurgency. - With its full embrace of Ariel Sharon's no-win strategy of sabotagingthe emergence of a Palestinian state, Washington has forfeited all thepolitical capital that it had gained among Arabs by brokering the nowdefunct Oslo Accord. Moreover, the go-with-Sharon strategy, along with theoccupation of Iraq, has left Washington's allies among the Arab elitesexposed, discredited, and vulnerable. With the death of Yasser Arafat, TelAviv and Washington may entertain hopes of a settlement of the Palestinianissue on their terms. This is an illusion, and we probably will see this ingrowing support for Hamas |
