Focus on the Global South- India - Call To Action: HONG KONG MINISTERIAL

~ 10 years is enough! STOP the destructive advance of the WTO!
~ No succumbing to the pressures of USA and EU!
~ Affirm Indian solidarity with developing countries in the WTO!
~ No deal is better than a bad deal in the WTO Ministerial in Hong Kong!
~ A minority government can have NO authority to take major trade policy
decisions endangering the future of the Indian people!
~ Indian Government's mandate at the WTO negotiations must be
comprehensively debated and decided by an explicit consensus to be evolved in
the Parliament!

10 YEARS OF THE WTO: END OF AN ILLUSION
The predicted gains to developing countries from the WTO have proved to be
empty promises.
During 10 years of its existence, poverty and unemployment have spiraled in
developing countries as income and welfare gaps between and within countries
have widened further. The hopes raised by the revival of the solidarity of
the South with the emergence of the G20 (a group of developing countries led
by Brazil, India, China and South Africa) at Cancun in 2003 have been belied
since. The 2004 July Framework Agreement proved, once again, that development
cannot be pursued within the WTO paradigm. The July deal forms the basis of
negotiations towards Hong Kong. On the present indications, the only deal
that can be inked at Hong Kong will be a deal that would force developing
countries to make damaging concessions in agriculture, services and
industrial goods.

AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE: DEEPENING CRISIS
From all accounts, India is experiencing a deep agrarian crisis. Rising cost
of inputs, non-availability of cheap rural credit and exposure to volatile
global market price trends have squeezed the peasantry. The lack of
alternative employment opportunities and income have resulted in an
unprecedented reduction in the per-capita availability of food-grains for the
rural poor, pushing, three quarters of the rural population below 'the
poverty line'. The widespread phenomenon of farmers' suicides is a cruel
manifestation of this crisis.

The paradigm of the WTO's Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) is biased in favour
of capital-intensive and corporate agribusiness-driven agriculture. It is
insensitive to the needs of the masses of peasantry and agricultural workers.
It threatens the livelihood of the vast masses of the small and marginal
farmers in India and other developing countries. It has led to peasant
distress not only in India but also in all countries where agriculture is a
livelihood issue. If we do not challenge and change the current AoA paradigm,
we will end up by opening our markets for the highly subsidised and therefore
artificially low-priced imports from the developed countries. Our food
security will be endangered. The peasantry will be compelled to accept the
entry of corporate agribusiness on its terms and subjugate or surrender their
source of livelihood to the volatile dynamics of global agriculture market
and the profit -calculus of the agri-business. This will pave the way for the
decimation of the already beleaguered peasantry with unimaginable
consequences for our polity.

Rather than highlight the fundamental issues confronting the peasantry and
agricultural workers and question the very paradigm of AoA, the G20 has
focussed on market access and the prevailing domestic support and export
subsidies in developed countries. Developed countries have used the former as
leverage to prise open markets of developing countries. And the latter will
prove to be a wild goose chase: the experience of the last ten years has
shown that the total quantum of such subsidies has indeed increased. It is
well known that the quantum of agricultural subsidies given by the EU under
the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) will continue till 2013 and will not be
reduced before that. Moreover US subsidies under the 2002 Farm Bill is for a
period of 10 years i.e. till 2012.The offers of reduction being put forward
on behalf of both EU and USA are misleading and, in fact, leave a comfortable
margin for future increases in the total quantum over the currently applied
levels of such subsidies!

~ WTO must undertake a comprehensive review of the impact of Agreement on
Agriculture
(AoA) during the 10 years of its operation, in particular, its adverse
effects on developing member countries, before the negotiations proceed any
further.
~ The right to impose Quantitative Restrictions (QRs) on import of
agricultural products must be restored to developing countries so as to
enable them to selectively de-link their agriculture from the onslaught of
the volatile global market, to protect it from the depredations of
agri-business and to secure a policy space to work out appropriate solution
to their agrarian question.
~ Negotiating mandate on agriculture be finalised only after full debate and
consensus in the state legislature as agriculture and land rights are state
subjects under the Constitution.
~ Ensure rural credit and other inputs at reasonable rates.
~ Defend and protect food security and livelihood!
~ Say 'No' to corporatisation of Indian agriculture; no sacrificing food
production for products of interest only to the rich!
~ No more sellout by the Indian government as in the 2004 July Framework
Agreement in Geneva!

Unfortunately the Indian government has virtually accepted the contents of
the earlier discredited text as the basis for NAMA negotiations. The majority
of WTO members in Cancun had rejected that text. Historically, all late
industrialisers including the USA developed their industry behind high
protection. The key issue concerning NAMA is that while developing countries
protect their markets through higher tariffs, the main mode of protection for
the developed countries is through Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs), particularly
through the use of technical barriers. Those barriers in the developed
countries are not being discussed simultaneously or with the same priority.
Therefore a further reduction in tariffs as is being negotiated in NAMA will
not lead to any greater market access for the developing countries but will
certainly ensure greater market access for the developed countries. And
further steep reductions in tariffs on industrial products will accentuate
the process of de-industrialisation, which has already commenced with tough
import competition being faced by many sectors in small and medium
industries.

GATS: ALL IN THE CORPORATE INTEREST
The focus of the GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) is on the
liberalisation and deregulation of the services sector. Over 160 services
sectors have been enumerated to illustrate its jurisdiction: basic services
such as Water, Education and Health; infrastructure services such as Energy,
Transport and Telecommunications; critical sectors such as Financial
Services, Banking and Insurance; and the world's largest industry; travel and
tourism. These sectors constitute the target of deep liberalisation and the
next frontier for corporate- led globalisation. The subject matter of GATS is
incredibly broad as the term 'Service' is defined vaguely and tautologically
in the agreement so as to potentially include any and every activity.

Nevertheless, the developing countries had succeeded to some extent in
building in some safeguards into GATS to protect their interests. The
safeguards consisted of the following. The opening up of any sector for the
negotiations was at the discretion of the member country. There was no a
priori inclusion of all service sectors for liberalizing negotiations. The
national policy objectives in service sectors were to be respected. The
member countries, therefore, could subject the opening up of service sectors
to certain conditions and limitations, as they would consider appropriate.
Developing countries were expected to table fewer sectors for negotiations,
only in line with their stage of development. Developed countries were
expected to open up, on a priority basis, their service sectors, which were
of export interest to developing countries. These safeguards constituted the
saving graces of the otherwise draconian agreement. It is precisely these
safeguards which are sought to be removed/diluted by the developed countries
in the current phase of negotiations in the name of introducing new concepts
such as "benchmarking", "quantitative targets and indicators" for
liberalisation, "critical mass" of sectors to be liberalised etc. While
developing countries have opposed these moves vociferously, the Indian
Government has not been very clear or vocal in its opposition.

Since 1991, services policies have been altered to enable the entry of
private service providers and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). There was
little effort to monitor and address these reforms from the standpoints of
distributive equity, employment, and regulatory institutions. As a result,
while those with disposable incomes and located in urban areas are able to
consume more, a huge proportion of India's peoples—majority of who live in
rural areas—are struggling with rising costs and limited access to essential
services such as health, finance, water and electricity.

It is crucial that lessons from already existing liberalisation and
privatisation attempts inform India's negotiating position in the GATS. This
assessment is yet to be done by the Indian Government. It is surprising in
this backdrop that India is adopting a pro-active stance in the GATS
negotiations. India's key area of interest is made out to be in the movement
of highly skilled labour through the Mode 4 route, that is to say, movement
of persons across the national frontier to provide a service. This mirrors
the demands of big services corporations in the US. India has narrowed Mode 4
negotiations to the movement of highly skilled professionals and does not
take into account unskilled or lower skilled workers. It is unacceptable that
India's Mode 4 positions are 'captured' by US business lobbies. Furthermore,
the lure of the opportunities for jobs and profits to the elite sections as,
for example, in the Information Technology sector, particularly, in Business
Process Outsourcing, seems to have taken the driver's seat in the negotiating
process. The result is that indiscriminate offers have been made for opening
of a large number of service sectors across the board, as demanded by the
foreign corporate capital. The interests of the common people are at a
discount. As the picture has emerged, for securing the gains foreseen by the
rich and elite sections, the costs will have to be borne by the poorer masses
in terms of loss of employment and income, high costs of services to be
provided by the corporate sector and loss of access to essential services.

~ No opening up of any sector without national debate and consensus!
~ No commitments without the GATS assessment!
~ One Enron is enough. No more Enron like disasters!
~ No to 'benchmarking' and similar other moves! No compulsory opening up of
services sectors.
~ Keep water, health, education and retail trade out of GATS!
~ Stop handing over Indian services sectors to transnational corporations for
a few thousand American visas!
~ Keep financial and banking sector strictly under national control!
~ Transnational companies cannot be given national status and 'national
treatment'.

TRIPS: NEED FOR A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW
The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Rights (TRIPS) was one
of the most controversial and bitterly fought agreements that ultimately
formed part of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreement in 1995. We have
been consistently of the view that TRIPS was and continues to be an
inequitous agreement biased heavily in favour of Transnational Corporations.
During the Uruguay Round of negotiations that led to the WTO Agreement there
was a wide consensus in India against agreeing to TRIPS, but the Government
of the day had proceeded nonetheless disregarding popular sentiments.

There is today growing evidence globally that the TRIPS agreement jeopardizes
access to medicines and has a detrimental effect on the dissemination of
scientific knowledge and technology in diverse sectors such as software and
biotechnology. Keeping this in mind, India should press for a review of
TRIPS, not in the narrow sense that developed countries would want (in terms
of the actual translation of its provisions in the country laws of different
countries) but in the broader context of reviewing its impact and pressing
for changes in the Agreement itself.

HONG KONG: NO DEAL BEHIND THE BACK OF THE INDIAN PEOPLE.
The negotiating positions to be adopted by the Government in the Hong Kong
Ministerial in December 2005 and the outcome of these negotiations will have
far - reaching and even irreversible, adverse consequences for the country's
economy and polity, particularly for the peasantry and working classes. The
Uruguay Round commitments were taken in a non- transparent manner. The fait
accompli was sought to be justified in terms of highly exaggerated estimates
of "gains" computed by biased "experts". Now it is an acknowledged fact that
developing countries were short-changed in that round and it turned out to be
a severely adverse bargain. We should learn from that bitter experience. It
is thus imperative that the positions that the Government proposes to pursue
at the Hong Kong Ministerial are set out in a White Paper and discussed in
the Parliament during the Winter session. It is important that an informed
debate takes place on the floor of Parliament and no commitment is taken
without a national consensus to back it.

** The WTO Wirodhi Bharatiya Jan Abhiyan (Indian People's Campaign against
WTO-IPCAWTO) was launched on the eve of the 2001 Doha ministerial meeting of
the WTO. It is a collective initiative of people's movements, trade unions,
political parties, voluntary organizations, intellectuals, concerned citizens
and activists opposed to imperialist globalisation. It provides a platform
for united initiatives to mobilize and strengthen the resistance to the
imperialist globalization symbolized by WTO. The Campaign has organised
meetings, seminars, conventions and rallies in the context of the Doha as
well as the Cancun ministerial meetings. It has published papers and
pamphlets analysing the implications of WTO agreements and ongoing
negotiations. It has provided resource persons and literature for similar
activities carried on by its constituent members and other like-minded
organisations .The Campaign has sought to influence decision- making of the
government in regard to WTO issues by intervention at the highest levels.