WTO: Foreseeable script of a foretold outcome
21/12/2005
- Opinión
Irene Leon
With the foreseeable script of show-casing unity among its 150 members,
announcing some common conclusion, even though the central issue has been
postponed for a Hong Kong II in Geneva 2006, the "6th Ministerial Meeting
of the WTO" (December 13-18) drew to a close. And it did so in an
atmosphere of disconcertment at the outcomes, among most of the participant
members, and in a city disrupted by militarization, supposedly to "protect"
the venue from the citizen voices of resistance, that merited far greater
echo than the results of the conclave.
But the official version says that the meeting did not fail this time, and
obtained modest achievements; because the simple fact of not reediting the
collapse of Cancun (2003) and not throwing more oil on the fire of doubts
about the viability of the WTO strategy, were considered from the outset as
potential successes.
The announcements of eliminating the subsidies on agricultural exports by
2013; of releasing a quota (called quota free, duty free) for 97 products
of the 50 poorer nations; and of suspending by 2008 the US subsidies on
cotton exports, that were presented as the achievements of the meeting, are
far from constituting the conclusion of the Doha Round. This is known as
the development round, the prime motive for the meeting, but the
development issue was postponed until April 2006.
Doha established the agenda of: the promotion of sustainable development;
the reduction of poverty and increase in jobs; improvements in
international governability; and economic growth, especially of the
developing countries. These goals, paradoxically, were to be achieved via
the adoption of measures to improve trade and world-wide investment.
According to the conclusions of the 6th Meeting, all these major pending
issues will have to be dealt with over the next four months.
For many of the countries described as poor, the concretion of this Round
is indispensable if they are to be fully inserted not only into the WTO
dynamics, but also in those of the market. Yet the main problem is in
claiming that development can be obtained through that route.
Even under that perspective, the disparity among member countries is a
major stumbling block. Bargaining on a piece-meal basis between economies
that are not in the least equivalent, as is the case of cotton production,
that confronted the poorest countries of West Africa (Benin, Burkina Faso,
Chad and Mali), congregated in the Group of 4 -G4-, with the United States,
demonstrates that trade freedom cannot evade structural and historical
disparities. In this case, while the G-4 requested that the United States
withdraw its subsidies to domestic cotton producers, whose dumping
endangers the existence of smaller ones, they were only able to obtain that
the cotton giant will suspend export subsidies by 2008.
For that same reason, after more than 100 hours of discussions, the meeting
reached a deadlock on the issue of tariffs on agricultural imports and the
possibility of opening the markets of the major powers to produce from
developing countries. The fact is that the ardor with which the US, UE and
Japan protect their domestic agriculture from international competition, is
a far cry from the ultimatum of total liberation that they want to impose
on the others.
These inconsistencies, known as negotiation strategies, make the
possibility of consensus more remote and give way to imposition by force.
Thus for example, while the Group of 20 developing countries - G-20 -, led
by Brazil and India, began the meeting with the standpoint of not advancing
on liberalization of services and trade of manufactured goods, if there was
no progress on agriculture, the European Union, for its part, stated that
it would not make concessions in agriculture if the developing countries
did not do so in services and industrial goods.
Clearly, they have forgotten that the Doha Round was supposed to give
central attention precisely to the opportunity for developing countries to
increase their opportunities to compete, among other things by overcoming
poverty.
Nonetheless, the G-20 accepted the final document under the pretext of
unity, as did the Group of 90 (poor countries) and the Group of 33 (on
special products in agriculture). The Brazilian foreign affairs minister,
Celso Amorim, justified this change of position by the need to make
commitments to unblock the process, and he was even more enthusiastic about
the results on agriculture, an area of great preoccupation for the poor
countries. "We not only have a date to end subsidies, but also an agreement
on the subsidies on agricultural exports, most of which will have to be
done by 2010", he said.
On services, another controversial chapter, the tonic of the debates is
illustrated by the discussions on the polemical "Annex C", one of the
proposals on which was the possibility that a country can be forced to
respond to trade orders of groups or countries, even though it does not
want to or is not interested in the proposal. Venezuela headed the
opposition to this absurdity, the Group of 90 watered it down in an
alternative text, and Cuba, the Philippines and Venezuela stated their
preoccupation with the controversial draft, whose further development is
among the postponed matters.
In summary, if there is anything to commend in the development of this
meeting, it is the continuing alliance among countries of the South, which,
although they do not express in-depth disagreement with the proposal of the
WTO, at least allow for a certain geopolitical balance. On this matter, the
Indian Minister of Trade, Kamal Nath, indicated that the greatest
achievement of the developing countries is having maintained and
demonstrated their unity. "We are not trying to create a North/South
confrontation, but this unity between countries of the South is
indispensable for the maintenance of multilateralism", he stated.
Resistance from the grassroots
For the Via Campesina Farmers' movement, which heads the resistance to the
WTO, the main problem of Doha and the difficulties the WTO has run into, is
due to having placed the market as the motor of development and leader of
so-called globalization; or in other words, putting humanity at the service
of capital, as VC coordinator, Indonesian Henry Saragih said.
Therefore the resistance that social movements express is a fundamental
matter. It has to do with what is not negotiable: persons, peoples, the
environment, the planet and life, which cannot be put out to commercial
auction, as is happening with the present proposal on agriculture. By
pushing a mercantile vision of agriculture, the WTO endangers the very
viability of the farmer way of life, transforming it into a mere industry
of food production, without the peasantry.
This explains the frontal opposition of this movement to the WTO, as
expressed in Hong Kong and previously in Cancun, Seattle, and other
locations where this world-wide entity tries to make decisions that
alienate the possibilities of living in the countryside, as Honduran leader
Rafael Alegria pointed out. He added that that this movement will not
cease fighting to keep agriculture outside the WTO.
As an alternative to the Ministerial Meeting, a number of social movements
from around the world organized a significant agenda of resistance, that
included activities of reflection, cultural events and mobilizations. The
latter, as well as putting the ministerial meeting in check, whose members
felt threatened by the massive nature of the protest, managed to present
and disseminate their alternative proposals and the reasons for resistance.
A wide range of pacific mobilizations, such as actions for raising
awareness in places of large public affluence, thematic marches and
cultural expressions, organized mainly by the farmer movement, won the
favorable opinion of the local population, which was initially reticent and
proud to be part of the so-called "capital of free trade".
However, as the freedom defended for trade does not apply to people,
repression against the pacific mobilizations soon appeared. The city was
militarized and censorship imposed on divergent expression. On the last
two days of the Ministerial Meeting, almost one thousand two hundred people
were surrounded, arrested, jailed and left incommunicado, most of them
members of the Via Campesina.
Even then, until the last moment the mobilizations continued. Moreover,
inside the police cordon, in the jail and from everywhere, the shout was
heard in dozens of different languages: "Down, down the WTO" or "The WTO
kills farmers".
- Irene Leon, from Hong Kong, China.
https://www.alainet.org/en/articulo/113921?language=es
Del mismo autor
- Ecuador: Rebasa crisis del Covid-19 07/04/2020
- The Feminist Spring and the Patriarchal Counter-Offensive 17/03/2020
- La primavera feminista y la contraofensiva patriarcal 06/03/2020
- Simulacros, suplantaciones y luchas por el conocimiento libre en el capitalismo digital 23/07/2019
- Ecuador en la arquitectura del golpe neoliberal en América Latina 26/10/2018
- El berrinche de la derecha y la máquina de post verdades 13/04/2017
- Ganar o ganar: la apuesta del autoritarismo ordinario 01/04/2017
- La victoria de País y la... “suspensión” de la lucha de clases 24/02/2017
- Ecuador: entre batallas políticas y comunicacionales 16/02/2017
- Chevron in Ecuador: a question of power 22/08/2016
Clasificado en
Clasificado en:
Libre Comercio
- José Ramón Cabañas Rodríguez 01/04/2022
- Jorge Murga Armas 31/03/2022
- Jorge Murga Armas 30/03/2022
- Lori Wallach 22/03/2022
- Néstor Araujo 22/03/2022
![Subscribe to America Latina en Movimiento - RSS](https://www.alainet.org/misc/feed.png)