The 11th Ministerial Summit of the World Trade Organization (WTO) took place in Buenos Aires on December 11 to 13, ending with meagre results for the promoters of neoliberalism and, on a local level, for Macrism. This is a situation generated by the contradictions of the central countries led by the USA, to demand the raising of the safeguards of all the poor and developing countries, and to impose legislation on patents and deregulation in favor of transnationals, while demanding greater protection for their economies with subsidies and other guarantees [1].

The delegates of the governments did not manage to advance on any agreement on proposals advanced to broaden free trade, due to the tensions generated by the bad world geo-economic times [2] and by the present structural conditions of geopolitics. The United States and the European Union (EU) are in permanent dispute – against the countries of the periphery – to protect their economies, while China, India, the G77 and other countries claim conditions of equality – that leaves them unable to pact under the unequal conditions proposed by the WTO [3]. Neoliberalism is questioned and under debate.

The internal blockages of the WTO to advance in their neoliberal proposals do not signify a change in orientation of the economic institutions of globalization (the World Bank, International Monetary Foundation and the WTO itself), but rather are the product of the crisis generated by the capacity of resistance of the countries non-allied to the commercial interests of the USA, such as China, in addition to the incapacity of sovereign regional projects to establish a framework of common action favorable to their interests – as UNASUR might have done –, and by the protectionist orientation of the US and Great Britain.

The summit took place in a context of aggression by the host country against the voices critical of globalization and free trade, manifested in the use of state violence against demonstrators and the prohibition of the attendance of global civil leaders that question the mandates of the WTO. All this was much like what happened during the 3^rd Summit that took place in Seattle (US) in 1999, where there was repression with use of force and the WTO agenda miscarried [4]. Apparently the neoliberals use rubber bullets and tear gas as their crutch.

I. Rebellion in the periphery

The double discourse of the US with respect to free trade (that other countries should liberate their borders, when they do not liberate their own) is faced with the growing capacity of China, India, South Africa and Russia to negotiate trade aspects that transcend the debate of the customs safeguards, placing at the centre the issue of the development of productive forces and scientific-technical development, without subordination to patents or inspection by the US and European authorities. The United States criticize China because it generates nearly 17,8% of global exports of merchandise [5], which once they enter into circulation on a planetary scale, challenges their hegemony over the market, both in neoliberal transnational institutions, as well as in the US economy itself.

The trade representative of the US, Robert Lightlizer, spoke in the Summit corroborating the protectionist turn of the Trump administration and seeking to position the dispute against China as the principal target, inciting their allies to form a block against the Asian giant. Some specialists point out that the decision of the United States responds to the intention to withdraw from the area of negotiation of the WTO, which would allow them to continue treating trade themes at a bilateral level, through Free Trade Agreements–FTAs, from which they could obtain greater advantages [6], as occurred with the FTA with Colombia and NAFTA, where Colombia and Mexico find themselves at a clear disadvantage with the US, both because of the unequal power of influence and lobby as well as the complacence of the negotiators of these Latin American countries, who have given free rein to the unequal aspirations of the Americans [7].

The Macri government, host of the Summit, decided to not allow the entry to the country or to deport representatives of 43 international NGOs that work for just trade and are critical of the WTO [8]. An embarrassing act that demonstrated the democratic deficit for opening a broad discussion with diverse sectors of global society on a theme as crucial as this one [9]. At the same time, the Argentine government promoted, in their typical style, a business forum of the B20 (a group of businessmen from the G20 countries) where the delegate of the largest economic group of Argentina, Paolo Rocca of the Techint group, supported the thesis of the US against China, warning that it is impossible to continue to tolerate the “unequal” competition of Chinese companies that rely on the support of the State or are state companies [10]. Yet this businessman was silent on the decision of the US to impose duties on Argentine Biodiesel and thus deny its entry into the US market.

Nor was the US able to impose the matter of e-commerce, even though they were accompanied by the big transnational companies of the sector (Google, Amazon, Alibaba, eBay, etc.), in order to include in the negotiations of the Summit the issue of the deregulation of e-commerce. While they did not succeed in opening negotiations on this issue, they gained the support of forty countries among the 169 members, leaving the theme open and installed for coming rounds of negotiation. This matter is of great importance, since it goes far beyond the deregulation of buying and selling in electronic pages. It has repercussions in the management of the whole financial and economic system (which to a great measure is electronic), in the deregulation of security in computing, bank transactions, and the development and patenting of software. In the anti-China line, these corporations of e-commerce and the countries that supported the US, began by attacking the regulation of electronic trade in sovereign countries [11]. They couldn’t advance more, but it is a theme that should be added to future preoccupations in the debate on sovereignty and the construction of economic alternatives.

II. Neoliberalism recycled

Latin America participated disunited in this Ministerial Summit. Although in past conferences the interests of the region did not totally coincide [12], actions were undertaken with greater leadership and initiative for treating themes of vital importance for the region, such as those of the agricultural sector, the request – to US and the European Union — to suppress the tariffs on agricultural products of Mercosur or supporting the position of the G77 led by Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba destined to guarantee food sovereignty with tariff protections where necessary [13].

Argentine president, Mauricio Macri, taking advantage of his position as host, attempted to generate a show that would serve as a gallery for the measures of economic adjustment he is pursuing in internal policy, sending a parochial message, noting that his country “arrived late” to insertion in the globalized world, with an all-out defense of free trade and seeking external help to impose his model [14]. A message that was watered down by the US discourse against the systems of dispute resolution in the WTO, which Macri hoped to use in order to demand the abolishment of tariffs imposed on Argentine biodiesel by the Trump government [15].

Likewise, the negotiations of the FTA between Mercosur and the European Union were not concluded, as Temer and Macri had hoped, but were postponed until 2018 [16]. However, due to the flexibility of both blocks in the political and technical negotiations on tariff matters, it is very likely that they will reach an agreement in the first semester, which would reduce tariffs on European products by 90% and oblige the producers of the Southern Cone to conform to trademarks of origin and patents [17].  These are sensitive issues for the region, as is evident in the agreements signed by some countries with the EU and the US, where the technical and political conditions of the FTA clauses benefit the demands of the Europeans or the Americans [18], while, in exchange, they only offer the expectation of access to their markets, maintaining subsidies for their products and favorable conditions for their companies. They control the patents and brands of origin of many products and items such as milk, wines, medicines, among others, that will frustrate many producers that have the illusion of export possibilities, but who do not foresee the restrictions generated by the demanding conditions of the agreements. The debate is open and since the electoral period is opening in Brazil, and in Paraguay and Argentina there is significant resistance to the adjustment measures and unequal opening of markets, there are still margins for the defenders of national production to dispute their viewpoints in the FTA.

III. Some conclusions

Beyond the disputes in the WTO, the model of neoliberalism that was promoted by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s is no longer the paradigm of the countries of the North. The USA, with its attacks on the WTO, is attempting to change the rules that promote tariff liberalization and multilateral debate, and is more inclined to generate bilateral FTAs and spurious deals with peripheral countries – with unacceptable trade impositions. Meanwhile, they give State support to national production Made in USA, accompanied by their British conservative partners, headed by Theresa May, who have turned into protectionists since the process of rupture (Brexit) with the European Union.

In contrast with these changes, some Latin American neoconservative leaders, such as Mauricio Macri or Michel Temer, are promoting a recycled neoliberalism, without the renovations announced in electoral campaigns, disguised by political marketing and the mainstream media. They are both proposing more of the same, with economic openings in unfavorable conditions for national production that will have labor, distributive and cultural repercussions. They have already begun with retirement pension reforms and labor reforms.

The roadblocks in discussions in the WTO do not signal the end of capitalism, nor a backward step for the powerful transnationals, although they do represent a crisis of the neoliberal model, that could open up possibilities for those sectors of world society that aim to break out of the tight margins of free trade, since the farming/food issues, the disputes around patents – especially in medical drugs, on sovereign industrial production and the deregulation of medical and educational services, are still fundamental for societies, and therefore are part of the global political agenda in dispute.

To this agenda of discussion can be added the issue of e-commerce, which promises to be the battle of battles for the control of markets, for software and digital currency, a question that should be in the focus of researchers, States and organizations, for a profound analysis, without waiting for the deregulators of Google, Amazon, Alibaba and eBay to further dvance in their worldwide control of e-commerce, because the centres of world power are rethinking neoliberalism in these areas, while the creole neoliberals are recycling the weighty heritage of the 1980s.

The repression by the Argentine State against the peaceful demonstrators that took part in the counter-Summit in the University of Buenos Aires and against the international experts of the NGOs, to whom they denied entry to the country, are a sign of the synergy between power and violence, which is the form of accumulation of wealth of the dominant model.  The use of excessive force is no coincidence, it is the form of governing in restricted democracies, particular to both old and new conservatives.

15/12/2017.

(Translated for ALAI by Jordan Bishop)

- Javier Calderón Casillo is a Researcher with CELAG.

@Javiercc21

* NdT In the original Spanish title the acronym for the WTO (OMC) is the same as that of “World Conservative Organization” (Organización Mundial Conservadora”).

[1] https://elpais.com/economia/2017/12/14/actualidad/1513209949_229699.html

[2] http://noticias.perfil.com/2017/08/21/consuelo-de-tontos-o-como-la-economia-latina-paso-del-auge-al-barro/

[3] http://www.eldiario.es/economia/China-OMC-UE-EEUU-antidumping_0_590041403.html

[4] http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/1999/diciembre/04/economia/omc.html

[5] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/International_trade_in_goods/es

[6] https://www.pagina12.com.ar/82568-solo-sinsabores-en-la-cumbre-de-la-omc

[7] http://www.dinero.com/edicion-impresa/pais/articulo/las-duras-criticas-de-cedetrabajo-al-tlc-con-eeuu-en-sus-cinco-anos/223703 y http://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/opinion/asi-vamos-el-tlcan-problemas-y-mediocridades.html

[8] https://www.pagina12.com.ar/79504-las-on-gs-en-la-lista-negra-de-macri

[9] https://www.nodal.am/2017/12/falta-consenso-la-cumbre-la-omc-represion-manifestantes/

[10] https://www.clarin.com/politica/criticas-china-loas-comercio-electronico-primer-foro-empresario-omc_0_rJhqjA6bM.html

[11] https://www.alainet.org/es/articulo/188410

[12] Mercosur always held a position distinct from the other countries of UNASUR, the promoters countries of the Pacific Alliance were in another corner of the negotiation and there never was a block of CELAC.

[13] http://www.celag.org/la-omc-aterriza-latinoamerica/

[14] http://www.lanacion.com.ar/2090626-mauricio-macri-abrio-el-foro-de-inversiones-de-la-omc-nuestro-pais-transita-por-una-nueva-etapa

[15] https://www.infobae.com/economia/2017/11/08/el-gobierno-demandara-a-los-estados-unidos-en-la-omc-si-traba-las-exportaciones-de-biodiesel/

[16] http://www.dw.com/es/uni%C3%B3n-europea-y-mercosur-firmar%C3%A1n-acuerdo-de-libre-comercio-a-principios-de-2018/a-41789660

[17] https://www.alainet.org/es/articulo/189820

[18] https://www.redes.org.uy/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/UE-Colombia_FTA-PRINT.pdf

[19] https://teoriaeconomicatercersemestreri.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/breve-historia-del-neoliberalismo-de-david-harvey1.pdf

Original text in Spanish:

http://www.celag.org/omc-orden-mundial-conservador