Lamy's rule-less negotiating procedures work against the weak
30/03/2006
- Opinión
At the Trade Negotiating Committee meeting of 28 March, WTO
Director General (DG), Pascal Lamy stated, "I believe the
establishment of modalities as foreseen by the Hong Kong
Declaration
will require some sort of ministerial involvement during the
last week
of April, with a safety net beginning of May."
Secretariat sources revealed that Lamy was uncertain about
the
willingness of the G6 (US, EU, India, Brazil, Japan and
Australia)
ministers to move on the negotiations. However, being a very
proactive
DG, he is attempting to push ministers to make the movement
he deems is
necessary.
This call for "ministerial involvement" has taken the Geneva
trade
community by surprise. Given that according to most sources,
nothing
monumental came out of the 10-11 March London mini-
ministerial, most
trade officials here have worked on the presumption that the
April
timeline for the establishment of modalities was moot.
In the corridors, there are quiet murmurings that a "green
room"
ministerial of about 20 or 30 ministers will take place from
29 April
to 2 May. [So called green room meetings are by invitation
only and not
open to all the members.) If this happens and a consensus of
some sort
emerges, a General Council meeting will quickly be convened
to endorse
this package. Countries without their ministers in town, or
who are
excluded from the Green Room negotiations, will find it
difficult, if
not impossible to break the consensus. Secretariat sources
have said
that there is no confirmation as yet that this mini-
ministerial will be
convened. There may not be a firm decision until much later
in April
depending on the state of negotiations later in the month.
Such important procedural matters should have been brought to
the
entire WTO membership for a decision. However, this has not
been the
case. In addition, by being vague about the end April process,
and by
not even providing a date when a firm decision will be taken,
Lamy is
de facto endorsing a small group of ministers taking the
decision, and
at a time of their choosing. Unless they are forewarned way
in advance,
most ministers looking at the current deadlock in the
negotiations
would conclude that it would not be a wise use of scare
resources to
make a trip to Geneva for a week or more in late April and
into early
May, especially considering that ministers have to come with
a
contingent of their technical experts. The majority of
ministers will
also be uncertain if they will even be let into the
negotiating green
room. Only those who are specifically invited have been
allowed into
green room meetings during ministerial conferences. The
uninvited who
dare to attempt to get in are turned away. The G6, on the
other hand,
may decide a week in advance of 30 April that they would like
to
negotiate in Geneva and possibly conclude a deal similar to
the July
package of 2004.
The July 2004 negotiations took place in the presence of only
a small
number of developing country ministers. This package was
negotiated in
a series of all night green room meetings. It was then put
before the
membership in the General Council. Most trade officials
assume that
this is the scenario Lamy wants to recreate.
In addition, if at that point Lamy is accused of being anti-
democratic,
the DG would simply answer that he had issued a standing
invitation to
all ministers as of 28 March. Their absence simply indicates
their
consent.
RULE-LESS PROCEDURES DISADVANTAGE THE WEAK
With the lack of clear rules of procedure (or rather, the
leadership in
the institution makes up the rules as it goes along) those
countries
with a small number of trade officials and few financial
resources, and
those who are vulnerable to political pressures, are the ones
that lose
out. In contrast, the UN makes known the timing of
ministerial summits
months, if not years, in advance. The parameters of
negotiations are
also made clear, and the process of how the negotiations are
to be
conducted is known to all and open to all.
By initiating a process where, de facto, only the better
resourced
members can afford to come to Geneva - to keep vigil in case
the major
powers decide to move ahead - Pascal Lamy is contradicting
his own
"bottom up" process because the "bottom" will largely be
absent. As DG,
he has the responsibility to be fair to all members and to
ensure that
any process he initiates effectively allows for the full
participation
of all. In this case, a decision should have been taken much
earlier on
in the year to ascertain whether or not the majority of
ministers were
willing and able to come to Geneva. There should either be
full or
nearly full ministerial participation, or no ministerial
participation
at the end of April. Lamy should already have indicated one
or the
other of these scenarios at the TNC meeting. If not, he
should at least
announce a date for such a decision to be taken so that the
majority is
not caught by surprise.
According to a trade official from an African country whose
minister is
usually involved in green room meetings,
"I don't think we can blame Lamy for being unfair. When he
made his
announcement at the TNC, he put all of us on the alert. It is
up to us
to inform our ministers and if we do not, we cannot blame him
for it".
However, the reality for the majority who are normally
excluded is
evidenced by the comments of a delegate from a small
Caribbean country,
"If ministers, especially from resource constrained countries,
are told
that they have to be in Geneva in a week, it would be
unlikely that
they can juggle their schedules organized months in advance
and get
approval to use tax payers monies to attend an unscheduled
meeting in
Geneva. In addition, there is no clear indication if there
will even
be a meeting. One cannot summon a Minister from his/her
national
duties to attend a meeting that might happen over some period
unknown
to most.
"There will be Geneva week from the 24-28 April. Trade
officials from
the capital will be here, but likely their tickets will be
set for them
to return home on 29th or 30th April. It would be difficult
for them to
justify to their administrators and treasurer departments
staying an
extra week or so in early May because a ministerial meeting
might take
place as a "safety net". Furthermore, Geneva week
participants are not
ministers and may not be invited to small ministerial
meetings."
MAJORITY ANGERED AT BEING MARGINALISED
This situation is simply another symptom of the current state
of play
where the main negotiations are taking place amongst only six
members
(G6 is US, EU, Brazil, India, Australia and Japan, see more
in articles
below). In fact, the current "mini-mini-ministerial" attended
by Pascal
Lamy in Rio de Janeiro from 31 March to 1 April is amongst
just three
members - Brazil, US and EU.
The exclusivity has angered many delegations in Geneva. Many
have
complained that although such informal meetings used to be
tolerated in
the past, and understood as being supplementary to the main
negotiating
process, the leadership in the WTO now functions as if these
meetings
are a central pillar in the negotiating process. "There was
even once
when all consultations in the WTO were called off because the
G6 were
meeting," remarked an African negotiator. Another official
from Africa
also lamented that briefings are held with the membership
after these
informal meetings to provide information on the outcomes.
However,
excluded members are not being consulted on the issues
discussed or
drawn into the decision-making process. "We are simply being
informed,"
said the official
As a result of being marginalized developing countries'
concerns have
not been addressed. One key issue is preference erosion,
where the G90
countries (Africa, the Caribbean and the least developed
countries,
LDCs) want this taken up in the modalities, but so far
nothing has
evolved. The big players are only interested in offering aid,
which
African countries have said is unacceptable. They want a
trade solution
to preference erosion.
Also, the G33, representing 42 countries concerned with food
security
and farmers' livelihoods, is protesting accepting a G6
package as a
fait accompli. In a strong statement at the TNC meeting of 28
March
protesting their exclusion, they said:
"We would like to stress the importance of building consensus
through a
bottom-up process guaranteeing transparency, inclusiveness,
and the
effective participation of all Members. We wish to underline
that the
lack of ownership of the process will carry a serious risk of
failure
for the organization." (1)
The G33 also registered their disapproval that "a very small
group" has
a disproportionate role in setting the direction of the
process:
"We feel that the specific needs of developing countries are
being
continuously undermined and are at the risk of being
marginalized in
the current Agriculture negotiations. It is our considered
opinion that
this trend openly contradicts with Doha Development Agenda."
(2)
In a similar vein, in an article published in the Financial
Times on 28
March, the Zambian Minister, Depak Patel, (and co-ordinator
of the LDCs
in the WTO) cited Bob Geldof's letter to the FT of March 10:
"In his letter to the Financial Times of March 10, Bob Geldof
characterized the exclusion of Africa from the Group of Six
meetings -
involving the US, the European Union, India, Brazil, Japan
and
Australia - as a display of arrogance and a disgrace. Not
only is all
of Africa excluded from the G6 talks but so are the LDCs,
which only
highlights the dilemma faced by countries marginalised in
trade talks:-
we are weak because we are marginalised and we are
marginalised because
we are weak." (3)
Whilst Lamy proclaims that he is the champion of a "bottom-
up"
negotiating process, the story on the inside is completely
different.
The most critical negotiations are conducted amongst six
members only
(with at most 20-30 members in a possible green room meeting
at the end
of April), and negotiating procedures are stitched together
at the last
minute, once again denying the majority equal opportunity to
participate.
- Aileen Kwa is a policy analyst with Focus on the Global
South based
in Geneva
NOTES
1. Statement by the G33 to the TNC, 28 March 2006. See also
Khor, M 30
March 2006 "Developing Countries Voice Concern On State of
WTO Talks",
SUNS #5997.
2. Ibid.
3. Patel, D 28 March 2006 "The Rich Are Still Cheating
Developing
Countries", Financial Times.
Source: Focus On Trade, Number 117, April 2006
https://www.alainet.org/es/node/114785
Del mismo autor
- WTO 'resumption': another Blair House accord? 19/02/2007
- WTO: Reactions to the collapse of the Round 25/07/2006
- Reacciones ante el colapso de la Ronda 25/07/2006
- Miembros de la OMC cuestionan el proceso una vez más 27/06/2006
- WTO members question process, yet again 27/06/2006
- State of play: critical WTO negotiations go underground 03/04/2006
- Lamy's rule-less negotiating procedures work against the weak 30/03/2006
- Texto borrador de la Declaración Ministerial de la OMC 01/12/2005
- En Ginebra: el borrador del GATS apunta en dirección peligrosa 30/11/2005
- GATS draft points in dangerous direction 30/11/2005
![Suscribirse a America Latina en Movimiento - RSS](https://www.alainet.org/misc/feed.png)