Fewer options at the WTO

By Chakravarthi Raghavan

GENEVA, OCT. 30. The Chairman of the WTO General Council, Mr. Stuart Harbinson, has put forward a set of documents for the consideration at the Doha Ministerial Conference next week, documents which are completely weighted in favour of the U.S. and the EC trade agendas, and giving ministers not even alternative formulations of strongly held developing country or countries' positions.

Only in the area of Intellectual Property Rights and public health, where the U.S. is stoutly opposed in defence of its pharmaceutical industry, while developing countries as a whole are insisting on clear declaration for mandating an interpretation of TRIPS provisions to support public health, has Mr. Harbinson provided clear alternatives for ministers to focus on and decide.

In everything else, the Draft Ministerial Declaration for a new 'work programme' (euphemistic word for a comprehensive negotiations) the proposals without alternatives that Mr. Harbinson has put forward are completely one-sided. For three years now, the WTO members have been engaged in agreeing on measures under the rubric of 'implementation' issues, to correct the asymmetries and inequities of the WTO system. The Draft Ministerial Decision on Implementation (drawn up by Mr. Harbinson and the WTO head Mr. Mike Moore) sounds big in counting 'tirets'.

However, the decision is empty of any real economic content or benefit - though a few minor ones of asking the General Council or subordinate bodies to take actions sound attractive. The one 'benefit' being dangled before countries like India, namely increasing the 'growth-on-growth' benefits in textiles and clothing quotas is too small a gain for any country to accept.

All the other implementation issues in theory are being made subject to a work progrmme and for actions in a new round as part of a 'single undertaking' by the end of the negotiations.

On both the draft Ministerial Declaration and on implementation, on every substantive issue, the considerable opposition voiced in the General Council, at the Heads of Delegations (HOD) meetings, and several alternative formulations on behalf of groups of countries handed over in writing to Mr. Harbinson and the Secretariat have been ignored completley.

The HOD process of consultations was itself a scandal: in a 142- member organisation (though some do not have representation here, but service the WTO from Brussels), the meetings (despite protests) were held in a room where there are only 112 seats are available for delegations to sit before a microphone and ear- phones for interpretatiion facilities. Others not lucky to find a seat had only standing room. This was the process of consultations that the Chairman of the General Council went through to hear the viewpoints of delegations.

None of the developing country positions put forward on any of the four "Singapore" issues, or on market access for non- agricultural products, or the way the work programme is to be organised and run, has been accommodated or even alternative formulations presented to enable Ministers to take political decisions. Not merely India, but a large number of small and medium and big developing countries have said they cannot agree to 'negotiate' these issues, but could only agree to a continuation of the study process.

On market access for non-agricultural products, while India has been presenting its opposition with some sophistication and conditions, by last week it was clear that all the Least Developed Countries, the entire Group of African countries and several others (including Turkey and Venezuela) were opposed and did not agree to the wide-ranging negotiations.

Against this background, the Vajpayee Government has to take some clear political decisions, both on what Mr. Murasoli Maran should do at Doha and even before that what his officials should do at the General Council on October 31, when the Harbinson texts will be 'debated'.

In international law, procedures and substance are the same. Mr. Harbinson cannot present these texts, even on his own authority, to the ministers, without an authorisation from the General Council. Even in 1996, before the Singapore ministerial meeting of the WTO, when no declaration text could be agreed, then the WTO Director-General, Mr. Renato Ruggiero (who had a bigger authorised role in the preparatiions than Mr. Moore now), forwarded the draft with a covering letter to the Singapore Minister. Mr. Ruggiero set out in the letter the differences and positions.

As a first step, India (and hopefully some others too), must insist that Mr. Harbinson give the alternatives on the main crucial negotiating areas.

India must formulate, and officially table at the WTO as an official document, its alternative formulations paragraph by paragraph or subject by subject.If Mr. Harbinson does not, he must be directed to formulate a clear

statement of the opposing views on the issues, and this should be officially placed before the ministers. If neither course is accepted, consensus must be refused for forwarding the documents. If needed India must take the stand alone - even at risk of being attacked by the media, in India and outside, for wrecking the system and the conference.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Business
Previous : Rupee little changed in quiet trading
Next     : TCS-Best Buy extend business relationship